My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-20-1997 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1997
>
10-20-1997 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/6/2023 11:27:33 AM
Creation date
9/6/2023 10:25:43 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.
/
452
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 />I <br />MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COM>HSSION <br />TREE PRESERVATION WORK SESSION HELD SEPTEMBER 12,1997 <br />suggested Significant Trees as coniferous trees measuring 8' or more in height, hardwood <br />deciduous trees measuring 8" in diameter or greater and softwood deciduous trees 12" or <br />greater in diameter. <br />3. Where Significant Trees Can Be Destroyed Without Replacement <br />Hawn thought it would be abusive to applicants to require a tree plan showing all existing <br />trees. She added that the goal of lakeshore properties is somewhat different than big woods <br />areas. Van Zomeren suggested an inventory of all trees of the same size or larger as those <br />that are protected on lakeshore properties. She asked what would allow significant trees to <br />be removed. She referred to Shadow’ood Farms where an outlot with trees was created for <br />future access to the Wolf property. Hawn responded that road design can take many trees but <br />might be an area where significant trees could be allowed to be removed. This would be <br />monitored during City reviews so that too many trees were not taken. Berg noted that many <br />final plats are not approved in the same form as preliminary plats because of tree issues. <br />Members agreed that significant trees could be removed "within the areas improved for <br />reasonably-sized driveways, parking lots, and structures without frost footings and within <br />ten feet around those improvements". <br />Stoddard asked if the Fire Marshall made any recommendations regarding trees within 40' <br />of any buildings. <br />Smith suggested a time limit be added to Section 3 (B). For example, a developer could not <br />cut down trees within 2 years of subdividing. Van Zomeren questioned how staff would <br />know when trees were cut down. Lindquist agreed to adding a 2 year time limit to this
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.