Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION <br />TREE PRESERVATION WORK SESSION HELD SEPTEMBER 12,1997 <br />In Section 2, a tree inventory would not be required at the sketch plan review but would be <br />discussed. <br />The performance standards regulating tree removal in Section 3 are all good. Urban development <br />can be omitted. Reference £o septic systems should be added. Gaffron suggested adding "other <br />facilities" which would include accessory buildings, p>ools and tennis courts. <br />Van Zomeren suggested there may be a need for public education on tree preservation unless the <br />ordinance is just adopted into the Subdivision Code. <br />Stoddard noted that most developers are also builders. Although the developer would not be allowed <br />to cut down trees, there would be nothing to stop the individual homeowner from cutting trees down <br />to build an accessory structure once he buys a lot. He added that other ordinances regulate accessory <br />structures in their size and placement which will affect trees on the property. <br />Gaffron asked if members had discussed whether they should be preserving individual trees or <br />woodlands. He suggested that preserving "significant trees" would allow many smaller trees to be <br />cut down and could change the habitat and character of an area. <br />Lindquist asked for further definition of a woodland. Gaffron felt it would include habitat, <br />understory and the character of an area. The size would be difficult to define. Lindquist felt a <br />woodland would comprise at least 1/2 acre in area. Members discussed the Whitehead property <br />which is mainly woodlands. They questioned how the woodlands could be replaced. <br />Hawn did not think the City should get involved in supervising what individual owners do with trees <br />on their property.