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
f • <br />\ie <br />i <br />minutes of the planning commsshw <br />tree preservation work session held SEPTEMBER 12,199 <br />Smi* stated that it seemed the ordinance would penalize developed but allow individuals to do what <br />want. Stoddard felt this may be the best the City could do. There would be protection from a <br />developer clear cutting, and controls in other ordinances also restrict development. Lmdquist and <br />Berg referred to the Sugar Woods development and Melamed properties where the woo an <br />atmosphere was preserved. Stoddard stated that if the 25 trees per acre standard was used, the Sugar <br />Woods development would not happen. Van Zomeren suggested the possibility of requmng <br />covenants that would require individual owners to protect significant trees. The question arose as <br />to whether the City would want to monitor such covenants. <br />Berg suggested looking at ordinances ftom cities that have larger parcels of land such as Maple <br />Grove. She felt Minnetonka had a different type of development and their ordinance may not be <br />appropriate. Von Zomeren thought it would be good to look at other woodland ordinances as weU. <br />Hawn asked how the group felt about protection of woodlands vs. tree protection. Lindquist <br />responded that in some areas he would want to see individual trees protected while m other areas e <br />would look for woodland protection. <br />Berg read the Purpose Statement from a Maple Grove ordinance (Gaffron s copy) which was closer <br />to what Orono is trying to accomplish. Maple Grove has a T Tree Preservation District. <br />Van Zomeren suggested overlay districts similar to the shoreland districts which might incMe <br />woodlands, lakeshore areas, smaller lot areas such as the Navarre area, etc. Lmdquist felt <br />uld be reviewed further. Gaffron responded that the City has topographic maps (1 100 sc <br />and air photos which would be helpful in pursuing this idea. Gappa suggested that a buffer area <br />could be required. Van Zomeren questioned whether a buffer zone would be for aesthetics or <br />habiut Gappa felt it would be for boOi. A variance procedure could be used for unusual situations. <br />sho
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.