10-20-1997 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

« I MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TREE PRESERVATION WORK SESSION HELD SEPTEMBER 12,1997 an experienced developer may work differently and have different expectations than the inexperienced developer. Hawn added that even the seasoned developer would object to something that would "hit them in the pocketbook". Gaf&on stated the existing subdivision code refers to preservation of natural features and shade trees planted by a subdivider. The goal would be to add a statement that gives better direction as to what the City is trying to preserve. Lindquist agreed with this suggestion. Berg asked if Gaffron could develop a section to add to the existing ordinance. Berg felt is was difficult to define the number of trees that would be appropriate on two acres. Stoddard asked if the Sugar Woods concept of development is what the City was looking for. Berg responded there were not a lot of areas similar to Sugar Woods in Orono. Gappa referred to the Soskin development. The stormwater pond was put in an area where there were not a lot of significant trees in order to preserve the more mature trees. Van Zomeren asked if a tree preservation ordinance was a tool for Planning Commission and Council to slow down development or prevent development, or if it is a guideline to get better development and try to retain the character of Orono. She did not want to see an ordinance developed as a weapon to prevent development Berg felt the ordinance was to continue the integrity of the topography of the land being developed with the least impact using a common-sense approach to development. Ithat Smith asked if the tree preservation issues were coming from Council or if Council was responding to citizen concern. Gaffron responded that he thought Council wanted to have this tool in place prior to the golf course application, not to prevent the golf course but to prevent the destruction of the