Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />A <br />MEMORANDUM <br />DATE: <br />TO: <br />FROM: <br />RE: <br />9/19/97 <br />Liz Van Zomeren, Planner/Zoning Administrator <br />Brad Dressier, Planning Assistant <br />Consensus Developed by the Tree Preservation Workshop on 9/12/97 <br />As requested, 1 have reviewed the minutes of the Planning Commission Tree Preservation Work <br />Session on 9/12/97. While the amount of consensus built was limited, there are a few areas of <br />general agreement. <br />Portions of the Miimetonka ordinance were deemed useful. The following is a breakdown of each <br />section of the ordinance and the amount of agreement over the relevance of each section. <br />1. <br />2. <br />3. <br />4. <br />5. <br />6. <br />7. <br />It was agreed upon that the purpose statement should be kept as it is. <br />No specific definition of what constitutes a significant tree was agreed upon. Some parties <br />felt the ordinance should be consistent with the lakeshore ordinance provisions, while others <br />felt 8” softwoods and 12" hardwoods would be more appropriate. <br />It was agreed upon that trees can be removed without replacement in areas improved for <br />reasonable size driveways, parking lots and structures without frost footings, as well as 10' <br />around those improvements. <br />No agreement was dev eloped regarding replacing significant trees. 25 to 50 trees per acre <br />was mentioned as a possibility. <br />It was recommended, without argument that lakeshore standards be used for defining <br />significant tree sizes. <br />The section pertaining to provisions before starting work was agreed upon as well written <br />as it is. <br />There was debate as to whether the tree species list should be stated in the ordinance or kept <br />as a flyer at City offices. <br />Several other issues were also agreed upon generally. These were: <br />• The issue of takings should be examined given the value of trees on a given property. <br />• Maple Grove’s ordinance should be examined.