12-15-1997 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 15,1997 (#3) TREE PRESERVATION Gaffron reviewed the information concerning the draft ordinance and the history behind tree preservation He asked to review the information to see if the Pianning Commission is in agreement with the goals listed and for direction Gaffron reviewed the list of exhibits provided. The draft followed the example presented in the ordinance for the City of Shorewood with a purpose statement and followed with regulations stated in an adopted policy as a resolution rather than by ordinance The ordinance is one page with a 15 page policy draft. Gaffron reviewed the procedure section, identification of spatial limitations, and methods of tree protection. Gaffron noted that the goals may need additional work but asked if they and the development onentation fit in with the views of the Planning Commissioners Hawn voiced having difficulty with the first goal She noted that the federal government has compensated farmers not to grow certain items and sees the goal in conflict in its designation of limiting what can be done in areas without compensation to the property owners She asked if it is fair or warranted to be able to designate large stands of trees to remain that are in private domain without offering compensation Schroeder noted there would also be an increase in the work load for variances requested. Stoddard did not feel trees should be reviewed by the Planning Commission Gaffron indicated it means that an inventory would be done on developed and undeveloped properties but would not apply to existing residential properties. It may or may not apply for new housing on vacant lots without subdivision. The inventory would provide what can be preserved but standards need to be determined. If preservation cannot occur, Gaffron asked what would be dene for mitigation and follow up on plans. Gaffron said he was not saying that the entire City would be inventoried and determined what should or should not be saved Schroeder and Lindquist noted there is a tree ordinance for the 0-75' setback from lakeshore. Smith referenced the Dickey, Spring Hill, and Coffman developments She asked for an understanding on how these developments would have been impacted by the ordinance and policy Gaffron used Spring Hill Golf Course as an example, specifically the Big Woods With the ordinance, an inventory would have occurred and the developer would have had to show what was being preserved and what was being planted The property could still be developed but would have required the extensive inventory. Gaffron noted that the end result may not have been any different Lindquist noted the satisfactory outcome of the Melamed Subdivision regarding tree preservation. Schroeder indicated the ordinance would have prevented any clear cutting which could have been done Gaffron said the ordinance and policy would give the City a mechanism by which to define a subdivision Smith noted that today, clear cutting can occur Gaffron agreed. Gaffron added that the policy encourages homeowners to do what is right regarding tree preservation McMillan noted that it is in portant to note that the buffe’ing was maintained on the Melamed Subdivision.