Laserfiche WebLink
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION <br />MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 15,1997 <br />(#3 Tree Preservation, Continued) <br />McMillan felt the establishment of guidelines would work. Stoddard agreed. Lindquist felt <br />guidelines should be included. He suggested the use of a short ordinance with policy attached. <br />McMillan said she did not agree with the replacement policy with differing sites. <br />Schroeder said tree mitigation is useful as a bargaining tool in determining tree replacement <br />Hawn said she would like to see the focus remain on buffer zones as opposed to inventory ing, <br />noting the cost involved in conducting an inventory, which would be passed on to the buyers. <br />Gaffron agreed that it would be expensive to inventory trees <br />Gafiron reviewed the criteria used in determining compliance noted under "Procedures". #1-6, on <br />page 5 and the "Land Alteration Permit Supplemental Requirements". Gaffron said stating the <br />definition of a buffer and how it should be saved would be easier than inventorying what is on the <br />property. Lindquist said he would prefer the developer telling the City what his plans are. Gaffron <br />said a possibility is to have a policy with goals without the use of a list and formula and ask the <br />developer how he will obtain the goals. This, however, would give no guidelines. Hawn asked if <br />this could present legal problems Gaffron said that may happen. <br />Lindquist indicated that each lot is reviewed individually and sees the need to review each plan as <br />they are all unique. <br />Gaffron cited the example of the Sugar Woods Development and what could have occurred on <br />that property. Schroeder said the enormous amount of tree saving was accompi shed in part <br />because the property is sewered. Buffering on Brown Road was also a good decision in that <br />development plan. McMillan agreed that public good results from buffering Schroeder indicated <br />that it is conceivable that a developer or homeowner may not want a buffer. The Dickey property <br />was cited as an example. Schroeder said he would like to see the ordinance provide some "teeth" <br />by which to ensure that a buffer is provided. Wilson agreed that buffering would aid in preserving <br />the rural feel of the community. <br />Hawn asked if the present resolution refers to any subdivision or a subdivision of at least three <br />lots. Gaffron said a Class III Subdivision includes three or more lots A Class II Subdivision is a <br />lot which is split off from an existing property There is also a metes and bounds division. <br />Lindquist thought the policy should refer to subdivisions of two or more lots. <br />McMillan noted that the Brook Park Realty Subdivision for townhomes is an example where <br />buffering is limited by the right-of-way due to wetlands. The buffering will be closer to the homes. <br />This circumstance should be reflected in the code with definition of where buffers will occur. She <br />would like to see the code begin with buffering, which is not as restrictive, with further restrictions <br />added at a later date if found to be necessary. <br />Gaffron reviewed the purpose of the ordinance in Exhibit F McMillan voiced her satisfaction with <br />the purpose as stated. Schroeder felt conservation enhancement should receive more notice <br />Lindquist agreed with having the ordinance and policy. Hawn felt the last sentence under Subd. 1 <br />should say "may" be required, rather than "shall".