My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
09/13/2000 P&Z Minutes
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Board
>
Minutes
>
2000
>
09/13/2000 P&Z Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2014 12:09:44 PM
Creation date
7/15/2014 10:43:18 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
P&Z
P&Z Document Type
P&Z Minutes
Meeting Date
09/13/2000
P&Z Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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).
View images
View plain text
• <br />Planning & Zoning Board <br />September 13, 2000 <br />Page 10 <br />building pads. With a standard grading plan, many of the trees would be removed and the <br />trees in the rear lots would be impacted due to the change in elevation. He suggested <br />flexibility in presenting grading plans to allow for custom grading until after the lot buyer <br />and home style is identified. He stated this example, about 275 trees would need to be <br />replaced or a range of 12 to 14 per lot. John Johnson commented on Gary Uhde's <br />estimate of $10,000 per lot to meet the requirements of the tree preservation ordinance. <br />John Johnson stated he supports staff's recommended revisions and supports placing a <br />cap on the number of trees and ratio of trees removed for right -of -way versus for the <br />building pad. He suggested the use of the overlay district be made available to provide <br />for more flexibility. John Johnson stated street width flexibility would also preserve <br />more trees. He reviewed the City of Plymouth requirement to place funds in a tree fund if <br />the caliper inch requirement cannot be replaced. <br />John Johnson agreed there are buyers who do not want trees <br />more sense to wait to plant the trees until after the house is <br />two cases where the lot owner removed trees from their <br />He agreed the lot buyer needs to be part of the "equ t <br />hold a workshop with developers to discuss these i <br />is agreed with and what is not agreed with H •k + at <br />for a tree preservation ordinance but wants <br />well John Johnson offered to help and a e he can <br />elieved it makes <br />d. He advised of <br />closing the sale. <br />hnson suggested staff <br />urn with a report on what <br />r. Uhde understands the need <br />drafted in a way that it will work <br />Mr. Corson stated his support for tuber of trees per lot at five or six. He <br />stated when you consider the ut ti. €" v.a §F .ys, building pads, and boulevards, it would <br />take about 50% of the trees of rather than 25% so he would support a cap. <br />Mr. Rafferty asked if t <br />based on the size of lot <br />be required to re <br />and result in abou <br />resented in staff's analysis are somewhat correct <br />Johnson is involved with. John Johnson stated they would <br />2,000 caliper inches so their costs would be much higher <br />per lot. <br />Mr. Rafferty stated st ff is seeking recommendations on how to continue with their <br />efforts. He stated he would like Marty Asleson to provide input on this issue as he has a <br />background with tree preservation. Mr. Rafferty stated he also supports continuing <br />discussions between developers and staff. <br />Chair Schaps suggested staff schedule a workshop with developers and interested Board <br />members. <br />Mr. Smyser stated Mr. Asleson was involved in the drafting of this ordinance and has <br />presented it to the Environmental Board. He stated he will schedule the requested <br />workshop but noted it may take some time to accomplish that discussion. Mr. Smyser <br />pointed out that a delay will mean it is not placed into effect until the next construction <br />season. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.