CC_Minutes_2014_0721 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,July 21,2014 Page 17 relocated to other areas during the grading and construction process, and due to the nature of those soils, could eventually be compacted to a much smaller area than suggested in the current grading plan. Councilmember Etten noted discussion in the RCA regarding tree loss and/or preservation and impacts over this huge area; questioning the need to remove trees in order to plow dirt to develop the site for homes, and at what point it was indicated to leave trees along the wetland. Councilmember Etten opined that, if trees were disturbed along that wetland, they would eventually have to be re- moved due to damages during construction. Councilmember Etten questioned if the purpose for redoing the elevation was due to water quality concerns for homes to be constructed, or simply to remove soils; and how those two pieces would af- fect the overall development and tree preservation. Mr. Lloyd referenced the tree survey as part of Attachment C to the RCA that in- dicated the trees remaining and those to be removed and species list by size. Councilmember Etten noted that this brought up recent City Council discussions as to which trees were or were not preferred. Mayor Roe noted that revisions to the tree ordinance were currently under discus- sion; but for purposes of this application, the City Council needed to make their decisions based on the current tree preservation ordinance. Mayor Roe opined that the aerial map as displayed showed significant areas of open space that may help in the overall tree preservation effort as well. Specific to the anticipated height of the NE berm, after further discussion, it was determined from map contour lines that it was approximately 908' with an actual grade increase of 8' to 10'. Specific to the nature of the soils on the site, Mr. Lloyd deferred to the applicant when recognized for comment by Mayor Roe. Councilmember McGehee opined that building an 8' tall berm out of clay was not a good thing and there would be no growth possible on it, and it would only serve to shed water toward the homes and/or wetland. If the intent of the berm was to avoid hauling dirt off-site, Councilmember McGehee agreed with Councilmember Etten's comment that cutting down trees to heap dirt for no aesthetic reason and not for preservation purposes was not prudent given the clay soils in Roseville. Councilmember Laliberte, in looking at the July 9, 2014 Planning Commission meeting minutes, questioned the assignment of homeowner maintenance to Lots 3 and 4 for rain garden maintenance; opining that it should be assigned to lots 2 and 3.