2014_08_06_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, August 6, 2014 Page 12 Member Keynan agreed with the comments of Member Boguszewski, and along that line 548 and staff’s proposed menu of options and not withstanding comments about the City 549 Council preferring to limit PUD’s to residential uses; but expressed his preference to 550 consider commercial as well as residential uses with consideration of criteria as 551 suggested by Member Boguszewski. 552 The consensus of the body was to agree with Member Keynan’s preference for both 553 commercial and residential. 554 Chair Gisselquist expressed the need for a trigger or threshold to ensure the PUD as a 555 tool was not always available. 556 Member Stellmach inquired whether Mr. Bilotta had the sense that under the St. Louis 557 Park code, that any time they had issues with a project meeting their criteria, it turned into 558 a PUD process; and asked if they had a threshold that Roseville could review. 559 Mr. Bilotta responded that staff would further research that question. 560 Member Daire expressed his favorable impression for staff including the three 561 ordinances, all distinctly different in terms of expression and detail. Member Daire opined 562 that he found the St. Louis Park PUD ordinance nailed down just about everything 563 necessary; and further opined that he found it both transparent and comforting in terms of 564 a clear procedure, and financial responsibility of each item. Member Daire stated that he 565 tended to favor that sort of ordinance where any negotiations are forced to be 566 transparent; and from his initial read of the St. Louis Park version, he would prefer to go 567 in that direction, favoring something similar that created such an atmosphere and was 568 very specific with procedures and responsibilities. However, Member Daire opined that 569 this must be a lot of work for staff and developers. 570 Mr. Bilotta concurred that they could be a lot of work when PUD’s were used; and 571 expressed appreciation that Member Daire noted the range of the three examples 572 provided, purposely chosen by staff to recognize their variables. 573 Commissioners expressed appreciation to Ms. Peterson for her report and inclusion of 574 examples from other communities, as well as including City Council discussions. 575 c. Tree Preservation: Discussion regarding amendment to Section 1011.04 Tree 576 Preservation 577 As detailed in the staff report dated August 6, 2014, City Planner Paschke noted that this 578 discussion was intended to review the current tree preservation requirements as adopted 579 in 2010 under the City’s revised Zoning Ordinance, following practical application, and 580 the direction of the City Council to review current elements and aspects needing potential 581 amendment. Mr. Paschke advised that staff was again seeking guidance and feedback, 582 based on past debate and concerns about various nuances, as outlined in the most 583 recent City Council discussions of July 7, 2014 (Attachment B), and outlined in lines 41 – 584 51 of the staff report. 585 Mr. Paschke noted that the City’s Park & Recreation Board also served as the City’s Tree 586 Board; and asked the Planning Commission’s preference to work in conjunction with, or 587 separately at first to address the City Council’s charge to put more enforcement and 588 specificity into the current ordinance upon revision, with the goal to incentivize 589 preservation. 590 Mr. Bilotta again used the proposed Mueller Subdivision as an example of how a 591 neighborhood got used to a lot of trees, and then upon redevelopment, it was hard on the 592 neighborhood to make that transition. As with the Mueller property, Mr. Bilotta noted that 593 many of the existing trees were of the Boxelder species, and the City currently, from a 594 technical forestry perspective, gave not credit for Boxelders or Cottonwoods, with the 595 attempt to eventually get rid of those types of species and replace them with other 596 species. 597