2015_1116_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

203 204 205 Attachment B review and/or recommendation of this body, the City Council would also review tonighYs meeting, and make the final determination. Therefore, Chair Boguszewski opined that he would prefer to leave that particular language as currently proposed and move forward to other sections. 206 To add further inform this discussion, Mr. Paschke noted that the current business community in 207 Roseville didn't have a vast tree canopy around it, and in discussing this specific ordinance language it 208 would impact the residential areas more than business and/or industrial areas given current 209 development levels. As an example, Mr. Paschke stated that those developments built recently had 210 more trees than any in the last 2-3 decades, allowing the City to make vast improvement in that area 211 overall, and any language more stringent would be most detrimental to private residential property 212 owners in the community, and serve as an unintended consequence. Given that situation, Mr. Paschke 213 noted that other code already in place today does or will provide property landscaping and asked the 214 Commission's consideration of that analysis. 215 MO ION 216 Member Murphy moved seconded by Member Gitzen that lines page related to 217 Section F(Incentive Multipliers) be approved as presented in the draft ordinance (Revised 218 Attachment B 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 Ayes Nays (Bull) Motion carried Chair Boguszewski noted that tonight's discussion may trigger further conversation at the City Council level. Page 10, line 321, Member Boguszewski questioned the practical result of such a guarantee, and whether it applied to escrow account or similar remedy. Mr. Rehder confirmed that the escrow would be held with a site visit at two years to determine the condition of the trees and ramifications for the developer if any trees were found to have died. At the request of Chair Boguszewski as to whether that needed to be spelled out, Mr. Rehder referred him to page 12, line 397 where it was addressed. Chair Boguszewski suggested that language be added to page 10, line 321 to reference Section M(warranty requirement) as well. 231 Specific to previous Planning Commission discussions during a site subdivision, Member Cunningham 232 noted public testimony that requested if trees were replaced elsewhere in the community, it be done 233 within their neighborhood as a way to benefit that specific neighborhood. With that discussion having 234 brought up the idea of establishing a neighborhood to accomplish that, Member Cunningham questioned 235 if there was any interest among her colleagues in stipulating that. 236 Member Stellmach stated that he recalled that idea and found it to have merit. 237 Page 11, line 341, Member Murphy opined that proposed language put that back in the city's court, with 238 the notion being that if a tree or trees could be located outside the property the desire was not to pit one 239 side of Roseville against the other. However, specific to the potential for planting on boulevards or 240 public/park lands, Member Murphy opined that staff could develop qualified areas in the same quadrant 241 of the community or in that neighborhood as stated. Member Murphy opined current language covered 242 that in sufficient detail in that particular section. 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 Member Cunningham noted that language is similar to today's tree preservation language and was not being experienced. Chair Boguszewski suggested adding language in that section (lines 341-343) such as "priority will be given to locations in or near affected neighborhoods." Page 8, line 240, Member Bull noted that the chart included nothing identifying how many trees were being removed. Member Bull referenced comments made by Councilmember McGehee expressing her strong interest in preserving the number of trees as well as their groupings; and protecting migratory bird routes. Member Bull suggested showing trees removed versus those inventoried and something related to the percentage of trees, not excluding exempt species (e.g. damaged, dead, invasive, etc.).