2015_1116_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment B 302 Page 12, lines 371-372, Chair Boguszewski asked if these dates were driven by temperature, with Mr. 303 Rehder confirming that the language attempted to address known fatal tree diseases for each species 304 (e.g. Oak wilt). Chair Boguszewski expressed appreciation that there was some flexibility allowed for in 305 Item 6.c. 306 Page 11, line 344, Member Murphy questioned ho tree replacement on site impacted the total cost of 307 development, with Mr. Rehder noting that tree replacement would be addressed in the 17% calculations. 308 Member Murphy questioned if 10% of fair market value was being tapped out, was the city asking 309 elsewhere (lines 340-343) for the developer to do something in excess of that or asked if that was the 310 intent or consequences, similar to a cap on cash in lieu of. If that is the case, Member Murphy asked if 311 that was the right number and in cases where the exemption didn't apply could the city ask for more 312 money. 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 Chair Boguszewski further questioned if the intent was to increase the 10% to bring it more in line with what could be spend on replacement landscaping or to cap cash-in-lieu. Mr. Paschke responded that it would have to be a fairly wooded lot to trigger this and not have anywhere to put replacement trees, thus credit given in the landscaping plan or provide a combination. Member Murphy referenced the Cherrywood Point or Pulte sites as examples of areas having been fairly heavily wooded to begin with. Chair Boguszewski recognized the difference in whether choosing to landscape up to 20% in retained value while cash in lieu of was going right of your pocket; and therefore saw no issue with any discrepancies. 322 Member Murphy also agreed that he saw it better from that perspective. Member Murphy referenced a 323 previous example from Mr. Paschke in how building a garage may not apply to clearing trees from an 324 area; and asked if that also applied to adding a deck or garage onto a typical Roseville single-family 325 home, and that it would not trigger this provision. 326 Member Bull noted the exception if it went of 50% of the principle structure. 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 Mr. Paschke noted that may depend on tree classification numbers, suggested some changes were needed in that section, including tree ranges and whether or not they were considered significant; and suggested staff take a look at those numbers to ensure their consistency. Chair Boguszewski noted a number of grammatical corrections needed throughout the document prior to final presentation to the City Council; and to ensure tabulated formatting was consistent. Page 4, Section E(tree classifications), line 129, Member Murphy suggested changing "common" trees to "significant trees with measurements of 12' tall or greater based on his personal interpretation of language as written. Page 7, line 220, Member Daire noted if an additional column is added to the table of calculations, it also needed to bee reflected in that line, (table starting at line 313). Mr. Gozola noted that line 220 text referenced the summary table and its intensions and the number of trees removed in each category. In that case, Member Bull suggested that the table should reflect 8' rather than greater than 8' in, opining that the calculations in the table (line 313) were shown backwards. 341 Page 10, Section J.2.a, line 309, Member Bull stated his preference that the text state 3 DBH 342 replacement inches and move on in increments from there, with Member Murphy questioning if this 343 rationale was based on science or personal preference, with Member Bull stating it was based on his 344 experience with coniferous trees and their typical height. 345 Member Murphy sought feedback from Mr. Gozola and Mr. Rehder based on their expertise in the field 346 and how 6' was originally derived at. 347 348 349 350 Based on his field experience, Mr. Rehder responded that for larger measurements he had worked backwards, but he recognized the point made by Member Bull as having merit and that measurements should not be based one to one all the way across; but should indicate measurements for each species and show representative values for those height ranges accordingly.