2015_1116_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

351 352 353 354 Attachment B Consensus of the Commission, staff and consultants was to revise the table at line 313 to more closely reflect that experience at lower height ranges. Member Bull clarified that this would reflect changes in Section J.2.a to start at 3' versus 6'; with the consultants verifying that intended change. 355 Page 11, Section K(tree protection required), line 347, Member Bull sought additional information on 356 ramifications if the area around a tree in the protection area was not properly protected; with Mr. Rehder 357 responding that the potential for a stop work order for the developer was one option if they were found in 358 violation; and if necessary staff would enforce that if such a situation arose. Member Bull noted there 359 may be damage to the root system that may not be as evident as damage to the tree above ground. 360 Mr. Bilotta noted this was the reason for including the unplanned loss protection since with those trees 361 assigned a slightly higher replacement rate to discourage working in proximity to them. Mr. Bilotta 362 advised that the forester would make a determination at that point if he found the intrusion significant 363 enough that would cause eventual tree loss (unplanned loss), using the 2 year warranty period and field 364 inspection with negotiations as needed. 365 366 367 368 369 Member Bull questioned if there was sufficient language in the draft ordinance for the forester to make that determination. Mr. Bilotta responded affirmatively, noting that field issues happen all the time and negotiations are part of the process for a condition of approval of other mechanism in place throughout city code for those type of responses throughout a normal construction process. 370 Page 13, line 418, number 2, Member Bull asked how it would be handled if determined that a developer 371 had unsatisfied obligations, and if any additional language was needed; with Mr. Bilotta questioning what 372 type of obligation Member Bull was referring to, and Member Bull responding he was referring to trees 373 not replaced under their warranty. 374 Mr. Bilotta reiterated the money held in escrow during the two year warranty period, similar to staff 375 signing off on a Certificate of Occupancy, in addition to several other "clubs" that were addressed in city 376 code to resolve such issues. 377 378 379 � 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 Mr. Paschke added that city code states that all landscaping on a site needs to be established to the city's satisfaction or escrow monies are not returned until those obligations have been met. Based on historical experience, Mr. Paschke noted that money usually worked to resolve issues. Chair Boguszewski closed the public hearing at 8:28 p.m.; no one spoke for or against. MO ION Member Cunningham moved seconded by Member Gitzen to recommend to the City Council approval of the ZONING E AMENDMEN S to Roseville City Code Chapter REE PRESER A ION AND RES ORA ION IN ALL DIS RIC S(RE ISED Attachment B) as provided as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereo fl based on the comments analysis and information detailed in the pro ect report dated October pending edits and grammatical and tabulated formatting revisions as noted, and amendments as follows: • Any references in the draft ordinance to "specimen" trees need to be revised consistently to be identified as "significant" trees • Definitions: add information on how one obtained certification as an arborist or designation as a forester. • Page 1, line 28, revised to read: "...Multi-stem trees shall be considered, or as determined by a certified arborist, as one tree..." • Page 3, lines 92-93: Staff was directed to clean up language related to not disturbing more than 5,000 square feet of ground cover • Page 3, Section B(applicability), add an additional item (#4) after line 106, to address all instances where submissions by a registered forester or certified arborist are required, submissions will be reviewed or approved by applicable city staff or contractors with equivalent credentials.