CC_Minutes_2015_1116 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, November 16, 2015 Page 36 Mayor Roe noted another concern with this proposed langiiage from his perspec- tive was if requiring public improvement, was why penalize the developer or property owner for putting in that City-required public improvement. At the re- quest of Councilmember McGehee for further explanation, Mayor Roe provided an example, questioning why if requiring a public improvement basecl on street orientation, why would they not be exempt from tree preservation for a street or stormwater pond required by the City. Councilmember McGehee stated they shouldn't, but that there was also an option for them to consider how to lay things out (e.g. new subdivision with a cul-de-sac when perhaps a cul-de-sac is not the best option) and how different layouts inay prove of greater benefit. Councilmember McGehee stated that she thought the whole idea of this was to provide incentive for developments to talce a fresh look at their site, especially if heavily wooded as the Pulte Homes site had been and re- sulting in a huge loss of heritage trees with that development under the current or- dinance. Under this new scenario, Councilmember McGehee suggested it may have been possible to develop that site and preserve more trees. Councilinember McGehee opined that the proposed penalty is not onerous for a big site, and there was always the possibility for the developer to coine forward stating if it was proving onerous for them. If and when it was put in place, Mayor Roe suggested a Planned Unit Develop- ment (PUD) may provide an opportunity for resolution for a developer. Councilmember Etten stated his concern with the current tree preservation ordi- nance was that it exeinpted anything along the rights-of-way. While initially dis- cussing the need for exeinpting trees needing to be removed for a road, utility in a right-of-way, Councilmember Etten noted that those would be exempt, but not exeinpt for all 15' around the edge of a property, opining that this was taking it to the extreme on the other side. Councilmember Etten stated that was a really big number and he wanted to make sure the City wasn't creating something massively cumbersome, and suggested revising language to not exempt all trees along the right-of-way; questioning if this was related to or a result of some of those previ- ous discussions. Using the Pulte Homes development as an example, Councilmember Willmus questioned if it would have occurred with this additional clause and how that would have impacted the City overall if it had not occurred. To his knowledge, City Planner Paschke noted, as a point of reference, that the City of Roseville did not allow boulevard trees with the exception of the County Road C streetscaping to accommodate utilities and infrastructure installation. If the intent was to massage nuinbers related to public rights-of-way and preserving trees, Mr. Paschke questioned if that was in the best interest of the city to preserve trees or create complications for gas, cable and other utility coinpanies in this area