My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2015_1116
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2015
>
CC_Minutes_2015_1116
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/21/2015 9:52:39 AM
Creation date
12/8/2015 10:22:15 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
11/16/2015
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
39
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, November 16, 2015 <br />Page 36 <br />Mayor Roe noted another concern with this proposed langiiage from his perspec- <br />tive was if requiring public improvement, was why penalize the developer or <br />property owner for putting in that City-required public improvement. At the re- <br />quest of Councilmember McGehee for further explanation, Mayor Roe provided <br />an example, questioning why if requiring a public improvement basecl on street <br />orientation, why would they not be exempt from tree preservation for a street or <br />stormwater pond required by the City. <br />Councilmember McGehee stated they shouldn't, but that there was also an option <br />for them to consider how to lay things out (e.g. new subdivision with a cul-de-sac <br />when perhaps a cul-de-sac is not the best option) and how different layouts inay <br />prove of greater benefit. Councilmember McGehee stated that she thought the <br />whole idea of this was to provide incentive for developments to talce a fresh look <br />at their site, especially if heavily wooded as the Pulte Homes site had been and re- <br />sulting in a huge loss of heritage trees with that development under the current or- <br />dinance. Under this new scenario, Councilmember McGehee suggested it may <br />have been possible to develop that site and preserve more trees. Councilinember <br />McGehee opined that the proposed penalty is not onerous for a big site, and there <br />was always the possibility for the developer to coine forward stating if it was <br />proving onerous for them. <br />If and when it was put in place, Mayor Roe suggested a Planned Unit Develop- <br />ment (PUD) may provide an opportunity for resolution for a developer. <br />Councilmember Etten stated his concern with the current tree preservation ordi- <br />nance was that it exeinpted anything along the rights-of-way. While initially dis- <br />cussing the need for exeinpting trees needing to be removed for a road, utility in a <br />right-of-way, Councilmember Etten noted that those would be exempt, but not <br />exeinpt for all 15' around the edge of a property, opining that this was taking it to <br />the extreme on the other side. Councilmember Etten stated that was a really big <br />number and he wanted to make sure the City wasn't creating something massively <br />cumbersome, and suggested revising language to not exempt all trees along the <br />right-of-way; questioning if this was related to or a result of some of those previ- <br />ous discussions. <br />Using the Pulte Homes development as an example, Councilmember Willmus <br />questioned if it would have occurred with this additional clause and how that <br />would have impacted the City overall if it had not occurred. <br />To his knowledge, City Planner Paschke noted, as a point of reference, that the <br />City of Roseville did not allow boulevard trees with the exception of the County <br />Road C streetscaping to accommodate utilities and infrastructure installation. If <br />the intent was to massage nuinbers related to public rights-of-way and preserving <br />trees, Mr. Paschke questioned if that was in the best interest of the city to preserve <br />trees or create complications for gas, cable and other utility coinpanies in this area <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.