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 37 <br />inaintained outside the roadway for the purpose of utility installations. Mr. <br />Paschke further noted that those rights-of-way could also involve trenches on ei- <br />ther side of a roadway. Using the Pulte Homes development again as an exainple, <br />Mr. Paschke noted that a inajority of the trees removed were in the roadway link- <br />ing the north and south and for improvements along the County Road C-2 connec- <br />tion, not necessarily on the interior of the site. Mr. Paschke opined that this <br />brought up another good point for public iinprovement projects and not just de- <br />velopment-related, if the City needed to go into a wooded area for utility replace- <br />ment, would they be required — under the letter of the law as proposed — to replace <br />those trees needing removal or pay a penalty to remove them. <br />Councilmember Willmus stated his preference for proposed language with the ex- <br />ception of this particular section of the ordinance related to the city and public <br />rights-of-way as suggested by the Planning Commission. If that particular provi- <br />sion were to remain in the ordinance presented for enactment by the City Council, <br />Councilmember Willmus advised that he probably would not be able to support it, <br />based on his concern that it would prove prohibitive in certain redevelopinent and <br />maintenance issues for the city going forward. <br />Mayor Roe suggested a motion from Councilmember Willmus for discussion pur- <br />poses. <br />Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, to strike language in the draft ordinance (At- <br />tachment E) related to having to replace trees removed for public improvements. <br />Discussion ensued related to the actual language to be included in the draft ordi- <br />nance, with the consensus being the language would revert to previous language <br />proposed in Section C(Exeinptions) including exemption for repair and new pub- <br />lic improvement projects. <br />Councilmeinber McGehee disagreed with that proposed language, stating that <br />while she was in agreement about repairs, she didn't thinlc any new project should <br />be exempt without the City's taking into consideration their impact to trees for <br />public improvements. <br />Mayor Roe advised that there was a clear definition of public improvements, and <br />clarified that it didn't include a new park, but based on his interpretation involved <br />project for stormwater management, roads, utilities, etc. <br />Councilmeinber Etten suggested listing "public improvements" in the "defini- <br />tions" section. <br />Mayor Roe questioned if that was necessary since it was a common ter�n of art <br />and involved public improvement contract similarities. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.