2015-10-07_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, October 7, 2015 Page 10 Page 13, line 418, number 2, Member Bull asked how it would be handled if determined 446 that a developer had unsatisfied obligations, and if any additional language was needed; 447 with Mr. Bilotta questioning what type of obligation Member Bull was referring to, and 448 Member Bull responding he was referring to trees not replaced under their warranty. 449 Mr. Bilotta reiterated the money held in escrow during the two year warranty period, 450 similar to staff signing off on a Certificate of Occupancy, in addition to several other 451 “clubs” that were addressed in city code to resolve such issues. 452 Mr. Paschke added that city code states that all landscaping on a site needs to be 453 established to the city’s satisfaction or escrow monies are not returned until those 454 obligations have been met. Based on historical experience, Mr. Paschke noted that 455 money usually worked to resolve issues. 456 Chair Boguszewski closed the public hearing at 8:28 p.m.; no one spoke for or against. 457 MOTION 458 Member Cunningham moved, seconded by Member Gitzen to recommend to the 459 City Council approval of the ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS to Roseville City Code, 460 Chapter 1011.04 TREE PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION IN ALL DISTRICTS 461 (REVISED Attachment B) as provided as a bench handout, attached hereto and 462 ; based on the comments, analysis and information detailed in made a part hereof) 463 the project report dated October 7, 2015; pending edits and grammatical and 464 tabulated formatting revisions as noted, and amendments as follows: 465  Any references in the draft ordinance to “specimen” trees need to be revised 466 consistently to be identified as “significant” trees 467  Definitions: add information on how one obtained certification as an arborist or 468 designation as a forester. 469  Page 1, line 28, revised to read: “…Multi-stem trees shall be considered, or as 470 determined by a certified arborist, as one tree…” 471  Page 3, lines 92-93: Staff was directed to clean up language related to not 472 disturbing more than 5,000 square feet of ground cover 473  Page 3, Section B (applicability), add an additional item (#4) after line 106, to 474 address all instances where submissions by a registered forester or certified 475 arborist are required, submissions will be reviewed or approved by applicable 476 city staff or contractors with equivalent credentials. 477  Page 4, line 110, revise to read: 1. “Tree removal related to city \[repairs of 478 public improvements\].” 479  Page 7, line 220, any additional columns to the table need to be reflected in this 480 portion of text as well 481  Page 8, line 240 (example summary table), reverse symbols and revise height 482 credit inches at lower heights. Add a column headed “Number of trees 483 removed,” in the table to highlight the effect of development versus reworking 484 the basis of calculators. 485  Page 9, line 280: tweak language to remove “streets” while still addressing 486 rights-of-way and easement areas 487  Page 10, line 310, Section J.2.a, change text and table references to 3’ versus 6’ 488 for coniferous replacement tree DBH, text line 304 and table, line 313 489  Page 10, line 321, add language at end of sentence: “…guarantee \[, according 490 to Section M (warranty requirement)” on line 397 for reference. 491  Page 11, lines 341-343, add comma followed by language: “…with priority 492 given to locations in or near the affected area.” 493