2015-10-07_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, October 7, 2015 Page 6 addressed; and while the scenario used by Member Bull may appear to come out that 247 way, he thought replacements would always be needed. 248 Member Bull noted however, that there was no ordinance language requiring it. 249 In defense of Member Bull’s concerns, Member Cunningham noted the considerable 250 public comments and concerns with proposed development and their surprise that if you 251 remove a tree you don’t need to replace it. Member Cunningham noted the pressure from 252 the public and for the Planning Commission to ensure replacement for anything removed. 253 Member Cunningham stated that she would be comfortable increasing the calculation, 254 but wasn’t sure if she could support a calculation up to 4.0. 255 Chair Boguszewski noted the need to balance the city’s standing and authority to reach 256 into private development at one extreme and not being able to enter into it at all and not 257 telling private property owners what to do. Chair Boguszewski opined that if the current 258 language could be used without it seeming too punitive, it provided a good balance. Chair 259 Boguszewski further noted that no matter the review and/or recommendation of this body, 260 the City Council would also review tonight’s meeting, and make the final determination. 261 Therefore, Chair Boguszewski opined that he would prefer to leave that particular 262 language as currently proposed and move forward to other sections. 263 To add further inform this discussion, Mr. Paschke noted that the current business 264 community in Roseville didn’t have a vast tree canopy around it, and in discussing this 265 specific ordinance language it would impact the residential areas more than business 266 and/or industrial areas given current development levels. As an example, Mr. Paschke 267 stated that those developments built recently had more trees than any in the last 2-3 268 decades, allowing the City to make vast improvement in that area overall, and any 269 language more stringent would be most detrimental to private residential property owners 270 in the community, and serve as an unintended consequence. Given that situation, Mr. 271 Paschke noted that other code already in place today does or will provide property 272 landscaping and asked the Commission’s consideration of that analysis. 273 MOTION 274 Member Murphy moved, seconded by Member Gitzen that lines 149 – 156, page 5 275 related to Section F (Incentive Multipliers), be approved as presented in the draft 276 ordinance (Revised Attachment B. 277 Ayes: 6 278 Nays: 1 (Bull) 279 Motion carried. 280 Chair Boguszewski noted that tonight’s discussion may trigger further conversation at the 281 City Council level. 282 Page 10, line 321, Member Boguszewski questioned the practical result of such a 283 guarantee, and whether it applied to escrow account or similar remedy. 284 Mr. Rehder confirmed that the escrow would be held with a site visit at two years to 285 determine the condition of the trees and ramifications for the developer if any trees were 286 found to have died. 287 At the request of Chair Boguszewski as to whether that needed to be spelled out, Mr. 288 Rehder referred him to page 12, line 397 where it was addressed. Chair Boguszewski 289 suggested that language be added to page 10, line 321 to reference Section M (warranty 290 requirement) as well. 291 Specific to previous Planning Commission discussions during a site subdivision, Member 292 Cunningham noted public testimony that requested if trees were replaced elsewhere in 293 the community, it be done within their neighborhood as a way to benefit that specific 294 neighborhood. With that discussion having brought up the idea of establishing a 295 neighborhood to accomplish that, Member Cunningham questioned if there was any 296 interest among her colleagues in stipulating that. 297