Laserfiche WebLink
Regular Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, October 7, 2015 <br />Page 7 <br />Member Stellmach stated that he recalled that idea and found it to have merit. <br />298 <br />Page 11, line 341, Member Murphy opined that proposed language put that back in the <br />299 <br />city’s court, with the notion being that if a tree or trees could be located outside the <br />300 <br />property the desire was not to pit one side of Roseville against the other. However, <br />301 <br />specific to the potential for planting on boulevards or public/park lands, Member Murphy <br />302 <br />opined that staff could develop qualified areas in the same quadrant of the community or <br />303 <br />in that neighborhood as stated. Member Murphy opined current language covered that in <br />304 <br />sufficient detail in that particular section. <br />305 <br />Member Cunningham noted that language is similar to today’s tree preservation <br />306 <br />language and was not being experienced. <br />307 <br />Chair Boguszewski suggested adding language in that section (lines 341-343) such as <br />308 <br />“priority will be given to locations in or near affected neighborhoods.” <br />309 <br />Page 8, line 240, Member Bull noted that the chart included nothing identifying how many <br />310 <br />trees were being removed. Member Bull referenced comments made by Councilmember <br />311 <br />McGehee expressing her strong interest in preserving the number of trees as well as <br />312 <br />their groupings; and protecting migratory bird routes. Member Bull suggested showing <br />313 <br />trees removed versus those inventoried and something related to the percentage of <br />314 <br />trees, not excluding exempt species (e.g. damaged, dead, invasive, etc.). <br />315 <br />Mr. Gozola stated his rationale in not requiring the number removed was that it didn’t fit <br />316 <br />into the framework of incentivizing preservation. Mr. Gozola admitted that comment could <br />317 <br />be expanded upon and a number utilized in some way, but it had not yet been explored. <br />318 <br />Member Bull stated that his concern was recent clear-cutting situations that had been <br />319 <br />realized in the community. <br />320 <br />Chair Boguszewski suggested the consultant ask the City Council, during their <br />321 <br />presentation to them, if they wished to add a column enumerating trees removed. <br />322 <br />Mr. Paschke noted that Member Bull’s concern centered on the threshold of trees able to <br />323 <br />be removed from a given site; but clarified if you attempted to clear cut under this <br />324 <br />ordinance, you would need to put in replacement trees and it would provide no instance <br />325 <br />where you could clear an entire site. Mr. Paschke noted that the only site this occurred <br />326 <br />recently was the Pizza Lucé site and their application for and receipt of a variance due to <br />327 <br />the condition of existing mature trees. Mr. Paschke stated he wasn’t sure if there was <br />328 <br />more benefit in addressing inches or numbers, and agreed the City Council could flush <br />329 <br />that out further at their discretion. <br />330 <br />Mr. Bilotta suggested the Commission keep in mind when talking about the number of <br />331 <br />trees being removed that is in conflict with heritage trees and attempting to preserve <br />332 <br />them. If the current example is more than the Commission feels comfortable with or if it <br />333 <br />felt too many were being removed, Mr. Bilotta suggested the appropriate response would <br />334 <br />be to look at the removal calculation and play with that more than the other standards. <br />335 <br />Member Bull opined that having the inventory of removal brought it upfront rather than <br />336 <br />having to guess. <br />337 <br />Chair Boguszewski noted you could highlight the effect of development versus reworking <br />338 <br />the basis of the calculators and simply add a column headed “Number of Trees <br />339 <br />Removed.” <br />340 <br />Mr. Rehder advised that the attempt in proposed language was to make the process <br />341 <br />easier for developers to complete the spreadsheet accurately; with the intent to make it <br />342 <br />as easy as possible for developers to understand. <br />343 <br />Page 8, line 280, Member Bull noted that related to inventoried trees, since the public <br />344 <br />improvement exclusion had been changed, it was no longer included. <br />345 <br />Mr. Gozola noted that Section H, Item 1.i (line 251-256) is the existing exemption in the <br />346 <br />ordinance proposed to remain in place. <br />347 <br /> <br />