2015-10-07_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment B Councilmember Willmus referenced current minor lot subdivision requirements in low density residential (LDR) Districts. Mayor Roe clarified that they were not required if exempted in minor subdivisions, but required by the Building Permit for at least 50% of the structure which should address any new construction; but not an issue created by the subdivision itself. Councilmember Willmus reiterated that he still wanted to look at it. To that point, Councilmember Etten referenced situations where people may divide properties and remove trees before actually proposing a development to skirt the tree preservation issue. Since the current tree preservation ordinance was enacted, Mr. Paschke advised that he was not aware of any such situations with trees cut down or complaints to that effect. Mr. Paschke opined that most people are conscious of regulations and any property owner doing minor code provisions similar to those being proposed and seemed amenable to them, mostly affecting smaller developers building on vacant lots of split lots. Under the proposed ordinance, Mayor Roe sought comment from Mr. Gozola on how to avoid the potential concern raised by Councilmember Etten about someone taking out trees in anticipation of a replatting application. Mr. Gozola responded that one of the main ways cities addressed that concern was in requiring permits to cut down trees, but recognized that the City of Roseville wished to avoid that and therefore had not proposed such a provision. Councilmember Etten stated that he was fine in exempting minor lot splits as he didn't consider that to be a potential major issue; but his concern was in demolition for new construction and heavy impacts with clear cutting on adjacent properties. Councilmember McGehee expressed her concern in looking more closely at impact zones around roots, questioning whether that should be exempt related to minor subdivisions. Councilmember Etten noted the proposed provision for a tree inventory of trees along property lines that may be impacted but not on the subject property. Councilmember McGehee suggested she discuss her additional concerns offline as she had numerous issues that she didn't see addressed in this draft, some of which included habitat, clustering, techniques for boulevard trees. However, Councilmember McGehee expressed appreciation for providing that decisions would be made by registered foresters or certified arborists as addressed in the beginning of the document, but preferred consistency in qualifications throughout the ordinance for those specifications. Mr. Gozola advised that the language had been drafted to provide for potential vacationing or unavailability of the forester, at which time someone else can be assigned that role provide they had the same qualifications. Councilmember McGehee questioned the difference in protecting roots through a drip line versus measuring the diameter at breast height of a tree, suggesting a simple calculation for residents was preferred. Councilmember McGehee clarified that she wasn't so much concerned in cost savings for developers, but for residents without access to or understanding