My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2014_06_04_PC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2014
>
2014_06_04_PC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/18/2016 11:47:49 AM
Creation date
5/18/2016 11:47:45 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
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 Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, June 4, 2014 <br />Page 4 <br />Noting that Mr. Mueller had already removed a considerable number of trees on his <br />145 <br />property almost immediately after meeting with the Planning Commission in 2007, Ms. <br />146 <br />Ramalingam questioned the tree preservation aspect in that context and what kind of tree <br />147 <br />restoration was intended. <br />148 <br />Chair Gisselquist reminded residents that, even if there was no proposal or development <br />149 <br />underway, a private property owner could clear-cut their lot if they so chose to do so; <br />150 <br />however, as part of a redevelopment proposal, the City could recommend tree <br />151 <br />preservation and replanting accordingly. <br />152 <br />Mr. Paschke concurred, noting that with the City’s current tree preservation and/or <br />153 <br />replacement ordinance, there was an allowance for certain trees to be removed off the <br />154 <br />top, based on a certain percentage regardless of their species and typically located in <br />155 <br />soon-to-b public rights-of-way or easement areas, or within areas where home sites will <br />156 <br />be located. Mr. Paschke clarified that the City’s tree ordinance dictated trees by inches <br />157 <br />for removal, preservation and/or replacement; and if more existing trees were removed <br />158 <br />than allowable under the ordinance, the property owner/developer would be required to <br />159 <br />replace those trees. While there may have been some trees already removed, Mr. <br />160 <br />Paschke advised that, as part of the permitting, inspection and final plat process, staff <br />161 <br />would specifically review the site and the developer’s proposed tree plan and inventory <br />162 <br />appropriately; and upon its completion, will be required to replace the inches of trees and <br />163 <br />replant accordingly. <br />164 <br />In context, Mr. Lloyd noted that a few of the trees around the site were dead, as noted in <br />165 <br />the applicant’s tree preservation plan as presented, and some removals involved those; <br />166 <br />however, he concurred that staff would be verifying the actual tree inventory on site <br />167 <br />during the process. <br />168 <br />At the request of Member Boguszewski, Mr. Paschke confirmed that if a property owner <br />169 <br />chose to remove all the trees on his single-family residential lot, he could do so; and that <br />170 <br />the tree preservation ordinance would only be triggered by improvements (e.g. major <br />171 <br />home addition or installation of a new driveway) and the need to understand what if any <br />172 <br />impact there would be on existing trees, and if necessary provide fencing to protect those <br />173 <br />existing trees or develop a modified tree preservation plan for redevelopment, with a full- <br />174 <br />fledged plan provided. <br />175 <br />At the request of Member Cunningham, Mr. Paschke clarified that staff would assess <br />176 <br />trees, including those recently cut down as much as possible. <br />177 <br />Off microphone from the audience, Mr. Mueller advised that other trees were replanted to <br />178 <br />replace those already removed. <br />179 <br />George LeTendre, 2121 County Road B West <br />180 <br />Mr. LeTendre opined that, according to the preliminary plat the cul-de-sac was shown as <br />181 <br />60’, yet on the sewer drawings, it showed as 40’. <br />182 <br />Mr. Paschke advised that there were two drawings: one for the right-of-way and one for <br />183 <br />the street itself, both requirements of the applicant. <br />184 <br />Mr. LeTendre questioned the radius of the paved surface; with Mr. Mueller responding off <br />185 <br />microphone from the audience that it was 80’ across. <br />186 <br />Mr. Paschke advised that, as previously indicated by Mr. Lloyd, City Code required a <br />187 <br />greater radius for street width, but it also gave the Public Works Director flexibility to <br />188 <br />approve something less than that, which had already been done on a number of <br />189 <br />occasions (e.g. Millwood Plat in 2013 among others); and what was shown in the <br />190 <br />drawings – and approved in 2007 for this particular plat as well – is the radius and right- <br />191 <br />of-way substandard to typical requirements spelled out in code, but met within the <br />192 <br />exception clause approved by the Public Works Director. <br />193 <br />Mr. LeTendre asked if it was 60’ per code; with Mr. Lloyd displaying Section 1003.02 or <br />194 <br />City Code related to street width, and minimums approved by the Public Works Director <br />195 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.