My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2016-05-24_PWETC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2016
>
2016-05-24_PWETC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/5/2016 2:30:31 PM
Creation date
7/5/2016 2:30:18 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
5/24/2016
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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
screening on their development sites for adjacent property owners, and thereby <br /> target the development area first. Mr. Paschke stated that one possibility that may <br /> be of particular interest to the P WETC in expenditure of those funds would be <br /> public improvement projects in the general area or within a 1/4 mile of the subject <br /> site. If unable to get closer, Mr. Paschke noted that the question then became <br /> where else in the community can we look to provide additional tree coverage. <br /> At the request of Member Lenz, Mr. Paschke clarified that the replacement trees <br /> would be brand new and typically would not involve relocating trees from one <br /> property to another. <br /> Interim Community Development Director Collins confirmed they would be <br /> brand new trees, with staff already charged by city code to review the number of <br /> trees being removed and available space to plant new trees as dictated by the City <br /> Council's adopted calculations. Ms. Collins noted that the goal was to provide <br /> the same amount of coverage if possible; but when that is not an option, provision <br /> by the developer of cash in lieu of tree replacement, or some other solution with <br /> property owners is indicated. <br /> At the request of Chair Cihacek, Mr. Paschke advised that the determination of <br /> $500 per tree for cash in lieu of had been provided by the city's contracted <br /> forester as a fair cost for a tree of a certain diameter, and actually was on the <br /> lower end of the cost of the tree plus labor, depending on species and other <br /> parameters. Mr. Paschke advised that this was all part of the developer/property <br /> owner's application process and submission of a tree and landscaping plan as part <br /> of that application package. Again, Mr. Paschke used a recent development, <br /> Cherrywood Point, as an example of tree replacement calculations and plans, as <br /> part of the overall development proposal. <br /> Specific to the final sub-bullet point (Determination of tree replacement funds on <br /> public lands within the general area or one-quarter mile from the subject project <br /> site), Chair Cihacek opined that seemed to him duplicative with the first point <br /> (retention of tree fund expenditures within the general area of the subject <br /> development/redevelopment site or one-quarter mile), and questioned if it was <br /> needed. <br /> Member Lenz agreed that it seemed duplicative. <br /> While they appear similar, Mr. Paschke clarified that one bullet point was pointed <br /> toward public land within that quarter-mile, while the other was intended to <br /> address removal of trees and their replacement elsewhere (e.g. sewer <br /> reconstruction needed through an existing treed area). <br /> Chair Cihacek suggested the need for the policy to define "public improvement" <br /> and "public land;" but reiterated his interpretation that the fourth bullet point may <br /> not be necessary nor did it add anything to the policy. <br /> Page 4 of 17 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.