2016-05-24_PWETC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Member Lenz expressed concern that under this proposed language, a tree credit may only be applicable in one area, while in another area of Roseville, with Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) infestation and in need of trees, replacement trees may not be considered if more than one-quarter mile away from the project site. Chair Cihacek agreed, noting the benefit of trees was citywide, and additional forest added while some is removed, should be allowed in a larger area and not geographical restricted, but available anywhere within Roseville city limits whether in public parks or collaborative areas. At the request of Member Wozniak for staff's rationale in specifying the language of the draft policy, Mr. Paschke noted the goal was to keep tree replacement closer to the project area, since those resources (trees) had been removed from that area and should be kept in that same general area versus spreading them throughout the city. Member Lenz suggested the goal could be replacement nearby, but allow for flexibility in a broader area if indicated. In defense of the PWETC's suggested broader replacement scope, Chair Cihacek noted that while adjacent properties could be considered first, and then second any other public land; more to the point was that there remained disparities in community-wide foresting. Chair Cihacek noted these disparities may be due to past public works projects, windstorms, disease or other removals that had yet to be replaced. Therefore, if a mechanism was built into this policy that could provide an opportunity to replace those lost trees, geographical limits should not be stipulated, and may prove less onerous to the developer to meet the city's requirements. Ms. Collins thanked the PWETC for their good input. From a personal perspective, Member Seigler noted a discussion at last month's PWETC meeting that the city can dictate whether or not a lot is too small to build a larger garage based on easements in place that may be larger than necessary or never intended for use. Member Seigler noted that now this is yet another fine going into city funds and dictating further restrictions. Member Seigler expressed concern that the city was getting into the "fining" business. Mr. Paschke clarified that the city never got out of that "fining" business, but maybe simply didn't actively pursue it based on the ebb and flow of staff resources and/or the complaint-driven code enforcement process. Using the city's sign ordinance as an example, Mr. Paschke noted that staff isn't always available or cognizant to inappropriate activity, but when observed, they may get fines. Page 5 of 17