Laserfiche WebLink
Member Seigler noted that in a community of Roseville's age, a residential <br /> property owner should be able to, at a minimum build a two-car garage to replace <br /> an inadequate one-car garage, both from a practical standpoint for their use as <br /> well as for re-sale value of the home. <br /> Ms. Collins suggested that a finer distinction between "fine" and "fee" may be <br /> needed. Ms. Collins clarified that a "fine" is for violation of city code; while a <br /> "fee" such as proposed in this case, and part of larger scale developments is <br /> intended to encourage developers to make sure adequate space is available to <br /> replace trees, and to encourage developers to look seriously where they may put <br /> additional tree coverage as protection for adjacent property owners (e.g. <br /> screening). Ms. Collins recognized the PWETC's perception of the proposed <br /> policy; however, she advised that staff was working with developers who were <br /> very receptive to the city's comprehensive plan guidelines, and the desire by the <br /> community to reduce paved surfaces and keep things more green in Roseville. As <br /> the city moves forward, Ms. Collins opined that she anticipated most developers <br /> finding places for replacement trees versus expending cash in lieu of planting <br /> trees. <br /> Mr. Paschke reiterated the goal was to have developers preserve as many trees on <br /> site as possible, with a unique eye to preserve as many mature trees as possible <br /> and design around them accordingly versus allowing clear cutting lots; with the <br /> tree preservation and replacement in place to penalize any developers choosing to <br /> remove larger, mature trees. <br /> Chair Cihacek stated his support for replacing good trees, but noted his preference <br /> for removing geographical limitations and allow multiple places and options for <br /> replacing those trees off-site as necessary. <br /> Ms. Collins reported that the Roseville Economic Development Authority <br /> (REDA) would be meeting tomorrow evening, and at that time would be looking <br /> at options provided by their consultant to ensure that Roseville's programs were <br /> not too restrictive for developers. <br /> Member Heimerl asked how the two-year timeframe had been determined, and <br /> ramifications for a developer if they were unable to identify a replacement site <br /> within the timeframe or be subject to the fee. <br /> Mr. Paschke advised that the goal was once the project is known and that fees will <br /> be necessary as part of their tree restoration plan, staff would then determine how <br /> those dollars would be used for completion within that two year timeframe. <br /> Related to visibility of funds, Member Heimerl suggested that by the city <br /> collecting fees in escrow for up to two years, two years may be too long, and <br /> questioned why a decision couldn't be made sooner. <br /> Page 6 of 17 <br />