2016-07-13_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, June 1, 2016 Page 2 5. Public Hearings 44 a. PROJECT FILE 0017, Amendment 27: Request by the City of Roseville to modify 45 the existing text of City Code, Section 1011.05.J.8 pertaining to tree replacement 46 requirements 47 Vice Chair Cunninghamopened the public hearing for PROJECT FILE 0017 at 6:37 p.m. 48 Interim Community Development Director Kari Collins reviewed the request for minor text 49 amendments as detailed in the staff report dated June 1, 2016 and rationale for 50 suggested changes (lines 49 – 60) 51 Member Daire questioned if it should be spelled out that if and when developers work 52 with adjacent property owners for tree replacement on private property it should be with 53 the consent of affected property owners to ensure the developer understands it is his 54 responsibility to work with adjacent property owners versus presuming consent. 55 Interim Community Development Director Collins advised that this pending approval 56 process involved two steps: code language as proposed and a policy currently being 57 crafted with input from the Parks & Recreation Commission, serving in their role as the 58 City of Roseville Tree Board, and meeting June 20, 2016 to consider these proposed text 59 amendments and a policy at that time. Ms. Collins noted that the policy involved outlining 60 how to use replacement fees and involved an expanded version of the hierarchy of 61 development first, the consent of property owners, and then the process from that point. 62 Ms. Collins advised that both documents would have companion language. 63 In Section a (lines 50-55), Member Bull noted tree replacement “…on public improvement 64 project sites not greater than 1,000’ from the development site…”, but on adjacent private 65 properties. Member Bull suggested extending that distance beyond those adjacent, and 66 in keeping with the spirit of neighborhoods and blocks within defined limits. While 1,000’ 67 typically fits within a block, Member Bull opined there should be consistency. 68 Ms. Collins stated that, as per code language, if the land was deemed available it 69 provided such flexibility. 70 Member Bull opined that didn’t involve private property though. 71 Based on her observations, Ms. Collins stated the goal was to balance both working with 72 adjacent property owners and to avoid being too rigid and cause a developer to go further 73 outward, but to encourage them to plant replacement trees within the area without having 74 to seek out multiple property owners, which could make for a large endeavor for larger 75 development projects. While additional flexibility could be reviewed and considered, Ms. 76 Collins suggested not being too rigid that the developer chose to pay cash in lieu of 77 replacing trees. 78 Member Bull opined that he didn’t’ think his suggested created more restrictions for a 79 developer, but actually created more flexibility. Since tree replacement affected an entire 80 neighborhood, Member Bull opined there was a need to give consideration to proximity. 81 Instead of private property directly adjacent, Member Bull suggested considering 400’ on 82 either side to allow that flexibility beyond only adjacent lots. 83 As a practical example, Member Daire asked Member Bull how that would have worked 84 in the recent Wheaton Woods development proposal; with Member Bull noting there 85 would have been some restrictions, but some flexibility as well in that case. 86 For the bulk of tree coverage, Ms. Collins noted that the goal was to serve that immediate 87 area and then expand out for tree coverage to assist with drainage. In the world of city 88 code reality, Ms. Collins noted this will differ on a case by case basis. 89 Member Gitzen agreed it still required some definition of which direction to go and would 90 remain interpretive. 91 Vice Chair Cunningham noted the intent was to offer screening to adjacent residents that 92 may be lost if the radius is changed to encompass a broader area. 93