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