My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2016-08-04_PR Comm Packet
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Parks & Recreation
>
Parks & Recreation Commission
>
Packets
>
2016
>
2016-08-04_PR Comm Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/31/2017 2:53:22 PM
Creation date
3/31/2017 2:53:20 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
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
Commission Vice-ChairGelbach questionedif the ordinance currentlyaddresses only <br />36 <br />city trees.Also, asks for additional information on a sliding scale for the tree pricing. <br />37 <br />Collins confirmedthat the flat fee is beneficial with the currentfee structure utilized by <br />38 <br />the City of Roseville. Also, it allows developers to easily understand the cost of doing <br />39 <br />business in Roseville. <br />40 <br />Paschke confirmed this is a new policy and that it will be reviewed yearly to understand <br />41 <br />if the fee structure is appropriate. <br />42 <br />Commissioner Becker-Finn inquired if the hierarchy for approval would go through the <br />43 <br />Tree Board/Parks andRecreation Commission or the City Council. The current layout of <br />44 <br />the policy is to have the Community Development Department finalizethe plan details <br />45 <br />and present them for approval to the City Council. Commissioner Becker-Finn statedthat <br />46 <br />she believes the Tree Board/Parks and Recreation Commission should also review the <br />47 <br />plans prior to implementation. <br />48 <br />Collins relayedthat it may be beneficial to have a presentation to the Tree Board/Parks <br />49 <br />and Recreation Commission of how the yearly dollars are spent. <br />50 <br />Commissioner Heikkila asked about the process for residents to petition for a tree. <br />51 <br />Paschke confirmed that through the hierarchy the surrounding neighbors would be <br />52 <br />interviewed and their feedback would be utilized in the final recommendation. <br />53 <br />Commissioner Stoner questionedwhat type of trees will be planted. Collins noted that all <br />54 <br />plans need to be approved by the Arborist. <br />55 <br />Commission ChairNewby requested additional information on how they arrived at the <br />56 <br />two-year timeline for installation. Paschke confirmed that the goal should be expended in <br />57 <br />a reasonable timeframe. It was determined that 2-3 years was reasonable in order to <br />58 <br />create a plan and hire a company to plant the trees. Commission ChairNewby <br />59 <br />acknowledged that the trees can be planted sooner than 2 years. Also, he agreedthe 2- <br />60 <br />year timeframe is reasonable. <br />61 <br />Commission Chair Newby inquired when the funds are paid. Paschke verifiedit is when <br />62 <br />the final plat is approved and released. <br />63 <br />64 <br />5.DISCUSS AND PREPARE FOR JOINT MEETING WITH THE CITY COUNCIL <br />65 <br />Brokke outlined the typical processfor the joint meeting with the City Council on <br />66 <br />th <br />Monday, June 13 and provided a brief description of the packet provided in preparation <br />67 <br />for the meeting: <br />68 <br />RCA for Joint City Council <br />69 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.