My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2020-2-4_PR_Comm_Min
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Parks & Recreation
>
Parks & Recreation Commission
>
Minutes
>
2020
>
2020-2-4_PR_Comm_Min
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/18/2020 11:37:39 AM
Creation date
3/18/2020 11:37:38 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
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
city is doing enough for forestry. The Task Force may provide a set of recommendations to the City <br />Council after the anticipated three Task Force meetings. <br />The Commission further discussed the scope of #706 and the current Task Force responsibilities. <br />Commissioner Stoner commented that it might be helpful for Vice-Chair Hoag to take back to the <br />Task Force that the Commission was surprised by the Tree Board authority. <br />Staff responded that the Tree Preservation Ordinance was developed more recently and has given <br />authority and responsibility to the Community Development Department. They have the resources <br />and expertise to review and provide recommendations to staff, Planning Commissionand the City <br />Council. The Tree Preservation Ordinance is a separate area from the Urban Forest Management <br />Ordinance. <br /> <br />The Commission discussed that the public and private ordinances don’t feel coordinated. <br />Specifically where the Parks and Recreation Commission does not have input on trees in new <br />developments on private land and whether these policies are actually working. <br /> <br />Staff commented that they would be reluctant to have private development projects come to the <br />Parks and Recreation Commission as this is handled by another city commission (Planning <br />Commission) and may overlap. <br /> <br />Vice-Chair Hoag noted that trees should not be a hindrance to development. <br /> <br />Staff suggested to potentially have the chair of the Task Force come to the Parks and Recreation <br />Commission to clarify the purpose of the Task Force. <br /> <br />Commissioner Stoner indicated that he would like to be sure that someone who reviews tree <br />preservation plans is interested in forestry and not only development. <br /> <br />Commissioner Newby questioned who would have overseen the tree review for the development at <br />Lexington and Co. Rd. C. Staff responded that it would have been the Community Development <br />Department, the Planning Commission, and the City Council. <br /> <br />Commissioner Arneson commented that potentially the Tree Board name is not fully explained and <br />possibly that it should be the “Public and Parkland Tree Board”. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.