My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2020_0511_CCPacket
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2020
>
2020_0511_CCPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/7/2022 8:56:41 AM
Creation date
1/7/2022 8:56:29 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Agenda/Packets
Meeting Date
5/11/2020
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
149
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
ATTACHMENT D ATTACHMENT B <br />REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION <br />Date: February 10, 2020 <br />Item No.: 7.c <br />Department Approval City Manager Approval <br />Item Description: Discussion Regarding Cash-in-Lieu Tree Replacement Requirement <br />1 B ACKGROUND <br />2 On July 10, 2019 the Variance Board considered two different variance requests topermit reductions <br />3 to required tree replacement under City Code Section 1011.04.J.8(full ordinance provided as <br />4 Attachment C). The Variance Board requests were for single family lots recently formed through <br />5 subdivision and upon completion of the tree survey and determination of caliper inches of replacement, <br />6 the lots could not reasonably fit the required amount of trees. The variances requested were for 3056 <br />7 Hamline Avenue and 907 Burke Avenue and both were approved. Since those approvals, and in <br />8 preparation for this discussion, staff discovered the variance for 3056Hamline Avenue was not <br />9 necessary. Steps will be taken to make that applicant whole based on the email sent to Council on <br />10 February 4, 2020. The Variance Board packet materials for 907 Burke Avenue are provided as <br />11 Attachment A. <br />12 Both variances were granted based upon the practical difficulty that the lots were not large enough to <br />13 practically accommodate all the required tree replacement. Reduced cash-in-lieu fees (fee = $500/3 <br />14 caliper inches) were not discussed as part of the variance requests because economic considerations <br />15 shall not be sole considerations in approving or denying variances(this language is specifically <br />16 provided in the State Statute). More importantly, staff felt it was inappropriate for the Variance Board <br />17 to make reduced fee recommendations as this is typically a policy issue. Right or wrong, the variance <br />18 approvals resulted in no cash-in-lieu replacement penalties even though the ordinance does anticipate <br />19 replacement may be impractical due to lack of space. For this reason, staff seeks direction on how to <br />20 resolve specific situations where unreasonably high cash-in-lieu fees result. <br />21 At the joint Planning Commission and City Council meeting held on November 25, 2019, the Planning <br />22 Commission expressed interest in advancing a code amendment tothe tree preservation ordinance to <br />23 prevent unreasonably high costs associated with the cash-in-lieu tree replacement fee. Rather than <br />24 direct the Planning Commission to undergo such process, the Council requested further information <br />25 from staff prior to providing direction on a code amendment. The purpose of thisrequest is to provide <br />26 information sufficient to understand the perceived problem and outline an array of possible solutions, <br />27 which range from do nothing to amend the ordinance. Staff would note, in light of the variance for <br />28 3056 Hamline Avenue being unnecessary, the urgency or need to make any changes is lessened. <br />29 Should the Council be interested in exploring a code amendment aimed at preventing unreasonably <br />30 high cash-in-lieu penalties when goodfaith steps have been taken to plant as many trees as is <br />31 practically possible, staff offers two likely options: <br />32 Decrease the cash-in-lieu cap, which currently is 10% of the fair market value of the <br />33 development site. The cap could be a flat amount based on the use (single family, multi-family, <br />Page 1 of 2 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.