My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2021_0222_CCPacket
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2021
>
2021_0222_CCPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/13/2022 2:14:46 PM
Creation date
1/13/2022 2:06:14 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
778
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
3 <br />1. Remove the maximum of $58,000 (10% of assessed land value) cash-in-lieu payment. (The assessed <br />land value at this point is much lower than the proposed sale price and the final sale prices to be <br />achieved by the developer!) <br />2. Require the planting of native trees from Minnesota seed sources. <br />3. Require more payment for trees in the 'right-of-way', utility and road space considering the <br />development proposes a road 620 foot long instead of the 500 foot maximum allowed by city code. <br />4. Require keeping trees numbered heritage trees 341, 339, 344, and 397. Large trees sequester more <br />carbon, provide more animal habitat and provide seed for future generations of trees. Redesign <br />development around these trees considering the plan proposed currently proposing keeping 2 of 28 <br />Heritage trees and 35 of 197 Significant trees. Those are unacceptable few saved Heritage and <br />Significant trees. I would bet those trees could be saved with the current zoning of 3 houses (they'd be <br />major selling points). It's up to the developer to justify 20 lots. Reserving lots 12 and 13 in the current <br />house lot proposal map, would save 3 Heritage trees and allow the bike route a much safer and more <br />direct route through from Marion St to the Ramsey Cty Park. <br />5. Keeping more trees is prudent considering the possibility that these lots might not sell. In that case <br />hundreds of trees will be removed by the developer without houses being built (for a number of years at <br />least). This doesn't take into account that the current owner appears to have removed a hundred or more <br />trees, probably most buckthorn (a good thing overall) in preparation for the sale. <br />6. A final note detail. Anderson company should specify the species of elm inventoried. Some are native <br />others are invasive. <br /> <br />Thank you for your consideration and response, even if brief. <br />Andrew Montain <br /> <br /> <br />RCA Attachment D <br />Page 30 of 51
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.