CCP 02222021 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Question regarding Motion C of planning Commission Agenda 7.b, Feb 3, 2021: RCA Attachment D Janice Gunlach, Community Development Director, has said, “The idea behind the \[tree\] ordinance is to 1 motivate people to redevelop in a way that preserves the big trees,” Gundlach has said. This plan instead destroys 26 of 28 Heritage trees and 162 of 197 Signficant trees. There is a tug of war here: Line 126 of the report essentially states that, if we argue to save trees and for less density, we are arguing for developments of greater density, perhaps 1 to 3 tall buildings instead of single-family homes, which I and neighbors I have talked with definitely do not want. I think this is a false dichotomy but nonetheless the threat or risk is there. I have previously made clear my views about limiting development in order to mitigate climate change, which affects public health and general welfare, issues that development plans must not compromise. I stand by this conviction and urge the commission to take this into consideration here. However, the City, I now know, is enormously invested in this development. I wish that residents living in close proximity had been specifically notified earlier in the process. So my question for you today is this: would you consider a revision to the “preliminary plat” 2 design? – a revision that would preserve the neighborhood character and our unique sense of place in this woodsy neighborhood, preserve a noise and privacy buffer, and most importantly preserve and make room for replacement trees that sink carbon, purify the air, and help to keep the lake healthy? Specifically, would you consider moving the placement of the monument sign to the south of the new road and eliminate Lot 1 in order to reserve a wooded area composed of existing and replacement trees. This would provide a little of the woodsy feel along Galtier Street that is valued by neighbors for their “beauty, importance to the environment, and positive impact on property values”—values that the city recognizes in their introduction to the code regarding tree 3 preservation. In their appeal to the city council regarding park fees, the developers have stated that because “the land north of the road adjacent to the lake is quite small, provides a much-needed amenity for our future 4 Owners.” I put forth that the woods that we see and enjoy along Galtier is a much-needed amenity for current residents of the neighborhood. When you consider Motion C, and I ask the planning commission to not pass the motion as is, but instead to revise the preliminary plat plan down to 19 homes, with the area currently marked as Lot 1 reserved for existing and replacement trees, and with the monument sign moved to the south of the road, thereby addressing in some degree the concerns I and my neighbors have expressed and the values we hold in common. 1 https://www.startribune.com/roseville-lowers-tree-replacement-fees-for-single-family- development/570412852/ 2 Preliminary Plat design of The Enclave at McCarrons Lake, document 7401, materials for agenda item 7.B, p. 14 3 http://www.cityofroseville.com/DocumentCenter/View/18795/14d--Tree-Preservation-and-Restoration-in-All- Districts?bidId=, Attachment E, p. 2, lines 60-66 4 Agenda item, City Council meeting Feb 5 2021, letter from Airborne MCcarrons, dated Dec 11, Page 9 of 51 2020