CC_Minutes_2014_1117 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, November 17, 2014 Page 30 sis be placed on saving heritage versus cutting them down and replacing them with a bunch of sticks. Councilmember Willmus opined that it was interesting to look at the classification of invasive and non-invasive trees, and suggested that distinction needed to be re- viewed by staff. Councilmember Willmus further asked if the City's Tree Board, as a role of the Parks &Recreation Commission, had weighed in on this issue yet, and suggested they convene more frequently to do so during this process beyond the Planning Commission's initial review. Councilmember Willmus suggested the Tree Board and current part-time City Forester weigh in on this and any re- vised document. On the other side, Councilmember Willmus sought to assure all that he was not proposing to clear-cut Roseville; but when reviewing Roseville history, it was largely agricultural space at its inception, and when going back to the 1950's and 1960's, it not very heavily forested. Councilmember Willmus not- ed that a lot of the cover seen today is fairly recent; and suggested it be something to be aware of, and not as a solution by any means, but supported some effort to protect what's occurred since the City's inception. Councilmember Etten thanked staff for their time with this ordinance; and ex- pressed his general support of it and staff's suggestions. On page 2, line 62, Councilmember Etten questioned what was appropriate for inches. Mr. Bilotta responded that there was currently one standard for conifers and one for deciduous trees with the same formula used but addressing two different lan- guages. Mr. Bilotta suggested reclassifying that to address those different trees and trade offs for whatever trees is appropriate versus being required to replace it with the same type removed. Councilmember Etten noted the need to reduce diameter requirements if adding conifers; and asked where the line was for tree preservation or replacement if the ordinance required too many trees that would impede development to happen, or place them in the easement, or other things that could dramatically increase the number of trees to be replaced of preserved, and where could a balance be achieved(page 3, line 106). Mr. Bilotta advised that staff was in discussions at this point about ideas that made sense and recalibration of those standards. Mr. Bilotta advised that part of that review would include staff reviewing approved developments over the last few years and consider them under new scenarios, including easements and rights-of-way issues, as well as other city regulations comparisons. On page 5 specific to the grading and tree preservation plans, Councilmember Et- ten suggested an overlay that would provide better clarity and clearly show how replanting may or may not impact a parcel and development.