My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2015_1116_CCpacket
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2015
>
2015_1116_CCpacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/21/2015 3:07:16 PM
Creation date
11/12/2015 4:19:40 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.
/
300
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 A <br />City of Roseville <br />11-16-15 <br />Page 2 <br />Proposed Ordinance <br />The new ordinance language is organized as follows <br />(A) Intent and Purpose — The intent and purpose section draws from both the existing ordinance and <br />the City's past Arbor Day resolutions to explain why these regulations are necessary. <br />(B) Applicability — Rather than tie these new regulations to a term like "land alteration," we've elected <br />to identify already existing permit applications that would trigger tree preservation requirements: <br />a. Platting, re-platting, or any lot division; <br />b. Any building permit for a new principal structure, or any building permit that would expand <br />the footprint of an existing principal structure by more than 50%; <br />c. Demolition permits that would remove 50% or more of a principal structure; <br />d. A grading permit that triggers erosion control permit requirements. <br />Each of the above application types would need to provide a tree preservation plan set prior to the <br />application being deemed "complete" City staff. Note that subdivision (B)(2) adds protection against <br />a landowner preemptively removing trees in an attempt to circumvent tree preservation <br />requirements. Subdivision (B)(3) clarifies that if greater tree preservation requirements apply due to <br />other code provisions, the more restrictive standard will apply. <br />(C) Exemptions — to ensure clarity on things that are not covered by this ordinance, we list upfront that <br />tree removal for city public improvement projects or repairs AND emergency removal of trees to <br />protect public health are outright allowed and are not subject to tree preservation or replacement <br />standards. <br />(D) Trees Required to be Inventoried — In recognition that the general public values green vegetation <br />and isn't necessarily fixated on the quality of trees, we have deviated from inventorying only specific <br />tree types in favor of inventorying ALL trees that meet a minimum size regardless of their health or <br />quality. <br />(E) Tree Classifications — Whereas subsection "D" identifies everything that must be inventoried, this <br />section recognizes that not all inventoried trees will carry the same level of importance. Getting back <br />to the fact that "a tree is a tree" in the eyes of the public, large trees (regardless of species) are <br />given higher classifications than smaller trees. Note that small trees that are either rare or of <br />exceptional quality can be assigned a higher classification if deemed exceptional by a forester, or if <br />approved by the City Forester to be a focal point of a development. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.