2015-10-07_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, October 7, 2015 Page 2 broad goals brought forward at the initial July 2015 meeting, purpose for the ordinance, 45 and desire to provide incentives to preserve trees in the community without 46 overburdening individual property owners while ensuring proper oversight of this valuable 47 community asset. 48 Mr. Gozola reviewed attachments included in the meeting packet, including Attachment D 49 providing a clean copy of the draft tree preservation ordinance for tonight’s review and 50 public comment. Mr. Gozola reviewed cover memoranda related to tonight’s discussion 51 providing explanations of each section as well as areas where additional feedback was 52 being sought based on reviews to-date at various levels. 53 Previous Ordinance 1011.04 54 Mr. Gozola advised that language retained from the previous Tree Preservation 55 Ordinance was not incorporated into Section 4 of the new draft ordinance and outlined in 56 the Memorandum to Attachment D dated October 6, 2015 related to this proposed final 57 draft. 58 Mr. Gozola advised that note item to note was revision of “specimen” trees to “significant” 59 trees. 60 Mr. Gozola also noted that Attachment A had been mission specifics for “cash in lieu of” 61 payments as an option for tree locations or relocations as applicable, with Attachment B, 62 lines 344 – 346 now addressing that area based on best practices and guarding against 63 claims that fees may be deemed unreasonable. Ms. Gozola noted that in accordance 64 with the City of Roseville’s policy to establish fees by policy or resolution rather than in 65 specific ordinances, fees were not included in the proposed draft ordinance. 66 In an effort to provide examples of practical application of the ordinance using previous 67 developments in Roseville (e.g. Cherrywood Point, Pulte Homes), Mr. Gozola reviewed 68 how those comparisons would address tree inventories and differentials between the two 69 ordinances, including how numbers would be impacted or exemptions applied, even 70 though he admitted it was difficult to compare apples to apples in those cases. 71 For discussion purposes and to avoid confusion, Mr. Gozola suggested using the draft 72 ordinance provided as a bench handout (Revised Attachment B) as the reference going 73 forward. 74 Commission Discussion/Questions 75 Page 1, line 27, Member Bull questioned multi-stem trees (e.g. Birch) and rationale for 76 measuring them as one tree using the diameter breast height (DBH) of the largest stem 77 only. 78 Mr. Rehder responded that any species could be multi-stemmed and required a method 79 to calculate their DBH, using Boxelder Trees cut down multiple times as an example that 80 would require a protection zone. Mr. Rehder stated that this language attempted to 81 address anomalies with multi-stem trees, clarifying that if a single trunk was large 82 enough, it would still fall into the heritage tree category and have potential as a 83 preservation tree providing justification for doing so. 84 Page 1, line 22-25, Member Bull referenced examples of trees with 4” caliper inch being 85 not measured, questioning therefore if anything under 6” would be considered or rated as 86 one 12” tree. 87 Along those same lines, Member Cunningham further questioned if the main tree trunk is 88 at breast height and then splits after that, would it still be considered one tree. 89 Mr. Rehder responded affirmatively, that the height would typically be used (above breast 90 height). Mr. Rehder further noted that generally multi-tem trees already had a strike 91 against them depending on whether or not trunks were pushing together, as they were 92 considered not ideal trees, and would be difficult to consider as a heritage tree if they 93 already had a pre-existing condition making them non-preferred heritage trees. 94