Laserfiche WebLink
Memorandum <br />10-06-15 <br />DATE: <br />Roseville Planning Commission <br />TO: <br />Ben Gozola, AICP <br />FROM: <br />Tree Preservation Ordinance Final Draft <br />SUBJECT: <br />Overview <br />Utilizing direction from the Planning Commission and City Council in July, Sambatek and <br />S&S Tree have completed work on an updated tree preservation ordinance for commission <br />consideration. The language before you, at the request of City Council, was pre-reviewed <br />by Council in September, and their feedback and direction has been addressed in this final <br />draft. To review, the general goals we were asked to achieve with this new language <br />included: <br />Needing to identify a solid purpose for the regulations. <br />Categorize by tree type in some manner (i.e. High Quality Trees, Common Trees, Less <br />Desirable Trees, Remove/Prohibited), but be more generalized in what we’re protecting <br />(recognizing the public wants a 24” Cottonwood protected just as much as a 24” Oak). <br />Provide incentives to preserving trees. <br />Require an easy-to-read and understand “tree loss” plan with development applications (i.e. <br />the tree inventory + grading plan impacts = tree preservation plan). <br />Consider limiting allowed removals (i.e. don’t allow all trees in planned ROW to be removed <br />outright). <br />Require tree protection fencing during development <br />Don’t make individual property owners jump through permitting hoops to remove trees <br />Ensure proper City review both before and after development. <br />Consider implementing a cash-in-lieu of trees program that could fund trees for public <br />grounds, open space, boulevards, or even a subsidized program for private plantings. <br /> <br />