My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2015-10-07_PC_Agenda_Packet
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
2015 Agendas
>
2015-10-07_PC_Agenda_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/27/2016 12:44:20 PM
Creation date
4/27/2016 12:44:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
148
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
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 />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.