Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tree Protection Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission reviews draft tree-protection and application-timing changes to community design rules
Summary
Staff introduced proposed amendments to codify tree protection, preservation and replacement in Chapter 4.25 and to adjust staff review timelines; commissioners asked for clarification on arborist requirements, measurement methods and fee-in-lieu options before further action.
On Nov. 21 staff presented draft amendments to the City of Olive tte’s community design regulations aimed at codifying tree protection, preservation and replacement requirements and adjusting administrative review timelines.
Carlos Trejo, identified in the meeting as director, said staff recommended adding a requirement to Chapter 4.25 so that tree-protection plans accompany new-home applications, sizeable additions and large accessory work. Trejo also proposed extending staff review time from 10 to 15 business days to allow more complete technical reviews and changing the placement rule so a completed application is placed on an agenda within 30 days of determination of completeness.
Commissioners discussed several implementation issues: when to require a certified arborist, whether to base protection standards on trunk caliper or canopy width, how to handle trees that cannot be preserved on small lots and fee-in-lieu options for replacement. Commissioner Daniel Rosenberg emphasized the three-dimensional nature of trees and asked staff to consider height and species when defining replacement standards. Commissioner Laura Ragsdale suggested the city include a pay-in-lieu option similar to neighboring Creve Coeur to fund forestry maintenance when on-site replacement is infeasible.
Trejo said the draft remains a work in progress and staff plans to refine the submission requirements, measurement standards and enforcement approach before returning to the commission; he also suggested inviting outside experts (horticulturalists or Botanical Gardens staff) for technical guidance. The commission agreed the amendments could be broken into separate votes (for example, timing changes separate from substantive tree-standards changes) to allow quicker adoption of procedural fixes while continuing work on technical standards.
The commission did not take final action on the draft but asked staff to return with refined language and a recommended sequence of votes.
