Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAshland_1250_PA-2015-01212 CITY F ASHLAND September 18, 2015 Notice of Final Decision On September 18, 2015, the Community Development Director approved the request for the following: Planning Action: 2015-01212 Subject Property: 1250 Ashland Street Applicant: Southern Oregon University Description: A request for a minor modification to a Site Review Permit (PA2014-00249) in the form of a Tree Removal Permit. The applicant previously designated five trees to be preserved during a remodel construction of the university's science building. The applicant is now requesting the subject trees to be removed for various reasons. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Southern Oregon University; ZONING: SO; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 lE 15BB; TAX LOT: 100 The Community Development Director's decision becomes final and is effective on the 12th day after the Notice of Final Decision is mailed. Approval is valid for a period of 18 months and all conditions of approval identified on the attached Findings are required to be met prior to project completion. The application, all associated documents and evidence submitted, and the applicable criteria are available for review at the Ashland Community Development Department, located at 51 Winburn Way. Copies of file documents can be requested and are charged based on the City of Ashland copy fee schedule. Prior to the final decision date, anyone who was mailed this Notice of Final Decision may request a reconsideration of the action as set forth in the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) 18.5.1.050(F) and/or file an appeal to the Ashland Planning Commission as provided in ALUO 18.5.1.050(G). The ALUO sections covering reconsideration and appeal procedures are attached. The appeal may not be made directly to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals. If you have any questions regarding this decision, please contact Mark Schexnayder in the Community Development Department at (541) 488-5305. cc: Parties of record and property owners within 200 ft COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 51 Winbum Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us t ~ SECTION 18.5.1.050 Type I Procedure (Administrative Decision with Notice) E. Effective Date of Decision. Unless the conditions of approval specify otherwise or the decision is appealed pursuant to subsection 18.5.1.050.G, a Type I decision becomes effective 12 days after the City mails the notice of decision. F. Reconsideration. The Staff Advisor may reconsider a Type I decision as set forth below. 1. Any party entitled to notice of the planning action, or any City department may request reconsideration of the action after the decision has been made by providing evidence to the Staff Advisor that a factual error occurred through no fault of the party asking for reconsideration, which in the opinion of the Staff Advisor, might affect the decision. Reconsideration requests are limited to factual errors and not the failure of an issue to be raised by letter or evidence during the opportunity to provide public input on the application sufficient to afford the Staff Advisor an opportunity to respond to the issue prior to making a decision. 2. Reconsideration requests shall be received within five days of mailing the notice of decision. The Staff Advisor shall decide within three days whether to reconsider the matter. 3. If the Staff Advisor is satisfied that an error occurred crucial to the decision, the Staff Advisor shall withdraw the decision for purposes of reconsideration. The Staff Advisor shall decide within ten days to affirm, modify, or reverse the original decision. The City shall send notice of the reconsideration decision to affirm, modify, or reverse to any party entitled to notice of the planning action. 4. If the Staff Advisor is not satisfied that an error occurred crucial to the decision, the Staff Advisor shall deny the reconsideration request. Notice of denial shall be sent to those parties that requested reconsideration. G. Appeal of Type I Decision. A Type I decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission, pursuant to the following: 1. Who May Appeal. The following persons have standing to appeal a Type I decision. a. The applicant or owner of the subject property: b. Any person who is entitled to written notice of the Type I decision pursuant to subsection 18.5.1.050.B. c. Any other person who participated in the proceeding by submitting written comments on the application to the City by the specified deadline. 2. Appeal Filing Procedure. a. Notice of Appeal. Any person with standing to appeal, as provided in subsection 18.5.1.050. G. 1, above, may appeal a Type I decision by filing a notice of appeal and paying the appeal fee according to the procedures of this subsection. The fee required in this section shall not apply to appeals made by neighborhood or community organizations recognized by the City and whose boundaries include the site. If an appellant prevails at the hearing or upon subsequent appeal, the fee for the initial hearing shall be refunded. b. Time for Filing. A notice of appeal shall be filed with the Staff Advisor within 12 days of the date the notice of decision is mailed. c. Content of Notice of Appeal. The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by the required filing fee and shall contain. i. An identification of the decision being appealed, including the date of the decision. ii. A statement demonstrating the person filing the notice of appeal has standing to appeal. iii. A statement explaining the specific issues being raised on appeal. iv. A statement demonstrating that the appeal issues were raised during the public comment period. d. The appeal requirements of this section must be fully met or the appeal will be considered by the City as a jurisdictional defect and will not be heard or considered. 3. Scope of Appeal. Appeal hearings on Type I decisions made by the Staff Advisor shall be de novo hearings before the Planning Commission. The appeal shall not be limited to the application materials, evidence and other documentation, and specific issues raised in the review leading up to the Type I decision, but may include other relevant evidence and arguments. The Commission may allow additional evidence, testimony, or argument concerning any relevant ordinance provision. 4. Appeal Hearing Procedure. Hearings on appeals of Type I decisions follow the Type II public hearing procedures, pursuant to section 18.5.1.060, subsections A - E, except that the decision of the Planning Commission is the final decision of the City on an appeal of a Type I decision. A decision on an appeal is final the date the City mails the adopted and signed decision. Appeals of Commission decisions must be filed with the State Land Use Board of Appeals, pursuant to ORS 197.805 - 197.860. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 51 Winbum Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION FINDINGS & ORDERS PLANNING ACTION: PA #2015-01212 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1250 Ashland Street APPLICANT/OWNER: Southern Oregon University DESCRIPTION: A request for a modification of the Tree Preservation and Protection Plan approved as part of PA #2014-00249 to allow the removal of five (5) trees previously required to be preserved for the property at 1250 Ashland Street. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Southern Oregon University; ZONING: SO; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1E 15BB; TAX LOT: 100. SUBMITTAL DATE: June 23, 2015 DEEMED COMPLETE DATE: July 1, 2015 STAFF APPROVAL DATE: September 18, 2015 APPEAL DEADLINE: September 30, 2015 FINAL DECISION DATE: September 30, 2015 APPROVAL EXPIRATION DATE: March 30, 2017 DECISION The subject property is located at 1250 Ashland Street, on the South side of Ashland Street near the corner with Roca Street. The parcel is roughly rectangular shaped and approximately 15.17 acres in area. The Southern Oregon University (SOU) Science Building has recent undergone a major restoration and interior remodel. There are several large trees located adjacent to the SOU Science Building that are proposed for removal. A Site Design Review (PA# 2014-00249) was approved for the property in 2014. The applicant's proposal was for a major restoration and interior remodel of the SOU Science Building. In addition, all the HVAC, plumbing, electrical, and lighting systems were to be replaced. In granting the approval, staff noted that we would generally be concerned with screening requirements for the new mechanical equipment; however, in this case the applicant stated that since the existing mechanical equipment is visible above an existing six foot parapet and there are several large trees in the vicinity that effectively screen the equipment, the applicant requested and was granted an exception to the Site Design and Use Standards to not provide vision or noise screening for the new equipment atop the SOU Science Building. In conjunction with that approval, the applicants were required to provide a Tree Preservation and Protection Plan detailing code-required measures to preserve and protect the trees during the development of the property. The current request involves a modification of the Tree Preservation and Protection Plan previously approved as part of PA #2014-00249, and requests the removal of five of the trees previously identified as a basis for the exception to Site Design and Use Standards for screening and proposed for preservation and protection. The application materials provided note that the restoration and remodel of the SOU Science Building is well under way, and the five trees which were originally proposed to be saved would now be more appropriately removed due to potential hazards to buildings and pedestrians. PA #2015-01212 1250 Ashland StreeVMMS Page 1 The applicant states that there were two mature mulberry trees (#9 & #10 as identified on the Tree Protection Plan Addendum Sheet L 1.0) in the front courtyard of the SOU Science Building. One of these trees was badly damaged as a result of a water line replacement and the other is suffering because of ongoing construction. The applicant proposes to replace these two trees with two Tilia x euchlora. The three additional trees (#27;#28;#30 as identified on the Tree Protection Plan Addendum Sheet L 1.0) are proposed for removal because of their proximity to the SOU Science Building. These trees were not initially part of the tree removal request because they were originally outside of the assigned scope of work for the renovation of the SOU Science Building and this modification to the approved Tree Protection Plan includes an inventory of all trees adjacent to the building structure. The application includes a report from I.S.A.-certified arborist Mike Oxendine a Landscape Supervisor for Southern Oregon University. The arborist notes that Tree #27 is located directly adjacent to the Southeast corner of the SOU Science Building, measures 25.7-inches in diameter at breast height, and is approximately 50 feet in height. He notes that at the time of his observation the tree's trunk is touching the SOU Science Building. He indicates that in his opinion the tree likely volunteered to grow in this location. He recommends that the tree be removed and replaced as soon as reasonable. The arborist notes that Tree #28 is located on the Southeast corner of the SOU Science Building, measures 45.7-inches in diameter at breast height, and is approximately 90-100 feet in height. The tree is noted as having developed multiple co-dominate apical leaders. The arborist notes that these co-dominate leaders have weak attachments and are likely to fail. Also noted in the arborist's report is that the tree is in close proximity to the SOU Science Building. The trunk of this tree is 50-52 inches from the building and at the current growth rate; the tree will push up against the structure within the next 10-15 years, which would then necessitate removal. Much of the trees root zone has been affected by excavation and construction work. The arborist notes that there has been trenching within the dripline of the tree. He notes that proper pruning would substantially increase safety, and the tree could possibly be enjoyed for more years before necessitating removal. However, he explains that if the tree is left to grow in its current situation it will cause damage to the building within the next 10-15 years. Due to these conditions, he concludes that the costs and resources required to facilitate removal of the tree will continue to increase as the tree grows. Tree # 30, as noted in the arborist's report, is a healthy specimen located near the East Entrance of the SOU Science Building. The tree is approximately 18-inches in diameter at breast height, and is 50 feet in height. The arborist notes that the tree is very healthy overall, but recommends removal because it is in close proximity to the new building and entrance expansions. Subsequent to the Notice of Complete Application, neighbors submitted written comments expressing concerns about the proposed tree removals. Neighbors Jim and Vicki Chamberlain submitted a letter and neighborhood petition that includes 20 signatures from concerned neighbors. The letter explains that newly installed HVAC equipment on the roof of the SOU Science Building is creating problems with excessive noise and notes that trees around the building help to screen neighboring properties. Neighbor Chelsea Davis also submitted a letter of concern with regards to the proposed tree removal. She notes one reason Southern Oregon University was given an exemption from providing screening for the HVAC equipment was that the existing trees act as sufficient noise and sound barriers for the surrounding properties and neighborhood. They further note that the application is unclear as to whether the request is for hazard or non-hazard removal, and that the arborist report makes no mention of the trees as hazards. The neighbors suggest that planting mitigation trees might effectively mitigate the significant negative impact of removing these very PA 92015-01212 1250 Ashland StreeVMMS Page 2 large, mature trees. The neighbors further express concern that the Tree Protection Plan has not been followed, as recognized in the application materials, and continues to be disregarded. The Tree Commission reviewed the request at its regular meeting in July of 2015, approved the requested removals, and made a recommendation to plant evergreens of at least three inches in diameter at breast height as mitigation for the tree removal. In staff's assessment, given the arborist's report trees # 9, 10, 27, 28, and 30 meet the criteria for removal of a hazard tree because existing conditions present a safety risk to pedestrians and structures. The tree removal is approved on that basis, and a condition of approval has been added below to require that its removal be mitigated with the planting of an appropriately selected tree of at least three-inches in diameter at breast height. The removal of the tree's identified as Trees # 9, 10, 27, 28, and 3 0 as identified on the Tree Protection Plan Addendum Sheet L 1.0 is approved as Planning Action #2015-01212 with the following conditions. Further, if any one or more of the following conditions are found to be invalid for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2015-01212 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: 1) That the all requirements of the original approval shall remain in effect unless otherwise specifically modified herein, including but not limited to that the Tree Protection Plan shall remain in effect, and all tree protection measures followed, until site work is completed. 2) That the applicants shall mark Trees # 10, 27, 28, and 30 for removal with pink tape or similar identification measures and request a Tree Verification Permit inspection prior to the removal of Trees # 10, 27, 28, and 30. The Verification Permit allows the Staff Advisor to inspect the identification of the tree(s) to be removed and to verify that the tree protection fencing remains in place for the remaining trees. Removal shall not occur until the Tree Verification inspection has been approved by the Staff Advisor. 3) That appropriately selected mitigation trees, one for each tree removed, of at least three-inches in diameter at breast height and preferably evergreen shall be planted on the South side of the SOU Science Building to mitigate the removal of Trees # 10, 27, 28, and 30. The mitigation trees shall be i g ed. zO AA 41--- =De;of lna Dctor Date Community Development PA 42015-01212 1250 Ashland Street/MMS Page 3 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Jackson ) The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: 1. 1 am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department. 2. On September 18, 2015 1 caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached planning action notice to each person listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on this list under each person's name for Planning Action #2015-01212, 1250 Ashland Street, NOD. Signature of Employee Documenll 911812015 PA-2015-01212 391E16AA 7400 PA-2015-01212 391E16AA 8700 PA-2015-01212 391E15BB 100 ARCHDIOCESE OF PORTLAND ORE BELSKY STEVEN P TRUSTEE ET AL BOARD/REGENTS/NORMAL SCHOOL 2838 E BURNSIDE ST 609 ELKADER 1250 SISKIYOU BLVD PORTLAND, OR 97214 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2015-01212 391E15BB 8000 PA-2015-01212 391E16AA 8200 PA-2015-01212 39IE16AA 8600 BROWN WILLARD L TRUSTEE ET AL CHAMBERLAIN JIM A/VICTORIA CLEARY CLOSE FAMILY TRUST ET 630 LEONARD ST 591 ELKADER ST 1328 AVOSET TERR ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 SUNNYVALE, CA 94087 PA-2015-01212 391E16AA 8300 PA-2015-01212 391E15BB 9300 SPA-2015-01212 391E16AA 8000 DAVIS CHELSEA DE LORENZO C/SUSAN EINHORN GARY A TRUSTEE ET AL 595 ELKADER ST 650 MONROE ST 580 S MOUNTAIN AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2015-01212 391E16AA 7800 PA-2015-01212 391E15BB 2100 PA-2015-01212 391E15BB 1200 ENGLE MARY LOU FOERDER ALAN H HALD JACQUE JEAN TRUSTEE ET AL 565 ELKADER j 1257 SISKIYOU BLVD 25 600 ROCA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 i I PA-2015-01212 391E16AA 8400 PA-2015-01212 391E15BB 2000 PA-2015-01212 391E15BB 9000 HENDERSON DANA M TRUSTEE ET JONES THOMAS E TRUSTEE ET AL LEPLEY CARIM ALAN/DAMSTRA- 1339 NW HAWTHORNE AVE 1 605 ROCA ST 260 WELLS FARGO DR GRANTS PASS, OR 97526 ASHLAND, OR 97520 JACKSONVILLE, OR 97530 I PA-2015-01212 391E15BB 8900 PA-2015-01212 391E15BB 7901 PA-2015-01212 391E16AA 7700 LEPLEY SACHA LYNDA/WIL,DGUST 1 LYNCH NICHOLAS MARTIN SUSAN L TRUSTEE ET AL 935 HUNTER LN 1280 MADRONE ST 5021 FOOTHILLS RD D SANTA ROSA, CA 95404 ;III ASHLAND, OR 97520 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 i PA-2015-01212 391EI5BB 1900 PA-2015-01212 391E15BB 9100 PA-2015-01212 391E15BA 1300 NIEDERMEYER PAUL A TRUSTEE ET NUTTER JERRY ORE STATE/BOARD HIGHER ED/ 1497 WINDSOR ST 1336 MADRONE ST 11250 SISKIYOU BLVD ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ! ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2015-01212 391E15BA 1100 OREGON STATE OF PA-2015-01212 391E16AA 8100 PA-2015-01212 391E15BB 8100 UNIVERSITY OF OREGON SAMEH SARAH ! SHEPHERD DANIEL P/AUSHNA A P.O. BOX 3175 230 STRAWBERRY LN 650 LEAONARD ST EUGENE, OR 97401 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 III PA-2015-01212 391E15BB 2900 PA-2015-01212 391E15BB 7900 PA-2015-01212 'JIM STONE JEWELL V SULLIVAN MICHAEL E/SANDRA M MCNAMARA 588 ELKADER 127 WALNUT PL 351 WALKER AVENUE ASHLAND, OR 97520 PHOENIX, OR 97535 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2015-01212 PA-2015-01212 PA-2015-01212 KERRY KENCAIRN GARY ARRAS !LINDA/RONALD CUE 545 A STREET ~:588 ELKADER 1155 FERN STREET ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 j ASHLAND, OR 97520 i ' PA-2015-01212 PA-2015-01212 PA-2015-01212 PRESCOTT LEWIS WOLFGANG/KRISTIN HOPPE j ART BADEN 585 ROCA STREET 1116 FERN ST. 1112 FERN ST. ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 i j I PA-2015-01212 PA-2015-01212 j PA-2015-01212 LAURA/DENIS DAVIDSON TONI RICHMOND JUDY/DICK PEDDICORD 605 ELK ADER NICK SINDERSON j564 S MOUNTAIN ASHLAND, OR 97520 562 S MOUNTAIN ;ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2015-01212 PA-2015-01212 PA-2015-01212 ;SMIT VASQUEZ CABALLERO LAURA BADEN ! KATHY UHTOFF MARIE CABALLERO UHTOFF 1120 FERN STREET 633 ROCA !633 A ROCA ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2015-01212 BRYAN E. JONES 605 ROCA ASHLAND, OR 97520 III 'I I' II III 1 j II Ilj III 'I I I: i _ - III ~ilj ~ i I ~'j III I! ~I I I j i I +i ,•1 III i1 I1 ~ I I I li 14 ' r I' 1,g91r,t1 i 1I i r r , I• r •r I , Ian ( r .,1 11'I 1 II; I ~ r + IA r 1 +f; a" ~ I L 1 I ~ I . it IFS Iii `til.,, I a ~ ~I d ly,•Ir! ,~,j I ~'",'II I'ldl l!)I: Lei's` iy: u M 9 t4'1 .~''d x,111 ~!I',I .a.,1y;;~y h~iy•~ ,I •,i E p III q r~'~ fj? 1 ~ +1 I, I € e w , 3 j 1+4' A I it'll t Mark Schexnaycfer From: Drew [gilliland@sou.edu] Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 12:43 PM To: Mark Schexnayder Subject: Fwd: Tree Risk Assessment Form- Incense Cedar Science Attachments: Tree Risk Assessment 1- Incense Cedar E. Side Science.pdf; ATT00102.htm Sorry Max, See attached Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Michael Oxendine <oxendinem@sou.edu> Date: September 2, 2015 at 12:28:08 PM PDT To: "Gilliland, Drew" <gilliland(ae,sou.edu>, James McNamara <mcnamarajk sou.edu> Subject: Fwd: Tree Risk Assessment Form- Incense Cedar Science Hey Drew, This was saved as a draft, I never sent it. Sorry about that. Here is the tree assessment that Tate conducted on Tree #30 at Science. Could one of you forward it along to the correct people? Forwarded message From: Tate Dunn <dunnt =,sou.edu> Date: Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 11:18 AM Subject: Tree Risk Assessment Form- Incense Cedar Science To: Michael Oxendine <oxendinem a,sou.edu> Mike Oxendine Southern Oregon University Landscaping, Equipment, and Motor pool Supervisor Office: 541-552-6117 h f tp s: //y o u t u, b e /Ski 0 Mz P d SI M i Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form % - 't Client Southern Oregon University Date 08/24/2015 Time 3:00 pm Address/Tree location SOU Science Building East Entrance Tree no. 1 Sheet 1 of 1 Tree species Calocedrus decurrens dbh I R" Height 50' Crown spread dia. 20' Assessor(s) Tate Dunn-PN8062A Time frame 1 Year Tools used Measuring Tape Target Assessment Target zone Occupancy + `w c = c rate c 12 0 m Ems' v X = 1-rare m m r g Target description 'a m e 3 x 2-occasional F. F ..t+ 4 3-frequent H 3 4-constant a E z a 1 Entrance/Walkwa Yes Yes Yes 3 No No 2 Buildin E. Side Yes Yes Yes 3 No No 3 4 Site Factors History of failures None. Overall, a very healthy tree. Topography FlatU Slope❑ 1 % Aspect N.E. Site changes None❑ Gradechange® Siteclearing❑ Changed soilhydrology® Rootcuts❑ Describe Soil conditions Limited volume ❑ Saturated 11 Shallow2 Compacted❑ Pavement over roots0 95% Describe new cement poured Prevailing wind direction S. Common weather Strong winds U Ice ❑ Snow❑ Heavy rainy Describe Typically 2 big storms/year Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low ❑ Normal ® High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal) ❑ None (dead) ❑ Normal 100 % Chlorotic % Necrotic % Pests Abiotic Large Boom Lift Species failure profile Branches❑ Trunk❑ Roots❑ Describe Load Factors Windexposure Protected® Partial❑ FUII❑ Windfunneling❑ Relative crown size Small❑ Medium® Large❑ Crown density Sparse D Normal [21 Dense O Interior branches Few O Normal ® Dense El Vines/Mistletoe/Moss ❑ Recent or planned change in load factors Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure - Crown and Branches - Unbalanced crown ❑ LCR 30% Cracks ❑ Lightning damage ❑ Dead twigs/branches ® __2_.%overall Max. dia. 3" Codominant ❑ Included bark ❑ Broken/Hangers Number Max. dia. Weak attachments ❑ Cavity/Nest hole %circ. Over-extended branches ❑ Previous branch failures ❑ Similar branches present ❑ Pruning history Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised p Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Lion-tailed ❑ Conks El Heartwood decay ❑ Flush cuts ❑ Other Response growth Main concern(s) Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑ Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ -Trunk - - Roots and Root Collar - Dead/Missing bark ❑ Abnormal bark texture/color ❑ Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem girdling ❑ Codominant stems ❑ Included bark ❑ Cracks ❑ Dead ❑ Decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sap ooze ❑ Ooze ❑ Cavity ❑ % circ. Lightning damage ❑ Heartwood decay❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots ® Distance from trunk Cavity/Nest hole %circ. Depth Poortaper ❑ Root plate lifting ❑ Soil weakness ❑ Lean ° Corrected? Response growth Response growth Main concern(s) Main concern(s) Load on defect N/A 121 Minor D Moderate D Significant El Load on defect N/A l;3 Minor El Moderate ❑ Significant O Likelihood of failure ~Ilkpe l ihood of failure Improbable Possible ❑ Probable ❑ mminent Imrobable ® Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent El Page I of 2 Mark Schexnayder_ From: Mark Schexnayder [mark. schexnayder@ashland. or.us] Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 12:49 PM To: 'kerry@kencairnlandscape. com'; 'oxendinem@sou.edu'; 'gilliland@sou.edu'; 'mcnamaraj@sou.edu' Subject: 1250 Ashland - Modification to Site Review Permit (PA-2014-00249) for a Tree Removal Permit Hello, Thank you for providing the Arborist's Report for trees numbered 27 & 28 as identified on the modified Tree Protection and Removal Plan (L 1.0 dated June 11, 2015). However, before making a final decision staff is requesting that the applicant provide an additional arborist inventory of the health and hazard for tree number 30 identified on the modified Tree Protection and Removal Plan (L 1.0 dated June 11, 2015). Once this information is received the Director will have all the information required to render a decision. All the best, Mark Schexnayder, Assistant Planner City of Ashland, Community Development Department 20 E. Main St., Ashland, OR 97520 541.552.2044 Tel 800.735.2900 TTY 541.552.2050 Fax This email transmission is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon Public Records Law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please contact me at 541.552.2044. Thank you. I i i 1 t Tree Recommendations for Science Oj c July 2 5, 2 0 15 Tree 28 Sequoia se pervirens: i The prime safety concern with this tree is the multiple co-dominate apical leaders at approximately 90-100 feet. These co-dominate leaders have weak attachments and are likely to fail. The size of the leaders directly correlates to the amount of potential damage/harm from failure. Southern Oregon University is a target rich environment with all of the people walking around and the many valuable structures. The major long term concern with this tree is its close proximity to the Science Building. Sequoia sempervirens commonly grow up to 6 feet vertically and 4-6 inches in circumference annually. The trunk of this tree is 50-52 inches from the building and is 143 %2 inches in circumference. At is current rate of growth I estimate this tree to be pushing up against the building within the next 10-15 years. It will be necessary to remove this tree before its stem is pushing against the building. It is my opinion that this tree, left to grow in its current situation, will cause damage to the Science Building within the next 10-15 years. Proper pruning of this tree would substantially increase safety, and this tree could be enjoyed for several more years before necessitating removal. The costs and resources required to facilitate removal will continue to increase as this tree continues to grow. 'Free # 27 Calocedrus decurrens: This tree's trunk is practically touching the Science building. I recommend removal and replacement as soon as reasonable. It's my opinion that this tree must have volunteered to grow here and was not originally planted here purposefully. t~1'L I Assessm, it Form Client Southern Oregon University Date 7/23/2015 Time 9:00 am Address/Tree location 1250 Ashland Street (Science Building) Tree no. 28 Sheet 1 of 3 Tree species Sequoia sempervirens dbh 45.7 inches Height 90-100 feet Crown spread dia. 25 ft. dia. Assessor(s) Mike Oxendine SOU Landscape Supervisor ISA License# PN-7681A Time frame 1 year Tools used Tape measure, camera, binoculars Target Assessment Target zone r Occupancy ; • G -5a a X rate ° m c C. m° Y m 3= i-rare m c° 4 m h= x 2-occasional u U` + u C Target description t° 5 F v F s Ln 3-frequent u > a fi i 4-constant 2 G W F 3 a E W a 1 Humans ✓ 3 No No 2 Science Building ✓ 4 No No 3 Science Greenhouse ✓ 4 No No 4 Library ✓ No No Site Factors i History of failures 80 ft tall California Live Oak failed removed 2014 aprox. 60 feet NW Topography Flatn Slope❑ % Aspect Site changes None ❑ Grade change ❑ Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts ❑ Describe Trenching and backfill, irrigation damaged j Soil conditions Limited volume ❑ Saturated ❑ Shallow ❑ Compacted ❑ Pavement over roots ❑ % Describe Prevailing wind direction NWN Common weather Strong winds ❑ Ice ❑ Snow ❑ Heavy rain ❑ Describe Common Winter Storms Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low ❑ Normal ❑ High 10 Foliage None (seasonal) ❑ None (dead) ❑ Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotic % Pests None observed Abiotic None observed Species failure profile Branches M Trunk Roots D Describe Typical Failures in South wind, usually stem and branch failures. Load Factors Wind exposure Protected ❑ Partial[] Full Wind funneling ❑ Relative crown size Small O Medium lil Large D Crown density Sparse❑ Normal Dense 11 Interior branches Few 11 Normal Dense❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss ❑ Recent or planned change in load factors Trenching throuqh the root system destabilized the NW 30% Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure - Crown and Branches - Unbalanced crown LCR % Cracks ❑ Lightning damage ❑ Dead twigs/branches ❑ % overall Max. dia. Codominant Multiple apical leaders included bark Broken/Hangers Number 3 Max. dia. 3 Weak attachments apical leaders Cavity/Nest hole % circ. Over-extended branches ❑ Previous branch failures Windfall Similar branches present ❑ Pruning history Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised p Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Lion-tailed ❑ Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑ Flush cuts ❑ Other Response growth main concern(s) Annual winter storms will likely cause windfall branches, with the likely probability of apical leader failure. Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate Significant ❑ Included bark assumed with multiple leaders. Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable Imminent El Windfall branches common every two years. -Trunk - - Roots and Root Collar - Dead/Missing bark El Abnormal bark texture/color ❑ Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem girdling Codominant stems El Included bark ❑ Cracks ❑ Dead ❑ Decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sap ooze ❑ Ooze ❑ Cavity ❑ % circ. Lightning damage❑ Heartwood decay❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Cracks E1 Cut/Damaged roots Distance from trunk 12-14ft Cavity/Nest hole % circ. Depth Poor taper ❑ Root plate lifting ❑ Soil weakness Lean ° Corrected? Response growth Response growth Main concern(s) Proximity to Science Building. Main concern(s) Trenching within the dripline, building cover: 15-20% of root area, 2 inch caliper girgling root. Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑ Load on defect N/A 0 Minor Moderate D Significant El Likelihood of failure Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ Improbable ❑ Possible Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ S, i- ~ 1~1 I Client Southern Oregon University Date 7/23/2015 Time 9:10 am Address/Tree location 1250 Ashland Street (Science Building) Tree no. 27 Sheet 2 of 4 Tree species Calocedrus decurrens dbh 25.7 Height 50 ft. Crown spread dia. 12-14 feet Assessor(s) Mike Oxendine SOU Landscape Supervisor ISA License #PN-7681A Time frame 1 year Tools used Tape measure Target Assessment Target zone r Occupancy cu s s.- rate 0 a~+o c n 3 a at x •3 = 1-rare m •0Z L. h e Target description „ c „ x 2-occasional v u m •Q - h.5 w 3-frequent u h 3 ~ `q 4-constant a` E `c. 1 Human ✓ 3 No No 2 Science Building ✓ 4 No No 3 4 Site Factors History of failures 80 ft tall California Live Oak failed removed 2014 aprox. 10 feet NW Topography Flatl] Slope❑ % Aspect Site changes Noneffi Grade change❑ Site clearing❑ Changed soil hydrology❑ Root cuts❑ Describe Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated ❑ Shallow ❑ Compacted ❑ Pavement over roots ❑ % Describe Building coverage 50% Prevailing wind direction NWN Common weather Strong winds ❑ Ice ❑ Snow ❑ Heavy rain ❑ Describe Winter storms Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low El Normal ❑ High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal) ❑ None (dead) ❑ Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotic % Pests None observed Abiotic None Observed Species failure profile Branches[] Trunk❑ Roots❑ Describe Species drops branches Load Factors Wind exposure Protected ❑ Partial Full ❑ Wind funneling ❑ Relative crown size Small Medium D Large D Crown density Sparse Normal ❑ Dense ❑ Interior branches Few 11 Normal ❑ Dense ❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss ❑ Recent or planned change in load factors None Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure - Crown and Branches - Unbalanced crown LCR % Cracks ❑ Lightning damage ❑ Dead twigs/branches ❑ % overall Max. dia. Codominant ❑ Included bark ❑ Broken/Hangers Number Max. dia. Over-extended branches ❑ Weak attachments ❑ Cavity/Nest hole % circ. Previous branch failures Similar branches present ❑ Pruning history Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised M. Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Lion-tailed ❑ Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑ Flush cuts ❑ Other Response growth Main concern(s) Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor Moderate ❑ Significant ❑ Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible 11 Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ -Trunk - - Roots and Root Collar - Dead/Missing bark ❑ Abnormal bark texture/color ❑ Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem girdling ❑ Codominant stems ❑ Included bark ❑ Cracks ❑ Dead ❑ Decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sap ooze ❑ Ooze ❑ Cavity ❑ % circ. Lightning damage ❑ Heartwood decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Cracks O Cut/Damaged roots[] Distance from trunk Cavity/Nest hole % circ. Depth Poor taper ❑ Root plate lifting ❑ Soil weakness ❑ Lean ° Corrected? Response growth Response growth Main concern(s) Main concern(s) Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑ Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑ Likelihood of failure Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ Improbable ❑ Possible 11 Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ a ~ I Ave ` b ti i w C9 , ; r- a O CL t ,ae 1 3r ~ ~ s s 0i N r IL C) O I 0 I ~ L ~~a a` l ; k I~ k r `a ' ti ~r i, t. t 4 2 r 7.~ ~ c- ~ 1, -"C • ~ ~b r ;~i is { a CD CD n a a3i 4a _ it f e U I III - E it-MR L ~o- / ❑ (1~ i " l.i In ...r r`.•y G. i L , * S .£'y f j v- r 1 i rfis ~ ~ ~ r _w ~ may, .✓,Y ~ ~ A ~ ~ ~ a - f i N f i. } r r k x: ti ? a Cl. r ~ a4 v 9 LL f f ~ r aC' SSS~r ~ ~~ry r G.. I rr , "TGGa<~ it 4-~ ~ y - ~ i ~ y ~O t y V I _ _ a ~ w ,rte ~.v. r~ X~ _~xu., g I I~ N F e y d' t~ , l { J t 1( + J ' N I } k 1 ~l - 65 r3! - a ~z u_ fir' ~ ~ - (4 00 00 l O ~ t LL fi ~ ~ ~ ~ "gyp o Y 1 1 Q~ CL Y,. T - S- h' t 3 ji. 'Y I «b U 't 3 > Y y Y 4.1 ' % T + F ! XO I_ 00 ~E - n - I r ~hY 1 - r I ,C J I i t ( S"/ mo=t ~~0 ~ ~ f \ may: >~f«~~91~t~ rerl~~4xSl` y~r;:~ ,~y xO~ CD w?"~~ ~ ~i a try. ~u~` Al 4 S Af-m.~A'.~"~.a `t . t ~ ~ v t A~ ` ~ I' :I \ ~ \ ~ . 4 1 ~ • :~a'A ~ ~4,. ~ ~ r~ r e1~~.F Y ~ Y Z ~ ~ ' y s+ 7 - - r r i? ? 0 o i~ p - "Y'J- ICI "O ~ L t - [kV z- i , 0-1 s r -r'i ice. , ~.yt~ ',gyp I if m-3 r.r ~ 3fi r It) ra S~ 1 I it 3 f 1UNJ c t W 0` +i o , + 7 r I } L tl } ire ry-r y t~' n . t ~ C to i ` xr ~ > ~ F r } 11 s 1 7 s All •'„I / it _ k- r 1 , i re y 40, S^ W + ' ?;?k l''ti Vii: - 3c r IQ al, s I{{ 1 • a d f _ c~ t- Q . f r r r ~ I &n, 'yc'' I ! l ~ t: - _iq i f i J F x Y j~1~71 Iii I Y ~ Y w'. f f , .~.+gb 4 r ye! . t P .iF++ S t_ _ «rA %.1 . 1 v4 S _ r r, j ~ Y 7FM s ,wW ~11 10 -„x 1 I r I(. r ~.y~~gry+~e- ~t147 r g; ~ r y Vic. „e ! M r ~ Y! sss/ ~ It yfd ~ A~ r t r L, 1~ - r '.I 31 ~ ; it , I ~ ✓ r re ~~~,~,~~~~i. ~ ~ a ~cnt j 1' ~'-ten-~ ti ~ ~ ~ ,~L~r P ~ r~'~'w•~ .fit ~ ~ 1 ~ sr: <y~~f_i X~ ~ ~'c,.~~~ I_ , <r{I!S a t fly 14~ ~a~+~a f_ vl",_*^'•r ~y"''~'.I c<.. r r ~ p ~ / n1 "`I fir; 1 { ~ € ,Z ~ ~ u o . s.•"; a a t ~ ~ ~u I 11 ~ ~1 ( ~F ~ ~ Ma, t ~~r+.~,r b ~ motif l~t ~ i' ,c,~},_~`~ ~~>vF C ~~rq~~ I 4 !r_ ~f ~e add d d = r r' C r !i { v~``b r -y.l ~'c, T`b~i! r c.. 3. & r r I a na" ,i.. I ✓ PG / / f S` 1 'Sd y r d ! 1 R ~'`L ° i h~ J V wy, „ ~7r 1'' I ' r r a r r"akj Rt. r ~,r e t. !t'r: ``dt~ U } '7"'1 15 ` 1 r•' ' 2. i ~ sl '@~'r~ 4~~C~~E ~~{,r~ ~~r;4~ y, r 5 ~ ~ ~ S r tt r l I 1 q in r If 1 ~ f ~ ~ Y. ~ ' ~ i I i~•. :Y, rta t C 'F cm) 'IV O I i t i a 'rte y~`i £'C yr2y.-.ir,,(~.lb +3 Ao, k a E <~~rY t1 i k+ ' ' tt~L~ r,rr `i~ t,= ~ty* 'Y~ 4,1 ~ k ~ 1. ~ r ~ • ` ~ ~t{: to r ~`F ~ ! i ~ A~ ~yt G'k,p fix' p( 7' . j.Fx 1Lr !"y4r pf a I ' 7 S F i ~ ~'t'i y r-, _ r .'r,~ ~ ate"" ate' w . } ~ {"f ? 141 j ~ ~ '1 , I ; ya c c+~ "~+:?~t .s~,~,~"'` '.C s~ t;~-,.a. i.. O LO I r { rLi M I 5. F ? u7 ~ 9 rte" >E ~ ms`s ! cxF ~ „S _ - N y c t`~ w k - - t I ~ r I ~4- y ' I f a y = E~ 1 4 "k 00 J =va t. ~C_ S t si lr' ' d"I _ r ~ s: •Q rx Lt( kk3~ _ - - r{ f _ 3 a 4 s Yf % c p, f Mark Schexnayder From: Bill Molnar [molnarb@ashland. or. us] Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 2:29 PM To: Drew Cc: Mark Schexnayder Subject: Tree Removal Sceinece Bldg. - PA 2015- 01212 Hi Drew It is my understanding that the information submitted with the application was insufficient to approve the requested Tree Removal. Since we are approaching a deadline to make a decision, I would propose the following: SOU requests a postponement of the final decision in order to have additional time to assess the situation and provide additional justification by an arborist supporting removal of all three trees. SOU would waive the right to a decision within 120 days of submitting a complete application as permitted by State Law. Given the other issues related to noise and visual screening, it might be best to delay moving ahead with Tree Removal at this time. Since we need to make a decision relatively soon, please let me know your thoughts. Unfortunately, the current information is not adequate to approve the request. Bill Bill Molnar, Director Community Development Department 20 East Main Street, Ashland OR 97520 (541) 552-2042, TTY: 1-800-735-2900 FAX: (541) 552-2050 molnarb ashland.or.us This email transmission is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon Public Records law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please contact me at (541)552-2042. Thank you. i 1 ti 1 Mark Schema er From: Mark Schexnayder [mark.schexnayder@ashland. or.us] Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 11:27 AM To: 'kerry@kencairnlandscape.com' Subject: FW: 1250 Ashland Street - Modification to Site Review Permit (PA-2014-00249) for a Tree Removal Permit Attachments: NOC_Comments.pdf; TreeCommission_CommentSheet.docx r From: Mark Schexnayder fmailto:mark.schexnayder@ashiand.or.us] Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 11:24 AM i' To: 'kerry@kencairnlandscaope.com'; 'mcnamaraj@sou.edu'; 'gilliland@sou.edu' Subject: 1250 Ashland Street - Modification to Site Review Permit (PA-2014-00249) for a Tree Removal Permit c Hello, Attached to this E-mail you will find a copy of neighbor comments as well as the recommendations made by the Tree Commission. In addition, staff is requesting that the applicant provide an arborist inventory of the health and hazard for trees number 27 & 28 identified on the modified Tree Protection and Removal Plan (L 1.0 dated June 11, 2015). All the best, Mark Schexnayder, Assistant Planner City of Ashland, Community Development Department 20 E. Main St., Ashland, OR 97520 541.552.2044 Tel 800.735.2900 TTY 541.552.2050 Fax This email transmission is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon Public Records Law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please contact me at 541.552.2044. Thank you. 1 i I, 14, PERMIT APPLICATION ZONING ° Planning Division 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520 C I T Y o F 541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006 FILE # ASHLAND _ DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT l~ c f- 1 } ~t ~rt)~ T DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Pursuing LEEDO Certification? \ YES ❑ NO Street Address c) N t-FW_0 ,;o t V t-~C= lea Iy D I Assessor's Map No. 391 E ~ c) Tax Lot(s) f C Zoning Comp Plan Designation r APPLICANT Name Soo Phone' ,,,E-Mail ytoAt t&,ic~_V~~ ~t(~_s' Address City 1\sat,/iv zip 'r- PROPERTY OWNER Name CB Phone E-Mail Address ~v i~'` a. - City Zip SURVEYOR, ENGINEER, ARCHITECTaANDSCAPE ARCHITECT) OTHER > ` E-Mail ti r i l J Title Name 2 . Phone, n, ter. Address sj : City Nc,~i-tjw-ro Zip J !Ei1)_6 Title Name Phone E-Mail Address City Zip 1 hereby certify that the statements and information contained in this application, including the enclosed drawings and the required findings of fact, are in all respects, true and correct. /understand that all property pins must be shown on the drawings and visible upon the site inspection. In the event the pins are not shown or their location found to be incorrect, the owner assumes full responsibility. I further understand that if this request is subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to establish: 1) that I produced sufficient factual evidence at the hearing to support this request; 2) that the findings of fact furnished justifies the granting of the request; 3) that the findings of fact furnished by me are adequate; and further 4) that all structures or improvements are properly located on the ground. Fai ure in this regard will result most likely in not only the request being set aside, but also possibly in my structures being built in reliance thereon being required to be re oved at my expense. If I have any doubts, l am advised to seek competent professional advice and assistance. -,Jr 23 lo A' oIj ant's Signature Date y As own of the property invo d in this request, l have read and understood the complete application and its consequences tome as a property owne . Property Owner's Signature (required) Date [To be completed by City Stafq Date Received Zoning Permit Type Filing Fee $ OVER P/ GAcomm-dev\planningWoms & HandouOZoning Permit Application.doc From: Jim and Vicki Chamberlain 591 Elkader Street 541-552-0526 JL 15 2015 To: City of Ashland Planning Department Topic: Letter of concern regarding the SOU Tree Removal Application (Planning action PA-2015-01212) These written comments are a follow up to our presentation at the July , 2015 Tree Commission meeting (see attached). The new air handlers on top of the SOU Science building are unreasonably loud an incessant. f Our property is located on Elkader Street approximately 300 feet from the SOU Science building 2. Since the day the first set of air handlers was turned on we have been subjected to incessant noise. It is a loud constant drone day and night which prevents us from sleeping, even f, with the double paned windows closed. We know of other neighbors who are now sleeping in their living room because the sound in their bedroom is too loud to sleep. We have spoken with neighbors on Madrone Roca, Elkader and Mountain Ave. who are all concerned about the increased noise and lack of visual screening. Because the new aer+andling systems that are now installed on both science buildings are so much louder than the old ones, and because the size and scope of the equipment now mounted on both building roofs has so drastically multiplied in both size and scope, the trees surrounding the two buildings have become much more important. Since no sound barriers are being installed on the buildings to help mitigate the vastly increased noise, or screen the new massive equipment, the trees are all we presently have in the way of minimal screening and a very minimal sound barrier. There are too few trees and many are showing signs o stress The trees presently growing around the building, especially in the back and on the west side (on Roca/Elkader) do not sufficiently screen the roof or come close to filtering the increased noise. See photos below. r r _ 3 g i 1 I i We understand that a total of 11 trees will be removed, 5 of which require your approval. In addition to the number of trees that have already been lost due to construction oversite, we fear that SOU can continue to remove any tree under 18" without a permit, thus continuing to reduce the minimal buffer that presently exists. For the past two days we have witnessed several trees being thinned to remove f the dead wood caused by lack of care and water. As we type this letter a crew is removing over 2/3rds of the branches on one of the large oak trees on the corner of Ashland and Roca. Per statements made by SOU landscaping staff at the July 9 Tree Commission meeting, the irrigation has been intentionally turned off for over a year. Losing more trees from an already insufficient number due to construction and the lack of care is most concerning. Additional trees are needed in strategic locations We understand that the Tree Commission will be recommending a mitigation plan to compensate for the removal of trees 27, 28 and 30. Two of these trees are 55'-60' tall. We would like to go on record as requesting that a full site review be completed so that additional trees can be planted in strategic locations where screening and sound barriers are sorely needed. We also request that neighbors be given an opportunity to comment on the plans before they are approved. We want the Tree Commission and the City Planning Department to understand how important the trees surrounding the science buildings have become to the neighbors living above. While adding strategically placed new trees will not begin to solve the noise and visual issues, the additional trees will compliment what we hope will be other screening and noise reduction efforts made by SOU to resolve these problems. Sincerely Jim and Vicki Chamberlain JUL 15 2015 Cc: Roy H. Saigo, President, SOU Drew Gilliland, Director Facilities, Management and Planning, SOU f t € The following neighbors have read and approved this letter: Name Address l~~q V adeo -v" VON t UIA, e ~Q,F _ 2015 ` e Statement read at the July 9 Tree Commission regarding the SOU Tree Removal Application (Planning action -2015-01212) Thank you for this opportunity to express our views this evening. My name is Vicki Chamberlain and I am speaking for both myself and my husband Jim. We have lived at 591 Elkader Street, which is just above the SOU Science 2 building, for the past 19 years. Because of our close proximity to the building project we received the letter discussing the tree removal application that's being discussed this evening. We chose to attend the meeting tonight for the following reasons: We understand that a total of 11 trees will be removed, 5 of which require your approval. After reviewing the tree removal application and doing a site review from outside the construction fence, we found the trees labeled on the application as 27, 28 and 30. We were unable to find trees 9 and 10 but later saw on one of the maps that tree 9 has already been removed. We are assuming that tree 10 has also been removed before approval of this application since it was supposed to be located next to tree #9 and neither is there anymore. We have a photo of the area to confirm if we are in fact looking in the correct location, but per the Tree Protection Plan Addendum we are pretty sure we located the area. So we are confused how the trees can be removed before approval. Perhaps a phone call took place or something? We also didn't see any mitigation plans included in the application for where trees 27, 28 and 30 will be removed. It is our understanding, perhaps incorrectly, that tree removal applications should include some sort of replanting plan and we didn't find any for these specific trees. Our point in discussing these discrepancies is because the new air handling systems that are now installed on both science buildings are so much louder than the old ones, and because the size and scope of the equipment now mounted on both building roofs has so drastically multiplied in both size and scope, that the trees surrounding the two buildings have become much more important. Per Ashland building ordinances screens are required to cover all mechanical HVAC systems located on roofs. But this is not the case for the science buildings. Since no sound baffles are being installed on the buildings to help mitigate the increased noise or screen the new massive equipment, the trees are all we have in the way of minimal screening and a very minimal sound barrier. The increased sound generated is only from the first of 4 stacks so we are very concerned how much more the noise will increase when all of the stacks are running. We know of neighbors who are now sleeping in their living room because the sound in their bedroom is too loud to sleep. We have spoken with neighbors on Madrone, Roca, Elkader and Mountain Ave. who are all concerned about the increased noise, and because of this we felt it important to speak this evening. We want the commission to understand how important the trees surrounding the science buildings have become to the neighbors living above. While we understand the reasons to remove trees 27, 28 and 30 and do not object since it is a safety issue and will also compromise the foundation to this 21 million dollar project we want to make sure everyone involved in making decisions about tree removal understands the noise issues for the neighborh9v s 15 2015 above this project. Thank you. From: Chelsea Davis JUL 14 2015 595 Elkader Street 541-488-3450 To: City of Ashland Planning Department Topic: Letter of concern regarding the SOU Tree Removal Application (Planning action PA-2015-01212) This letter of concern is being submitted to express the following issues: Point 1: Per the building application, one of the main reasons SOU was given an exemption from providing mandatory screening for the rooftop HVAC systems was that, "the trees on campus and in the neighborhood are rather effective at screening the building from the neighborhood because they are 20 to 60 feet tall and located not only at the building but also on the residential lots uphill." (Page 19, Rooftop HVAC Screens (18.72.030.6 (e))1 Unfortunately, trees up to 60' tall have already been lost due to construction oversite. In addition, several of the larger trees on the west side of Science building #2 are also showing signs of stress due to lack of irrigation. Per conversations heard at the Tree Commission meeting on July 9, we were informed that the irrigation system surrounding of the science building, both in and outside of the "protection zone" have been intentionally turned off for over a year. Per the Tree Protection Plan, under Specifications for Tree Preservation During Construction, item #10: "all trees should be irrigated on a schedule determined by the landscape architect. Irrigation shall wet the soil within the tree protection zone to a depth of 30." If these trees are to be the neighborhoods only buffer for the increased noise level and drastically increased clutter on top of the roofs, it would seem responsible to not only abide by, the Tree Protection Plan, but also to take greater care in maintaining those trees adjacent to the protection zone that surround the building. Please see the photos below of key trees which are showing signs of stress. f; = Conifers are losing their needles, tree tops are dying out. 2015 This large sequoia and conifer are JI-IL 14 turning brown. Point 2: Per the building application and as mentioned above, the screening provided by the trees is one of the key reasons the architect provided in requesting the exemption from having to install screening around the HVAC system. Screening is usually mandatory in any construction project. This letter emphasizes that from the neighbor's perspective, the trees in no way provide sufficient screening. They do not remotely filter enough of the increased noise generated by the new air handlers, nor do they adequately visually screen the new massive HVAC equipment now on the roofs. See photos below. A } I t These are the two of the trees turning brown. _ i Stacks and duct work are VERY - ~ visible from all angles-not only from above but also from street Point 3: level. We understand that the Tree Commission will be requesting a detailed mitigation plan for replacing trees 27, 28 and 30. 1 am requesting that a more comprehensive mitigation plan be required that includes a site review taking into account the increased visual and noise issues. This is an opportunity to plant additional trees in strategic locations. While this will not begin to solve the noise and visual issues, the additional trees will compliment what we hope will be other screening and noise reduction efforts to resolve these problems. At the meeting the representative from SOU extended a verbal invitation for neighbors to participate in the site review. I would like to go on record that as this comes to fruition I would like to be part of this process. Best re~ ~d Chelsea Davis 541-488-3450 JUL 14 2015 ASHLAND TREE COMMISSION PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENT SHEET July 9, 2015 PLANNING ACTION: PA-2015-01212 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1250 Ashland St. OWNER/APPLICANT: Southern Oregon University DESCRIPTION: A request for a minor modification to a Site Review Permit (PA2014- 00249) in the form of a Tree Removal Permit. The applicant previously designated five trees to be preserved during a remodel construction of the university's science building. The applicant is now requesting the subject trees to be removed for various reasons. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Southern Oregon University; ZONING: SO; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 IE 51313; TAX LOT: 100 The Tree Commission recommends approval of the application as submitted with specific recommendations below: - Some type of screening shall be required to address noise complaints. For effective screening, the Tree Commission recommended evergreens of at least 3-inch DBH. Department of Community Development Tel: 541A88-5350 CITY OF 51 Winbum Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 -ASHLANU www.ashland.or.us ti Mark Schexnayder From: Derek Severson [derek.severson@ashland. or.us] Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 10:06 AM To: Mark Schexnayder Subject: Fwd: Sound Testing Mark, Here's an e-mail from Drew at SOU re: the 1250 Ashland Street application; I'll work with Zechariah to pull together the Tree Commission recommendations as well, and I know we have a couple of written comments from neighbors that came in yesterday and today. Derek Severson, Associate Planner City of Ashland, Department of Community Development 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR 97520 : (541) 552-2040 F : (541) 552-2050 TTY: 1-800-735-2900 -MAIL:derek.severson@ashland.or.us This e-mail transmission is the official business of the City of Ashland, and is subject to Oregon s public records laws for disclosure and retention. If you've received this e-mail in error, please contact me at (541) 552-2040. Thank you. Forwarded Message From: Drew Gilliland <gilliland@sou.edu> To: Vicki Chamberlain <vchamberlain@mind.net>, Jim Chamberlain <iim@mind.net>, Ryan Brown <brownr2@sou.edu_>, Craig Morris <cmorris@sou.edu> Sent: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:41:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Sound Testing Vicki, Jim, We are going to schedule our sound consultant to be here in early October, as that's when we will have all the equipment tuned and operating. He will collect and then report his results. I will share with you his methodology. I will invite you to this meeting and feel free to bring your own consultant along. We will include the City of Ashland designated representative during this testing. After the results are compiled we open to discussing the results and mitigation strategies if required or even if they are not. Best, Drew Drew Gilliland Director Facilities, Management and Planning Southern Oregon University i - Planning Department, 51 Winaurn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 CITY F 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland,or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900 ASHLAND NOTICE OF APPLICATION PLANNING ACTION: PA-2015-01212 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1250 Ashland St. OWNER/APPLICANT: Southern Oregon University DESCRIPTION: A request for a minor modification to a Site Review Permit (PA2014-00249) in the form of a Tree Removal Permit. The applicant previously designated five trees to be preserved during a remodel construction of the university's science building. The applicant is now requesting the subject trees to be removed for various reasons. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Southern Oregon University; ZONING: S0; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1 E 5BB; TAX LOT: 100. NOTE: The Ashland Tree Commission will also review this Planning Action on Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 6:00 PM in the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51 Winburn Way. NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: July 1, 2015 DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: July 15, 2015 ASHLAND ST 1 -1 Y =A.hld Q Z cr - - cc, Q, N _ LL: Q U MADRONE ST 1:991 A C- OF finch=83 feet SHLAN D Y A9IeaWnaaahucWna l<6IW ~ea eme,lotradxay KKalbna aAouN be NAepenEeMly flaw r<rYYE IoraxYhn:a xnNwloutlon. The Ashland Planning Division Staff has received a complete application for the property noted above. Any affected property owner or resident has a right to submit written comments to the City of Ashland Planning Division, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 prior to 4:30 p.m. on the deadline date shown above. Ashland Planning Division Staff determine if a Land Use application is complete within 30 days of submittal. Upon determination of completeness, a notice is sent to surrounding properties within 200 feet of the property submitting application which allows for a 14 day comment period. After the comment period and not more than 45 days from the application being deemed complete, the Planning Division Staff shall make a final decision on the application. A notice of decision is mailed to the same properties within 5 days of decision. An appeal to the Planning Commission of the Planning Division Staff's decision must be made in writing to the Ashland Planning Division within 12 days from the date of the mailing of final decision. (AMC 18.108.040) The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Department to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Division, Community Development & Engineering Services Building, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520. If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Division at 541-488-5305. GAcomm-de0planningTianning Actions\Noticing Folder\lvtailed Notices & Signs\2015\PA-2015-01212.docx MINOR MODIFICATIONS APPROVAL CRITERh` 18.5.6.040 C. Minor Modification Approval Criteria. A Minor Modification shall be approved only upon the approval authority finding that all of the following criteria are met. 1. Minor Modification applications are subject to the same approval criteria used for the initial project approval, except that the scope of review is limited to the modification request. For example, a request to modify a commercial development's parking lot shall require Site Design Review only for the proposed parking lot and any changes to associated access, circulation, etc. Notice shall be provided in accordance with chapter 18.5.1. 2. A modification adding or altering a conditional use, or requiring a variance, administrative variance, or exception may be deemed a Major Modification and/or may be subject to other ordinance requirements. 3. The approval authority shall approve, deny, or approve with conditions the application, based on written findings; except that conditions of approval do not apply, and findings are not required, where the original approval was approved through a Ministerial review. 18.5.7.040.13 Criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal Permit B. Tree Removal Permit. is 1. Hazard Tree. A Hazard Tree Removal Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a, The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard (i.e., likely to fall and injure persons or property) or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure or facility, and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment, relocation, or pruning. See definition of hazard tree in part 18.6. b. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to section 18.5.7.050, Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. 2. Tree That is Not a Hazard. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. 1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.10. 2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks, 3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. 4. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance. 5. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18,5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. GAcomm-dev\planning\Planning Actions\Noticing POlderWailed Notices & Signs\2015\PA-2015-01212.docx t PA-2015-01212 391 E16AA 7400 PA-2015-01212 391 E16AA 8700 PA-2015-01212 391 E15BA 900 ARCHDIOCESE OF PORTLAND ORE BELSKY STEVEN P TRUSTEE ET AL BOARD/REGENTS/NORMAL SCHOOL WALSH MEM NEWMAN CTR 609 ELKADER 1250 SISKIYOU BLVD 2838 E BURNSIDE ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PORTLAND, OR 97214 PA-2015-01212 391 E15BB 8000 PA-2015-01212 391 E16AA 7900 PA-2015-01212 391 E16AA 8300 BROWN WILLARD L TRUSTEE ET AL CHAMBERLAIN JIM A/VICTORIA DAVIS CHELSEA 630 LEONARD ST 591 ELKADER ST 595 ELKADER ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 i PA-2015-01212 391 E15BB 9300 PA-2015-01212 391 E16AA 8000 PA-2015-01212 391 E16AA 7800 DE LORENZO C/SUSAN EINHORN GARY A TRUSTEE ET AL ENGLE MARY LOU 650 MONROE ST 580 S MOUNTAIN AVE 565 ELKADER ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2015-01212 391 E15BB 2100 PA-2015-01212 391 E15BB 2101 PA-2015-01212 391 E15BB 1200 FOERDER ALAN H FOERDER ALAN H HALD JACQUE JEAN TRUSTEE ET AL 1257 SISKIYOU BLVD 25 1257 SISKIYOU BLVD 25 600 ROCA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2015-01212 391 E15BB 1300 PA-2015-01212 391 E16AA 8400 PA-2015-01212 391 E15BB 2000 HALD JACQUE JEAN TRUSTEE ET AL HENDERSON DANA M TRUSTEE ET AL JONES THOMAS E TRUSTEE ET AL C/O BUBB PEARSON & ASSOCIATES 1339 NW HAWTHORNE AVE 605 ROCA ST 821 E JACKSON ST GRANTS PASS, OR 97526 ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD, OR 97504 PA-2015-01212 391 E15BB 9000 PA-2015-01212 391 E15BB 8900 PA-2015-01212 391 E15BB 7901 LEPLEY CARIM ALAN/DAMSTRA-LEPLEY LEPLEY SACHA LYNDA/WILDGUST JOHN LYNCH NICHOLAS CATHY J DAVID 1280 MADRONE ST 260 WELLS FARGO DR 935 HUNTER LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 JACKSONVILLE, OR 97530 SANTA ROSA, CA 95404 PA-2015-01212 391 E16AA 7700 PA-2015-01212 391 E15BB 1900 PA-2015-01212 391 E15BB 9100 MARTIN SUSAN L TRUSTEE ET AL NIEDERMEYER PAUL A TRUSTEE ET AL NUTTER JERRY 5021 FOOTHILLS RD D 1497 WINDSOR ST 1336 MADRONE ST LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2015-01212 391 E15BA 1300 PA-2015-01212 391 E16AA 8600 PA-2015-01212 391 E16AA 8100 ORE STATE/BOARD HIGHER ED/ ATTN: ROWE CHRISTOPHER/KATHLEEN SAMEH SARAH BETH BARNES 222 SW CALIFORNIA ST 230 STRAWBERRY LN 1250 SISKIYOU BLVD PORTLAND, OR 97219 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2015-01212 391 E15BB 8100 PA-2015-01212 391 E15BA 1500 PA-2015-01212 391 E15BB 2900 SHEPHERD DANIEL P/AUSHNA A STATE BOARD/HIGHER ED STONE JEWELL V 650 LEAONARD ST P 0 BOX 3175 588 ELKADER ASHLAND, OR 97520 EUGENE, OR 97403 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2015-01212 391 E15BB 7900 PA-2015-01212 PA-2015-01212 SULLIVAN MICHAEL E/SANDRA M J MCNAMARA KERRY KENCAIRN 127 WALNUT PL 351 WALKER AVE 545 A STREET PHOENIX, OR 97535 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 i~. Ac)~k ~ t AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Jackson ) The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: 1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department. 2. On July 1, 2015 1 caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached planning action notice to each person listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on this list under each person's name for Planning Action #2015-01212, 1250 Ashland St. Signature of Employee DocumenO 711/2015 i 1'+ ~ rl I I~ ~ ~ ' f.3 _ - !I L] IJ I: C i i ~U•64r+1~+ I ! + ' Asa I + , .I Ir' ? u til I 1 ~ I III ' 1 s I ti: 17n Ira Er. I r~ 1. i1 - I_ Ir! I:1 Iri 1 • 171 , `I ~ I I - I I II ~ t'~,l k I.F f?1 , I - _ t YDN J. I1 , ~ 1 I' ~ ' +IJ 'I I ' ~ '1 y ~E~l) 1 " 1`ti 3T 1'I ~d~1 II f f 1 1 J 11 bad ~r ~I ' 4 LI'~5 I+ i I 1111 sa 6v1,[~ 1 I.. I I BFI lir I , I II 171' i ..i fl. . ! II : 1 f ' N a o, I 1 I I F ' x e i.. Project Description Southern Oregon University Science Building Remodel Modification to a previously approved planning action Tree protection and Removal and Planting Plan Original planning action PA-2014-00249 submitted February 18, 2014 The site improvements for the Southern Oregon University Science Building are well under way in their excavation and construction process. There are five trees that the applicants and their consultants originally proposed for saving that now would be more appropriately removed. There were two mature mulberry trees (numbers 9 and 10 on Sheet L 1.0) in the front courtyard of the Science building, one tree was badly damaged as part of a replacement of a water line, and the other is suffering from being in the midst of intense construction. The University would like to replace these trees in the same location with two Tilia x euchlora. There are three other trees that are proposed for removal, in each case they are evergreens that are way too close to the building (trees numbered 27, 28 and 30 on sheet L 1.0). Tree number 27 is a 30" dbh Calocedrus decurrens its trunk is 30" from the building. Tree number 28 is a very large Sequoia sempervirens 36" dbh and is 52 "from the building, the tree has multiple tops and during construction had about a third of its root zone cut through within five feet of the trunk; the tree is a potential threat to the building foundation, and will only become more so as it matures. Tree number 30 is an 18" dbh Calocedrus decurrens and is growing over the concrete foundation of the entry structure of the building. These trees were not initial part of the tree removal request because they were outside of the assigned scope of work for the renovation of this building. This modification includes an assessment of all the trees adjacent to the science building, and looked at excavation and construction implications for these additional trees. In addition to these proposed removals, there are two additional trees being suggested in the Southern most parking lot, there are currently no trees in two tree planters, one was blown over in last year's winter storm the other was missing from some unknown time. The university would like to plant two Zelkova trees in these locations. Attached Drawings The originally approved Tree Protection and Removal Plan is L 1.0 dated October 29, 2013 The modified Tree Protection and Removal Plan is L 1.0 dated June 11, 2015 The originally approved Planting Plan is sheet L 4.0 and dated October 29, 2013 The modified Planting Plan is sheet L 4.0 and dated April 23, 2015 << , ~ i i~ r" ~ ~ i ~ ~ r i - i 4 ~ ~ 1 i' ~ i i _ ; i I I i j @will i i i i i i I i y I ~ 1 'Ilia ' l !1> / I I I I l ' ' r 1 - 1 j I I n 1 i 1 ' \ Crown Tree Protection E DBH Height Radius in Zone Radius in Tolerance to 4 43 --x- TREE PROTECTION FENCING REMOVAL q Species (Inches) in feet Feel Feet Construction Condition Notes 1 Picea abies 15" 33' 11' m 2 Pinus tiexllis 8" 20' 9' no 17 3 Quercussuber 5" 17' 4' Unhealthy r c 4 Quercussuber 6" 17' 6' Unhealthy cc 5 Pinus ponderosa 19" 55' 17' w O a Q ~ 6 Pinus ponderosa 20 55' 16' ➢ ° d Q ° do 7 Pinus nigra 15" 28' 20' O A p K 8 Pinus nigra 12" 28' 25' ux i PROTECTION ZONE 4 9 Tiliacordala 13° 30' 24' Remedial Pruning Pao TECTION 10 Tilia Cordele 16" 30' 24' Remedial Pruning a C1 FENCE CONTINUOUSLY zoNE AROUND TREE AT 11 Pinus contorta 8" 25' 7' Unhealthy ° n um y~ a PROTECTION ZONE 12 Pinusmugo 15" 15' 6' Unhealthy ' 13 Pinus ponderosa 16" 53' 15' 14 Pinus ponderosa 22" 65' 18' J ,i LJ PLAN 15 Pinus ponderosa 22" 65' 17' n 16 Pinus ponderosa 15" 65' 19' ro - WTAL CONTINUOUS 17 Pinus contorta 7" 15' 9' Unhealthy, REMOVE LL ELEVATION CHAINLINK FENCING ON 18 Pinus wntoda 7"16" 15' 10' Multi trunk, Unhealthy, REMOVE cONCRETEPIERS 19 Pinuscontorla 7" 15' 10' Leaning, Unhealthy, REMOVE TREE PROTECTION DETAILS 20 Populus tremuloides 6" 20' 6' 21 Populus tremuloides 5"14" 15' 8' Mull! Trunk 22 Malus spp. 6" 10' 3' 23 Chamaecyparisobtusa 8" 17' 7' REMOVE 24 Prunus spp. 5"15° 25' 8' Multi Trunk, REMOVE 25 Chamaecyparisobtusa 6° 15' 7' v 26 Chamaecyparisobtusa 6" 15' 7' ° SPECIFICATIONS FOR TREE PRESERVATION DURING CONSTRUCTION: 1. Before beginning work, the contractor is required to meet with the landscape architect at the site to review all work 12. Before grading, pad preparation, or excavation for the foundations, footings, walls, or trenching, any trees within the procedures, access routes, storage areas, and tree protection measures. specific construction zone shall be root pruned 1 foot outside the tree protection zone by cutting all roots cleanly at a 90 2, Fences must be erected to protect trees to be preserved as shown In diagram. Fencing shall be 6'tall temporary degree angle to a depth of 24 inches. Roots shall be cut by manually digging a trench and cutting exposed roots with a " chain link panels installed with metal connections to all panels area integrated, these fences shall be installed so that it saw, vibrating knife, rock saw, narrow trencher with sharp blades, or other approved root-pruning equipment. does not allow passage of pedestrians and/ or vehicles through it. Fences define a specific protection zone for each 13. Any roots damaged during grading or construction shall be exposed to sound tissue and cut cleanly at a 90 degree tree or group of trees. Fences are to remain until all site work has been completed. Fences may not be relocated or angle to the root with a saw. Place damp soil around all cut roots to a depth equaling the existing finish grade within 4 removed without the permission of the landscape architect. hours of cuts being made. 3. Construction trailers and traffic and storage areas must remain outside fenced areas at all limes. 14. If temporary haul or access roads must pass over the root area of trees to be retained, a road bed of 6 inches of 4. All underground utilities and drain or irrigation lines shall be routed outside the tree protection zone. If lines must mulch or gravel shall be created to protect the soil. The road bed material shall be replenished as necessary to maintain tranverse the protection area, they shall be tunneled or bored under the tree roots. a 6 Inch depth. 5. No materials, equipment, spoil, or waste or washout water may be deposited, stored, or parked within the tree 15. Spoil from trenches, basements, or other excavations shall not be placed within the tree protection zone, either ~G'ST-6 protection zone (fenced area). temporarily or permanently. ¢ STATE OF d 6. Additional tree pruning required for the clearance during construction must be performed by a qualified arborist and 16. No burn piles or debris piles shall be placed within the tree protection zone. No ashes, debris, or garbage may be OREGON not by construction personnel. dumped or buried within the tree protection zone, r REG. a 493 H ° 7. Any herbicides placed under paving materials must be safe for use around trees and labeled for that use. 17. Maintain fire-safe areas around fenced area. Also, no heat sources, flames, ignition sources, or smoking is allowed 9 U 8. If injury should occur to any tree during construction, the tree consultant should evaluate it as soon as possible so near mulch or trees. Kelly Kencaim that apporpriate treatments can be applied, All damage caused by construction to existing trees shall be compensated 18. Do not raise the soil level within the drip lines to achieve positive drainage, except to match grades with sidewalks S 1 1.1" 1 LINE OF for, before the project will be considered Complete. and curbs, and in those areas, feather the added topsoil back to existing grade at approximately 3:1 slope. C9PE ARC 9. The project Landscape Architect must monitor any grading, construction, demolition, or other work that is expected to 19. Exceptions to the tree protection specifications may only be granted in extraordinary circumstances with written 2266 EXISTING ENTRY encounter tree roots. approval from the landscape architect. Revision Date: 25 /f 10. All trees shall be irrigated on a schedule to be determined by the landscape architect. Irrigation shall wet the soil within the tree protection zone to a depth of 30 Inches. 23 11. Erosion control devices such as silt fencing, debris basins, and water diversion structures shall be installed to Drawn By: 5G8 y " prevent siltation and/ or erosion within the tree protection zone, j t Scale 1" 20'.0" i 20 21 V e, 1 1 2 J 4~ m I ~ O 22 ~XX W N 19 18 V CO ~ 17 Z :3 14 OUTSIDE WORK AREA W 0 ~y; Q 13 15~. 10 O _ 16 11 U) 12 SHEET KEY - L 1.0 TREE PROTECTION PLAN OCTOBER 29,2013 L 2.0 MAINTENANCE PLAN L 3.0 PLANTION PLAN A A w w L 4.0 IRRIGATION PLAN TREE PROTECTION PLAN L 1.0 F ff _ Crown DER Height Radius In ~E J ° g Spades (Inches) In feel Feel Notes V - - TREE PROIECnaY FENCkIG ^ AEUOVU U li ~''r,•~. \ / ,r ' / ! 3 nrcu suber 5 lT a' Unhealthy 4 Ouercussuber 6- 17' 6 Unhealthy W o 5 Plnus ponderosa 19" 55 IT iin 5- _I 6 Firms ponderosa 20" 55 16' N: m _ 7 PMus IAra 15• 28 20' \ / \ 9 Plnus mgra 12' 28. 25' ~ I F iA i !mr 9 Matra spp 13' 30' 24' REMOVED SEE MODIFICATION NOTES ~i. 'T R'N U ` ` + 1 10 Moms app. 16" 30' 24' REMOVE. SEE MODIFICATION NOTES f~ X03 Of 11 P o 13 Pious m Poo 86' 63' Urhaelthy ca Tlav comento S nI• _ Q e \ \ 12 Pnus pea 1S I6' 6' Unhealthy z t 1,,` © \ \ l \ \ penosa 5, `r orEanou ssT,ct-canenwusLr - a 14 Pious Pon derosa 22 65 18' zoxE AaouwraEEAr ° i6 Phuspenderosa 22" 85' anorECndt zatE iT F+E o 16 Phus ponderosa 15" 65' 19' y _ \ 17 Phus c.niMa 7" 15 9' Unhealthy REMOVE ~l\ _ 18 phrs Co.= 7"l6' 15 10, MdU tmnk Unhealthy, REMOVE PLAN I' •c ` \ 19 Pious mnlone T 16' 10' LearAnA UmhealOry REMOVE N NS rr I\ j~ 20 PopuNs Demutddes 20' 6' I caneruous \4 ELEVATION -&M EencetGav 21 Populus s tremuiddas 5"14' 15 6' Multi Tmnk caPaas W 5 w~ E 22 klehs app. 6' ID' 3' -c- m z o 8 \ \ \ TREE PROTECTION DETAILS m 23 Chamaecypans obtuse iT T REMOVE L O _ ? a _ 24 PNnus app. 5"16" 25 MWU Trunk, REMOVE O 25 Chamaecypads obtuse 6" 15, 7' a n 26 Chn..%ypads obtu. .6" 1 - T.. N m 27 Calocedruadecurans 30" 55' 28 REMOVE, SEE MODIFICATION NOTES ' 26 Sequoia sempeMrere 36" BD' 30' REMOVE, SEE MODIFICATION NOTES ' 29 3equda semperA'a 12" 35' 22' KEEP 1 30 Catocedrus decmu 18' 40, 20' REMOVE, SEE MODIFICATION NOTES SPECIFICATIONS FOR TREE PRESERVATION DURING CONSTRUCTION: i, Before beginning contractor ededb meet with hehndscapa architect at the sit. to '-'few a0 work 12 Before grading, padpreparation, or lronfor the ooundaionstree walls, cu any ams vntin procedures, 1 , access mm mum be rages storage areas, r tree protection ures. the specific dgo construction deg zone shall be mot eI f -gI. outside b the bee protection zone one by by cutting all roots be preserved rved a as shown In diagram. Fencing shall be 6laB temporary d dearly ala90 degree angle t Iot . a depth root d24 Inches. foot . Rmis shag be al by manually dlgghg a trench and culling UNra-... . 2. Fences must be erected to protect bees to and ` chain link panels Installed with metal connections to all panels area integrated these fences shall be Installed so exposed roils vAth a saw, vihmdng knife rock saw narrow trencher with sharp Wades, or other approved that It does not allow passage ofpedestdans and/ or vehicles through It Fences define a spedgcprotecUonzons roe4pmrdng equipment i for each tree or group oflrees Fences are to remain until all site work has been completed Fencesmaynotbe 13. Any mots damaged during grading oremstruNm shaffbe exposed to sound tissue and cut cleanly at a 90 degree \ w X'',, relocated or removed without the permission of the landscape ardlBect. angle to the motwih a saw. Place damp l around all cut mots to a depth agvalg he existing firlan grade _ 3. Construction bailers and traffic and storage areas must remain outside fenced areas alai tines. within 4 hours of cuts being made. \ ` ~ \ 4. All underground utilities and drain or udgationlnes shy be rooted outside the tree protection zone. If lines must 14. Iltempaary haul maccessmade must pass over the mot area of tees to be retained a road bed of6 In esof tranversetheproectimarea they shall be tunneled or Wed under the free roots. mdch or gravel shall he nested to protect the soil. The road bed material shall be replenished as necessary to m 5. No materials equlpmen! spoil, or waste or washout water maybe deposited steed sparked Winn the lose maWaina6 inch depth. \ \ _ \ protection zone (fenced area) 15. Spill from benches, basements or other excavalwa shall not be placed sAthlo the tree protection mm, either \ 6. Additional free pruning required forthedearancaduring wnsWcgm must be performed of aqualifieda4xpisl and lempaer0ywpermanengy. \ _ \ \ not by construction personnel 16. No bum pites or debris piles shall be placed uwthn the tee protection zone. No ashes, debris, or garbcge may be \ 7. Any herNddes placed under paving materials must be safe for use around tees and labeled withal use. dumped rubunedwihin the use protection zone. 6. IIIojmy should occurto arty tree during conslrudw, the free mnsWomtshould evaluate it.. soon as pesMbl. so 17. Maintain firesale areas around fenced area Also no heal smurces Rams Ignition sauces, or smoking Is allowed L that appaWista treatments can be applled All damage caused by construction to eAsthg trees shall be nearmulrh oruees. O r I. X l \ compensated for be for the projeduil be considered complete 18. Do not raise the sell level within the ddplnes to achieve poshive drainage except to match grades with sidewalks N 9. The project Landscapes:11act must monlto any grading construction, damolUm, or other work that Is expected and curbs and I. these maas feather the added topsoil back to existing grade at pproximedely 3:1 stop. < to encounter tree roots 19. Exceptions to the tree protection specifications may only be granted In extraordinary circumstances vM written 10. All trees shall be Irrigated on a schedule to be determined by the landscape architect lydfird1-1bafiwatthe approval from thalandswpeamh6ed O CY) soil within the free protection zone loo depth ot30inches, C L X 11. Erosion control devices such as sill fencing, debris basins and water diversion sWCNres shah be installed to z 0 \ sT- prevent siltation and) or erosion within he tree protection zone. TREE PROTECTION- MODIFICATION NOTES: O \ TREE 9: REMOVED Trae tuns damaged during utility exc,vatim, has been removed TREE 10: REMOVE Tree was damaged dud.g c mrctlm, suggest Removal In C TREE 27: REMOVE Tree lsMfrou ofco TREE 288: REMOVE Tree is 52''Gom bmlding6ng comer ny (J„~ \ \ Roots are severed a A. noun trunk on West Side Multiple \ MWUpk Tops Tops-&eakage likely Z Q ` TREE 29: KEEP \ \ 1\ - tr \ TREE 30: REMOVE Tree located on compete foundation of entry porch _j ] L \ Z N \lf\'2- m w CO W o om. f V ~i Z 0 \ V A\ V~ °t( X_ V T A Z Wy LU U) \ ) cn V C) 0 to C0 U) " V y I 22 to X X _ - STAFF \ - s OUTSIDE WORK PuFA .v we - Dale Ofi111175 IF KK] 1 0.ENSla:e a r ¢ r10. OESWeMd1 DAiE 1 - e _,...~v _ - - - - ^ - Tree Protection Plan Scale 1 20 \ d L1.0 TREEPROTECTION M PLAN bJICVI.I L2.ONAIMENANCEPLAN ''DAY 1-1016RIGATIa4PLAIIr'G/Gl;i L 4.O PWnING our - - 5.0A DSCAPEDETAAS L 1.0 mr TREE PROTECTION PLAN ADDENDUM letNa 12114 SG N ~i IIamAV- I CJ ~ -YCls-19 6' ~ Hubp-15 4?~ cl,.~o-I ~ke~Op ~....4 _ lam' t Q N ~ N4X \O\ ° 00r~ D - - ' xn~ Student Plant ID 9 62 U Garden Space Prern-fautued TM4' concrete steppers k'.isR-9 Lt op - J Iels -9 r H~mM-t • L C~) 7E ~Ll:EnrExIs1l',Cf ED,~iY ° _91thJ 0 RL v 3 PI -1-4 \ r•pt REFERENCE PLAN SCALE: 1"=W ~Gts TIEpn STATE OF d OREGON REG. N 493 E Rm~ b r F Rhc'I U Ccr< Crest-I ¢ 0 ` Rt J Kerry Ken Cnrm f n[a-J V' IIIIZ59 L.Ieh,L fh 1 C,9PE ARG m.o ame rorauo~~~ aho,:o~ Revision Date: E if E Al i I E E E E E E MEE Drawn By: SGB 000 i - 1.~... Scale l" = 20'•0° E E E E E E 0 E E I ~ E PLANT LIST W Student Pollination 0 0 0 0 0 KEY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON SIZE NOTES Study Red TREES H-SD-6 Mahr-6 hlegm-1 Magn-2 Magm-1 Mahr-6 Chao Chamaecyypparis obtuse Hinoki Cypress Existing uex-6~ com-i / NemsD-1s Cors Comus stolonifera Redtwigg Dogwood Existing onp s~ cil HemSD-1s Ttlc-1 Ginb Ginkgoblloba MaidenhalrTree Existing, Moved cots-i The-i r t Magm Magnolia macrophylla Bigleeaf Magnolia Existing, New O O Pinc Plnus conto s Lod spots Pine Existing E O O E 0 E Pinm Pinus mugo Mugo Pine Existing 0 Popt Popululs tremuloides Quaking Aspen Existing Prun Prunus Cherryry Existing Tilc Tile cordata L t e2eaf Linden Existing Q 01/ 0 \0 0% SHRUBS / J Bert Berberis thunbergii Green Berberis Existing CamSG Camelia sasanqua'Shishi Gashira' ShiShi Gashlra Camelia camsc-z M Came Cannella Camelia Existing Ginn 1 W Cean Ceanothus Deer Lilac Existing O Cots Cotoneasler salicifolius Willow-leaved Cotoneasler Existing Elec Eleagnus commutate Common SliverBerry W - N HamA Hamameles x'Arnold's Promise' Arnold's Promise Witch Hazel E / > > Has Helictotrichon sempervirens Blue Oat Grass V Ilex Ilex Ilex Existing E° E Z m 0) Lonp Lonicera pileata Privet Honeysuckle E E 3 Magn Magnoia Magnolia Existing E W O Mahr Mahonlia repens Oregon Creeping Grape E MISR Miscanthuss.'Rolsilbee RedSliver Maiden Grass E E E E E E Q Paed Paeonia delavayi Delavay's Tree Peony Existing Pseu Pseudotsuga Dwarf Doug Fir Existing E t3 Rhod Rhododendron Rhododendron Existing, Moved N (,7 C RhoU Rhododendron 'Unique' Unique Rhododendron _ Ribs Ribes sanguineum Flowering Currant Hall Re p cean-1 Ribs Rlbes Currant Existing Paed-a clod 1 O N Rubp Rubus pentalobus Creeping Bramble 1 lnc-1 - camsG-6 Q N Rudf Rudbeckefulgida Orange Coneflower Elec-1 Elec - s - GROUNDCOVER Pinm 1 \ Ajuga reptans Common Bugle 4"pat 500 ft' 18"o.c• \ OCTOBER 29, 2013 Erica darleyensis Mediterranean Pink and White Heath Mix 1 gal 646 ft' To.c. HemSD Hemerocallis'Stella De Orro' Stella De Orro Dwarf Daylilly & e 6 y 0 Pachysandraterminalis Japanese Pachysandra 4"pot 220 ft' 110.c. PLANTING PLAN L /Aj Teo Sod Lawn Sod NA 1220 ft' /J// I T o ` IFV eorar~uluvE cor+.wN slg golfs v \1 I~ RERIFOOEORUBHERTIEYIRGUIU:EIONt vT o Z' iHEE6 61m`s NU Erkkg ~T ~l IU4E-0TO STAYEI,YP.1 U xw nee-mv,>n, u ~ _ nel Nrn NabSVA cF ~,a~ornm nmml / W e / Cars CmwssbWiem fleCwl6 0 jnm1 lIIA EkSq \j r ' REINEORCEORU®EATiEtlI PGVREEpHr uJVk i~ IIA Erb3g Abal m k tl uF EaE[ aba agnMa maggkr4a YgkJ AZgnrEa TG E6Ika \ I~ / ND~OT091AKErIYP.1 92t2168'STA)~EETPW4G F' w 1 ` _ e Ph P- mYab UfA.ryck Pea NN fils~Y _ ]IP-Y6rANE 6Ei P11pIB Pkn PArsny> kya Fla NA Ek NCTE 3 a PaN Poy3Ai UarvAkkz QivF{C Aµsn 'M Eb6y \ \ OONO PHUHR G TO THE THEE NEESS CINA! GALiIE66PACE0 i211S L) m 0&ECTEDOYal01Ri9ERT1E DEGREES APART,TREEEH-S-D R j CLLHNSat T IW / 6UPERNSIDNOFTHEWiOSCAPF PLWI. - - ° Tds idaxeutlha CM1rean lt4ai Z' 1 r w iu Zek Ze9aasraria V@mpGan V0.vJaGVn ZCAVa Z'vd AR HIIECi Q ~-~f I I ' SXRV59 V ISEATTHETOPff11PR00T- m 1 E Den Eeb NxtregO Dreen Oekak NU E-1 WAmHT TADS DO HOT P14LESGiI J/ - ~ fob CkiaN+LS OttYh2~ 11'a!m SWx RU;A 58, GVERh1EftOOTBNI f- ~ c o I iv CaiSG Caxasefaroya 515NOasNm' SNSNOaz1A-a Caret 6y4 ry N k J IEEE Care Csae& CarAe IA E a DEPMOF INACNNIl1lMFA5. TAPER FRW F, mmLL \Z\biswrm Oenlx 66f TO A2'CLR ZQEEmUN acN CeL (.wanks x.byre- Jo}m Coker Ceanatrn ^ - m IHE NwaVnsak'dhu N&fin•1enW RabA~b NIA EW9p anAOTeDYERa®EWEOf PUMYID \ 9 _ - oGe R~peroevnsoa AsumF 3g,t HGLE "l E ai \ E- E gnammxta3 Cgrcwn S¢+aByrl 5~l Ill u iy g O" Gal fwya M1ea-saki Frtertmi ~tu,d 5gY -M L- FER THE SPECVICAipNS 20 \ Nam4 IL3msrWSx ARdlzPm~ske NrcHZPmriu V'hAlbrtl ]-k _ \ ~a --V;I ELOPE.4 El-OFPWiH. HOtE ~ m 2°e>°+m IP ~~I' HaYl ldui sen4e'<kn Oa GT IIrA~ Eak'S9 ~lc ItSIEE Q T c, - rcanL¢ERUm rrveoxamAe wnceonr 9 u Pm~uy~ s~ II TIC 9 ~ _ uayP Aaa~ v n~A EssN E V:.. RooreAUPERPUIHrmsPruElCAiwxs N o, I I UaA AWar4rtn OrtgfPOrtg}g 181•r. IIOTEtPENOVEALLNdJE ROPE a10 4) ~ ,i UkR A!s¢MUras. Ad.§M Red W.v 11a1Ln Crffi R k urea ' ROOTB ALL MA+ V RLiAaui ioP Hat OFmERWT ,ry d£TER f TA'1PEG~OC ALLg4NlE%CAVALEDM N. A-~MenSmV UNWa6+nfaakdodaadw~ 55eL ee- n m SECTION-TREE PLANTING I 1 P0s A 'ag d yn ~ 9 26a \LI'D ~S Irz'=1'tl 1 ~ I ~ Y B L R- RRw -NDCOVER 1'- ~ ° ~ '1F ~ ErtaExklbak rAmr ~,w-x~avn~rwnlrsF lsa u6Raon '1 xehcx MdMs 1vahixcl I+mYPAace IMSAOR 1YA Timz!; ar_ TO, HenSU Ha:nEm~s'swa cec~m' ebffiOa Gm OarzAGa~RJ PIAM SPACWO NIRTIMICATIWi TAELE \ ' PMD1Ye Wrhtl; JdPalie PafiD4Vdfa 1'p+, --G N FACT- llOR lbc \ / r l R~mmmra -Pg~rsw 1'FE 6saR W., ila ,z CC 1.1.(NAREA) 6s15 OR DNJJGEI WEaHEST (EII CU!AE➢enANCHE9 OmE 9p'o.c 0.181 11 / NE-TEPANCN NODE Wo.4 U. amt NpE-H TTOH o~tYNILE ER nOTF➢ \ . `va PuaroAS - HorEO r O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - runsEIIIEDRM¢MHGx _ - ,n aFgsr~wcE I L0 C\I m, e f v'1 : , -II PRUNEOaAOEO OR MSSECTER 80016 J t • Grp ~ \ ~ 11 BAOhRCATIOPERTHE ~ O a IAmm /T`\ n+•qp 1 \ 9PE91RCATIQY9 \\-I I) !II.-III III II AaaEDerrTCwsci zg 21 ~a `UlAL4NRYEONA1NE50R V l\\ TTV J~ W `l ' III I I SCARIFl'PR6OnwIam510ES y[ zxTxESIg yJ1 ~Ir Gf THEROO,BALL J/ \ \ AlYI 00.AU6m,gSEASEO,ORNEANtIlB6 ~OF1-111G W Rg AREA j IHd; 6 i 1, CLE,H&YPRUNEA1 -ACEDRO0-S (Jl / \ (2 1 SECTION: SRRUB PLANTING j&ECTION: GRDUNDCOVER PLANTING LAYOUT Q Z Q ~AITLAN'NTO- \ L4O SmN• Nos. - ,s„°"°" l\a.o, spa: Ii TS. xsra~:< ] .p sine Z m Ca @ -0 Wye = ) ♦CD 6reemP~o ~ / a _ a ' aL A r ~7 I R„ ~c -1 M1I E ~ DEa1m SOB D le: D429115 ( Cherk KK I~ c cl :I kE' E mm Y 7 no n~cawnw oAh t A{ \O \ T RF J ~ , r J, -Ua9n.1 E \ 6Gkn Pe8 'bn ~ / r \ J \ \ I - a ~ / p I i m"~ 2 ro ¢ 5 ©6 J e \ \ I I PIeDI1Pg %n o 0 20' 4DF 80 s ale1- 40' scale: t20'-0° E ~ I e E SHEET KEY - L 1.0 TREE PROTECTION PLAN ADDENDUM L2.0MAINTENANCE PLAN rw,.a n ~ L 3.0 IRRIGATION PLAN L 4.0 PLANTING PLAN a,<-1 Pte' s '1 L L 5.0 LANDSCAPE DETAILS n,so-z i / cre ENa-, f ~ ~ Ftvn- / ~ \ PLANTING PLAN L 4.0 t < Planning Division ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION rx o x 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520 04 X16 541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006 FILE # AS Mam, N D DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Pursuing LEED® Certification?RYES 0 NO . Street Address - ASH-LA+20 Assessor's Map No. 391 E 0 Tax Lot(s). Zoning Comp Plan Designation o APPLICANT Name Q Phone!541--5S"M E-Mail iatc tv ~1~:' tl t n v y Address 351 \IU81,.KM 1!~i/P City ~#t~4li Z'p O'e PROPERTY OWNER Name U Phone -E-Mail Address City Zip SURVEYOR, ENGINEER, ARCHITECTCLANDSCAPE ARCHITEjjOTHER P' Title i p_( ')uName KOleP-`f KP, JC W RNi Phone5gI-,l08-3,19* E-Mail r~~ifnn~~c,.t,~s~~~~ p~ Address ► 1 ~ City Pre; "11hl-in Title_ Name Phone E-Mail Address City Zip 1 hereby certify that the statements and information contained in this application, including the enclosed drawings and the required findings of fact, are in all respects, true and correct I understand that all property pins must be shown on the drawings and visible upon the site Inspection. In the event the pins are not shown or their location found to be incorrect, the owner assumes full responsibility. I further understand that if this request is subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to establish; 1) that I produced sufficient factual evidence at the hearing to support this request; 2) that the findings of fact furnished justifies the granting of the request; 3) that the findings of fact furnished by me are adequate; and further 4) that all structures or improvements are properly located on the ground. (;a t tjro in this regard will result most likely in not only the request being set aside, but also possibly in my structures being built in reliance thereon being required to o r.. waved atmy expense: If t have any doubts, lam advised to seek competent professional advice and assistance, A 01hnt's Signature Date As owri 'of the property invo d in this request, I have read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property ovine, Property Owner's Signature (required) Date [To be completed by City Staff Date Received Zoning Permit Type Filing Fee $ OVER 0 GAcomm-devlplaaning\Fcros & Handouts\Zoning Permit Application doc PW V writ Job Address: 1250 ASHLAND ST Contractor: ASHLAND OR 97520 Address: A C P Owner's Name: BOARD/REGENTS/NORMAL SCHOOL O Phone: P Customer 02233 N State Lic No: L BOARD/REGENTS/NORMAL SCHOOL T City Lic No: Applicant: 1250 SISKIYOU BLVD R Address: ASHLAND OR 97520 A C Sub-Contractor: A Phone: T Address: N Applied: 06/23/2015 O T Issued: R Expires: 12/20/2015 Phone: State Lic No: Maplot: 391 E15BB100 City Lic No: DESCRIPTION: Modification for Tree Removal (PA-2014-00249) Three trees over 18" bdh VALUATION Occupancy Type Construction Units Rate Amt Actual Amt Constuction Description Total for Valuation: MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL STRUCTURAL PERMIT FEE DETAIL Fee Description Amount Fee Description Amount Tree Removal/Verification 28.00 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 20 East Main St. Fax: 541-488-5311 Ashland, OR 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us Inspection Request Line: 541-552-2080 CITY OF SHLA