HomeMy WebLinkAboutMountain_S_759_PA-2016-00625
l
'r
9 t,
t
ITS OF
June 29, 2016
Notice of Final Decision
On May 16, 2016, the Community Development Director approved the request for the following:
Planning Action: 2016-00625
Subject Property: 759 S. Mountain
Applicant: Camp Kaye for Heartwood Tree Service
Description: A request to remove two Ponderosa Pine trees from the property located at
759 South Mountain Avenue. The trees were previously identified to be preserved and protected
as part of the Mountain Pines Subdivision (PA #2004-00105) but have now been determined to be
dying from pine beetle infestation by the applicant's tree care professional. COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-10; ASSESSOR'S MAP:
39 lE 16AD; TAX LOT: #3403
The Community Development Director's decision becomes final and is effective on the 121 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.
i
If you have any questions regarding this decision, please contact Derek Severson in the Community
Development Department at (541) 488-5305.
cc: Parties of record and property owners within 200 ft
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541A88-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 I
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 1
i
i
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. I. 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 ofNotice ofAppeal. 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 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon
97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 I 1
d ',us
ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION
FINDINGS & ORDERS
PLANNING ACTION: PA-2016-00625
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 759 South Mountain Avenue
APPLICANTS: Camp Kaye for Heartwood Tree Service
OWNERS: Gunnar L. Nashlund and Stephanie L. Sceva
DESCRIPTION: A request to remove two Ponderosa Pine trees from the property
located at 759 South Mountain Avenue. The trees were previously identified to be preserved and
protected as part of the Mountain Pines Subdivision (PA #2004-00105) but have now been
determined to be dying from pine beetle infestation by the applicant's tree care professional.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-10;
ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 lE 16AD; TAX LOT: #3403
SUBMITTAL DATE: April 1, 2016
DEEMED COMPLETE DATE: April 18, 2016
STAFF APPROVAL DATE: May 16, 2016
DEADLINE TO APPEAL (4:30 p.m.): May 30, 2016
FINAL DECISION DATE: May 31, 2016
APPROVAL EXPIRATION DATE: November 30, 2017
DECISION
The application is a request to remove two Ponderosa Pine tree from the property located at 759
South Mountain Avenue. These trees were previously identified to be preserved and protected as
part of the Mountain Pines Subdivision (PA #2004-00105) but have now been determined to be
dying from pine beetle infestation by the applicants' tree care professional.
The site is at located southwest of the intersection of Prospect Street and South Mountain Avenue,
on an approximately 0.23 acre lot designated as Lot #2 of the Mountain Pines Subdivision. The
site contains an approximately 900 square foot single story home with a basement, and county
records indicate that the home was built in approximately 1947.
The subject property was part of a larger parent parcel which received subdivision approval as the
Mountain Pines Subdivision in 2004 (PA #2004-00105) to create seven lots. This approval
included requirements that trees on the property be preserved and maintained in perpetuity in
accordance with the Tree Protection and Removal Plan prepared by Galbraith & Associates, Inc.,
and there were conditions that the Tree Protection Plan and accompanying standards be included
in the subdivision CC&R's; that tree protection measures and the identification of trees to be
removed be site-verified by staff prior to site work; and that grading plans be included with each
building permit and grading strictly limited to minimize impacts on the site's trees.
The current application requests to remove two ponderosa pine tree from the subject property.
Tree #1 is noted as being on the west edge of the property, next to 763 South Mountain Avenue,
with an 18-inch diameter at breast height and a height of approximately 70 feet. The applicant
indicates that tree is exhibiting approximately 60 percent brown needles in a solid mass from the
top down, and that the remaining needles will almost certainly brown as the weather warms. The
applicant suggests that the beetle activity has spread to the lower bole of the tree and that the tree
will not survive the infestation.
PA 92016-00625
759 South Mountain Avenue/dds
Page 1
1
ti
i
Tree #2 is noted as being on the south edge of the property, below the access drive, and
approximately 30-inches in diameter at breast height and 110 feet tall. The application indicates
that the top of the tree has browned down approximately one-third of the tree's height; the
application further suggests that the applicants are considering whether to simply top the tree by
removing the browned portion and waiting to see if the tree declines further, or to fully remove the
tree. The application explains that there is no observed beetle activity in the lower bole, which is
still green. The applicant suggests that topping the tree should not pose a significant safety risk,
and leaving the top in the tree temporarily would not create an issue as the beetles wintering in the
tree would not overwhelm the surrounding healthy trees upon emergence given the number of
beetles already present in the forest interface. Given the beetle infestation, they are asking for
permission to fully remove the tree while they continue to observe the tree's condition and consider
these options.
In discussing the likely cause of this situation, Mr. Kaye notes that the root zones of the trees here
were impacted by the recent construction of homes with the subdivision, and the surface and
ground water to the root zones affected. He indicates that protection of the root zone to the drip
line was not established in both cases, and further suggests that protection to the drip line is not
always sufficient mitigation when large areas of rainfall are removed via roofs, gutters, roads and
storm sewers.
He suggests with the continued stress of drought on native trees, any added stress such as this
could trip the trees into a degenerative state leading to an inability to repel beetle attacks. He
emphasizes that fully healthy trees are rarely killed by beetles, and that prior stressors are usually
the cause enabling infestation. Mr. Kaye has noted that as infested trees die, they become a hazard
as the wood begins to degrade.
The Ashland Tree Commission reviewed this request at their regular meeting on May 5, 2016. The
Commission expressed concern with the hazard created, and the potential for beetles to spread
killing other trees and adding to fire danger in the area and suggested that it would likely be best
to simply remove the second tree. The Commission recommended approval of the request, and as
in past requests suggested that there be careful irrigation of remaining trees and mitigation trees to at
least a depth of 18-inches, that the trees be well-mulched, and that no cuts be made to trees on the property
for the immediate future to avoid the spread of the beetle infestation. The Commission also recommends
that given the hillside context, that stumps not be deeply ground. In terms of required mitigation plantings,
in these situations the Tree Commission recommends that the replacement trees used for mitigation
should not be Ponderosa Pines, and would instead recommend incense cedar or some type of
hardwood specimen.
In staff's assessment, the application has demonstrated that the condition and location of the trees
pose a safety hazard in that there is a foreseeable danger of property damage to existing structures
as these trees condition declines further, and this hazard cannot reasonably be alleviated by any
treatment other than removal.
The criteria for Tree Removal Permit approval are described in AMC section 18.5.7.040.13
as follows:
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.
E=
PA #2016-00625
759 South Mountain Avenue/dds
Page 2
i
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.
i
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.
Planning Action #2016-00625 is a request to remove two Ponderosa Pine tree from the property
located at 759 South Mountain Avenue. These trees were previously identified to be preserved
and protected as part of the Mountain Pines Subdivision (PA #2004-00105) but have now been
determined to be dying from pine beetle infestation by the applicant's tree care professional.
The application with the attached conditions below complies with all applicable City ordinances
for a tree removal permit to remove hazard trees. Planning Action #2016-00625 is therefore
approved to allow the removal of two ponderosa pine trees. Further, if any one or more of the
following conditions are found to be invalid for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action
#2016-00625 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval:
1. That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise
specifically modified herein.
PA #2016-00625
759 South Mountain Avenue/dds
Page 3
%i
2. That the recommendations of the Tree Commission from their May 5, 2016 meeting shall
be conditions of approval where consistent with the applicable standards and with final
approval by the Staff Advisor including but not limited to the following:
a. The Commission strongly recommends careful irrigation of remaining trees and the
proposed mitigation tree to at least a depth of 18-inches, that the trees be well-
mulched, and that no cuts be made to trees on the property for the immediate future
to avoid the spread of the beetle infestation;
b. The Commission also recommends that given the hillside context that stumps not
be deeply ground.
3. That a Verification Permit shall be applied for and approved by the Ashland Planning
Division prior to the proposed tree removals. The Verification Permit is to inspect the
identification of the trees to be removed. The trees to be removed shall be tagged by
number and identified for removal with tape, inspected, and approved by the Staff Advisor
prior to their removal.
4. That the tree removed shall be mitigated with the planting of two new trees. The
replacement trees used for mitigation should not be Ponderosa Pines. Incense cedar or w
some type of hardwood specimen would be most appropriate.
Bifl'Molnar. _Director Date
Department of Community Development
PA 42016-00625
759 South Mountain Avenue/dds
Page 4
i
F ~
E
CITY
1!
c
May 17, 2016 E!
Notice of Final Decision
On May 16, 2016, the Community Development Director approved the request for the following:
Planning Action: 2016-00625
Subject Property: 759 S. Mountain
Applicant: Camp Kaye for Heartwood Tree Service
Description: A request to remove two Ponderosa Pine trees from the property located at
759 South Mountain Avenue. The trees were previously identified to be preserved and protected
as part of the Mountain Pines Subdivision (PA #2004-00105) but have now been determined to be
dying from pine beetle infestation by the applicant's tree care professional. COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-10; ASSESSOR'S MAP:
39 lE 16AD; TAX LOT: #3403
The Community Development Director's decision becomes final and is effective on the 12t" 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 Derek Severson in the Community
Development Department at (541) 488-5305.
cc: Parties of record and property owners within 200 ft
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 f
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
Wk L rAls
i
E
i
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 ofNotice ofAppeal. 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.
I
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
%V ~1 _L 1-.11s
t
ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION
FINDINGS & ORDERS
PLANNING ACTION: PA-2016-00625
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 759 South Mountain Avenue
APPLICANTS: Camp Kaye for Heartwood Tree Service
OWNERS: Gunnar L. Nashlund and Stephanie L. Sceva
DESCRIPTION: Arequest to remove two Ponderosa Pine trees from the property
located at 759 South Mountain Avenue. The trees were previously identified to be preserved and
protected as part of the Mountain Pines Subdivision (PA #2004-00105) but have now been
determined to be dying from pine beetle infestation by the applicant's tree care professional.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-10;
ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 lE 16AD; TAX LOT: #3403
SUBMITTAL DATE: April 1, 2016
r
DEEMED COMPLETE DATE: April 18, 2016
STAFF APPROVAL DATE: May 16, 2016
DEADLINE TO APPEAL (4:30 p.m.): May 30, 2016
FINAL DECISION DATE: May 31, 2016
APPROVAL EXPIRATION DATE: November 30, 2017
DECISION
The application is a request to remove two Ponderosa Pine tree from the property located at 759
South Mountain Avenue. These trees were previously identified to be preserved and protected as
part of the Mountain Pines Subdivision (PA #2004-00105) but have now been determined to be
dying from pine beetle infestation by the applicants' tree care professional.
The site is at located southwest of the intersection of Prospect Street and South Mountain Avenue,
on an approximately 0.23 acre lot designated as Lot #2 of the Mountain Pines Subdivision. The
site contains an approximately 900 square foot single story home with a basement, and county
records indicate that the home was built in approximately 1947.
The subject property was part of a larger parent parcel which received subdivision approval as the
Mountain Pines Subdivision in 2004 (PA #2004-00105) to create seven lots. This approval
included requirements that trees on the property be preserved and maintained in perpetuity in
accordance with the Tree Protection and Removal Plan prepared by Galbraith & Associates, Inc.,
and there were conditions that the Tree Protection Plan and accompanying standards be included
in the subdivision CC&R's; that tree protection measures and the identification of trees to be
removed be site-verified by staff prior to site work; and that grading plans be included with each
building permit and grading strictly limited to minimize impacts on the site's trees.
The current application requests to remove two ponderosa pine tree from the subject property.
Tree #1 is noted as being on the west edge of the property, next to 763 South Mountain Avenue,
with an 18-inch diameter at breast height and a height of approximately 70 feet. The applicant
indicates that tree is exhibiting approximately 60 percent brown needles in a solid mass from the
top down, and that the remaining needles will almost certainly brown as the weather warms. The
applicant suggests that the beetle activity has spread to the lower bole of the tree and that the tree
will not survive the infestation.
PA #2016-00625
759 South Mountain Avenue/dds
Page 1
Tree #2 is noted as being on the south edge of the property, below the access drive, and
approximately 30-inches in diameter at breast height and 110 feet tall. The application indicates
that the top of the tree has browned down approximately one-third of the tree's height; the
application further suggests that the applicants are considering whether to simply top the tree by
removing the browned portion and waiting to see if the tree declines further, or to fully remove the
tree. The application explains that there is no observed beetle activity in the lower bole, which is
still green. The applicant suggests that topping the tree should not pose a significant safety risk,
and leaving the top in the tree temporarily would not create an issue as the beetles wintering in the
tree would not overwhelm the surrounding healthy trees upon emergence given the number of
beetles already present in the forest interface. Given the beetle infestation, they are asking for
permission to fully remove the tree while they continue to observe the tree's condition and consider
these options.
Over the last several months, two adjoining parcels have also received approval to remove pine
trees due to pine beetle infestation. In discussing the likely cause of this situation, Mr. Kaye notes
that while there is no sign that the root zones of these trees were directly impacted by the recent
construction of homes with the subdivision, the construction of homes and the associated access
driveway could nonetheless have had some negative impact on the groundwater. Mr. Kaye also
notes that there have been rumors that changes were made to repair leaks from the Talent Irrigation
District (TID) line uphill of the trees within the last five years, and he believes that this may have
further impacted the groundwater situation. He suggests with the continued stress of drought on
native trees, any added stress such as this could trip the trees into a degenerative state leading to
an inability to repel beetle attacks. He emphasizes that fully healthy trees are rarely killed by
beetles, and that prior stressors are usually the cause enabling an infestation.
Mr. Kaye has noted that as infested trees die, they become a hazard to the home on the property.
As the upper two thirds of the wood becomes brown, the wood will begin to weaken and will begin
dropping limbs and eventually pieces of the trunk from the top down. He suggests that once they
reach this point, the trees decline rapidly, and that there is no way to remedy the hazard posed short
of removal of the tree.
The Ashland Tree Commission reviewed this request at their regular meeting on May 5, 2016. The
Commission expressed concern with the hazard created, and the potential for beetles to spread
killing other trees and adding to fire danger in the area and suggested that it would likely be best
to simply remove the second tree. The Commission recommended approval of the request, and as
in past requests suggested that there be careful irrigation of remaining trees and mitigation trees to at
least a depth of 18-inches, that the trees be well-mulched, and that no cuts be made to trees on the property
for the immediate future to avoid the spread of the beetle infestation. The Commission also recommends
that given the hillside context, that stumps not be deeply ground. In terms of required mitigation plantings,
in these situations the Tree Commission recommends that the replacement trees used for mitigation
should not be Ponderosa Pines, and would instead recommend incense cedar or some type of
hardwood specimen.
In staff's assessment, the application has demonstrated that the condition and location of the trees
pose a safety hazard in that there is a foreseeable danger of property damage to existing structures
as these trees condition declines further, and this hazard cannot reasonably be alleviated by any
treatment other than removal.
The criteria for Tree Removal Permit approval are described in AMC section 18.5.7.040.B
as follows:
PA #2016-00625
759 South Mountain Avenue/dds
Page 2
i
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 18.5.
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.
Planning Action 42016-00625 is a request to remove two Ponderosa Pine tree from the property
located at 759 South Mountain Avenue. These trees were previously identified to be preserved
and protected as part of the Mountain Pines Subdivision (PA #2004-00105) but have now been
determined to be dying from pine beetle infestation by the applicant's tree care professional.
The application with the attached conditions below complies with all applicable City ordinances
for a tree removal permit to remove hazard trees. Planning Action #2016-00625 is therefore
approved to allow the removal of two ponderosa pine trees. Further, if any one or more of the
PA #2016-00625
759 South Mountain Avenue/dds
Page 3
i
following conditions are found to be invalid for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action
#2016-00625 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval:
1. That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise
specifically modified herein.
2. That the recommendations of the Tree Commission from their May 5, 2016 meeting shall
be conditions of approval where consistent with the applicable standards and with final
approval by the Staff Advisor including but not limited to the following:
a. The Commission strongly recommends careful irrigation of remaining trees and the
proposed mitigation tree to at least a depth of 18-inches, that the trees be well-
mulched, and that no cuts be made to trees on the property for the immediate future
to avoid the spread of the beetle infestation;
b. The Commission also recommends that given the hillside context that stumps not
be deeply ground.
3. That a Verification Permit shall be applied for and approved by the Ashland Planning
Division prior to the proposed tree removals. The Verification Permit is to inspect the
identification of the trees to be removed. The trees to be removed shall be tagged by
number and identified for removal with tape, inspected, and approved by the Staff Advisor
prior to their removal.
4. That the tree removed shall be mitigated with the planting of two new trees. The
replacement trees used for mitigation should not be Ponderosa Pines. Incense cedar or
some type of hardwood specimen would be most appropriate.
May 16, 2016
11 Molnarhector Date
(Department; f Community Development
r
PA #2016-00625
759 South Mountain Avenue/dds
Page 4
i
I
I
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 May 17, 2016 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 #PA-2016-00625, 759 S. Mountain Ave.
Sig ure of Employee
Documentl 5/17/2016
E°°
I
I
PA-2016-00625 391 E16AA 2400 .-A-2016-00625 391 E16AD 3402 A-2016-00625 391 E16AD 4099
BERGSTROM A T/PENNY AUSTIN CLEGG LYNN/GEORGETTE B CLOER HAROLD A ET AL
760 GLENWOOD DR 755 S MOUNTAIN AVE 815 CREEK STONE WAY
ASHLAND, OR 97520 j ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2016-00625 391 E16AD 6500 ' PA-2016-00625 391 E16AD 3405 PA-2016-00625 391 E16AD 4000
COTTON CHRISTOPHER ET AL DONOVAN MICHAEL J/CARRISMA I GENERAL PROPERTY GROUP
780 S MOUNTAIN AVE 767 S MOUNTAIN AVE I LLC
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 I PO BOX 8158
rMEDFORD, OR 97501
PA-2016-00625 391 E16AD 3404 i PA-2016-00625 391 E16AD 3200 PA-2016-00625 391 E16AA 2402
KISTLER RAY LITTLE JOHN D TRUSTEE ET AL NORMAN GORDON A ET AL
763 S MOUNTAIN AVE j 807 S MOUNTAIN AVE 1043 PROSPECT ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
li I
PA-2016-00625 391 E16AA 2303 PA-2016-00625 391 E16AA 2301 'PA-2016-00625 391 E16AD 3400
OLIVER HENRY TRUSTEE III ET PHILLIPS PHILIP/KATHERINE PHOENIX JOY L
AL I 1063 PROSPECT ST 8987 E TANQUE VERDE RD STE
2305C ASHLAND ST 512 ASHLAND, OR 97520 309-381
ASHLAND, OR 97520 TUCSON, AZ 85749
PA-2016-00625 391 E16AD 3406 PA-2016-00625 391 E16AA 2302 PA-2016-00625 391 E16AD 3407
ROBERTS ANTOINETTE M IRA ET ROSE-SIMMONS DOREEN K SAGAL GLENN D/VIRGINIA C
AL PO BOX 1505 1775 S MOUNTAIN AVE
PO BOX 451159 MARTINEZ, CA 94553 ASHLAND, OR 97520
WESTLAKE, OH 44145
PA-2016-00625 391 E 16AD 3403 ' PA-2016-00625 391 E 16AD 3701 ' PA-2016-00625 391 E 16AD 3300
SCEVA STEPHANIE L ET AL I SIGETICH MILAN P/R L REID STALLMAN ANDREW M/JEANNE
2440 CRESTLINE DR NW 1036 PROSPECT ST M
OLYMPIA, WA 98502 ASHLAND, OR 97520 789 MOUNTAIN AVE S
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2016-00625 391 E16AD 3401 (I PA-2016-00625 391 E16AA 2305 PA-2016-00625 391 E16AA 2401
STALLMAN ANDREW M/JEANNE STANEK CHRISTOPHER J/WENDI TAYLOR JEAN H TRUSTEE ET AL
M 720 GLENWOOD DR 734 GLENWOOD DR
789 MOUNTAIN AVE S ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
ASHLAND, OR 97520 j
PA-2016-00625 391 E16AD 101 HEARTWOOD TREE SERVICE 759 S. Mountain
WARREN JON PO BOX 1173 5/17/2016 NOD
1120 PROSPECT ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 25
ASHLAND, OR 97520
LARS NASLUND LARS NASLUND
2440 CRESTLINE DRIVE NW 759 S. MOUNTAIN
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
I I
CITY F
ASHLAND
TREE COMMISSION MINUTES }
Draft May 5, 2016
i
CALL TO ORDER
Acting Chair John called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m, in the Siskiyou Room of the Community Development and
Engineering Services Building located at 51 Winburn Way.
I
Commissioners Council Liaison
Present:
Mike Oxendine Carol Voisin
Christopher John
Russell Neff
Maureen Battistella Parks Liaison
Peter Baughman
Commissioners Staff Present
Absent: Derek Severson,
Associate Planner
Casey Roland Cory Darrow,
Assistant Planner
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Oxendine/Russell m/s to approve the April 7, 2016 meeting minutes. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed.
ANNOUNCEMENTS & LIAISON REPORTS
Council - Voisin reported that the Council has been focusing on downtown behavior issues; obstructing
sidewalks and passageways, solicitation of money and smoking. Voisin acknowledged that the employee union
negotiations are complete. The sewer issue at the Shafer house located on Morton Street is still being worked on
and remains confidential at this time. The fire Chief has requested to hire three additional firefighters. $315,000
has been approved for updating the Water Master Plan.
Parks Department - Baughman reported that the Parks Department will be removing hazard trees in the Triangle
Park, the Blue Bird Park and Lithia Park. Baughman announced the Siskiyou De Mayo, A World Music Festival,
will be held on May 14, 2016 at the Lithia Park Butler Bank Shell.
Staff - Severson reported that the Council adopted the Airport Code update which included a change relevant to
the tree removal. The Public Works Department will be able to remove trees when they are mandated by the
FAA for safety reasons. The Mayor has done reappointments and we do have some new people interested in the
Commission stated Severson. He suggested that the Commissioners stop and take a look at the planter area
outside of Gateway Realty. The redesign of it was part of the downtown beautification project.
PUBLIC FORUM
Joyce Van Ann, 386 N Laurel spoke. Ms. VanAnn acknowledged that at a previous Tree Commission meeting
Commissioner Roland discussed a tool that you shove into the ground to check for water moisture to see if the
trees are being irrigated well. The cost of the tool is about eighty dollars. Ms. VanAnn suggested that the City
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Community
Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable
arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Severson gave his staff report.
Architect Ray Kistler, 66 Water Street was present to represent the applicant. Mr. Kistler confirmed that the Street
trees are really nice and appear to be in great shape so they would like to keep them. The tree close to the building
might not survive the construction but they can watch it. Because they do not meet the driveway width on Iowas
Street it could impact tree #2.
Rick Harris spoke. Mr. Harris explained that the applicant looked at two other configurations of moving the
driveway. Their goal is to make the least amount of impact on the trees.
Tree Commission was supportive of the request as submitted both in terns of the Tree Removal Permit request
I
and the Exception to preserve existing street trees. The Tree Commission expressed appreciation for the
applicants' efforts to preserve and protect trees, and suggested that the lone removal requested be mitigated with
the planting of a replacement tree in the playground area. The Commission specifically recommended a Zelkova
as an appropriate selection, but said that any tree from the Recommended Street Tree List would be appropriate
with the exception of Raywood Ash.
PLANKING ACTION: PA-2016-0062>
SUBJECT PROPERTV: 759 South Mountain Avenue
APPLICANTS: Heartwood Tree Service.
OWNERS: Gunnar l:. Nasbltuld and Stephanie L. Sceva
DESCRIPTION: A request to remove two Ponderosa Pine trees from the property located at 759
South Mountain Avenue. The trees were previously identified to be preserved and protected as part of the
Mountain Pines Subdivision (PA 42004-00105) but hark now been determined to be dying from pine beetle
infestation by the applicant's tree care professional.
COMPREIIENSIVE PLAN DESIGN:1TION: Single Fare ly Residential; ZONIN(-Ir: R-1-10; ASSESSOR'S
NIAP: 39 I E 16AD; TAX LOT: f X40
Severson presented the staffreport.
The Ashland Tree Commission revie%ved this recluest at their rebntlar meeting on May 5, 2016. The Commission
expressed concern with the hazard created. and the potential for beetles to spread 1611ing other trees and adding
to fire danger in the area and suoBested that it would likely be best to simply remove the second tree. The
Commission recommennded approval of the request, and as in past requests suggested that there be careful
irrigation of remaitling trees and mitigation trees to at least a depth of 18-inches, that the trees be well-mulched,
and that no cuts be made to trees on the property for the immediate future to avoid the spread of the beetle
infestation. The Commission also recommends that given the hillside context. that stumps not be deeply ground.
In terms 01' required mitigation plantings. in these situations the AI-cc. Commission recotl-iulends that the
replacement trees used for mitigation should trot be Ponderosa Pines, and would instead recommend incense cedar
or some t},,pe of hardwood specimen.
B(alistella,Johii to apj?row the cretiofz. 1,`Oicc> i,ole: :111 t1I'F,5'. Motioll passcci.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
Earth Day 2016 - The Commissioners agreed that Earth Day was very successful. There was a great turn out
and the kids especially seemed to have a good time.
James Urban's Visit - The Commissioners enjoyed the seminar that James Urban recently put on. They
appreciated his knowledge and resources. Mr. Urban has a great website with all his resources.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Community
Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable
arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Planning Department, 51 Winbum Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 . I T F
541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland,or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900
ASHLAND
i
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
PLANNING ACTION: PA-2016-00625
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 759 S. Mountain Ave
OWNER/APPLICANT: Gunnar L. Nashlund & Stephanie L. Seeva/Heartwood Tree Service
DESCRIPTION: A request to remove two Ponderosa Pine trees from the property located at 759 South Mountain Avenue. The trees
were previously identified to be preserved and protected as part of the Mountain Pines Subdivision (PA #2004-00105) but have now been
determined to be dying from pine beetle infestation by the applicant's tree care professional. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:
Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-10; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 391E 16AD; TAX LOT: #3403
i
i,
NOTE: The Ashland Tree Commission will also review this Planning Action on Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 6:00 PM in the Community
Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51 Winburn Way.
NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: April 18, 2016
DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: May 2, 2016
PA #2016-00625
PROSPECT ST 759 s. MOUNTAIN AV.
- SUBJECT PROPERTY
- Q -
U)
i
I _
l Al - N
L_ - 'J
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 Staffs 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.
OCC
i
TREE REMOVAL PERMIT
18.5.7.040.B
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.
a. 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.
b. 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.
c. 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,
d. 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.
e. 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.
l
G:\comm-dev\planning\Planning Actions\Noticing Folder\Mailed Notices & Signs\2016\PA-2016-00625.docx
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
i
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Jackson )
c
The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: j,
c
1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland,
Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department.
2. On April 18, 2016 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 #2016-00625, 759 S. Mountain Ave.
~I-
Signa u e of Employee
DocumenW 4/1812016
i
I
r
PA-2016-00625 391 E16AA 2400 A-2016-00625391 E16AD 3402 A-2016-00625 391 E16AD 4099
BERGSTROM A T/PENNY AUSTIN ! CLEGG LYNN/GEORGETTE B CLOER HAROLD A ET AL
760 GLENWOOD DR 755 S MOUNTAIN AVE 815 CREEK STONE WAY
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAINID OR 97520 F
PA-2016-00625 391 E 1 D 6500 PA-2016-00625 391 E 1 El 6AD 4000
COTTON CHRISTOPHER ET AL DONOVAN MICHAEL6CARRISMA GENERAL P 25 391ROPERTTY Y GROUP
OUP
GENERAL P
780 S MOUNTAIN AVE 767 5 MOUNTAIN AVE LLC
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PO BOX 8158
i MEDFORD, OR 97501
PA-2016-00625.391 E1 GAD 3404 PA-2016-00625 391 E16AD 3200 ! I PA-2016-00625 391 E16AA 2402
KISTLER RAY LITTLE JOHN D TRUSTEE ET AL NORMAN GORDON A ET AL
763 S MOUNTAIN AVE ! 807 S MOUNTAIN AVE 1043 PROSPECT ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2016-00625 391 E16AA 2303 i PA-2016-00625 391 E16AA 2301 "PA-2016-00625 391 E16AD 3400
OLIVER HENRY TRUSTEE III ET PHILLIPS PHILIP/KATHERINE I PHOENIX JOY L
AL j 1063 PROSPECT ST 8987 E TANQUE VERDE RD STE
2305C ASHLAND ST 512 ASHLAND, OR 97520 309-381
ASHLAND, OR 97520 TUCSON, AZ 85749
PA-2016-00625 391.E16AD 3406 PA-2016-00625 391El6AA 2302 PA-2016-00625 391E16AD 3407
ROBERTS ANTOINETTE M IRA.ET j ROSE-SIMMONS DOREEN K SAGAL GLENN D/VIRGINIA C
PO BOX 451159 PO BOX 1505 775 S MOUNTAIN AVE
WESTLAKE, OH 44145 MARTINEZ, CA 94553 ASHLAND, OR 97520
II
PA-2016-00625391 E16AD 3403 ( PA-2016-00625 391 E16AD 3701 PA-2016-00625 391 E16AD 3300
SCEVA STEPHANIE L ET AL SIGETICH MILAN P/R L REID STALLMAN ANDREW M/JEANNE
2440 CRESTLINE DR NW 1036 PROSPECT ST 789 MOUNTAIN AVE S
OLYMPIA, WA 98502 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
II
PA-2016-00625 391 E16AD 3401 PA-2016-00625 391 E16AA 2305 PA-2016-00625 391 E16AA 2401
STALLMAN ANDREW M/JEANNE STANEK CHRISTOPHER J/WENDI TAYLOR JEAN H TRUSTEE ET AL
789 MOUNTAIN AVE S 720 GLENWOOD DR 734 GLENWOOD DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520_ ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2016-00625 391 E_ 16AD 101 j PA-2016-00625 ! ~ 759 S. Mountain
WARREN JON HEARTWOOD TREE SERVICE 4/18/2016 NOC
1120 PROSPECT ST I PO BOX 1173 25
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2016-00625 PA-2016-00625
CARS NASLUND LARS NASLUND
2440 CRESTLINE DRIVE NW 759 S. MOUNTAIN
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
I
I '
' I~
, m. • ~1 1 1-
%Mir
c 0=s
WEIP
it t7 I
ry~~C
to L ih
t'
40
OGK-
T
Z
OOP T
To'~z ma
t0pz
S F
E 3
i-' F~1-2 ¢ '0Z 1
L~ 4l' Z 6
DIE
ODZ 1' 0[1 7LI
I 0GA
~
I'D GE
E7a
1
r p
f
APR 0 14 2016
Caiiip Kaye, owner, CCB license 198018
P.O. Box 1173, Ashland, OR, 97520-0040
(541) 840-5546
He artwood@jeffiiel. org
Date: March 28th, 2016
Re: Tree removal.
Site owner and location:
Lars Nashlund
759 S. Mountain
Ashland, OR
To whom it may concern:
At the propery cited above two Ponderosa pine trees are dying. They are currently infested with pine beetles.
Tree #1 (on west edge of property next to 763 S. Mountain), 18" DBH, approximately 70' tall, is exhibiting
approximately 60% brown needles in solid mass from the top down. Due to the time of year the remaining green
on the tree will almost certainly turn brown when the weather warms. In this case the beetle activity has spread
to the lower bole and it's my estimation the tree will not survive.
Tree # 2 (on the south edge of the property just below the access drive), 30" DBH, approximately 110' tall, has
browned from the top down approximately one-third of the tree height. We are considering either leaving the
top in this tree or just topping it taking out the browned section and waiting long enough to be sure the tree
is dying. There is no noticeable beetle activity in the lower bole, the still green section. Though the tree may
well continue to degenerate, the owner and I are discussing the risks and merits of giving it a chance. With that
being said, this permit is to allow full removal of Tree #1 and to OK full removal of Tree #2 with the option of
topping of Tree #2 if that proves a valid consideration over the next couple of months.
It's my opinion, though it's desirable to remove beetle infested wood whenever possible, leaving the top in Tree
#2 temporarily will not pose a significant risk to the surrounding trees in the area. The interface around Ashland
is well populated with beetles and those wintering in the top of Tree #2, upon emergence, should not overwhelm
healthy trees in the area. The owner and I are actively discussing the possibility of removing the top of Tree #2,
but have not finished our discussion on it at this time. I wanted to get the permit process going ASAP.
As to the trees' decline the most obvious cause would point to the recent houses built in the past few years and
the access drive leading to them. The root zones of the trees have been directly impacted by the construction and
the surface and ground water to the root zone affected. It appears protection of the root zone to the drip line was
not established in both cases. Even with protection to the drip line, that is not always sufficient mitigation when
large areas of rainfall are removed via roofs, gutters, roads and storm sewers.
As all the native trees in the Ashland interface are already under stress from the long-term drought affecting the
area any additional stressors can easily tip them into a degenerative state leading to the inablility of the trees to
repel beetle attacks.
('Beetle-kill", as you may already know, is a misnomer. Fully healthy trees are rarely killed by beetles. Prior
stressors are usually the cause and only allow the beetles to infest a tree.)
The trees or dead portions will gradually become hazards as the wood begins to degrade.
Both trees are flagged with yellow flagging. Attached is a rough map of the trees to be removed on the property
in question.
Please contact me with any further questions.
Respectfully submitted,
Camp Kaye
Heartwood Tree Service
P.O. Box 1173, Ashland, OR 97520
(541)840-5546
CCB Lic. # 198018
i
x.5`9 ~t~r.~~J~~ttl~
7S-1 5
1
1 f
f f -
763 !
r
J
767 -H MOUNTAIN AVENur:~
767
-
j
APP 012016
t
ZONING IT APPLIC
Planning Division
51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520
ceav OF! fIL eW,01 - 00-E5 '
,ASHLAND 541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Tree Removal
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Pursuing LEEDO Certification? 0 YES ❑ NO
Street Address 759 S Mountain Aye
Assessors Map No. 391E ~ Tax Lots)
Zoning Comp Plan Designation -
APPLICANT
Name Heartwood Tree Service Phone (541}840-5546 E-Mail Heartwood 'effnet.orq
Address P,0. Box 1173 City Ashland Zip 97520.
PROPERTY OWNER
Name Lars Nashlund Phone (541)778-0233 -E-Mail larsnashlundIft0sn.corn
Address 440 Gr shine Drive NW City Olympia, WA Zip 98522
SURVEYOR ENGINEER ARCHITECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, OTHER
Title Name Phone E-Mail
Address city zip
Title Name Phone E-Mail
Address City _ Zip
(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 nofshownortheir
location found to be incorrect the owner assumes full responsibifik I further understand that if this request is subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to
establish:
1) that 1 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 property located on the ground,,
Failure in h' raga * 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 ved at my el ense. if I eve any doubts, t am advised to seek competent professional advice and assistance.
3
Ap iicenvs gna ure Date
As owner of the property involve inth' equest, t ave read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property
owner.
Props vitnees Signature (required) Da e
EraW-VOW dycityscaM
Date Received / Zoning Permit Typa_ Filing Fee $ I
OVER
GAcmnm-&v\planMn&orms & Hnndouts\&ning Pemdt Applicatioo.doe
1
1
Job Address: 759 MOUNTAIN AVE S Contractor:
ASHLAND OR 97520 Address:
C
A Owner's Name: LARS/STEPHANIE NASHLUND/SCENA O Phone:
P Customer 08638 N State Lie No:
P HEARTWOOD TREE SERVICE T City Lie No:
L Applicant: PO BOX 1173 R
I Address: ASHLAND OR 97520 A
C C Sub-Contractor:
A Phone: (541) 840-5546 T Address:
N Applied: 04/01/2016 0
T Issued:
Expires: 09/28/2016 Phone:
R
State Lie No:
Maplot: 391 E16AD3403 City Lie No:
DESCRIPTION: Tree Removal
I
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 RemovalNerification 28.00
I
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
CITY OF
Inspection Request Line: 541-552-2080
I
- I
t
{s
I hereby certify the contents of this application to be correct to the
best of my knowledge, and furthermore, that I have read, Fee Summary Paid Amounts
understood and agreed to the following:
Building: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
1. This permit shall remain valid only in accordance with code State Surcharge: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
or regulation provisions relating to time lapse and revocation Development Fees: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
(180 days).
2. Work shall not proceed past approved inspection stage. All Systems Development Charges: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
required inspections shall be called for 24 hours in advance. Utility Connection Fees: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
3. Any modifications in plans or work shall be reported in
advance to the department. Public Works Fees: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
4. Responsibility for complying with all applicable federal, state, Planning Fees: $ 28.00 $ 28.00
or local laws, ordinances, or regulations rests solely with the
applicant. Sub-Total: $ 28.00
Fees Paid: $ 28.00
Applicant Date Total Amount Due: $ 0
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
-Y-VS H L
i"
k