HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-06-04_Tree_MIN
TREE COMMISSION
Minutes June 4, 2015
Chair Gregg Trunnell called the meeting of the Ashland Tree Commission to order at 6:00 p.m. on June
–
CALL TO ORDER
4, 2015 at Council Chambers located at 1175 East Main Street, Ashland Oregon.
Commissioners Council Liaison
Ken Schmidt Carol Voisin
Gregg Trunnell Staff
Russ Neff Derek Severson, Associate Planner
Casey RolandCarolyn Schwendener, Admin
Christopher John Pete Baughman, Parks Liaison
Maureen Battistella Zechariah Heck, Assistant Planner
Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Neff/Rolandm/s to approve the minutes of the May 7,2015 Tree Commission meeting. Voice Vote: All Ayes, minutes were
approved as presented.
PUBLIC FORUM
No one present spoke.
INTRODUCTION OF NEW MEMBERS
The Commissioners welcomed new member Maureen Battistella. Ms.Battistella lives at 395 Hemlock in Ashland and moved
tothe Community in 2000.
CITY COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT
reported that at Tuesday’s meeting the Council officially appointed Tighe O’Meara as the new Police Chief.
Council Voisin
On June 24, 2015 there will be a Community Policing Forum. This will be a good opportunity for the Community to meet Chief
O’Meara and he will be explaining what Community Policing is. Voisin said that Council received the drought report and
things are not looking good. The City is putting together a plan to determine what to do with the water that is available in the
reservoir, TAP (Talent, Ashland & Phoenix) and TID (Talent Irrigation District). There is now a Community Climate and
Energy Action Plan Ad Hoc Committee. This Committee will begin sometime in either September or October.
TYPE 1 REVIEWS
:PA-2015-00680
PLANNING ACTION
237 N. First St.
SUBJECT PROPERTY:
Ashland Food Cooperative
OWNER:
KenCairn Landscape Architecture (agent for owner)
APPLICANT:
A request for Site Review approval to reconfigure the landscape and patio areas along A Street to
DESCRIPTION:
provide more water-efficient landscaping, improve the employee break area, and provide secure employee bicycle parking for
the Ashland Community Food Store located at 237 N First Street. The application includes requests for a Tree Removal
Permit to remove two trees. (The property is located within the Ashland Railroad Addition Historic District and the Detail Site
Review Zone, and because of the building size is also subject to additional standards for large scale projects.)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR’S MAP: 39 1E 09BA; TAX LOT: 13401
All Commissionersconfirmed they did a site visit.
gave a staff report. Mr. Severson explained that the applicants are trying to
Associate City PlannerDerek Severson
improve the employee break area and offer secure employee bicycle parking as well as providing more water efficient
landscaping. The landscaping plan does include the request for the removal of two trees located at the rear of the property.
gave an overview ofthe application.Ms KenCairn explained that the two
Applicant Kerry KenCairn, 545 A Street, Suite 3
Raywood Ash trees being removed were planted back in the mid 1980’s when the Co-Op acquired the property. The
applicant is suggesting replacingthem with one large shade tree and one ornamental tree. The project in general is a
complete remade of the ornamental landscaping in the back of the Co-Op.
After a brief discussion which included the useof bubblers for irrigation, the Commissioners made the following motion.
Roland/Neff m/s to approve the plan. Voice Vote: All Ayes, motion passed.
PA-2015-00794
PLANNING ACTION:
199 EastHersey Street
SUBJECT PROPERTY:
Vision Homes Inc.
OWNER/APPLICANT:
A request for a minor Land Partition to create three tax lots for the property located at 199 Hersey
DESCRIPTION:
Street. The application includes a request to remove six trees on the property that range in size from ten inches to thirty inches
in diameter at breast height. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-5;
ASSESSOR’S MAP: 39 1E 04CD TAX LOT: 306;
All Commissioners confirmed they did a site visit.
Severson explained this application is for a land partition to create three lots. One house is being demolished and then the
lots will be developed. At this time there is not a mitigation plan provided but it would be appropriate to mitigate one forone as
recommended by code. The plan does state they intend to plant new tree on the property with irrigation following the
completion of construction.
The Commissioners expressed concern over the Incense Cedar (tree number 5) It appears the tree is being removed due to
the proposed utility lines going through the root zone. The Commissioners would like to seethe tree preserved, and a
protection zone created around the tree as it appears the applicants have begun site work. They felt the tree definitely is an
asset to the property and worth savingand suggested that the applicants consider directional boring for the utility installation.
Trunnell/Neff m/s to allow the removal of five of the six trees with the preservation and protection of the 30 inch DBH Cedar
Tree(Tree #5). In addition, the Commission asked that a mitigation plan for the approved removals be provided prior to the
signature of the final survey plat. Voice Vote: All Ayes, motion passed.
PA-2015-00878
PLANNING ACTION:
35 S. Pioneer St.
SUBJECT PROPERTY:
City of Ashland
OWNER:
Oregon Shakespeare Festival
APPLICANT:
A request for Site Review approval to allow exterior modifications to the Oregon Shakespeare
DESCRIPTION:
Festival’sBowmer Theater for the property located at 35 S. Pioneer St. These modifications are associated with adding an
elevator to the Bowmer Theater building as part of broader accessibility improvements and will involve an approximately 202
square foot addition to the theater building. The application also includes a request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove a
16-inch diameter maple tree. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial Downtown; ZONING: C-1-D;
ASSESSOR’S MAP: 39 1E 09; TAX LOT: 100
All Commissionersconfirmed theydid a site visit.
Severson pointed outthat over the past few months the Oregon Shakespeare Festival (OSF) hasbeen going through a
process to redesign the bricks in order to deal with accessibility issues. At the same time OSF recognized that the Bowmer
Theater also has some accessibility challenges. The plans will involve some minor changes to the building and one tree will
2
need to be removed in order to do the remodel.
represented the applicants. Mr. Harper explained if you are a patron and haveaccessibility issues
Alan Harper, 130 A Street
in order to get from the lobby to the second story bathrooms you have to go outside of the building and down a slope. The
impact area where they are installing the elevator will be directly through the existing Maple Tree. The applicant will bring
another tree plan before the Commission once the brick projects gets further along. Mr. Harper said the applicants would like
to mitigate somewhere else on the tax lot which does include all of Lithia Park.
John/Schmidt m/s to approve the plan as submitted. Voice Vote: All Ayes, motion passed.
2015-00928
PLANNING ACTION:
438 N. Main
SUBJECT PROPERTY:
Francesca Amery
OWNER/APPLICANT:
A request for a Hazard Tree Removal Permit to remove one approximately 15-inch diameter at
DESCRIPTION:
breast height Spruce tree for the property located at 438 North Main Street. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:
Employment; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR’S MAP #: 39 1E 05DA; TAX LOT: 2800.
Trunnell did not do a site visit but all the other Commissionersdid.
The Commissioners expressed their concern that the tree is in a strange condition and is leaning quite a bit with the possibility
of fallingonto the commercial property next door(Big Al’s restaurant).
Trunnell/Sneff m/s to approve the removal of the tree. Voice Vote: All Ayes, motion passed.
TYPE II REVIEWS
2015-00418
PLANNING ACTION:
390 Stadium Street & 351 Walker Avenue
SUBJECT PROPERTY:
(Onthe Southern Oregon University campus)
Southern Oregon University
APPLICANT:
CSA Planning, Ltd.
AGENTS:
A request for Site Design Review for the renovation of McNeal Pavilion on the Southern Oregon
DESCRIPTION:
University Campus at 390 Stadium Street and 351 Walker Avenue. The application also includes requests for Conditional Use
Permit approval to allow the construction of a new Student Recreation Center which was not identified in the 2010 SOU
Campus Master Plan and which will exceed the 40-foot height allowed in the SO zoning district, and for Tree Removal Permits
to remove nine (9) trees that are 18-inches in diameter-at-breast-height (d.b.h.) or greater. (106,722 square feet of the
existing 113,000 square foot building area will be demolished. With the proposed renovation and new construction the
combined building area will consist of 104,891 gross square feet on three levels, a 7.17 percent reduction in the total building
square footage.) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Southern Oregon University; ZONING: SO; ASSESSOR’S MAP:
39 1E 10 CD; TAX LOT: 100.
Severson summarized this project. The University is taking the existing 113,000 square foot McNeal Hall and demolishing it
with the exception of the racquetball building. The rebuilding of McNeal Hall and theStudent Recreation Center will be
somewhere between ten and fifteen percent smaller. The creation of a new enhanced plaza area is proposed in front of
McNeal and the new Student Recreation Center. Because of the utility installation and construction associated with the
project the applicants are requesting to remove the bulk of the trees around the perimeter of the site. Severson acknowledged
that while doing a site visit he noticed the trees weren’t tagged making it difficult to determine which trees were being
removed. The applicants presented Severson with photos of the treesnumbering them individually. Severson distributed
those pictures to the Commissioners to help with their review.
, CSA Planning 4497 Brownridge, Medford and Alan Pardee from Covey PardeeLandscape architectswere
Jay Harland
present to answer questions regarding this project.
During the Tree Commission hearing, the applicants asked that Tree #15, a Raywood Ash, identified for preservation and an
3
additional tree, a Deodar Cedar, not shown on the plan but located near the northeast corner retention swale, also be
removed.
Public Comments:
encouraged the Commissioners to go to the Medford City Park located on East
Helene DeMartinez,
321 Clay St., Space 6A
Main Street to look at a group of Lindentrees in full bloom. The trees are gorgeous and sturdy. (Linden trees were suggested
during the discussion as a choice for mitigation).
who lives in the neighborhood at 446 Walker Avenue spoke. Mr. Vezie walks by these trees regularlyand does
Rick Vezie
not want to see them removed. He proposed a question to the Commissioners. “It’s your job to be an advisory Commission
tothe Planning Commission. What is it that you will advisethat Commissionto do?”
, 175 Wightman St. explained that she too lives by this site and is disappointed that the pool is not being
Cynthia Moscaritolo
replaced. She acknowledged that the Sycamore Trees on the site are gorgeous and help shade the parking lot area. She is
concerned there has not been enough study doneto see if the utilities can be moved allowing the trees to remain.
During discussion, the Commission made the following recommendations:
1)Consult an arborist on-site to determine whether trees can be retained with alternative measures such as directional
boring for utility installation and provide a revised plan. The Tree Commission recommends that the applicants at least
temporarily retaintrees #4-#7 and #19 so that the established tree canopy can provide shade to allow proposed new
trees to establish themselves, and that those trees not shaded by existing canopy have their trunks protected with sun
guards or other measures to protect themwhile they establish themselves.
2)That at least 50 percent of the mitigation trees proposed shall be of three-inch caliper or greater and planted near the
south/west edge of the project site, as proposed by the applicants.
3)That the applicants consider incorporating additional locally-appropriate species in their planting plan including California
Black Oak, Swamp White Oak and Green Mountain Linden.
Trunnell/Neff m/s to approve the project with the recommendations above, including that the University team walk the project
area of the campusand review the trees under discussion with an arborist (Roland volunteered to do this for free) to discuss
each particular tree and the options that may available to preserve that tree. In any event any trees that are planted were
recommended to have shielding or protection of some nature to prevent sunburn, and half of the proposed mitigation trees
are to be at least three-inch caliperas proposed by the applicants and placed on the south and west side. Voice Vote: All
Ayes, motion passed.
PA-2015-00934
PLANNING ACTION:
380 Clay Street
SUBJECT PROPERTY:
City of Ashland
OWNER/APPLICANT:
A request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove a 72-inch diameter at breast height (d.b.h.)
DESCRIPTION:
Fremont Cottonwood tree from the property located at 380 Clay Street. (This tree was previously identified to be preserved
and protected as part of Planning Action #2009-00043.)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR’S MAP: 39 1E
11C; TAX LOT: 2500
All Commissioners confirmed they did a site visit. Trunnellrecused himself as a neighbor of 380 Clay Street and has a
vested personal interest in the removal of this tree. Vice Chair Schmidt chaired the remainder of the meeting.
Community Development Director Bill Molnar took a minute to explain procedural issues surrounding this Planning Action. Mr.
Molnar recognized that this planning action has had quite a bit of publicity including newspaper articles. Today’s focus isto
keep a fair and objective process. Mr. Molnar stressed that unless a Commissioner has a financial interest like Trunnell
declared,they are not required to step down but must state any bias and anystatements made in the past regarding the tree.
Molnar encouraged the Commissioners to weigh the criteria and look at this Planning Action objectivelyin orderto provide
advice to the Planning Commission.
4
The Commissioners acknowledged anyexparte contact and or bias. Schmidt noted that he had not spoken regarding this
tree outside of our Commission meetings.Neff noted that this was the first day he had seen the tree and he had only spoke of
it at Tree Commission meetings.Roland explained that he had climbed the tree approximately eight or nine years agoand put
supportsunder itlast year.He acknowledged that he goes out of his way in order to drive by the tree because of his passion
for it but said he would put his professional Tree Commission hat on. He would fight to try and save thistree. Roland asked
Mr. Molnar if he should recuse himself.Mr. Molnar stated because he did nothave a financial interest though he may have a
bias if hefelt he could formulate advice to the Commission as a whole based on the criteria, it would not be necessary to
recuse himself.Roland asked if anybody felt he shouldn’t be sitting there let him know now. No one responded.John noted
that he had providedminor assistance in assessing the tree a couple of years ago and does have a passion for large trees but
confirmed he had the ability to view this action based on the ordinances. Battistella noted that she had no bias or financial
interest.
Severson gave a brief staff report. The request is to remove a 72-inch Freemont Cottonwood from the City owned property
located at 380 Clay Street. This property came into the City a few years ago through a partnership between the Housing
Authority and the City of Ashland. Sixty affordable units were developed on aportion of the property.The remaining portion
of the property was retained with the intent to develop more affordable housing. In order for the development to move forward
theremoval of the treehas been proposed. The applicants are requesting removal of the tree under the non hazard provisions
of the ordinancebecause the tree won’t allow development of the property to itsfull density.
gave a brief
Dave Kanner, City Administrator for the City of Ashland and Kerry KenCairn Landscape Architect
overview of the history of the property. This property was acquired in 2008 as a joint venture between the Cityof Ashland, the
Housing Authority and the City Parks and Recreation Commission. It was always acquired for the purpose of an affordable
housing development. It was understood with the Housing Authority that at the time of purchase of this portion of the land
they would do so at the City’s cost which was $325,000. Recognizing the controversy that was brewing over this tree the
Housing Authority insisted on the contingency in the sale agreement that theywould not close the sale until such timeas the
City had received a tree removal permit.
Mr. Kanner called attention to the fact he had received emails inquiring why the City couldn’t hang on to the property and turn
it into a park.Mr. Kanner explained the Parks Commission hasexamined this property and isnot interested in it. If paid they
have agreed tomaintain the tree but will restrict access underneath it.Mr. Kanner submitted anemailfrom Parks Director
Michael Black stating it is notsuitable for a parkand that the Parks Departmentis not interested in the property.The City
Council hasmade affordable housing one of its strategic goals because Ashland suffers from a shortage of affordable
housing. The need for affordable housing has been well documented.
KenCairn acknowledged this is a beautiful, statuesque, gorgeous tree. The nature of poplar trees is that they don’t normally
live past around 140 years at their verylongest. Freemont’sare not native to Oregon but California and the Southwest. In
general poplars are not unique trees;they need lots of room around them wherethey aren’t interacting with peopleor
developments. This tree was likely planted when the homestead was developed.Poplars are often planted as wind breaks,
future fuels, fence posts etc. Theyweren’t planted to be specimen treesas they don’tco-exist well with human activity. She
concluded that the question is “Do wewant affordable housing or do we want to save the tree?”
Public Testimony
. This tree is across the street from her back yardand is one of the reasons she
Helene DeMartinez,321 Clay St., Space 6A
moved here from Washingtonstate and chose that particular spot.DeMartinezisthe Homeowner Association President of
the Wingspread Trailer Park and is speaking for a lot of the home owners who could not be here tonight. Ms. DeMartinez said
the neighborhood has already lost two trees and they are trying to save this lastone. This tree is not a hazardand it’s
important to have a section of community that is beautiful, a spot kids can look at and see something unique and beautiful.
Ms. DeMartinez does notwant to see more homes in that area but suggested utilizingothervacant areas in the community for
affordable housing maybe even downtown. Let’s keep the beautiful pasture and tree and preserve it.The area is already
impacted by traffic from existing developments.
-Ms.Meneffee stated this is a valuable tree, it’s beautiful, it’s part of the history
Christine Meneffee, 321 Clay St, Space #8
5
of the neighborhood, its part of the local ecosystem and itsdrought tolerant. This controversy is not about affordable housing.
She suggested that her instincts tell her it’s a political problem with Parksand the Housing Commission. Low income people
live in that neighborhood now and they value the tree. Why would they want to take it down? Ms Meneffee said Ashland is a
special city and we need to find a solution to thiswhere we can keep the tree and have affordable housing.
Mr. Roth said that based on zoning and density there is already more than three times
Ron Roth, 6950 Old Hwy 99 South
the affordable housing that needs to bethere as far as the housing program outlines. We can save that tree and have
affordable housing, stated Mr. Roth. Removing the tree would have a significant impact in a lot of areas. One reasonable
alternative that is being discussed would be a simple property swap between the Parks Department and the City. Are there
other people who might want the property? Roth urgedthe Tree Commission to protect the tree and maybe the City and
Parks Dept can go back and work together to have more housing and save the tree.
stated hat somecitizenshave put a great deal of work looking into options of where the
Cynthia Moscaritolo, 175 Wightman
housing units could be placed on the property. It is Ms. Moscaritolo’s understanding that theapplicant can easily meet the
required density for housing onthatlot. She would like to see some kind of swap with the Parks Department so the tree can
bepreserved. Thetree provides shadeandwildlife habitat. She suggested that over1,000 citizens have petitioned to keep
the tree. Ms. Moscaritolo said there isa shallow well on the property which is part of the wetlands. Ifthe tree is removed and
unitsbuilt there it’s going to be a wet area, and itwouldbe smarter to build in another area on the parcel. Ms. Moscaritolo
recommended todeny the tree removal and listen to alternatives over the next few months.
was speaking as a public citizen and petitioner to save the tree. Trunnell acknowledged
Gregg Trunnell, 400 Clay Street
that affordable housing is a very strong need in our Community. He made known that the Housing Authority does not
currently have designs or plans forthis area. He remarked that the Housing Authority has made it clear to him that this area
does not make sense to thembecause theyneed fifty units in order to make anything economically viable. Mr. Trunnell read
and presented to the Commissioners a written documentincluded as at the end of the minutes.
Exhibit A
–Mr. McGlone shared he was in agreement with prior speakers that went before
Michael McGlone, 2025 Tolman Creek Rd
him. Heworks at 631 Clay Street andlike Commissioner Roland,goes out of his way to go by this tree. This tree is a source
of inspiration to him;there is nothing as majestic as the Oak. Mr. McGlone stated that the discussion of low income housing
verses a tree is not a fair conversation.What better thanto have that tree as a center pieceforlow income housing.
expressed her gratitude tothe Commissioners for spending time and energy caring
Dominiquire Shelton, 55 Brooks Lane
about the trees and heritage in the Community. This tree is emotional for me it’s been a beautiful inspiration and gift in my life,
stated Ms. Shelton. It’s part of the heritage in this Community. She walksdown Clay Street regularly and it still pains her to
see the carcassof thesiblingtrees to that tree lying in themeadow. Ms. Shelton hopes the Commission will support tree
protectionand take the necessary action to preserve it.
–Mr. Myers served on the Tree Commission until he got discouraged because he could not
Tom Myers 2040 Ashland Mine
save all the trees he wanted to save. This tree is at the top of list of those trees I want to save,remarked Mr. Myers.He first
climbed the tree about twenty years ago and when doing so herealizedhewas in the midstof a being that had every bit of
consciousnessthathehad.Affordable housing is important and it’s disingenuous to put this as a fight betweenaffordable
housing and tree preservation.
Tree Commissioners discussed this action. Commissioner Roland expressed his frustration with Kanner and the City with the
desire to remove this tree. During the course of that meeting, members of the public provided testimony and an immediate
neighbor provided a conceptual drawing that he suggested could accommodate the development of the property with 15 units
similar to those in place at Snowberry Brook, constructed at or near the drip line ofthe tree, and 22 off-street parking spaces.
One of the Commissioners also noted that there is a well on site and that the subsurface water level appeared to be well
below the ground; he believes that the tree’s roots may have gone deep toward this water rather than spreading as broadly as
they otherwise might, which would result in a smaller than normal tree protection zone. He suggested that this was supported
by the tree’s having done well in tolerating the construction of Villard Street within the applicant’s identified protection zone.
John made a motion that alternatives be explored and recommends that the tree removal permit not go through at this time.
6
Roland seconded Johns motion and Roland made an amendment;do not issue a permit for a tree removal until a formal plan
During discussion, Tree Commissioners
is in place and all measures have been exhausted to preserve the tree.
recommended denial of the request, noting that they did not believe the applicant had adequately demonstrated either that the
tree posed a hazard or that the lot could not be developed to its permitted densities with retention of the tree. Commissioners
suggested that to make a finding that the lot could not be developed with the tree, they would need to see a specific
development proposal (rather than a number of conceptual options) and that the application would need to be developed
through consultation with a licensed arborist. Commissioners also indicated that they did not believe the request had
adequately addressed the issue of impacts to species diversity of the removal given the fact that this species is unusual for
the area and this is such a magnificent example of the species.
Vote on Amendment; all ayes motion passed.
Vote on the first motion AllAyes, motion passed.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
introduced herself. Ms. Young was present at the meeting to discuss the list of
Margaret Young, 345 Hemlock Lane
recommended trees in the Street Tree Guide. Ms. Young is recommending that the Commission review that list and make
appropriate changes. In front of Ms. Young’s house is a four-foot planting area and she questioned whether this is enough
space to grow healthy trees. She is recommending that a six-to eight-foot space would be better. An entire block of trees
have died in her neighborhood. She encouraged the Commissioners to make the list trustworthy and appropriate.
The Commissioners acknowledged the problem with the Street Tree Guide andindicated that this wasa project they will be
working on.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Next meeting: July 9, 2015
Respectively submitted by Carolyn Schwendener
7