HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-09-04_Tree_MIN
TREE COMMISSIONMINUTES
September 4, 2014
–Ashland Tree Commission meeting was called to order at 6:04p.m. on September 4,
CALL TO ORDER
2014 in the Siskiyou Room in the Community Development and Engineering Services Building located
at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon.
Commissioners PresentCouncil Liaison
Ken Schmidt-AbsentCarol Voisin
Gregg TrunnellStaff
Russ NeffMichael Pina, Planning liaison
Casey Roland
Christopher John
-
Neffmotioned, and John secondedthe motion, to approve the July7,2014
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
regular meeting minutes and the motion carried unanimously.
WELCOME GUESTS & PUBLIC FORUM
Noguests
PLANNING ACTION REVIEW
PLANNING ACTION:
PA-2014-01226
SUBJECT PROPERTY:
345 Lithia Way
APPLICANT:
Double R Products
OWNER:
Hays Oil
DESCRIPTION:
A request for a Site Review approval to convert the Lithia Way Texaco
located at 345 Lithia Way into a retail and restaurant establishment that sells growlers.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:ZONING:
Commercial;C-1;
ASSESSOR’S MAP: TAX LOTS
39 1E 09BD; : 1801
All commissioners visited the site. No ex parte contacts declared. Piña gave a brief staff reportoutlining
the application’s proposal to convert the existing gas station into a retail/restaurant establishment. The
applicant will remove the pump island, canopy, and the air and vacuum stations, as well as
decommission the underground gasoline storage tanks. The car wash bay will converted to the
equipment and storage area, while the existing retail area will be enlarged through to the conversion of
the mechanic bay to additional retail/restaurant area.In deliberating the request, the Tree Commission
provided the following recommendations: That a revised size-and species-specific landscape and
irrigation plan be submitted with building permit submittals. That the proposed street tree’s be chosen
from the Lithia Way Tree list, be staggered from one-another, and be fitted with perforated sleeve to
protect the bark.
Trunell motioned, Johnseconded, to approve the application as presentedwith the following
recommendation: That a revised size-and species-specific landscape and irrigation plan be
submitted with building permit submittals. That the proposed street tree’s be chosen from the
Lithia Way Tree list, be staggered from one-another, and be fitted with perforated sleeve to
protect the bark.The motion carried unanimously.
PLANNING ACTION:
PA-2014-01499
SUBJECT PROPERTY:
157 Garfield St.
APPLICANT:
Canopy LLC
OWNER:
Sue Lawrence
DESCRIPTION:
A Tree Removal Permit request to remove an approximate 26-inch DBH
Mulberry tree from the rear yard of the property located at 157 Garfield St. The tree has been topped
multiple times causing an increased possibility of failure.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:ZONING:
Low-Density Multi-Family;R-2;
ASSESSOR’S MAP: TAX LOT
39 1E 10CB:3601
All commissioners visited the site. No ex parte contacts declared. Piña gavea brief staff reportnoting
that the application proposes to remove a single 26-inch DBH Mulberry tree from the rear yard of one of
the units. The applicant’s findings state that the tree has been severely topped multiple times over the
years, causing thetree to have a poor structure with weak attachments, and subsequently an increased
risk of failure. Therefore attempting to restructure the tree via pruning is not an option.In deliberating
the request, the Tree Commission was supportive of the request,however a specific mitigation tree what
not proposed, therefore the Commission recommended that a minimum three-inch caliper tree be chosen
as a replacement tree, or multiple trees at the minimum size of 1.5-inches, with irrigation.
Neff motioned, Johnseconded, to approve the application as presented, with the recommendation
that a minimum three-inch caliper tree be chosen as a replacement tree, or multiple trees at the
minimum size of 1.5-inches, with irrigation.The motion carried unanimously.
PLANNING ACTION:
PA-2014-01474
SUBJECT PROPERTY:
943-949 East Main
APPLICANT:
Gabino Remigio
OWNER:
Ron DeLuca
DESCRIPTION:
A Tree Removal Permit request to remove 13 trees of varying species, all
greater than six-inches DBH, from the property located at 943-949 East Main Street. Twelve Cedar and
Cypress trees were removed prior to approval. The remaining tree is an approximate 30-inch Maple tree
is located in the front yard between the parking lot and structure.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:ZONING:
Low-Density Multi-Family;R-2;
ASSESSOR’S MAP: TAX LOT
39 1E 09AD:3801
All commissioners visited the site. No ex parte contacts declared. Piña gave a brief staff report
indicating that the applicant requests a retroactive approval for the removal of twelve trees without
permits, and an additional removal request for a 36-inch Maple tree located between the parking area
and building along the East Main frontage. The difficulty in reviewing this proposal is that being
constructedin 1965, staff does not have an approved landscape plan on file, therefore,we have nothing
in which to compare the proposal to. Nevertheless, AMC 18.042.D requires an Tree Removal Permit for
all trees greater than six-inches Diameter at Brest Height (DBH) within a multi-family zone. In speaking
with the applicant, the trees removed were a mix of five Leland Cypress along the building’s east
elevation, and five volunteer Cedars along north building’snorthern elevation, and two within a nine-by-
ten landscape area between the two buildings. The applicant asserted that he was unaware that removal
of the aforementioned trees required a permit.
2
Piña noted that in similar situations, planning staff has issued citations for removal without permits.
However in this case, since the applicant is requesting a permit for one of the trees on-site, staff would
rather have compliance than enforcement on tree removal and replacements. In deliberating the request,
the Tree Commission felt that the property owner should have been aware of tree removal requirements
on multi-family zoned properties, or at least inquired with staff to what the process is for removing trees.
However, if the applicant had came before the Commission to request removal prior to removing the
trees, the commission and staff would have likely approved the request based upon the materials
presented. However as this is not the case, it is difficult for staff to assess the potential impact or
removing the trees on this and adjacent properties. Therefore, the Commission recommended that the
applicant come back before the commission with a mitigation and irrigation plan for this property and
any other off-site mitigation for their review. As for the requested Maple, the Commission agreed with
the applicant in that the tree presents a potential danger to pedestrians by creating a tripping hazard, and
due to its aggressive root structure can will cause damage to the building and utility systems, therefore
removal is approved.
Trunellmotioned, Neffseconded, to continue the application at the next hearing, so that the
applicant can develop a revised landscape and irrigation plan for this property and others in
common ownership in which mitigation treeswill be planted. The motion carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
Commission Roland, whomwas absent last meeting, spoke about a replacement tree for the one in the
plaza. Roland thought that perhaps rather than one single tree, a group of multiple trees placed in a way
as to provide a greater canopy of shade may be another option. Piñastated that could be an option, but
noted at the previous meeting, the Commission discussed this very topic and made a recommendation of
aminimum four-to six-inches DBH, preferably a Burr or Red Oak; contain an appropriate amended soil
mixture; planted in the fall according to City specifications.
Commission Chair Trunell, whom was absent last meeting, discussed the need for standardized tree
protection procedures onall city projects, equal to or greater than those the planning division requires of
the public. Piña noted that at the previous meeting, the Commission also discussed this topic, and made
a recommendation, however Trunell pointed out that a motion was made to this specified point.
Trunellmotioned, Roland seconded, that on all city projects within the right-of-way, that the City
follows the same if not greater tree protection measures the planning division requires of the
public. The motion carried unanimously.
LIAISON REPORTS
Carol Voisin, City Council Liaison–Voisin updated the Commission on the wok of the City
Beautification Committee, and that the committee is seeking input from the Tree Commission on six
areas downtown. These will be brought forth to theTree Commission for their review in the coming
months.
COMMISSIONERREPORTS
Meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
Respectively submitted by Assistant Planner Michael Piña
3