HomeMy WebLinkAboutSiskiyou_1651_&_Lit_365_PA-2018-00403
CITY OF
T T ,
April 13, 2018
i
Notice of Final Decision
On April 13, 2018, the Community Development Director approved the request for the
following:
Planning Action: PA- 2018-00403
Subject Property: 635 Lit Way/1651 Siskiyou Boulevard
Owner: 1651 Siskiyou Boulevard LLC/Roderick & Brooks Newton
Applicant: Asa Cates
Description: A request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove nine Black Cottonwood
trees and a one Siberian Elm surrounding the pond at Hidden Springs Wellness Center for the
property located at 635 Lit Way/1651 Siskiyou Boulevard. The application notes that the
Cottonwoods have begun to drop limbs and the Siberian Elm has begun to uproot. The
application materials note that five of the ten trees have indications of decay and three have
tipped or begun to tip. The removals are requested based on the trees posing a hazard to
customers on the site and to neighboring properties. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential and Commercial; ZONING: R-1-7.5 and C-1;
ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 lE 15 AB; TAX LOT: 7300.
The Community Development Director's decision becomes final and is effective on the 12th day
after the Notice of Final Decision is mailed. Approval is valid for a period of 18 months and all
conditions of approval identified on the attached Findings are required to be met prior to project
completion.
The application, all associated documents and evidence submitted, and the applicable criteria are
available for review at the Ashland Community Development Department, located at 51
Winburn Way. Copies of file documents can be requested and are charged based on the City of
Ashland copy fee schedule.
Prior to the final decision date, anyone who was mailed this Notice of Final Decision may
request a reconsideration of the action as set forth in the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO)
18.5.1.050(F) and/or file an appeal to the Ashland Planning Commission as provided in ALUO
18.5.1.050(G). The ALUO sections covering reconsideration and appeal procedures are attached.
The appeal may not be made directly to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals.
If you have any questions regarding this decision, please contact Nathan Emerson 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 Winbum Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us A~
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:
I . Who May Appeal. The following persons have standing to appeal a Type I decision.
a. The applicant or owner of the subject property.
b. Any person who is entitled to written notice of the Type I decision pursuant to subsection
18.5.1.050.B.
c. Any other person who participated in the proceeding by submitting written comments on the application to the
City by the specified deadline.
2. Appeal Filing Procedure.
a. Notice of Appeal. Any person with standing to appeal, as provided in subsection 18.5.1.050.G.1, above, may
appeal a Type I decision by filing a notice of appeal and paying the appeal fee according to the procedures of this
subsection. The fee required in this section shall not apply to appeals made by neighborhood or community
organizations recognized by the City and whose boundaries include the site. If an appellant prevails at the hearing
or upon subsequent appeal, the fee for the initial hearing shall be refunded,
b. Time for Filing. A notice of appeal shall be filed with the Staff Advisor within 12 days of the date the notice of
decision is mailed.
c. Content of Notice 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. E
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 \
www.ashland.or.us
ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION
i
FINDINGS & ORDERS
i
PLANNING ACTION: PA- 2018-00403
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 635 Lit Way/1651 Siskiyou Boulevard
APPLICANT/OWNER: 1651 Siskiyou Boulevard LLC/Roderick & Brooks Newton
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove nine Black
Cottonwood trees and a one Siberian Elm surrounding the pond at Hidden Springs Wellness Center
for the property located at 635 Lit Way/1651 Siskiyou Boulevard. The application notes that the
Cottonwoods have begun to drop limbs and the Siberian Elm has begun to uproot. The application
materials note that five of the ten trees have indications of decay and three have tipped or begun
to tip. The removals are requested based on the trees posing a hazard to customers on the site and
to neighboring properties.
COMPREHENSIVE, PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential and Commercial;
ZONING: R-1-7.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 lE 14 AB; TAX LOT: 2800
SUBMITTAL DATE: February 2, 2018
DEEMED COMPLETE DATE: February 28, 2018
STAFF APPROVAL DATE: April 13, 2018
DEADLINE TO APPEAL (4:30 p.m.): April 25, 2018
FINAL DECISION DATE (4:30 -p.m.): April 25, 2018
APPROVAL EXPIRATION DATE: October 25, 2019
DECISION
Planning Action #2018-00403 requests a Hazard Tree Removal Permit to remove nine Black
Cottonwoods and one Siberian Elm tree at the property located at 635 Lit Way. The property has
two addresses, 1651 Siskiyou Blvd and 635 Lit Way.
The lot is located between Siskiyou and Lit Way, with frontage on Lit Way. The primary auto
entrance is from Lit Way, but the property has a parking lot that is adjacent to the Ashland
Shopping Center and accessed from Siskiyou Blvd. The lot is split between Residential and
Commercial zoning. It is currently used for a commercial enterprise and thus requires a tree
removal permit for the requested action.
The Cottonwoods proposed for removal range in height from 35 to 55 feet. Diameters at breast
height (DBH) vary from 5 to 33 inches. The Siberian Elm is approximately 25 feet tall and 18
inches DBH.
Submitted with the application were three ISA tree risk assessment forms for three Black
Cottonwoods, identified as trees #1, #2, and #3 in the applicant materials. In addition to the ISA
risk assessment forms was a narrative listing the proj ect tree care professional's assessment of each
tree along with photographic evidence.
Per the tree care professional, trees #1, #2, and #3 are high to moderate high risk per the ISA risk
PA-2018-00403
1651 Siskiyou Blvd/ne
Page 1
assessment standards and should be removed. Tree #1 was found with a cavity at the root collar
and decaying bark. Tree #2 and #3 were also found to have rot and other issues. All three trees
were found to be leaning towards neighboring property and potentially hazardous to customers on '
the property.
Tree #4, the largest tree at 55 feet in height and a DBH of 30", was noted as having a history of
losing limbs but no rot. This tree was recommended to be retained, monitored and pruned by the
project tree care professional.
Tree #8 is reported as leaning beyond correction over a fence and recommended to either be
propped up or removed.
Tree #9, the second largest, is a Black Cottonwood that has tipped over. The tree care professional
also noted the presence of fungal bodies and recommended investigation.
Tree #10, the Siberian Elm, has begun to uproot and damage the driveway per the application and
the tree care professional's report.
The remainder of the Black Cottonwoods, trees #5, #6, and #7, were recommended for monitoring
or removal by the project tree care professional. Tree #5 was recommended for removal to give
more space to tree #6. Trees #6 and #7 were listed as leaning, but had no evidence of rot or other
maladies. It was recommended to remove several dead limbs on #7 and either to monitor the tree
or remove it.
The Ashland Tree Commission reviewed this request at their regular meeting on March 8, 2018.
The Tree Commission recommended approval of the application and the removal of all the trees
except for tree #4.
After reviewing the application, staff does not believe that there is a clear indication as required in
the approval criteria that trees #5, 46 and #7 present a "clear° public safety hazard... and such
hazard... cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment, relocation, orpruning." Staff accordingly
find that trees #5, #6, and #7 should remain; that tree 47 should be pruned as recommended by the
tree care professional; and that all three trees should be monitored for the next 12 months at which
time their conditions can be reassessed relative to any hazard posed. If the project tree care
professional believes that they warrant removal at that point, the tree care professional may present
the Staff Advisor with further evidence at which point the hazard posed can be reassessed.
I
Based on the materials provided by the applicant, the danger that trees #1, #2, #3, #4, #8, #9, and
#10 pose meet the criteria for a Hazard Tree removal. Staff finds the application has sufficiently
demonstrated compliance with all applicable approval criteria and the application approved subject
to the conditions below.
The criteria for Tree Removal Permit approval are described in AMC section 18.5.7.040.8
as follows:
1. Hazard Tree. A Hazard Tree Removal Permit shall be granted if the approval authority
indc that the annlirntinn nvovtc n11 of tho fn7h),v;"(r :•~t~V~r - A„ --7„ t
through the imposition of conditions,
a. The applicant must deinonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents
a clear public safeo) 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 perfnit.
The application with the attached conditions complies with all applicable City ordinances for a
Hazard Tree Removal Permit. Planning Action #2018-00403 is therefore approved. The
following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval. If any of the following
conditions are found not to be true, then Planning Action #2017-00403 is denied:
1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise
modified herein.
2) That the Black Cottonwood identified as tree #4 is to be retained.
3) That the Black Cottonwoods identified as #5, #6, and #7 shall be retained; tree #7 is to be
pruned as recommended by the tree care professional; and all three trees are to be
monitored for a period of 12 months. After 12 months of monitoring, the tree care
professional may present further evidence to the Staff Advisor to reassess whether the
hazard tree criteria are met to remove the trees as part of this action.
4) That the trees removed shall be mitigated on a one for one basis within a year of removal
by 11/2-inch caliper trees, either on or off site, with suitable species such as Birch, Red
Cedar, White or Red Alder, or Bald Cypress.
April 13, 2018
Maria Harris, Planning Manager Date
City of Ashland Planning Division
PA-2018-00403
1651 Siskiyou Blvd/ne
Page 3
I
r
AS-HLAND TREE COMMISSION
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENT SHEET
March 8, 2018
PLANNING ACTION: PA-2018-00403
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 635 Lit Way/1651 Siskiyou Boulevard
OWNER/APPLICANT: 1651 Siskiyou Boulevard LLC/Roderick & Brooks Newton
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove nine Black Cottonwood
trees and a one Siberian Elm surrounding the pond at Hidden Springs Wellness Center for the
property located at 635 Lit Way/1651 Siskiyou Boulevard. The application notes that the
Cottonwoods have begun to drop limbs and the Siberian Elm has begun to uproot. The
application materials note that five of the ten trees have -indications of decay and three have
tipped or-begun to tip. The removals are requested based on the trees posing a hazard to
customers on the site and to neighboring properties.
COMPR-EHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential and-Commercial;
ZONING: R-1-7.5; ASSESSOR'S-MAP: 39 1E 14 ABA TAX LOT: 2800
The Tree Commission recommended to approve the removal of the trees as recommended
by the project arborist with the following conditions:
1. The tree identified as #4 is to remain
2. The applicant shall mitigate with a tree appropriate for location, such as -black
birch, red cedar, white or red alder, or bald cypress
r
Denartment of Communitv Development Tel: 541-488-5350 a v 9-t ir
i
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Jackson )
The undersigned being first duly sworn states that:
1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland,
Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department.
2. On 4/13/181 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 #2018-00403, 635 Lit/1651 Siskiyou.
C01- I
Signature of Employee
i
i'
PA-2018-00403 391 E15AB 7300 PA-2018-00403 391 E15AB 6800 PA-2018-00403 391 E15AB 5500
1651 SISKIYOU BOULEVARD LLC
RODERICK AND BROOKS NEWTON ASHLAND SHOPPING CENTER LLC BANKE THEODORE H/LOIS E
635 LIT WAY P 0 BOX 3030 598 LIT WAY
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
f
PA-2018-00403 391 E15AB 6900 PA-2018-00403 391 E15AB 7100 PA-2018-00403 391 E15AB 7500
COOPER DENNIS K TRUSTEE DELUCA RONALD L TRUSTEE ELSOM SUSAN D
1182 TIMBERLINE TERR 228 MORNINGLIGHT DR 323 SKYCREST DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2018-00403 391 E15AB 4400
PA-2018-00403 391 E15A6 4200 PA-2018-00403 391 E15AB 7703
GONZALEZ SERGIO/MARY JANE HOCH RICHMOND J TRUSTEE ET AL KANCHANAKASET PIENGCHIT
1736 JOY AVE HEIDI J BENZONELLI 645 LIT WAY
ASHLAND, OR 97520 1985 CAMPTON RD ASHLAND, OR 97520
EUREKA, CA 95503
PA-2018-00403 391 E15AB 4300 PA-2018-00403 391 E15AB 2300 PA-2018-00403 391 E15AB 7000
LE LACHEUR THOMAS F/LINDA MOORE WARREN RED ONE LLC PATRIDGE BRIAN C
1748 JOY AVE 679 LIT WAY 1661 SISKIYOU BLVD
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2018-00403 391El5AB 3900 PA-2018-00403 391El5AB 5600 PA-2018-00403 391E15AB 4500
RUPP WILLIAM D TRUSTEE FBO SHUE SANDRA M STILLMAN GERALD T TRUSTEE ET AL
938 CYPRESS POINT LOOP 599 LIT WAY 7398 VIA CANTARES
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 SAN JOSE, CA 95135
PA-2018-00403 391 E15AB 4100 PA-2018-00403 635 LiU1651 Siskiyou
WATKINS WILLIAM J ASA CATES NOD 4/13/18
3221 N 37TH ST #7 7793 HIGHWAY 66 17
PHOENIX, AZ 85018 ASHLAND, OR 97520
Planning Department, 51 Wihuurn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 I T y
541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www,ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900 -ASH i i
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
PLANNING ACTION: PA- 2018-00403
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 635 Lit Way/1651 Siskiyou Boulevard
OWNER: 1651 Siskiyou Boulevard LLC/Roderick & Brooks Newton
APPLICANT: Asa Cates
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove nine Black Cottonwood trees and a one Siberian Elm
surrounding the pond at Hidden Springs Wellness Center for the property located at 635 Lit Way/1651 Siskiyou Boulevard.
The application notes that the Cottonwoods have begun to drop limbs and the Siberian Elm has begun to uproot. The
application materials note that five of the ten trees have indications of decay and three have tipped or begun to tip. The
removals are requested based on the trees posing a hazard to customers on the site and to neighboring properties.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential and Commercial; ZONING: R-1-7,5 and C-1;
ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1 E 15 AB; TAX LOT: 7300
NOTE: The Ashland Tree Commission will also review this Planning Action on Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 6:00 PM in the Community
Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51 Winburn Way.
NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: March 1, 2010
DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: March 15, 2010
i
SPA-2013.00403 z
I 1651 SISI(IYOU BVB33 L17 WY
HIDDEN SPRINGS WELLNESS CENTER
SUBJECTPROPERTy Q
1
J f'
-J LIT WY
Z
0
i Q
The Ashland Planning Division Staff has received a complete application for the property noted above.
Any affected property owner or resident has a right to submit written comments to the City of Ashland Planning Division, 51 Winburn Way,
Ashland, Oregon 97520 prior to 4:30 p.m. on the deadline date shown above.
Ashland Planning Division Staff determine if a Land Use application is complete within 30 days of submittal. Upon determination of completeness, a notice
is sent to surrounding properties within 200 feet of the property submitting application which allows for a 14 day comment period. After the comment period
and not more than 45 days from the application being deemed complete, the Planning Division Staff shall make a final decision on the application. A notice
of decision is mailed to the same properties within 5 days of decision. An appeal to the Planning Commission of the Planning Division Staff's decision must
be made in writing to the Ashland Planning Division within 12 days from the date of the mailing of final decision. (AMC 18.5.1.050.G)
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.
Document124
TREE REMOVAL PERMIT
18.5.7.040.B
i
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. k
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
i
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
i'
e
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Jackson )
The undersigned being first duly sworn states that:
1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland,
Oregon 97520, in the Community ./evelopment Department.
2. On March 1, 2018 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-2018-00403, 635 Lit Way/1651
Siskiyou Boulevard.
Signature of Employee
i
i
PA-2018-00403 391E 15AB 7300
1651 SISKIYOU BOULEVARD LLC PA-2018-00403 391 E15AB 6800 PA-2018-00403 391 E15AB 5500
RODERICK AND BROOKS NEWTON ASHLAND SHOPPING CENTER LLC BANKS THEODORE H/LOTS E
635 LIT WAY P 0 BOX 3030 598 LIT WAY
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2018-00403 391 E15AB 6900 PA-2018-00403 391 E15AB 7100 PA-2018-00403 391 E15AB 7500
COOPER DENNIS K TRUSTEE DELUCA RONALD L TRUSTEE ELSOM SUSAN D
1182 TIMBERLINE TERR 228 MORNINGLIGHT DR 323 SKYCREST DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2018-00403 391 E15AB 4200 PA-2018-00403 391 E15AB 4400 PA-2018-00403 391 E15AB 7704
GONZALEZ SERGIO/MARY JANE HOCH RICHMOND J TRUSTEE ET AL KANCHANAKASET PIENGCHIT TRUSTEE
1736 JOY AVE HEIDI J BENZONELLI ET AL
ASHLAND, OR 97520 1985 CAMPTON RD 645 LIT WAY
EUREKA, CA 95503 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2018-00403 391 E15AB 4300 PA-2018-00403 391 E15AB 2300 PA-2018-00403 391 E15AB 7000
LE LACHEUR THOMAS F/LINDA MOORE WARREN RED ONE LLC PATRIDGE BRIAN C
1748 JOY AVE 679 LIT WAY 1661 SISKIYOU BLVD
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2018-00403 391 E15AB 3900 PA-2018-00403 391 E15AB 5600 PA-2018-00403 391 E15AB 4500
RUPP WILLIAM D TRUSTEE FBO SHUE SANDRA M STILLMAN GERALD T TRUSTEE ET AL
938 CYPRESS POINT LOOP 599 LIT WAY 7398 VIA CANTARES
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 SAN JOSE, CA 95135
PA-2018-00403 391 E15AB 4100 PA-2018-00403 635 Lit Way/1651 Siskiyou Blvd
WATKINS WILLIAM J ASA CATES March 1, 2018 NOC
3221 N 37TH ST #7 7793 HWY 66 17
PHOENIX, AZ 85018 ASHLAND, OR 97520
is
f
u
i
6 I
P
E
rr rr
GOB-It
WE ami
E OWE
(MLV
PIV 0 006-9
i ~
C El
ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION
/Planning Division
j 51 Winbum Way, Ashland OR 97520 FILE
Y ° 541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006
j: SHLAND
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Pursuing LEED® Certification? ❑ YES ❑ NO
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY 1 ,
t
Street Address ( f . t <r_-~ ,r lr~ rc(
15
Assessor's Map No, 39 1E Tax Lot(s) _ JI
s
Zoning Comp Plan Designation
APPLICANT t f
Phone
Name V Vam,
Address 1 ~1 ; 1 66 City Zip `f F'1
4
PROPERTY NER Oc 4c7
Phone E -Mail 0 4. ~~1 r"v► , ba .
Name _
Z ~r
Address 6 1 - City Zip 7 1 ;5
SURVEYOR ENGINEER ARCHITECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, OTHER
Title Name Phone E-Mail-
Address City= Zip
Title Name Phone E-Mail
Address T City Zip
I hereby certify that the statem is a'nd information contained in this app fact, are in all respects,
true and correct. I unde nd that all property pins must be shown on tl s are not shown or their
location found to be incorrect, the owner assumes full responsibility. I fr burden will be on me to
establish:
1) that 1 produced sufficient factual evidence at the hearing to su;
2) that the findings of fact furnished justifies the granting of the rE e ?r
3) that the findings of fact furnished by me are adequate, and fur 6
4) that all structures or improvements are properly located on the
Failure in this regard will result most likely in not only the request being erco bi Y 3d to
be removed of my expense. If l have any doubts, f a dvised to seek c
Applicant's Signature
As owner-oft e roperfyinvolved in t 's request I have read and me as a property
Properfiy Owner's Signature (required) ~u
l
[ro be completed by City Staff]
Date Received' 117 Zoning Permit Type i L - i I Filing Fee $ 1
OVER
G:\comm-devtplamdng\Forms & Handouts\Zoning Permit Applica5on.doo
Hidden Springs Tree Removal Narrative
02/07/18
Rod And Brooks Newton, the owners of Hidden Springs Wellness Center. Expressed
concern over the safety of their nine Black Cottonwood trees at 1651 Siskiyou Blvd, As
well as one Siberian Elm tree. They first became aware of a potential safety hazard
when the largest cottonwood lost a limb that came crashing down on the path. they
hired an arborist to prune the tree and since then the tree has lost more limbs. They
realized they wanted to remove any trees that are hazardous to the frequent visitors
over time. The Newtowns primary concern was all the trees that lean toward the
neighboring house and pets/livestock.
The Newtown's also had concerns over the safety of the remaining Black
Cottonwoods. In General The Newton's expressed that They liked the trees and how
they benefit the property and wildlife, particularly TREE #4 the biggest. But even
though they like the trees they realized they might be the right tree in the wrong spot
given the amount of foot traffic, and the species tendencies. The Trees also surround
a man made pond that was built prior to the Newtons. The trees have been spreading
via roots through the pond edge raising concerns of them being an invasive species.
According to the army core of engineers. dams should not be planted with trees. The
Newtowns expressed they would like to transition out of the hazardous Black
cottonwoods to other trees over time. They wanted to include all the trees in the
application to prevent applying multiple times. They also had concerns over a Siberian
elm tree next to their driveway that suddenly uprooted part way. Included in this
application is an Arborist Report that discuses these individual trees in more detail and
three ISA TREE RISK ASSESSMENTS.
The midagatfion plan is under discussion but most likely will include replanting with
natives.
City of Ashland Planning dept. told me that the property is Private Residential ,
however because it is being used as Commercial a Tree Removal Permit is required.
-Asa Cates-
r
i
ASA JOHN CATES (non certified Arborist)
Licensed, Bonded and Insured.
541-890-3416
CCB# 207417
HIDDEN SPRINGS ARBORIST ROPORT
Rod and Brooks, here is my arborist report. Im Happy to discuss any questions or
concerns you have. All the Black Cottonwoods Appear to be vigorous with varying
degrees of soundness. I tend to error on the side of trees whereas another arborist
may error on the side of persons or property, as a result my assessments may be less
on the risk scale than another arborists would be (or more). I encourage you to
investigate additional opinions and or advice regarding any or all of your trees. As
requested I completed ISA TREE RISK ASSESSMENT FORMS on trees 1-3. Upon
conducting ISA Tree Risk Assessments on the trees I found them to be moderately-
high to high risk, and I would recommend removal. I assessed the remaining trees to
being low to moderately hazardous although the frequency of persons within the
proximity varies (the more people the risk goes up.). I have listed recommendations.
as well as noted an observation regarding the grove of trees as a whole (see * below)
TREE #1 * Populus trichocarpa dbh 14" ht 40' Has a cavity at the root
collar that extends below the ground as well as decaying bark witch are possible
indicators of heart rot. Phototropic lean toward neighbors house I recommend removal.
TREE #2* Populus trichocarpa dbh 20"+10" ht 45' Has codominant stems,
epicormic sprouts off and old stump. with a strong likelihood to having Included bark.
the basal cavities that are present I believe are from the old stump. the decaying stump
may have become heart rot. Phototropic lean toward the neighbors house.
recommend removal
TREE #3* Populus trichocarpa dbh 13"+11 "+6"+7" ht 45' Has codominant stems with
the possibility of included bark. The basal decay is prevalent in a large portion of bark
just above the root crown. The previous failure of one of the stems revealed that the
tree has heart rot, as well as damaged the fence. phototropic lean toward neighbors
house. I recommend removal.
TREE #4* Populus trichocarpa dbh 30" ht55' Has hangers and a history
of loosing limbs and an over extended brach over the neighbors gazebo. has a tiny
amount of bark decay. I recommend removing the hangers,pruning the over extended
branch and monitoring regularly.
TREE #5 Populus trichocarpa dbh 9"+5" ht35' has a codominant stem and
,a phototropic lean toward the bridge and entrance, removal of the smaller stem would
most likely cause basal decay. I recommend removal to give more space to tree#6 if
applicable.
TREE #6 Populus trichocarpa dbh 8" ht35' Phototropic lean toward
the bridge and entrance I recommend monitoring or removal.
TREE #7 Populus trichocarpa dbh 18" ht50' has dead limbs above the
picnic bench. I recommend pruning the deadwood and removing the ivy at the base.
monitoring. 0,- rElAovo l-
TREE #8* Populus trichocarpa dbh 17" ht40' is leaning beyond
correction over the fence. I recommend propping and monitoring or removal.
TREE #9* Populus trichocarpa dbh 33" ht40' appears to be a tree that
tipped over. the resulting epicormic suckers became trunks in there own right but could
tear out in the future due to being weekly attached. There have been recurring fungal
fruiting bodys on the main trunk, I recommend monitoring or removal.
TREE #10* Ulmus pumila dbh 18" ht25' Has begun to uproot I
recommend guy wiring it for support and pruning for end weight reduction or removal.
*IT SHOULD BE NOTED*
Five out of ten trees have positive indicators of basal decay and Three out of ten have
tipped over or begone too. There are fungal fruiting bodies on one tree. Given the stats
I think it is POSSIBLE there is a biotic element in the decline of the trees ( ie. root
fungi) OR there is an abiotic source (ie. over saturation of soil causing an anaerobic
environment.) OR there is both. I recommend monitoring all the trees and identifying
the fungi species on TREE #9.
Client f r ~l ~~i el(h Date 1F( 0__Tim.~
Address/Tree tonon, C 5 Yj`l u ~ Tree no. ~ Sheet /
Tree species J(rt~l~ ~f 6Ir dbh Height qC,,, ~ ro'~Nii p[ c; ii
Assessor(s) t' S Tools used a"\ mP -f itr~e frame_
Target Assessment
Target zone
Occupancy N
v
rate r
Target d
escription Target protection t-rare 0 ° 2-o caslonal
e Tp
3-frequent A-constant 6.
.
I A 19 -m ~A At r1/
2 ar e l'S
3 NO
Site Factors
History of failures AM Al vq < ~,w h Topography Fl~aalIt❑ Slope j A 27 ct
Site changes None ❑ Grade change ❑ Site ciearing❑ Changed soil hydrology[] Root cuts ❑ Describe i~ 'i,, i"i- . V -
Soil conditions Limited volume ❑ Saturated Shallow ❑ Compacted ❑ Pavement over roots ❑ % Describe A544 de %A
Prevailing wind direction Common weather Strong winds ice[] Snow❑ Heavy rain Q Describe 5 jl' t j
Tree Health and Species Profile
Vigor Low ❑ Normal High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) ❑ Normal Chlorotic % Necrotic %
Pests/Biotic Abiotic
Species failure profile Branches Trun Roots Describe n^ ec Pg r<-t, A ke, n
Load Factors ` U3 t v U( -to ~✓r1
Wind exposure Protected[] Partial Full Wind funneling[] Relative crown size Smsll❑ Medium Large[]
Crowndensity Sparse[] Normal Dense[] Interior branches ew❑ Normal D nse❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss
Recent or expected change in load factors ✓ ff s P,+~ < r~ we Wvi`
Tree Defects and Conditions nifeciing the Likelihood of Failure
® Crown and Branches
Unbalanced crowns LCR % ~i Cracks ❑ Lightning damage ❑
Dead twigs/branches %overall Max, dia. 3 Codominant ❑ Included bark ❑
Broken/Hangers Number Max, dia. Weak attachments ❑ Cavity/Nest hole % tire.
Over-extended branches ❑ Previous branch failures ❑ Similar branches present ❑
Pruning history
Dead/Missing bark, Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/d y ❑
Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised ❑
Reduced ❑ Topped 11 Lion-tailed ❑ Conks ❑ Heartwooddecayd''° V6
Flush cuts ❑ Other Response growth
Condition (s) of concern
Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance
Load on defect N/A Minor ❑ Moderate D Significant O Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate D Significant[]
Likelihoodoffailure improbable[] Possible Probable ❑ imminent Likelihoodoffailure improbable[] Possible All Probable Imminent
Trunk ® Roots and Root Collar
Dead/Missing bark Abnormal bark texture/color ❑ Collar buried/Not visible. Depth r Stem girdling ❑
Codominant stems ❑ Included bark ❑ Cracks ❑ Dead ❑ Decay Conks/Mushrooms ❑
Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sap ooze ❑ Ooze ❑ Cavity;, I ! % circ.
i
Lightning damage ❑ Heartwood decay / Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Distance from trunk
Cavity/Nest hole % tire. Depth ! Poor taper ❑ Root plate lifting ❑ Soil weakness ❑
LeanlA-° Corrected?
Response growth Response growth
Condition (s) of concern
Condition (s) of concern ra l J t Sr+ (~'i! 1d
Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate[] Significant O Load on defect N/A Minor Moderated' Significant O
Likelihood of failure Improbable[] Possible Probable ❑ imminent ❑ Likelihood of failure Improbable[] Possible Probable ❑ imminent ❑
d
Risk Caiegoriaation
Likelihood
Failure Ra Impact Consequences
Failure Impact
Target (from MMrixl)
(Target number Tree part Condition(s)
or description) of concern .2 Risk
e, > rating
® ° p~ c ° ° E Z.
E d & E > 3: Vol :3 a z T-O (from
® Matrix 2)
v(
S n X X
_ - { -
Matrix/. Likelihood matrix.
Likelihood Likelihood or' hnpaCe
of Failure Very low Low Medium Mgh
r _el ~e-
Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely ly Likely Very likely
Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely
Possible Unlikely Unlikely I Unlikely Somewhat likely
Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely
I
Matrix2. Risk rating matrix
Likelihood of Consequences of Failure
~ '
Failure ~ impace Negligible IVlinor ~Signirrcant Severe
i
Very likely Low Moderate ~]Fh Extreme - -
Likely ~ Low ~ Moderate I~rHigh) High
Somewhat likely LLow Low I Moderate Moderate N01 d,
Unlikely Low Low Low Low
Notes, explanations, descriptions /
Ca At role ~ FPM I „I-
41 ra /
Mitigation options i
i. y v✓r }rP ~I GN` fir, ~Tn C 16 rA S I.'"h %w,) Residual risk f
2. C' i Ir.-I "'r5, Residual risk
3. Residual risk
a. Residual risk
overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High, Extreme ❑
Overall residual risk None ❑ Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme ❑ Recommended inspection interval ve"
Data ❑ Final ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed ❑No ❑Yes-Type/Reason
-
Inspection limitations ❑None ❑Visibility ❑Access ines Root collar buried Describe ,
alle
~nSL' fir/
rrP;
r=
i
r
~a S 1~ dh
Client +~(C'_t 5 'A1ih Date / 7 Time
Address/Tree locati n P r A r Tree no. Z_ Sheet of
Tree species J6 0267 < , ✓ dbh f ~(1 Height ~1F Crown spread dia.
Assessor(s) ' Tools used _,AIt4er ~ ~A,~jer~ Time frame
Target Assessment
Target zone
v
,a c c c Occupancy
E r rate c M1
= Target description T-,^et protection I c I A! I 1-rare
X 2-occasional
I 'e N 3-frequent ~ >
i ro 4-constant £ O.
a
1 r - - ~
® L~ c
2 h lei'
~c
3'
4 in C - - I /V(1 /V o
Site Factors
History of failures MN v w Topography Flat❑ Slope 0 % Aspect
Site changes None ❑ Grade change[] Site clearing[] Changed soil hydrology[] Root cuts ❑ Describe _ fir` +~~tr. f; , w v'rP~✓. ltd
Soil conditions Limited volume ❑ Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ❑ % Describe ~°~11r o .4{
Prevailing wind direction Common weather Strong winds Ice[] Snow ❑ Heavy rain ❑ Describe `1L y ,:4r M s ~✓i ~1 r
Tree Health and Species Profile
Vigor Low ❑ Normal High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotic %
Pests/Biotic Abio 'c
Species failure profile Branches[] Trunk[] Roots[] Describe r G yroel, -a e p,~,e Or i
Load Factors OL . 01161-> Y"/., e
Windexposure Protected[] Partial Full Windfunneling❑ Relative crown size Small[] Mediumo Large[]
Crowndensity Sparse[] Normal Dense[] interior branches Few❑ NormaIS Dense❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss13 V~1
Recent or expected change in load factors
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure
Crown and Branches
Unbalanced crown LCR % Cracks ❑ Lightning damage ❑
Dead twigs/branches ❑ %overall Max. dia. Codominant ❑ included bark ❑
Broken/Hangers Number Max. dia. Weakattachments ❑ Cavity/Nest hole %circ.
over-extended branches ❑ Previous branch failures ❑ Similar branches present ❑
Pruning history Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑
Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised ❑
Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Lion-tailed ❑ Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑
Flush cuts ❑ Other Response growth
Condition (s) of concern
Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate D Significant O Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate D Significant O
Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible,( Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible Probable 11 Imminent ❑
Trunk ® Roots and Root Collar
Dead/Missing bark ❑ Abnormal bark texture/color ❑ Collar buried/Not visible Depth Stem girdling ❑
Codominant stems Included bark ❑ Cracks ❑ Dead ❑ Decay Conks/Mushrooms ❑
Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sap ooze ❑ Ooze ❑ Cavity ❑ % circ.
Lightning damage[] Heartwood decay[] Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Cracks Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Distance from trunk
Cavity/Nest hole % circ. Depth Poor taper ❑ Root plate lifting ❑ Soil weakness ❑
Lean J&2 Corrected?
Response growth Response growth
ov Condition (s) of concern r
Condition (s) of concern
Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor 1 Significant ❑ Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate Significant O
Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible Probable Imminent ❑ Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible Probable Imminent ❑
Risk' Categorization
(1' Likelihood
Failure Impact Failure t& impact Consequences
Target (from matrix 1)
(Target number Tree part Condltion(s) W
or description) ofconcem B c a " Risk
o ® c ° v sm `o rating
N o E Z 3 v m E •m c (from
a° n a 3 n i°n i3 z i'n w Motrix2)
~tk f' r~> lr,~ j ,'l
( f1 V
Frk (C
w IT l 11
_14 I
Matrix/. Likelihood matrix -
Likelihood Likelihood of Impact
of Failure Very low Low IVlediurn High
Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely likely Very likelyr
PI'ol)able Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely
Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely - Somewhat likely
improbafsle Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely
Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix
Consequences of Failure
<Likelihood of
Failure tS Impact Negligible IVlinor Significant Severe
Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme
I
Likely Low Moderate I- High I _Hrgh
Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate North
Unlikely Low Low Low Low
Notes, a planati ns, descriptions
t) A -7
n
L V,
Mitigation options "0 SgG" l ( t i y r~i
1. t✓ V,a v Residual risk
2. avo L. (f v, rn, it v' vMe?r Residual risk
3. Residual risk
4• Residual risk
overall tree risk rating Low O Moderatej)if High Extreme O
overall residual risk None ❑ Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme ❑ Recommended inspection interval vz'tn4
Data ❑ Final ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed ❑No ❑Yes-Type/Reason
inspection limitations ❑None ❑Visibility ❑Access ❑Vines ❑Root collar buried Describe
fJ
1
C n a r~z
Client J1,11 ~1 Date f Mwo Time J°
Address/Tree location i m i %1 Tree no. 3 Sheet of
Tree species f; - W 1,✓0Q, dbh /'Height ` ~J Crown spread dia.
Assessor(s) r..A Tools used 7m M of } i tA~ t' Time frame
Target Assessment
Target zone
v
r Occupancy
.O 6 C
E rate $ M
C Target description Tr:„ ai prof:action y c 3 X . rare u ,
x 2-aasional
a - frequent+ >
I w H 6 4-constant a` E a s
z
3 QA c /0 X/
4 e, 4/n
Site Faciors
History of failures ~e5 Topography Flat❑ Slope % Aspe t
Site changes None O Grade change ❑ Site cle ring ❑ Changed soil hydrology D Root cuts ❑ Describe 1 GP i C t ' : W re, V, 7 t
Soil conditions Limited volume ❑Saturated Shallow❑ Compacted[] Pavement over roots[] % 'Describe 111-~1
Prevailing wind direction Common weather Strong winds Ice[] Snow❑ Heavy rain ❑ Describe sh f frj r
Tree Health and Species Profile
Vigor Low ❑ Normal High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal), None (dead) ❑ Normal Chiorotic % Necrotic ` %
Pests/Biotic aM Abiotic
Species failure profile Branches Trunk)d Roots Describe ()f hi - ~f1 Y Lit -
Load Factors y,{f. ,~✓t'j': ^iv' e
Wind exposure Protected ❑ Partial C6 Full h Wind funneling ❑ Relative crown size Small ❑ Medium lrj Large o
Crowndensity Sparse[] Normal.Do Dense[] interior branches Few❑ NormaIN Dense[] Vines/Mistletoe/Mosst ryv
Recent or expected change in load factors
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure
Crown and branches
Unbalanced crown LCR % Cracks ❑ Lightning damage ❑
Dead twigs/branches %overall Max. dia. Codominant ❑ Included bark ❑
Broken/Hangers Number Max. dia. Weakattachments❑ Cavity/Nest hole %circ.
Over-extended branches ❑ Previous branch failures ❑ Similar branches present ❑
Pruning history
Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑
Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised 11
Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Lion-tailed ❑ Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑
Flush cuts ❑ Other Response growth
Condition (s) of concern
Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate[] Significant O Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate[] Significant ❑
rDead/Missing kelihood of failure Improbable[] Possible[] Probable ❑ Imminent[] Likelihood of failure Improbable[] Possible[] Probable ❑ Imminent[]
-Trunk ® Roots and Root Collar
bark Abnormal barktexture/color ❑ Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem girdling ❑
odominant stems Included bark ❑ Cracks ❑ Dead ❑ Decay Conks/Mushrooms ❑ j
Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sap ooze ❑ Ooze ❑ Cavity % circ.
Lightning damage[] Heartwood decay Ell onks/Mushrooms ❑ Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Distance from trunk
Cavity/Nest hole ? % circ. Depth Poor taper ❑ Root plate lifting ❑ Soil weakness ❑
Lean l~_° Corrected? Response growth
Response growth (4 d pot
Condition (s) of concern ~'.qL ELY b r, Condition (s) of concern t I*' 1a
Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate[] Significant Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate[] Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable[] Possible ❑ Probable Imminent ❑ Likelihood of failure Improbable[] Possible 11 Probable Imminent ❑
i
,r
f
Rl: , rtion
Likelihood
lure Impact Failure 8s Impact Consequences
I j
Target (from Matrix 1)
Condition(s)
(Target number Tree part
of concern o A m c Risk
or description)
c o La rating
' 'oo c c (from
v 3 a E a ~
° R > L notrix2)
111- - ( 1- l1 -
Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix
Likelihood Likelihood of hnPac
of Failure Very Iow Low Medium High
Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very likely
Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely J Likely
Possible Unlikely yUnlikely lUniikely - Somewhat likely
Unlikely
itnprobaktle Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely
Matra 2. Risk rating matrix
Likelihood of Consequences of Failure
Failure 2c Impact Negligible Minor Significant Severe
l ~l
Very likely I Low I Moderates High Extreme
Likely Low Moderate High High
Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate I~dorh
Unlikely Low Low Low Low
Notes, explanations, descriptio s
T ri a' ta~J `ern s
LIJ
Mitigation options f~
1, VM V Residual risk _
2. a' i/ 17 t//V\ i- Residual risk
3. Tom- Residual risk
a. Residual risk
overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High Extreme, t~k reme Ar- fi,-?- &4vr1il-S`
overall residual risk None ❑ Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme O Recommended inspection interval Y e ,v P~
Data ❑ Final ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed ONo ❑Yes-Type/Reason
Inspection limitations ❑None ❑Visibility ❑Access ❑Vines ❑Root collar buried Describe
I
I
I
f
t
r
i
r:
I
r---
rt j LS
L;'j r
f-~ t r
~ BLS
0 LcPCI
4\1 r,,-1-
i
r~ h ' _ tl ~1
y t4
. ~ L ~rf, j'. ~ ICJ
r ~
V CCl4~ BBHH '.t'7G.~
S 'f J
,
1
1
g~ ~ 11
rr- _ ° r
1
i
~l i'~'/• I Y ~ I~,7 r,i.~ ~ ~ ~ ~i.'~ '41 _ yr:
e 4;'~i4•~„» w L3ri~`;~
r Y
/AUK t 4
J I
I.
Ir,
E
i
Job Address: 1651 SISKIYOU BLVD Contractor:
ASHLAND OR 97520 Address:
C
A Owner's Name: NEWTON RODERICK J 0 Phone:
p Customer 09726 N State Lie No: P ASA CATES T City Lie No:
Applicant: R
Address: A
C: Sub-Contractor:
A Phone: (541) 890-3416 Address:
N Applied: 02/27/2018
T Issued: y
Expires: 08/26/2018 Phone:
State Lie No:
Maplot: City Lie No:
DESCRIPTION: Tree removal permit for 9 black cottonwoods and 1 cyberian elm.
VALUATION
Occupancy Type Construction Units Rate Amt Actual Amt Constuction Description
Total for Valuation:
MECHANICAL
ELECTRICAL
STRUCTURAL
PERMIT FEE DETAIL
Fee Description Amount Fee Description Amount
Tree Removal/Verification 29.00
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305
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: $ 29.00 $ 29.00
or local laws, ordinances, or regulations rests solely with the
applicant. Sub-Total: $ 29.00
Fees Paid: $ 29.00
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 F
Planning Division NI MIT APPLICATION
51 Winbum Way, Ashland OR 97520 ~J C
541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006 FILE
-ASHLAND
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT e r? o vcv4
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY' lb 5b l Pursuing LEEDO Certification? El YES ❑ NO
t
Street Address
Assessor's Map No. 39 1 E Tax Lot(s)
Zoning A 11 Comp Plan Designation
APPLICANT
Name_ 1f r f G
~ Phone ~ ij ~ Nail
Address City /A r~ Zip
PROPERTY NER/ { /J 9 f 2~ 0C'q_c)
Name ♦ ` AT, Phone E-Mail rozo f %I r w
Address
City Zip
SURVEYOR ENGINEER ARCHITECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OTHER
Title Name Phone E-Mail
Address City Zip
Title Name Phone E-Mail
Address City Zip
I hereby certify that the state~nfs"nd information contained in this application, including the enclosed drawings and the required findings of fact, are in all respects,
true and correct. I undnd that all property pins must be shown on the drawings and visible upon the site inspection. In the event the pins are not shown or their
location found to be incorrect, the owner assumes full responsibility, I further understand that if this request is subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to
establish:
1) that 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 properly located on the ground. tit
Failure in this regard will result most likely in not only the request being set aside, but also possibly in my structures be' 'it' in reliance thereon bemr ed to
be removed at my expense. If 1 have any doubts I am-advised to seek competent professional advice and assistance, i
Applicant's Signature Date
As owyler-off " roperty involved in t 's regd st I have read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property
wrier. r,
roperty Owner's Signature (required) Date
[To be completed by City Staff]
Wrj Date Received I Zoning Permit Type I Filing Fee $ X
OVER 6®
GAcomm-d"VianningTorms & Handouts\Zoning Permit Applica8on.doc