Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWalker_381_393_TREE-2018-00042 I CITY OF -ASHLAND January 25, 2019 Notice of Final Decision On January 24, 2019, the Community Development Director approved the request for the following: Planning Action: TREE-2018-00042 Subject Property: 381 Walker Ave Owner/Applicant: Southern Oregon University/Canopy LLC Description: A request for the removal of a 27-inch diameter in breast height (DBH) Douglas Fir at 381 Walker and a 30,5-inch DBH Siberian Elm at 393 Walker. The application states the Fir is growing over a playground and has a history of branch failure. Additionally, the Elm has a history of major branch failure and grows over the middle of the house. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Southern Oregon University; ZONING: SOU; ASSESSOR'S MAP. 39 IE IOCD; TAX LOT: 100. The Community Development Director's decision becomes final and is effective on the 12" 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(x) 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 Fotini Kaufman in the Community Development Department at (541) 488-5305. cc: Parties of record and property owners within 200 ft COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.asliland.orms 74M11 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. Tire 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 'T'ype 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. Tine 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 rnade 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 11 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: 542-488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashiand.or.us I LIM ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION FINDINGS & ORDERS PLANNING ACTION: TREE-2018-00042 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 381 Walker Ave APPLICANT: Canopy LLC OWNER: SOU DESCRIPTION: A request for the removal of a 27-inch diameter at breast height (DBH) Douglas Fir at 381 Walker and a 30.5-inch DBH Siberian Elm at 393 Walker. The application states the Fir is growing over a playground and has a history of branch failure. Additionally, the Elm has a history of major branch failure and grows over the middle of the house. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Southern Oregon University; ZONING: SOU; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 lE l0CD; TAX LOT: 100 SUBMITTAL DATE: December 21, 2018 DEEMED COMPLETE DATE: January 4, 2019 STAFF DECISION DATE: January 25, 2019 DEADLINE TO APPEAL (4:30 p.m.): February 6, 2019 FINAL DECISION DATE: February 7, 2019 APPROVAL EXPIRATION DATE: August 7, 2020 DECISION This proposal is to remove one tree from 381 Walker and one tree from 393 Walker. The tree at 393 Walker is a 27-inch DBH Douglas Fir. The tree is requested as a non-hazard tree removal. The tree af381 Walker is a 30.5-inch DBH Siberian Elm. The tree is requested as a hazard tree removal. The subject property is located on the West side of Walker in the SOU zone and is the site of the SOU Housing Department. To the East, zoning is single-family residential (R-1-5). To the North and South, zoning is SOU and to the West, zoning is multi-fancily (R-2 and R-3). According to the application, the Douglas Fir has a history of branch failure, poor form and is growing over the playground of the Head Start school. The arborist advised the property manager if the tree is retained, children should not be allowed on the playground during weather events. The property manager is opting to remove the tree instead. The Fir has a narrow canopy and its removal would not significantly affect canopy densities. There is another large Fir on the property, so its removal would not affect species diversity. The Siberian Elm has a history of major branch failure. According to the arborist, there are several similar branches present in the tree at poor unions, including one growing over the middle of the house, and was given a moderate risk rating. The Tree Commission's January meeting was cancelled due to lack of quorum, so they did not review this application. In staff's assessment, the tree removals as proposed fully meet the "hazard tree" and "tree that is not a hazard" criteria. TREE-2018-00042 381 Walker/#k Page 1 The criteria for a Tree Removal Permit are described in AMC Chapter 18.5.7.040.11 as follows: 9. Hazard Free. 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 98.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. Planning Action #TREE-2018-00042, a request to remove one hazard tree, complies with all applicable City ordinances with the imposition of the conditions attached below. Therefore, Planning Action #TREE- 2018-00042 is approved. If any one or more of the following conditions are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #TREE-2018-00042 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 one (1) mitigation tree shall be planted on site within one (1) year of issuance of this decision. 3. That a mitigation tree shall be planted at a minimum of a 1'/2-inch caliper consistent with the requirements of AMC 18.5.7.050. L t. Bill olnar, D •ector Date Depai ent of Community Development TREE-2018-00042 381 Walker/fk Page 2 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 1/25/191 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 #TREE-2018-00042, 381 Walker. N` w Signature of Employee bacument51124019 1i a;,, d .~l,ll a .1p: 1 I ila i r,ri j: t TREE-2018-00042 391 E10CC 1300 TREE-2.018-00042 391 E10,CC 1400 TREE-2018-00042 391 E10CD 5400 ,416 BRIDGE LLC ACCESS-MULTI-FAMILY LLC BENOIT ROBERT H TRUSTEE FBO 8904 YANK GULCH RD 3630 AVIATION WAY 309 SAN BENANCIO RD TALENT, OR 97540 MEDFORD, OR 97504 SALINAS, CA 93908 TREE'-2018-00042 391 E10CD 5600 BRINKLEY MATTHEW HIHART-BRIM LEY TREE-2018-010042 391 E10CID 4200 TREE-2018-00042 391 E10CD 5500 NIKKI CHF-ASHLAND LLC CLAYCOMB TYLERIJULIE 415 WRIGHTMAN ST 409 JOHNSON AVE 425 WIGHTMAN ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 FAIRHOPE, AL 36532 ASHLAND, OR 97520 i TREE-2018-00042 391 E10CD 6000 TREE-2018-00042 391 E10CD 5100 TREE-2018.00042 391 E10CC 1600 CLEMENT DAVID S/KYLIE CONKLIN JAMES TRUSTEE ET AL COOK CAROL SUE 1810 E MAIN ST 3120 S STAGE RD 1326, LEE ST MEDFORD, OR 97504 MEDFORD, OR 97501 ASHLAND, OR 97520 TREE-2018-00042 391E10CC 1800 TREE-2018-00042 391E10DC 6800 TREE-2018-00042 391E10DB 601 EADIE CAROLYN A TRSTE FBO ENGLE DOUGLAS M/LONNA M ANDERSON ANDRE ; FAIN STEVEN R/LYNN E PO BOX 3577 PO BOX 304 952 MARY JANE AVE ASHLAND OR 97520 TALENT, OR 97540 ASHLAND, OR 97520 TREE-2018-00042 391E10CD 5700 TREE-2018-00042 391EIOCC 1201 TREE-2018-00042 391E10CC 1500 FALLON THOMAS E/KELLI A FINCH PAUL J/VICKI J GOODMAN SUSAN R TRUSTEE ET AL 703 BUTLER CREEK RD 7 STONEY CT 491 CRESCENT ST 504 ASHLAND, OR 97520 BLOOMINGTON, IL 61704 OAKLAND, CA 94610 j i I TREE-201800042 391 E10CC 1900 TREE-2018-00042 391 E10CD 5800 TREE-2018-00042 391EIODC 7100 HILL ADRIENNE J JEDTWICE LLC KING JEFFREY/SUSAN MARSDEN 667 WALNUT ST 33631 N 78TH PL 1617 PARKER ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85266 ASHLAND, OR 97520 TREE-2018-00042 391 E10DC 7000 TREE-2018-00042 391EI OCD 5300 LOCKLIN PAUL TRUSTEE ET AL TREE-2018-00042 391 E10DC 10100 LETTON JOHN K ET AL LAUREN LOCKLIN-FENNELL ' LUDWIG KATHLEEN REV LIVING TRUST 170 INDIAN CREEK RANCH RD 185 BLACK OAK DR 1350 E NEVADA ST DOUGLAS CITY, CA 96024 ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD, OR 97504 S TREE-2018-00042 391 E10CD 6200 TREE-2018-00042 391E10DC 6700 OUTHERN OREGON UNIVEN UNIV 1 SI SOUTHERN RSITY RUPP WILLIAM D TRUSTEE FB~O SCHIMER DAVID M N. HURLEY 938 CYPRESS POINT LOOP 424 WALKER AVE 450 WIGHTMAN ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 9752'0 ASHLAND, OR 97520 TREE-2018-00042 391 E10CC 2000 TREE-2018-00042 391 E10CD 200 TREE-2018-00042 391 E10DC 6500 SHAMES JAMES G TRUSTEE STATE BOARD/HIGHER ED TILDEN FREDERICK ROYSTON III TRUST w344 BRIDGE ST PO BOX 3175 , . PO BOX 3245 ASHLAND, OR 97520 EUGENE, OR 97403 ASHLAND, OR 97520 rj TREE-2018-00042 391 E10DB 600 TREE-2018-00042 391 E10DC 6900 TREE-2018-00042 391 E10DC 6600 TUSSEY KRISTEN VEZIE RICHARD L/GAYLE E WAGNER LISA ANN 233 4TH ST 446 WALKER AVE 408 WALKER AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520, ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 i 4Ef i aldl G ii'l{ '.~~a ~~~s !,.i;~ ~r1! 1 ~ =a.i.i71 I` ~ Ii TREE-2018-00042 391 E10CD 6100 TREE-2018-00042 391 E10CD 6300 TREE-2018-00042 ZAPELL JANET BLINKA ZICKLER LEANDER CANOPY LLC PO BOX 1143 PO BOX 1401 157 MAX LOOP ASHLAND, OR 97520 JACKSONVILLE, OR 97530 TALENT, OR 97540 381 Walker 1125119 NOD 33 I I i i f i 1r~nU9E i~ ~i., ;,a-7di ~I i x h'P~ f F r.f•<y tnuUdu.! EcE ~ I ® {c 1, ~s i m 9 Planning C3epar(en1, 51 lino wn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 C I T ~ F i 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-562-2050 w+rwashland.orms TTY:1-800-735-2900 NOTICE OF APPLICATION PLANNING ACTION: TEPEE-2018-00042 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 381 Walker Ave OWNER/APPLICANT, Southern Oregon UniversitylGanopy LLC DESCRIPTION, A request for the removal of a 27-inch diameter in breast height (DBH) Douglas Fir at 381 Walker and a 30.5-inch DBH Siberian Elm at 393 Walker. The application states the Fir is growing over a playground and has a history of branch failure. Additionally, the Elm has a history of major branch failure and grows over the middlle of the house, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Southern Oregon University; ZONING: SOU; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 391 E 10CD; TAX LOT: 100. NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: January 4 ,2019 DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENT'S: January 18, 2019 l 378 d~ 0. I { 304 SUBJECT PROPERTY 351 p 41381WALKER PLANNING AC-nON #TREE.201'0-00042 r p„ i141a 38' ~ 'I- l i93 I < i 1 6Y) 91' it 412' 1465 i 1~'2~' 15511 4p 2±J i"~ 15~, !0 Qit380 11. ill fR--S T 41 r~ 16131 445 6 1 i 6( i ~ 1 7 JA aKF T~ 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 b"4.+inburn 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 faRkre to raise an objection concerning, this application, by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decisions 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 aspen by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspectuon at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All material's are available at the Ashland Planning Division, Community Development & Fngineering Servmces Building, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520. If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel! free to contact Fotini Kaufman, at 541-488-5305. nCp~7htlt-c9ewlplnnning,lF9aravti.nme, Actions\Nolicin PolderWailed I Om' & Si~msl20991'a'EkEE-2018-00042,docx TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 18.5.7.040.8 ".,,oW 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 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 lollov,i° g 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. G7gconiaai-dev5planwirrgNPlanning ActionsVNoticing FoldeNNIalled Notices& Sigh ^22O99'~T'G<.I'.f?-2418-000-42.docx 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 07520, in the Community Development Department, 2. On 1/4/10 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 TREE:-2018-00042, 381 & 393'Walker. pp uN Signature of Employee C1aaumeW 11412019 TREE-2018-00042 391 EI OCC 1300 TREE-2018-00042 391 E10CC 1400 TREE-2018-00042 391 E10CD 5400 416 BRIDGE LLC ACCESS-MULTI-FAMILY LLC BENOIT ROBERT H TRUSTEE FBO 8904 YANK GULCH RD 3630 AVIATION WAY 309 SAN BENANCIO RD TALENT, OR 97540 MEDFORD, OR 97504 SALINAS, CA 93908 TREE-2018-00042 391 E10CD 5600 TREE-2018-00042 391 E10CD 4200 TREE-2018-00042 391 E10CD 5500 BRINKLEY MATTHEW HlHART-BRINKLEY CHF-ASHLAND LLC CLAYCOMB TYLER/JULIE NIKKI 409 JOHNSON AVE 425 WIGHTMAN ST 415 WRIGHTMAN ST FAIRHOPE, AL 36532 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 TREE-2018-00042 391 E10CD 6000 TREE-2018-00042 391 E10CD 5100 TREE-2018-00042 391 E10CC 1600 CLEMENT DAVID SIKYLIE CONKLIN JAMES TRUSTEE ET AL COOK BRENT K 1810 E MAIN ST 3120 S STAGE RD 3120 ANDERSON CREEK RD MEDFORD, OR 97504 MEDFORD, OR 97501 TALENT, OR 97540 TREE-2018-00042 391 E10CC 1800 TREE-2018-00042 391 E10DC 6800 TREE-2018-00042 391 E10DB 601 EADIE CAROLYN A TRUTE FBO ENGLE DOUGLAS MILONNA M FAIN STEVEN RILYNN E PO BOX 3577 PO BOX 304 952 MARY JANE AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 TALENT, OR 97540 ASHLAND, OR 97520 j TREE-2018-00042 391 E10CD 5700 TREE-2018-00042 391E10CC 1201 TREE-2018-00042 391E1000 1500 FALCON THOMAS EIKELLI A FINCH PAUL JNICKI J GOODMAN SUSAN R TRUSTEE ET AL 703 BUTLER CREEK RD 7 STONEY CT 491 CRESCENT ST 504 ASHLAND, OR 97520 BLOOMINGTON, IL 61704 OAKLAND, CA 94610 TREE-2018-00042 391 E10CD 5800 TREE-2018-00042 391 E10CC 1900 JEDTWICE LLC TREE-2018-00042 391 E10DC 7100 HILL ADRIENNE J MICHAEL FRANCISISANDRA KING JEFFREY/SUSAN MARSDEN 667 WALNUT ST GOCKEJEDRZEJEWSKf 1617 PARKER ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 33631 N 78TH PL ASHLAND, OR 97520 SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85266 TREE-2018-00042 391 E10CD 5300 TREE-2018 00042 391 E10DG 7000 TREE-2018-00042 391 E10DC 10100 LETTON JOHN K ET AL LOCKLIN PAUL TRUSTEE AL LUDWIG KATHLEEN REV LIVING TRUST 170 INDIAN CREEK RANCH RD LAUREN REN LOCKLIN-FENNELL 185 BLACK OAK DR DOUGLAS CITY, CA 96024 1350 E NEVADA ST MEDFORD, OR 97504 ASHLAND, OR 97520 TREE-2018-00042391EIQCA100 SOUTHERN OREGON UNIVERSITY TREE-2018-00042 391E10CD 6200 TREE-2018-00042 391E1QDC 6700 N. HURLEY RUPP WILLIAM D TRUSTEE FBO SCHIMER DAVID M 450 WIGHTMAN 938 CYPRESS POINT LOOP 424 WALKER AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 TREE-2018-00042 391 E10CC 2000 TREE-2018-00042 391 E10CD 200 TREE-2018-00042 391 E1 QDC 6500 SHAMES JAMES G TRUSTEE STATE BOARD/HIGHER ED TILDEN FREDERICK ROYSTON III TRUST 344 BRIDGE ST PO BOX 3175 PO BOX 3245 ASHLAND, OR 97520 EUGENE, OR 97403 ASHLAND, OR 97520 I TREE-2018-00042 391E10DB 600 TREE-2018-00042 391 E10DC 6900 TREE-2018-00042 391ElODC 6600 TUSSEY KRISTEN VEZIE RICHARD UGAYLE E WAGNER LISA ANN 233 4TH ST 446 WALKER AVE 408 WALKER AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 - ~ _ _ ' 1 . IL_ ._~hJ «~..L, et~~ea[-.~«i:dst®.a8aosS+_.f. CcleiE...b..v-l,5orlek~~,..~a~141.db TREE-2018-00042 391 E10CD 6100 TREE-2018-00042 391 E10CD 6300 TREE-2018-00042 ZAPELL JANET BLINKA ZICKLER LEANDER CANOPY LLC PO BOX 1143 PO BOX 1401 157 MAX LOOP ASHLAND, OR 97520 JACKSONVILLE, OR 97530 TALENT, OR 97540 381 Walker NOC 114119 33 I I i I i 1 I I I I ~ i i I I k i i ~ i i r flL-Y ~ #u* ,tad'i) 9L~a +.i 10 too 6401 zibot{ X37; 1 54 A16. I r r U i} 1 QI Y i 44t~ A4}U 1 . _ ; ~ ~ I ~ ' ~ X14 U•~ ~ ,?U d {t~ i U lug 9 - 5,0 14"0 UtA ~ ;310 ff-D' i.'9 I 260 'no .2600 '•$.it1~f ~ 11394. 1 ~ ~ 9 1{}D Ii M:w (PI iC1dt ai97 r~,. r m~ 15[14? , A, r1 bg~k4rU 5~U4 f' 3{} SAW u n i i} i { , YI ,o I 1 ' - 420 tl U , ICI} ~ p 1 3 0 6+ U }N 4 L fi(}3Uf{ t ~Cl I AG oil, nil D 1H 3 ~U it r tU i} ! ~t{~► lot) "t L ~t8~h' r`p~~a9t1 R r~ I au ~J9r. I I.. L rUb ~U4}1l]U1 ;1i~{la{}~ I L ~~v.irU r .5'a 4) 6-5111 r, • 70 ~ 4iH U i} R. P L~ ~1 I tl g `ll1l'j 65u6 I58U } t I ..~E X9!}9 ~r.U~ ~ 4t~~ll} ~ I ~ I 391E R ' ~+S{14~ H9 7419 t} 7H i}, old} .I ~ ~k; 7~ 1 1 9 a'f{](} 78q 574)# 9th Y fi~ioq , T Ifill 6.Utrtk` t49 ?8U0 I4T8i> fir} I - ~ il~ ~t14 ''#9 U' 720 41 r } t3 id}U ;4i JU4 b9 : 114, VW b2of) 4t1U 43{ltl uf} 7 1 3`1{} 1U1~itJl}i {14t3 4'_ r3-x]{1,1]{}~! 47i}9 18f{lt~l ili9}y 'foal I ~4}i I 14911 ~{14)it ''r'S{3} 4U[F 8S4 I itrt~ilU{} 11419 'ri{}1 r~ J fib I G~ 1 U{]i i7~Y ~Q 3 ;i ~U(~ ~i 14 4p ut} 5 ~ {l fit] f} k~ 19 I 39 iii 4iU4}41t} fUt}4r4}[}~;i~U 6{}4 141{1{lt{j T. ~fl4{}'~f3U ~39u 1. U ~ } ~I. 1{i r41~ 1 f i NL L SLU. 1 ~ U C11p l , 1 ~tl!t} ~ 1 U U cj f'U'dt a~ U d} . i} r 1416 1741 3{} h I j9{} ~i: ~ ~ ~.tf'4~1i} 4#t~llll {I n'~{14}',{UU' ~ ~ x',14}+ 1 ~'yv 1 E~~ . i1 I,..:s~ City of Ashland Community Development Department PERMIT NUMBER 51 Winburn Way TREE-2018-00042 Ashland, OR 97520 Apply Date: 1212412018 Telephone: 541-488-5305 Inspection Line: 541-552-2080 Plan Type: Tree Removal Work Class: Tree Removal Permit Review Ma & Tax Lot Property Address 391E10CD100 381 WalkerAv Owner Information Applicant Infonnation Owner: Southern Oregon University Applicant Canopy LLC Owner 1250 SiskiyoU Blvd Applicant 157 Max St Address: Ashland, OR 97520 Address: Talent, OR 97540 Phone: (541) 821-1294 Phone: (541) 631-8000 Project ©escription Removal of 2 trees on the properties located at 381 & 393 Walker Fees Fee Description: Amount: Tree RemovalNerification Fee (Type 1) $30.00 Applicant: Date: Total Fees: $30.00 Planning Division ZONING PFRMIT APPLICATION 51 'WUinburn Way, Ashland OR 97520 CITY c,, FILES 541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006 ASHLAND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Pursuing LEEDS Cerlification? ❑ YES C NO Street Address tI r' J 1-)L c,vz_ Assessor's Map No, 39 1 E Tax Lot(s) Zoning Comp Plan Designation APPLICANT Narne O-JO X 1~ I C Phone _5_9I X3i- 0 E•Mail c ,rt 2t 5 rMl~l wec, Address l"'V x t_czar4 City "7 Y)t-GV7- Zip PROPERTY OWNER Name Phone(5m%4 I) . < E-Mail Address L15C✓ City Zip 1? 7-5,1 SURVEYOR, ENGINEER ARCHITECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OTHER Title Name Phone E-Mail Address City Zip Title Name Phone E-Mail Address City Zip f 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. 1 understand that all property gains mast be shown on the drawings and visible upon the site inspection. In the event the pins are not shown or!l ,eir location found to be incorrect, the owner assumes full responsibi'lit'y. I further understand that if this request is subsequently contesh 1, cnce, !7r u r ill hr] m) rrr? (r) establish. 1) that I produced sufficient factual evidence at the hearing to support this request; 2) that the findings of fact furnished justifies the granting of the request; 5) that the findings of fact furnished by me are adequate, and further 4) that all structures or improvements are properly located on the ground. Failure In this regard w i l l result r ost likely in not only the request being set aside, but also possibly i n my structures being built in i. ,air_ : ,?e i brmng t-qurreu iu be removed at rpy exp nse. If I rave a ts,~I-am advised to seek competent professional advi e and as istance. Applicant`s Signature Date As owner of the property involve in this request, I have read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property owner. I Property Ouviter's Signature (reg red) Date BTo be corrp'eled by City StarQ Date Deceived Zoning Permit Type m Filing Fee OVER 0 (r ~ceiairori#cx~gyka,eoaArugll'ort os & li,ue3oolwtZi>ninp Perwo4 Applbufion.duc l CANOPY LLC The Care of Trees canopyarborcare.com ]57 Max Loop Uent, OR 97540 (541) 631-8000 December 20, 2018 City of Ashland Planning Division 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 RE: Tree removal application at 381 and 393 Walker SOU Housing Department There is one tree on each of these contiguous properties for which removal is being requested. Both trees have been inspected and an ISA Tree Risk Assessment has been completed for each (see attached). The tree at .393 Walker is 27" DBH Douglas fit-, Pseu,,Iolsuga menziesli. This tree has a hi,ston y of branch failure, has poor form, and is growing over the playground of the Head Start school, While this tree was ultimately given a "low" risk rating, it was largely due to the relatively low occupancy rate of the playground. I advised the property manager that if they retain the tree, they should not allow children on to the playground during weather events. Ultimately, the chance for branch failure striking a playground was not a liability they were willing to assume and have opted to reprove tine tree. Not an unreasonable request, in my opinion. This Douglas fir tree has a narrow canopy, Its removal would not significantly affect canopy densities. There is a nice, large tree of the sanic species on the same property. Removal of this tree would not affect species diversity ill the area. Pruning to mitigate risk is not a viable option in this case. The tree at 381 Walker is a 30.5" DBH Siberian elm, Ulinus pumilcr. It has history of major branch failure. There are several similar branches present in the tree at poor codominate unions. At least one of these large branches grows over the middle of the house. Its failure would have catastrophic consequences. Mitigative pruning and cabling options were discussed at length. Due to the form of the tree these options were not considered viable. This tree was given a "moderate" risk rating and removal is advised. Thank you for your consideration. Please contact me if there are further questions. Sincerel , Christopher John Arborist; Canopy LLO ISA Certification ME-9504A Tree Risk Assessor Qualified (I'RAQ) ISA. B tic Tree Risk Assessn, nt Form Client S a U Date Z r'" ~ e'3 Time , ?r Address/Tree location -3 1,✓ct It r Tree no. Sheet of Tree species 1,j q dbh 3C>. S Height S Crown spread dia. 6d Assessor(s) r- r 1, Time frame Y Tools used ~1.,. ,r,~..,..._......,.... Target Assessment Target zone occupancy .0 t s rate $ c E & 'U tv' 1--rare m M Target description c x z -occastanal u u s' '!3 3-frequent 5 4-constant E K a 1 )JO I! 5 YnS z 51 V1 , rC) k" " C C TQ ._;~V„ " 3- c,-'7-R 3 y a Site Factors History of failures Topography Flat lope❑ % Aspect Site changes None El Grade change❑ Site clearing❑ Changed soil hydrology❑ Root cuts❑ Describe Soll conditions Limited volume ❑ Saturated ❑ Shallow O Compacted El Pavement over roots ❑ % Describe Prevailing wind direction Common weather Strong windsl~ce❑ SnowllHeavy rain lY Describe Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low ❑ Normal High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal)[] None (dead) ❑ Normal q 00 Chlorotic % Necrotic 1 6 % Pests J~/t Ablotic /i/ Species failure profile Branches Trunk❑ Roots D Describe Load Factors Wind exposure Protected❑ Partial Full❑ Wind funneling© Relative crown size Small❑ MediumD1 Large[] Crown density Sparse D Normal lid Dense D Interior branches Few ❑ Normal tense ❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss ❑ Recent or planned change In load factors &--y 'p9 r'/' o/f 4 r "n b Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure - Crown and Branches - Unbalanced crown ❑ / LCR 5 % Cracks 11 Lightning damage ❑ Dead twigs/branches tq =S%overall Max. dia.14 Codominant 14 Included bark Broken/Hangers Number Max. dia. Weak attachments !o.rn arswo.r./ Cavity/Nest hole % circ. over-extended branches sr;,.,~ L1 r~, ,w~-- •F l l Pruning history Previous branch failures 1, f- eSimilar branches present Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised ❑ Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls Ls~" Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Lion-talled ❑ Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑ Flush cuts ❑ Other Response growth Main concern(s) rrF_,` , , - - - Load on defect N/A 11 Minor 11 Moderate Significant ❑ Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ Trunk- Roots and Root Collar Dead/Missing bark Abnormal barks xture/color © Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem girdling ❑ Codominant stems A Included bark f~ Cracks ❑ Dead ❑ Decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Cankers/Galls/BuriseKsap ooze I ' 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 ° Corrected? Response growth Response growth Main concern(s) ro,,, 4~; rr,fn ~rrs4 ~ry°I Main concern(s) Load on defect NJA ❑ Minor d Moderate D Significant ❑ Load on defect NJA Minor ❑ Moderate O Significant ❑ likelihood Off ilure likelihood of ff ilure Improbable Possible[] Probable 13 Imminent ❑ Improbable; Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ Risk Categorization Likelihood cy Failure & impact Consequences € A Failure Impact (from Matr',x x) Risk c' c E ~ a ° N c rating z3 o R ° m 3-oy a of part Conditions _ Lo Target s n 3 m E d (from S Tree part of concern LT IT protection C > z ~ Z, ~ Matrix 2) FYI C1 Lk'Vgj I- V loclArd 23 tx, CIO, 3 4 Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. - -II Likelihood Likelihood of Impacting Target of Failure Very low Low Medium High Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very likely Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely unlikely Matr&2, Risk rating matrix. Likelihood of Consequences of Failure Failure & Impact Negligible Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High North Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate - Unlikely Low Low Low Low < i Notes, explanations, descriptions s' i Mitigation options ~ II zA~1rr ,,.i, tft,,;r trr, 1 :=/ol ~ - Residual risk L Residual risk Residual risk Residual risk Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate High ❑ Extreme ❑ work: priority 1 El Z ❑ 3 ❑ 40 OveralFinal esidual risk Low [Moderate ❑ High 11 Ex Mme ❑ Recommended inspection interval 0 ,Z Data ❑ Prelimin ry Advanced assessment needed 7o ❑Yes-Type/Reason Inspection limitations None ❑Visibility ❑Access ❑Vines ❑ftoot collar buried Describe The.. d.,r., t-f n,,,i„«h l,v (rsr) - 7ne a ISA. Ra. Cp% Tree Risk Assess m( attForm Client _ G t.f Ls_Si.«r Date 7 ;1 ? r7 1 Time Address/Tree location Tree no. Sheet of Tree species dbh~ Height C? Crown spread dia. i) Assessor(s) . e klrz.i Je5 PJ Time frame l i z:- Tools used i i i Target Assessment Target zone occupancy v n = s rate Y O m E d „xr " 1-rare fa. W m F e Target description .4 G x 2-occasional .".U a 3-frOgLent 0 i~ 4-constant C.. E GrC a z 3 4 ~y Site Factors History of failures 0. ( y 1L'~~US Topography FlatO Slope[] % Aspect Site changes None❑ Grade change[] Site clearing[] Changed soil hydrology[] Root cuts[] Describe ,~F2_ Soil conditions Limited volume 0 Saturated[] Shallow[] Compacted O Pavement over roots p &'I) % Describe Prevailing wind direction Common weather Strong winds M Ice[] Snow [11 Heavy rainl3 Describe Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low ❑ Normal E1 High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal) ❑ None (dead)© Normal 1'8' Chlorotic % Necrotic _,2_% Pests Ablotic Species failure profile BranchesO Trunk[] Roots[] Describe Load Factors Wind exposure Protected[] Partial[] FuI1EI Wind funneling[] Relative crown size Smalifl Medium[] Large[] Crowndenslty SparseD Normal[] Dense[] Interior branches Few[] Normal[] DenseEl Vines/Mistletoe/Moss[] Recent or planned change in load factors 0 CJ ry L. e47. Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure - Crown and Branches - FE5) crown ! LCR irk % Cracks ❑ Lightning damage ❑ ranches ❑ % overali Max. dia. Codominant ❑ Included bark ❑ ers Number Max. dia. - Wea k attachments ❑ Cavity/Nest hole _%circ. Over extended branches Q Previous branch failures G7 Similar branches present Pruning history Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned Raised ❑ Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Gaits/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Lion-tailed ❑ Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑ Flush cuts ❑ Other Response growth M81nCDnCern(S) 1< - i" I.F }n r`:r" dr:,• a !y t:: i` t it l r,} rr<LL/~ Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑ Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible 0 Probable ❑ imminent ❑ -Trunk - - Roots and Root Collar - Dead/Missing bark ❑ Abnormal bark texture/color ❑ Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem girdling ❑ Codominant stems ❑ included bark ❑ Cracks ❑ Dead ❑ Decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls[] Sap ooze ❑ Ooze ❑ Cavity ❑ % circ, Lightning damage[] Heartwood decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Cracks © Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Distance from trunk Cavity/Nest hole % circ. Depth Poor taper i~# Root piste lifting ❑ Soil weakness ❑ Lean .-_..2..._° Corrected? , 2 Response growth Response growth ''1 2 Main concern(s)~LC-- IL Main concern(s) :Ll rneG~ Load on defect N/A 0 Minor D Moderate E Significant O Load on defect N/Aa-Minor O Moderate O Significant O Likelihood of failure Likelihood of failure Improbable[] Possible El' Probable ❑ imminent ❑ Improbable[] Possible 19 Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ Risk Categorization Likelihood s cu Failure & Impact Consequences E Failure Impact (from Matrix s) V tusk o N t~ rating y $ c ? 3 x L " of part c conditions, ro L10 Target c o c w ':E 1 o y C Q v (from u Tree part of concern protection a a _ z 15 Matrix 2) r , I a" 4 I 1 r 4 f -2 3 4 Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. 1 Likelihood Likelihood of Impacting Target of Failure Very low Low Medium High Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very likely Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely - Matrix2. Risk rating matrix. Likelihood of Consequences of Failure Failure & Impact Negligible Minor Significant Severe - Ver likel Low Moderate Hi h Extreme y Y g TIF- Likely Low Moderate High High North Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate - Unlikely Low Low Low Low is Notes, explanations, descriptions l,Jl by-Q O UEn`- lv L 2 r~ L I ~ _:5Tr~7137-1 I-L-y 1.d-,L3 ' 0. Ce' Mitigation options ~C cJ~l t) L Residual risk Residual risk Residual risk Residual risk Overall tree risk rating Low El' Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme ❑ Work priority 10 2 91 3 ❑ 411 Overall residual risk Low 0' Moderate © high ❑ Extreme ❑ Recommended inspection Interval AAY,~AJ7 t- Data P Final ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed ©No ©Yes-Type/Reason Inspection limitations []None []Visibility []Access []Vines []Root collar buried Describe This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (TSA) - 2013