HomeMy WebLinkAboutEMain_835_&_839_PA-TREE-2020-00106ANNE PEASLEY
840 C Street
AsMand, OR 97520
May 22, 2020
Planning Department
51 Winburn Way
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Re: CUP Request for 835 and 839 East Main.
Planning Action: PA-TREE-2020-00106
Dear Planning Department:
(530) 885-3300
Fax: (541) 708-0083
A request for the removal of a healthy tree was before this Division for a second
time a couple of weeks ago. Upon receiving notice of this request, my wife and I
submitted an extensive written public comment in opposition to the request for the tree
removal on May 6, 2020. Another copy is enclosed.
We were disappointed as to the approval of the request. However, what was of
concern was a comment in your approval of the tree removal indicated that there had
been no public comment in opposition to the request.
Considering the above filed written opposition we filed with you I find it difficult to
understand such a comment,
Your thoughts?
M
k Peasley
via R 1,
E C"O' E
Z I Z PAW71-
840 C Street
Ashland, OR 97520
May 6, 2020
Planning Department
51 Winburn Way
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Re: CUP Reguest for 835 and 839 East Main.
Planning Action: PA-TREE-2020-00106
Dear Planning Department-.
("�'O!
,y Atil"i
(53,0) 886-3300
Fax: (541) 708-0083
A request for the removal of a healthy tree is now before this Division for a
second time. To review the request, we must start with the existing City Ordinances.
These ordinances are quite clear in their intent, retain the tree.
City Ordinances clarify that existing healthy tress shall be retained. (18.4.4.030 C
1). This is stated to be especially true in multi -family residential zones since they have
special landscaping circumstances and require reasonable regulation. (18.5.7.010 E).
Noise buffering is pointed out as a significance issue. (18.5.7.010).
These City Ordinances also must be viewed taking into consideration the climate
changes occurring in Ashland. It is getting hotter and drought conditions exist. In fact,
the Jackson County Board of Commissioners on April 21, 2020 declared a Local
Disaster and Requested a Declaration of State Drought emergency for Jackson County,
Ashland residents must now face the negative impact of reduced snow pack, low water
levels in reservoirs, and diminished stream flows. Jackson County has received only
65% of its average precipitation and 75% of its average snow pack. Local reservoirs
also are 38% to 89% below normal. These are harsh conditions.
Under these drought conditions, the need to retain trees is even more vital to
Ashland. Trees provide shade for cooling and assist in fighting climate change. They
also provide a habitat for insects, Squirrels, and birds. We have a need to plant as
many trees as possible not eliminate them. These trees absorb carbon dioxide
emissions that tackle climate change. A tree that is considerable taller than the duplex
in question, provides so much for the home owner as well as all of Ashland, It must be
retained. Even if you were to replace the tree, it would take decades for it to reach the
height of the tree being removed.
Considering the clear intent of City Ordinances and drought conditions requiring
us to retain trees, why remove this tree? The photograph of the proposed construction
evidences that the tree requested to be removed is clearly to the side and deeper into
the lot than the proposed construction. It is behind the existing duplex and in no way
impacts said construction. This healthy tree in, fact is 18 inches, in diameter and is
located 5 and 1/2 feet away from the duplex. Its canopy covers the entire duplex since
the tree is taller than the duplex and its branches reach beyond the edges of the
duplex. Now that leaves have returned, the full glory of this tree can be seen.
It is alleged that this tree is in poor form and leaning at a 45 degree angle. There
is some initial lean but large branches are straight up and some are even providing
shade to the opposite side. At worst, a simple tree trimming would resolve all issues
alleged.
If you have not seen the tree with its leaves, you should before any decision is
reached. To not view this tree prior to any decision, would be an error. This is a tree
that begs to be saved.
Initially, the question was whether the tree should be removed due to the
proposed construction or shall it be retained? A little history is required. The proposed
construction was for extra space beyond that which is permitted on this R-2 lot. IIn
addition, this proposed space included an art/dance studio that is not permitted in an R-
2 area. This proposed construction was granted with a few conditions but the tree
removal was denied, Although the tree removal was denied, construction of the addition
was initiated. The entire garage structure, was removed. Initiating construction with, the
tree in place, indicates that construction with the tree was possible. The tree doesn't
impede, construction. The construction and the tree are two totally separate issues and
should not be considered together.
The tree in question is a healthy 18 inch tree with a large canopy. It does not
impact the possible construction required. It does provide noise buffering, sight
buffering, as well as shade to the duplex in question as well as to my residence which
borders the property in question.
Even if you wanted to accept the faulty premise that the tree interferes with the
proposed construction, a slight modification to the proposed addition would permit the
tree to remain and the applicant still obtains all or almost all of the additional space she
is requesting. She would also have all of the advantages of such a large tree with a full
canopy.
Finally, consideration should be given to the current health restrictions due to
Covid-1 9. At a time with the requirement of staying home, people should not be
negatively impacted by noise and dirt of an unnecessary tree removal.
ou uSO jfRt vnT
We all recognize that the goal is for healthy trees to not be removed;
retained. Since there are no rational reasons per the City Ordinances for the tree to be
removed; it should remain. Our drought conditions also support this conclusion] �,J,,,"" I a ) ,,, 2011",,J,J
1
",11001131 Of ASW'�',� Il,($
Thank you for this opportunity to comment again upon this Notice of Application.
Sincerely,
Rick Peasley
Anne Peasley
§Apq(
Ip",
R E
-4t, , Y 0 f &:,q!' h
CITY OF
-ASHLAND
May 19, 2020
Notice of Final Decision
On May 18, 2020, the Community Development Director approved the request for the following:
Planning Action: PA-TREE-2020-00106
Subject Property: 835/839 E. Main Street
Applicant: Samarra Burnett
Description.: A request a tree removal permit to remove a Box Elder tree at the rear of
the home. The tree is in poor form leaning at approximately a forty -five -degree angle. The property
recently went through a land use action for an allowance to MPFA, which also included a request
to remove this tree. At the time there was not sufficient evidence in the record to make a finding
that the criteria were met. The applicant has re -applied for this trees removal and submitted
additional information including a statement by the project arborist. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION: Multi Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; MAP: 39 1E 09 AC; TAX LOT:
9601
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(F) and/or file an appeal to the Ashland Plaiming Cominission 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 Aaron Anderson in the
Conununity Development Department at (541) 488-5305.
cc: Parties of record and property owners within 200 ft
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541A88-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.aslilaiid.or.us
SECTION 185.1.050 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 affirin, 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:
l . 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. True for Filing. A notice of appeal shall be filed with the Staff Advisor within 12 days of the date the notice of
decision is mailed.
c. Content ofNotice ofAppeal. The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by the required filing fee and shall contain.
i. An identification of the decision being appealed, including the date of the decision.
ii. A statement demonstrating the person filing the notice of appeal has standing to appeal.
iii. A statement explaining the specific issues being raised on appeal,
iv. A statement demonstrating that the appeal issues were raised during the public comment period.
d. The appeal requirements of this section must be fully met or the appeal will be considered by the City as a
jurisdictional defect and will not be heard or considered.
3. Scope of Appeal. Appeal hearings on Type I decisions made by the Staff Advisor shall be de novo hearings before the
Planning Commission. The appeal shall not be limited to the application materials, evidence and other documentation,
and specific issues raised in the review leading up to the Type I decision, but may include other relevant evidence and
arguments. The Commission may allow additional evidence, testimony, or argument concerning any relevant
ordinance provision.
4. Appeal Hearing Procedure. Hearings on appeals of Type I decisions follow the Type Il public hearing procedures,
pursuant to section 18.5.1,060, subsections A — ) , except that the decision of the Planning Commission is the final
decision of the City on an appeal of a Type I decision. A decision on an appeal is final the date the City mails the
adopted and signed decision. Appeals of Commission decisions must be filed with the State Land Use Board of
Appeals, pursuant to ORS 197.805 - 197.860.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel:541-488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 91520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.aslrland.onus
PLANNING ACTION:
SUBJECT PROPERTY:
APPLICANT/OWNER:
ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION
FINDINGS & ORDERS
PA-TREE-2020-00106
835/839 E Main St.
Samarra Burnett
DESCRIPTION: A request a tree removal permit to remove a Box Elder tree at the rear of
the home. The tree is in poor form leaning at approximately a forty -five -degree angle. The property
recently went through a land use action for an allowance to MPFA, which also included a request to
remove this tree. At the time there was not sufficient evidence in the record to make a finding that the
criteria were met. The applicant has re -applied for this trees removal and submitted additional information
including a statement by the project arborist.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Multi Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; MAP: 39 lE
09 AC; TAX LOT: 9601
SUBMITTAL DATE: April 27, 2020
DEEMED COMPLETE DATE: April 29, 2020
STAFF DECISION DATE: May 18, 2020
DEADLINE TO APPEAL (4:30 p.m.): June 1, 2020
FINAL DECISION DATE: June 2, 2020
APPROVAL EXPIRATION DATE: December 2, 2021
DECISION
This proposal is to remove one Box Elder Tree from the property at 835/839 E Main Street. A tree removal
permit is required because the property is zoned R-2 and the tree is larger than six -inches DBH (see: AMC
185.7.020.B.2). The removal of this tree was previously considered in concert with a land use approval
for a CUP to exceed MPFA. At that time, it was determined there was not sufficient evidence in the record
to approve the tree removal. Subsequent to the approval of the CUP the applicant has now re -applied for
the removal of a hazard tree and provided additional materials for the record demonstrating that it is a
hazard.
The property is in the R-2 zoning district along East Main and is within the Railroad Historic District. The
surrounding neighborhood is exclusively zoned R-2 and is generally characterized by single family
development. The subject property is 0.14 acers in size and is developed with an 1,812 square foot duplex
that was constructed in 1978 and is not a historically contributing resource. The duplex recently received
planning approval for a CUP to allow an addition to the east side of the building that caused the structure
to exceed MPFA (see: PA-TI-2020-00089).
The project arborist, Casey Roland, has identified the tree as a `Hazard Tree' based on its danger of falling
and the potential damage it could cause to the residence. In his letter Mr. Roland described that the tree
had weight bearing branches on the roof of the residence. These have been pruned away to take weight
off the tree and prevent damage to the structure. At the base of the tree there is a concrete slab that needs
to be removed in preparation for the new addition. There was concern that removing this slab could cause
the tree the fall. According to the letter from Mr. Roland the tree is described as having the main stem of
TREE-2020-00106
835/839 E Main Sdaa
Page 1
the tree leaning at a 45-degree angle opposite the concrete slab described above. Mr. Roland's letter
concludes with the recommendation to remove the tree prior to removing the slab,
During the public comment period staff received no input from the public.
Due to the Corona virus and the city's emergency declaration none of the advisory commissions have
been meeting including the Tree Commission, as such, there is no recommendation from the Tree
Commission. However, the Staff Advisor reviewed the application materials and determined that the
proposed tree removal is consistent with the criteria for a hazard tree removal.
The criteria for a Tree Removal Permit are described in AMC Chapter 18.5.7.040.13 as follows:
1. Hazard Tree. A Hazard Tree Removal Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that
the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition
of conditions.
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.
AMC 18.6.1.030 Hazard Tree. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is
clear the tree is likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree that is
located within a public right of way and is causing damage to existing public or private facilities or services
and such facilities or services cannot be relocated.
Planning Action #TREE-2020-00106, 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-
2020-00106 is approved. 1f any one or more of the following conditions are found to be invalid, for any
reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #TREE-2020-00106 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 which shall be a Iarge stature tree at maturity, shall be planted on site
within one (1) year of issuance of this decision.
3. That the mitigation tree shall be a minimum of a 1 %2-inch caliper.' consistent with the requirements
of AMC 18.5.7.050.
May 18, 2020
Bill Molnar, Director Date
Department of Community Development
TREE-2020-00106
835/839 E Main St/aa
Page 2
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 May 19,2020 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 perso,n's name for Planning Action #TREE-2020-00106, 835 & 839
E Main St.
Signature of Employee
C.lUs�easls thdaAFNkiEWes� topWFIC)AVITOFF,IAILNG�_ds.docxSP1912020
TREE-2020-00106 391 E09AC10000 TREE-2020-00106 391 E09AC9601 TREE-2020-00106 391 E09AD8800
BAKER JEFFERY J TRUSTEE ET AL BURNETT SAMARRA A ET AL CARLTON LYNNE K TRUSTEE
867 E MAIN ST 839 E MAIN ST 112 HARBOUR DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 HALF MOON BAY, CA 94019
TREE-2020-00106 391 E09AC1300 TREE-2020-00106 391 E09AD70000 TREE-2020-00106 391 E09AC9500
CLAYTON GEOFFREY DELUCA RONALD L TRUSTEE FEINSTEIN ALLAN DAVID TTEE
108 SEVENTH ST CIO THE VILLAGE APARTMENTS 777 E MAIN ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520 725 ROYAL AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520
MEDFORD, OR 97504
TREE-2020-00106 391 E09AC9600 TREE-2020-00106 391 E09AC8900 TREE-2020-00106 391 E09AD8600
GREENEWOOD HOMES LLC HAITHCOCK THOMAS JILEAH T INGET EMILY
PO BOX 516 89 7TH ST 860 C ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
TREE-2020-00106 391 E09AC10600 TREE-2020-00106 391 E09AC12400 TREE-2020-00106 391 E09AC10500
JUCKETT DARYL WARD KEOPPEN KIM KOENIGSBERG JILL L
44 DEWEY ST 36 MORTON ST PO BOX 367
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
TREE-2020-00106 391 E09AC9900 TREE-2020-00106 391 E09AC9700 TREE-2020-00106 391 E09AD8500
LAZARO MARGARITA E MARTIN JAMES W TRUSTEE MC KINNEY RICHARD 0 TRUSTEE
PO BOX 1347 820 C ST 117 8TH ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
TREE-2020-00106 391 E09AC8800 TREE-2020-00106 391 E09AC9800 TREE-2020-00106 391 E09AC9701
MULLER HUGHIGENEVIEVE ANN PAGANI NANCY TRUSTEE ET AL PEASLEY FREDERICKIANNE
3150 JUANIPERO WAY #312 850 C 840 C ST
MEDFORD, OR 97504 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
TREE-2020-00106 391 E09AC12500 TREE-2020-00106 391 E09AD8700 TREE-2020-00106 391 E09AC10400
POE PATRICIA TTEE SEIBER SUZANNE J SNOOK DAVID TTEE ET AL
27 DEWEY ST 880 C ST 840 PAVILION PL
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
TREE-2020-00106 391 E09AC9400 TREE-2020-00106 391 E09AC9501 TREE-2020-00106
SOLONIUK LEONARD TRUSTEE ETA SOLONIUK LEONARD TTEE BURNETT SAMARRA
PO BOX 909 1751 EL CAPITAN DR 549 B ST #3
LOMA LINDA, CA 92354 REDDING, CA 96001 ASHLAND, OR 9752C
May 19, 2020
835 & 839 East Main NOD
24
840 C Street
Ashland, OR 97520
Planning Department
51 Winburn Way
Ashland, Oregon 917520
Dear Planning Department:
(530) 885-3300
Fax: (541) 708-0083
A request for the removal of a healthy tree is now before this Division for a
second time. To review the request, we must start with the existing City Ordinances,
These ordinances are quite clear in their intent, retain the tree.
City Ordinances clarify that existing healthy tress shall be retained. (1 8AAMO C
1). This is stated to be especially true in multi -family residential zones since they have
special landscaping circumstances and require reasonable regulation. (18.5.7.010 E).
Noise buffering is pointed out as a significance issue. (18.5.7.010).
These City Ordinances also must be viewed taking into consideration the climate
changes occurring in Ashland. It is getting hotter and drought conditions exist. In fact,
the Jackson County Board of Commissioners on April 21, 2020 declared a Local
Disaster and Requested a Declaration of State Drought emergency for Jackson County.
Ashland' residents must now face the negative impact of reduced snow pack, low water
levels in reservoirs, and diminished stream flows. Jackson County has received only
65% of its average precipitation and 75% of its average snow pack. Local reservoirs
also are 38% to 89% below normal. These are harsh conditions.
Under these drought conditions, the need to retain trees is even more vital to
Ashland. Trees provide shade for cooling and assist in fighting climate change. They
also, provide a habitat for insects, sq,uiirrels, and birds. We have a need to plant as
many trees as possible not eliminate them. These trees absorb carbon dioxide
emissions that tackle climate change. A tree that is considerable taller than the duplex
in question, provides so much for the home owner as well as all of Ashland, It must be
retained. Even if you were to replace the tree, it would take decades for it to reach the
height of the tree being removed.
Considering the clear intent of City Ordinances and drought conditions requiring
us to retain trees, why remove this tree? The photograph of the proposed construction
evidences that the tree requested to be removed is clearly to the side and deeper into
the lot than the proposed construction. It is behind the existing duplex and in no way
impacts said construction. This healthy tree in fact is 18 inches in diameter and is
located 5 and 1/2 feet away from the duplex. Its canopy covers the entire duplex since
the tree is taller than the duplex and its branches reach beyond the edges of the,
duplex. Now that leaves have returned, the full glory of this tree can be seen.
It is alleged that this tree is in poor form and leaning at a 45 degree angle. There
is some initial lean but large branches are straight up and some are even providing
shade to the opposite side. At worst, a simple tree trimming would resolve all issues
alleged.
If you have not seen the tree with its leaves, you should before any decision, is
reached. To not view this tree prior to any decision, would be an error. This is a tree
that begs to be saved.
Initially, the question was whether the tree should be removed due to the
proposed construction or shall it be retained? A little history is required. The proposed
construction was for extra space beyond that which is permitted on this R-2 lot. In
addition, this proposed space included an art/dance studio, that is not permitted in an R-
2 area. This proposed construction was granted with a few conditions but the tree
removal was denied. Although the tree removal was denied, construction of the addition
was initiated. The entire garage structure was removed. Initiating construction with the,
tree in place indicates that construction with the tree was possible'. The tree doesn't
impede construction. The construction and the tree are two totally separate issues and
should not be considered together.
The tree in question is a healthy 18 inch tree with a large canopy. It does not
impact the possible construction required. It does provide noise buffering, sigiht
buffering, as well as shade to the duplex in question as well as to my residence which
borders the property in question.
Even if you wanted to accept the faulty premise that the tree interferes with the
proposed construction, a slight modification to the proposed addition would permit the
tree to remain and the applicant still obtains all or almost all of the additional space she
is requesting. She would also have all of the advantages of such a large tree with a full
canopy.
Finally, consideration should be given to the current health restrictions due to
Covid-1 9. At a time with the requirement of staying home, people should not be
negatively impacted by noise and dirt of an unnecessary tree removal.
We all recognize that the goal is for healthy trees to not be removed; to be
retained. Since there are no rational reasons per the City Ordinances for the tree to be
removed; it should remain. Our drought conditions also support this conclusion.
MAY 112020
Thank you for this opportunity to comment again upon: this Notice of Application.
61
kick Peasley
Anne Pea
Planning Department, 51 Winbu,,, ay, Ashland, Oregon 97520 f CITY OF
rp, 541-488-5305 Fax:541-552-2050 wwwashland,or.us TTY:1-800-735-2900 -ASHLAND
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
! I 1101 It] lug I Eel 121 M VT 0 110 a I F1101 to M 0
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 8351839 E Main St.
OWN E RIAPPLI CANT: Samarra Burnett
DESCRIPTION: A request a tree removal permit to remove a Box Elder tree at the rear of the home. The tree is in
poor form leaning at approximately a forty -five -degree angle, The property recently went through a land use action
for an allowance to MPFA, which also included a request to remove this tree. At the time there was not sufficient
evidence in the record to make a finding that the criteria were met. The applicant has reapplied for this trees removal
and submitted additional information including a statement by the project arborist.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Multi Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S MAP #-. 391 E09AQ
TAX LOT: 9601
NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: April 30, 2020
DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: 2020
774 A
8r— — -
I Subject Property
1835/839 Fast Main St.
PA-TRPe-2020-00106
i67
s�m sf�
S,
SIR
INN
Qr4y
R,
27 24
The Ashland Planning Division Staff has received a complete application for the property noted above,
492
17
Any affected property owner or resident has a right to submit written comments to the City of Ashland Planning Division, 51 Winburn Way, Ash1land,
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 milling of finial decision. (AMC 18.5.1.050.G)
Tile 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 thee issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of
Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance crite6on the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to TUBA 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 cornments concerning this request, please feel free to contact Aaron Anderson at 541-488-5305.
G,4coniiii-devplanniiigM'la(iiiing Aoions`,Noficin.q Ft)I&rU\foijed Nloflccs &
TREE REMOVAL PERMIT
't 8.5.7.0,40.E
1, Hazard Tree. A Hazard Tree Removal Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can
be made to conform through the imposition of conditions.
a. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard (i.e., likely to fall and injure persons or
property) or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure or facility, and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated
by treatment, relocation, or pruning. See definition of hazard tree in part 18.6.
b. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to section 18.5.7.050, Such mitigation requirements shall
be a condition of approval of the permit.
2. Tree That is Not a Hazard. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets
all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions.
a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and
standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints
in part 18.10.
b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or
existing windbreaks.
c. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the
subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable
alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone.
d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this
determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lesson 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.
G:Icomm-devlplanninglPianning Aclions\Noticing FoldeiWailed Notices R SipsM20WREE-2020-00166,docx
FA a a I RY-111ri I Itel a ill F-11 1111 Z
STATE OF OREGON
County of Jackson
The undersigned being first duly sworn states that:
I. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland,
Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department.
2. On April 29, 2020 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-TREE-2020-00106, 8351839 E Main.
SImature of Employee
G,,IUsersls6tdaAFNtiElBesktopWFIDP,VIT OF tIAILING ds.docx 4�2.912020
PA-TREE-2020-00106 391 E09ACI0000 PA-TREE-2020-00106 391 E09AC9601 PA-TREE-2020-00106 391 E09AD8800
BAKER JEFFERY TRUSTEE ET AL BURNETT SAMARRA A ET AL CARLTON LYNNE K TRUSTEE ET AL
867 E MAIN ST 839 E MAIN ST 112 HARBOUR DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 HALF MOON BAY, CA 94019
PA-TREE-2020-00106 391E09AC1300
CLAYTON GEOFFREY
108 SEVENTH ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-TREE-2020-00106 391 E09AC9600
GREENEWOOD HOMES LLC
PO BOX 516
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-TREE-2020-00106 391 E09AC10600
JUCKETT DARYL WARD
44 DEWEY ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-TREE-2020-00106 391 E09AC9900
LAZARO MARGARITA E
PO BOX 1347
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-TREE-2020-00106 391 E09AC8800
MULLER HUGH H/GENEVIEVE ANN
3150 JUANIPERO WAY #312
MEDFORD, OR 97504
PA-TREE-2020-00106 391 E09AC12500
POE PATRICIA L TRUSTEE FBO
27 DEWEY ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-TREE-2020-00106 391 E09AC9400
SOLONIUK LEONARD TRUSTEE ETA
PO BOX 909
LOMA LINDA, CA 92354
April 29, 2020
835 & 839 E Main NOC
24
PA-TREE-2020-00106 391 E09AD70000 PA-TREE-2020-00106 391 E09AC9500
DELUCA RONALD L TRUSTEECIO THE FEINSTEIN ALLAN DAVID TRUSTEE
VILLAGE APARTMENTS OF
725 ROYAL AVE 777 E MAIN ST
MEDFORD, OR 97504 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-TREE-2020-00106 391 E09AC8900
HAITHCOCK THOMAS JILEAH T
89 7TH ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-TREE-2020-00106 391 E09AC 12400
KEOPPEN KIM
36 MORTON ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-TREE-2020-00106 391 E09AC9700
MARTIN JAMES W TRUSTEE ET AL
820 C ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-TREE-2020-00106 391 E09AC9800
PAGANI NANCY E TRUSTEE ET AL
850 C
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-TREE-2020-00106 391 E09AD8700
SOBER SUZANNE J
880 C ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-TREE-2020-00106 391 E09AC9501
SOLONIUK LEONARD TRUSTEE ET A
1751 EL CAPITAN DR
REDDING, CA 96001
PA-TREE-2020-00106 391 E09AD8600
INGET EMILY
860 C ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-TREE-2020-00106 391E09AC10500
KOENIGSBERG JILL L
PO BOX 367
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-TREE-2020-00106 391 E09AD8500
MC KINNEY RICHARD 0 TRUSTEE
117 8TH ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-TREE-2020-00106 391 E09AC9701
PEASLEY FREDERICK AIANNE M
840 C ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-TREE-2020-00106 391 E09AC10400
SNOOK DAVID W TRUSTEE ET AL
840 PAVILION PL
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-TREE-2020-00106
BURNETT SAMARRA
549 B ST #3
ASHLAND, OR 97520
all=
ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION
Planning Division
CITY Of 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520 FILE,
ASHLAND 541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006 # ".0
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT .. .... . ..... ,a o" y— vo�
DESCRIPTI IN OF PROPERTY
Pursuing LEED@ Certification? 11 YES El NO
_�5 0) 1 .3 r
Street Address-2 E , M oA, I C,_1 19 As
Assessor's Map No. 391 E Tax Lot(s)
Zoning Comp Plan Designation
APPLICANT
Name z na cr, Y- Y-p�6 Q rye Phone Zo 6 E-Mail
Address aCity AS k t 0A L, zip
PROPERTY OWNER
Name o" M � Phone ---E-Mail
Address — City Zip___
SURVEYOR ENGINEER ARCHITECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, OTHER
Title oor-�st Name —Phon(5 J�O7. E-Mail
Address
Title Name
Address
Phone
City A�ALLJ.. Zip
LWA
AM
zi
/ hereby codify that the statements and information contained in this application, including the enclosed drawings and the requited findings: of fact, are in at/ respects,
true and correct lunderstand that all property pins must be shown on the drawings and visible upon the silo 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 I produced sufficient factual evidence at the hearing to support this request;
2) that the findings of fact furnishadjuslifies the granting of the request;
3) that the findings effect furnished by me are adequate; and further
4) that a// structures or improvements are properly located on the ground.
Failure in this regard will result most likely in not only the request being set aside, but also possibly in my structures being built in reliance thereon being required to
be removed at my expense. If I have any doubts, I am advised to seek competent professional advice and assistance,
-3 Q Ap
Applicant's Signature Date
As owner of the property involved In this request, I have read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property
owner,
Property 4
erty Owner (frequired) Date
IN bO W%kted by Oty Staffl, PR 22 7 2070
Date Re
ceived Zoning Permit Type Filing Fees—....
OVER 0
& RudwsVoninS Pemik Apfficalim dm
Samaria Burnett
Property Owner
835/839 E Main St.
Ashland, OR
(206) 941-2291
samarrabLU'llett@gmail,com
Hazard Tree Removal Application
The Box Elder Tree at 835/839 E Main has several significant problems. The most apparent one
is that it is being Supported by the concrete slab it is growing Out from. As the photos show, the
tree has uprooted the slab and pushed it Lip nearly a font, creating a break in the slab where the
pressure snapped tile concrete. 'File arborist I hired to evaluate the tree suspects that the slab is
holding the tree tip by proving weight to balance the long diagonal reach of the tree. This is a
very precarious condition Of Support for the tree, and unsafe.
The second condition is that the tree was formerly also getting support from the roof of the
house. Branches were pressing an the roof, allowing the roof to also support the tree. The
arborist indicated that the wound wood oil these branches showed that the weight bearing
pressure had been happening for years; as the tree grew it showed scrape marks where it had
been pressing against the roof. Also, the roof is damaged in these places, from the tree wearing
through the shingles.
Considering the precarious condition of the tree, we had it pruned so that if it did fall it would
not damage the house. The branches that were formerly Putting Weight Oil tile house have been
removed. The tree is now Without this Support that it formerly had, making it even more
precarious.
Ali additional condition is that the tree is just 51 inches from the house,. Its roots grow under the
house and have damaged the carport that used to be there. We have plans to build in this area and
the removal of the tree Would make that much easier. Once we have permission to remove the
tree we can proceed with the demolition and ground preparation. As the arborist suggests,
because the slab appears to be holding Lip the tree, we won't remove the slab until we can take
the tree down carefully. In the meantime, we have suspended work and are proceeding with
caution in the back yard.
We are sorry to remove a large tree, even with all its problems. Once the construction is over we
will plant another tree in its place, at a safe distance from the house, and in the center of tile back
yard, so that it has plenty of room to grow. We are thinking of an oak or a pecan, In addition, we
plan to plant smaller understory trees such as dogwood and witch hazel, an the other side of the
yard, in the shade of the large Mulberry oil the adjoining property.
Thank you for reviewing this application,
'Samaria Burnett
APR 2 7 2020
April 23,2020
To whom it may concern:
The Boxelder tree, behind 3,85/389 E. Main St. Ashland, OR 97520 meets and exceeds
the criteria for consideration as a hazardous tree per city code, and after removing
weight bearing branches from the roof, I was surprised it didn't fall over. I think because
l had to remove as much end weight as possible, before removing the load bearing
limbs, this helped somewhat.
I was under the impression that a site visit was done by the members of the tree
commission to: approve removal of this tree.
The fact that the main stem has a 45 degree angle of lean opposite the slab of concrete
jacked up a foot off the ground, and the obvious woundWood on the underside of the
limbs was evidence enough that the tree was in the process of failing over, but maybe
that was not noticed by the person/s that looked at the tree.
My recommendation is to remove the tree before slab removal.
Please feel free to give me a call should you have questions or concerns regarding this
matter.
Casey P. Roland
ZIEKIRID-Irow-I'm
ARR 2 7 2020
J � J, �,, , J
AlQA 5"y
'o
slo�6
t�
APR 27' 20211,
APR 217 �020
\
D
r:
�
:� � � � � � � � m� ;
��`��=��-:y:
/� � � � \
�����\
dy` �����, >
� d ±� � � � as a�b�
City of Ashland
Community Development Department
51 Winburn Way
Ashland, OR 97520
Telephone: 541-488-5305
Inspection Line: 541-552-2080
Plan Type: Tree Removal
Work Class: Tree Removal Permit Review
PERMIT NUMBER
TREE-2020-00106
,Apply Date: 4/27/2020
i_atrope..` Address.
391 E09AC9601 839 E Main St
Owner: Samarra Burnett
Owner 549 B St 3
Address: Ashland, OR 97520
Phone: (206) 941-2291
Applicant: Samarra Burnett
Applicant 549 B St 3
Address: Ashland, OR 97520
Phone: (206) 941-2291
I Hazard tree removal in backvard I
Fee Description: Amount:
Tree RemovalNerification Fee (Type 1) $30.50
Applicant:
Date:
Total; Fees': $30.50