Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-04-09 Planning MIN ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 9, 2002 CALL TO ORDER Chair Mike Gardiner called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Other Commissioners present were John Fields, Colin Swales, Ray Kistler, Marilyn Briggs, Alex Amarotico, Kerry KenCairn, Mike Morris, and Russ Chapman. There were no absent members. Staff present were John McLaughlin, Bill Molnar and Sue Yates. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS Swales moved to approve the Findings from the March 12, 2002 meeting. Chapman seconded the motion and the Findings were approved. The Minutes of the March 12, 2002 meeting were not yet available. PUBLIC FORUM MORT SMITH, announced a lecture regarding urban sprawl sponsored by the Jackson County Citizens League and 1000 Friends of Oregon. The speaker is David Goldbert and will take place at the Rogue Gallery at 40 S. Bartlett in Medford. It begins at 6:30 p.m. on April 25th and is free to the public. TYPE III PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING ACTION 2002-042 REQUEST FOR ADOPTION OF A NEW CHAPTER TO TITLE 18 (LAND USE ORDINANCE) OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE RLEATING TO TREE PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION. APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND STAFF REPORT McLaughlin stated, as the Planning Commission is aware, the Tree Commission is the lead group on drafting a new tree ordinance. It was a goal of the City Council for the last two years. There have been several public forums and meetings and a study session to discuss it. The ordinance is in draft form that the Tree Commission believes is appropriate for adoption. The Tree Commission will present the majority of the ordinance and how it will work. RICH WHITALL, Tree Commission Chair introduced other members of the Tree Commission: Bryan Holley, Greg Covey, January Jennings and Bryan Nelson. Whithall and the other Commissioners made a Power Point presentation that is contained in the record. The presentation covered rationale for presenting an ordinance, the history of the draft and timeline to get to this point and an outline of the ordinance. They also discussed the cost and benefits that come from this type of legislation. McLaughlin believes that since the Planning and Tree Commission study session, that most of the ordinance has been clarified. He noted the letter received from the Rogue Valley Association of Realtors raising a couple of procedural things. Does the ordinance involve a land use decision? Staff believes it does. A tree removal permit is a land use decision with the Planning Commission being the decision-making body, or it is delegated under the Procedures Chapters through the Staff Advisor. The Staff Advisor can make a decision subject to notice and appeal back to the Planning Commission and ultimately the City Council. The Realtors also state the ordinance could effect some statewide planning goals, two specifically related to the City’s inventory of vacant lands, that by protecting these trees, the ability to develop a certain portion of the community is reduced. They mention Goal 9 that refers to economic development activities in commercial and industrial lands and Goal 10, the housing inventories and housing developments. It is Staff’s opinion, after looking at the vacant lands inventory and aerial maps of the community and seeing the primary areas of commercial development (railroad property, Hersey Street, Washington Street area near the freeway, Croman property), there are essentially no trees on those sites or very, very few. The amount of land that will be subject to the review in the ordinance will be miniscule and should not severely impact the inventories of land. With regard to residential lands, under the review process (Ability to Modify Decisions), there is some added language that refers to protecting the trees that are part of a residential development. Tree protection cannot be utilized to reduce overall density of the development below the base densities of the zone. It is Staff’s opinion that base densities of the zone will be met and match up with the buildable lands inventory and not impact the residential inventories. McLaughlin believes they are complying with the Comprehensive Plan. Goal 5 is addressed through the Physical and Environmental Constraints ordinance. The ordinance is an effort to protect significant trees in the community related to development, not just clearing sites. McLaughlin added that in clarifying the processing of this draft ordinance, Staff is asking that the Planning Commission leave the public hearing and record open until the meeting of May 14, 2002, allowing for comment during that time. The Planning Commission would make their decision on the 14th and take it to the City Council in May. McLaughlin said there were a couple of recommendations for clarification of language. At the last Tree Commission meeting there were a few suggested changes as well. The Tree Commission wanted 18.61.080.B.4. removed. In the Penalties section (18.61.130), the Tree Commission suggested removing all “shalls” to “may”. Those penalties are enforced by the court. Chapman asked if there was anything penalizing or preventing the cutting of trees on vacant land prior to a planning application? McLaughlin said a tree permit is required for removal of trees on vacant lands, both residential and commercial. The only lands that are exempt are single family and multi-family residentially zoned lands that are occupied solely by a single family dwelling. Chapman noted Section 18.61.035.H. regarding tree trimming done by a journeyman tree trimmer. He suggested adding the words “or someone under the direct supervision of a journeyman tree trimmer.” McLaughlin said the language used was proposed by the City Utility and they have said whoever they have doing tree trimming will be someone hired under the job classification “Journeyman Tree Trimmer”. Chapman wondered why 18.61.130.E. was removed. McLaughlin said the sentence doesn’t make sense in the Penalties section. People who work in the city are required to have a City business license. Briggs wondered about the sections of the draft ordinance that refer to Chapter 18.62 (Physical and Environmental Constraints Chapter). Whitall agreed that there should be some cross-referencing with other city ordinances that involve tree protection. Briggs referred to 18.61.035.A. and asked if there was a specific calendar year for the Parks Department to submit their annual report. McLaughlin said they could define it from January to December. Briggs said under 18.61.050.A.4. she would eliminate “any” in both places. It is not so optional. The Tree Commissioners agreed. Briggs stated, under 18.61.084.A., it might not be possible to replace a tree with the same or greater size. Would it be adequate to say “...appropriate to site”? Briggs is saying replant on the site but it may not be such a big tree. Holley said that wording was used in order to maintain the tree canopy in the community. Covey said the mitigation requirements stay satisfied by one more of the options stated. Briggs wondered if under 18.61.130 the monetary penalties, there could just be “Fine” and then A. and B.--an enforcement fee and a restoration fee. People can understand those two kinds of penalties but to have a fine and then two more fines is a little heavy-handed. Holley said people in our society are already familiar with multiple levels of response to a violation of some ordinance. Briggs still does not agree with it. Briggs noted under 18.61.200.B.4 & 7. that both talk about Staff Advisor and arborist. Should that be “and/or”? It reads as though one would be required to hire an arborist. Covey said that is a good point. The Tree Commission is looking for checks and balances of the Staff Advisor being included in the protection process. McLaughlin suggested getting rid of “an arborist”. The Staff Advisor would work with the landscape professional who prepared the tree protection plan or if the applicant prepares the tree protection plan, the Staff Advisor would work with them. KenCairn said there is another part of the ordinance that says an arborist could be required to be hired. It might be helpful to repeat the language again where it was felt that an arborist is needed. She would just like it to be obvious that it could be an option to be used. Swales suggested the coordination between the two sections of the code--18.61 and 18.62. The penalty section seems to be referring to two penalties referring to different sections of the code. It might be helpful to coordinate these. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 2 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 9, 2002 Fields questioned the six foot chain link protection. Is it a metal driven stake, concrete imbedded, two inch diameter post, temporary fencing, chains clamped together with posts? Covey said the intent is that it would be removable concrete piers with panels. Fields thought this could use some clarification. Fields wondered who will determine who will get the trees from the tree fund. McLaughlin said the fund would probably be overseen by the Tree Commission for projects and by the Dept. of Community Development for something such as neighborhood tree planting programs. Kistler was curious if the tree canopy has increased or decreased in the last 20 to 30 years. Covey said it is cumbersome to categorize the data. There is not a shortage of data, they just need to pull the resources all together. Fields thought it would be nice to have it as a benchmark. PUBLIC HEARING DON GREENE, 253 Normal Avenue, said he had heard the cost of tree permits would be $25 and then he heard $250. McLaughlin said the City’s cost to process a permit is approximately $250. The Council would like to have some of the costs absorbed. Greene asked if under 18.61.042.D.e., a permit would be required for trees 18 inches and over. McLaughlin said, yes, on vacant residential property for trees 18 inches and over, a permit would be required. A permit would be needed on multi- family residential property for any trees removed over six inches. Greene noted he has an extensive background in civic service and he has been interested in seeing the Tree Commission presentation and why there is a need for this ordinance. Living here all his life, Greene has seen nothing but a steady increase in not only the tree canopy, but in the awareness and the value and the incorporation of trees into developments that are going on currently. Looking from the outside, it doesn’t appear there is a problem. It looks like we don’t really need a new ordinance, but enforcement of what we have in place already. From the presentation and slides, it does not appear enforcement is not happening. If the Planning Commission decides to go ahead with the ordinance, Greene sees a few possible problems. Section 18.62.035.B. is misleading. McLaughlin said they caught that and changed the language to say: “Removal of trees in single family residential zones on lots occupied only by a single family detached dwelling and associated accessory structures...”. Greene asked under 18.61.042.B. if a permit is only going to be $25 and stay that way. If the cost goes up to $250 or $300, that is a bigger issue. He is not sure why it is necessary to add another layer of permits to a Site Review plan. Again, this is enforcement. Greene commented under 18.61.042.D.d. that it singles out multi-family zones, adding another layer in cost to the dwindling supply of affordable housing. We need to take a serious look at the costs our ordinances and fees add to the problem of affordable housing. It discriminates against apartments in favor of single family residences in our multi-family zones. Under Section 18.61.080.B.3., Greene said this section will open the process for removing trees from one’s own private property for the review and appeal of the neighbors. We need to have clear and objective standards. Greene does not believe 60 days is enough time (18.61.092) for using a tree removal permit. He believes at least a year is needed. Greene said under Section 18.61.094.B.1. that this flies in the face of infill and compact intense use of our urban land, sustainability, conservation of infrastructure, and the viability of alternative transportation. He is not sure how we can justify a move against all these goals. How do we save trees and still meet the goal of infill? Greene noted the replanting of trees and mitigation. As it is written, he does not believe you can require both the planting of a smaller tree on-site and the planting of a larger tree off-site. He does not think this will meet the goal of what the Tree Commission wants. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 3 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 9, 2002 Greene likes the Heritage Tree section and believes it is important to promote this. He likes the performance security section of the code. PAUL MENSCH, 451 N. Main Street, believes some progress has been made with the ordinance, however, he still finds the ordinance unnecessary and contains a lot of problems. The Tree Commission presentation neglected to mention the number of existing, already built on residential properties this ordinance affects. The Purpose section still puts forth the premise that trees on single family lots and multi-family lots have different rights. If single family is exempted, it needs to be across the board. He does not believe character and aesthetics have been addressed. The penalties border on the absurd. He believes it is overkill. There is an assumption that there is a movement afoot to cut down trees in Ashland. Secondly, the ordinance assumes a lot of the trees in Ashland are community property. Enforcement, even in its reduced form, will take time and cost money. In spite of the changes, he still believes it is an unnecessary change. IRAJ OSTOVAR, 389 E. Hersey Street, stated he does not believe this ordinance is necessary. He feels an intrusion to his rights and privacy and that it is unenforceable. It is counter-productive and a caution to people not to plant any new trees because it might become a liability in the future. He believes this will force growth outside the city. Let’s enforce what we have. If this ordinance passes, it will open up the city to litigation. BARBARA HINDS, 309 Alta Street, said that after reading the ordinance, she believes it would be a liability to plant trees. She is upset by reading she might have to get a permit to cut a tree down to thin some of her own trees out. It is good to encourage the planting of trees. McLaughlin thought there should be some clarification on the replanting on-site with the size of trees. ROBBIN PEARCE, Tree Commission Staff Liaison, said she does not see any reason to extend the time for a permit for tree removal to a year. She believes 60 days should be enough time to replace a tree. KenCairn asked if it makes it harder to track what is going on. Pearce said it definitely would be. She noted there is an option for an extension. McLaughlin said Greene mentioned the standard that allows for modification of the application to try and preserve trees and that could result in a “takings”. McLaughlin said it could if it was applied without consideration to the underlying zoning and allowed uses of the land which is required to be considered as part of the application and criteria for review and that base densities cannot be reduced as well. All the parts of the Land Use Ordinance, if applied, without consideration for the underlying use of the property, could be considered a “takings”. The Planning Commission has always done a very good job of balancing the ordinances. McLaughlin said Mensch mentioned the difference between single and multi-family zones. McLaughlin said multi-family zones are regulated differently today. Development in those areas, additions or changes to those properties require planning actions, landscaping plans, staff permits, where additions in single family zones do not. There is a higher level of review in multi-family/commercial zones. KenCairn responded to the enforcement issue. What is happening now with tree protection is being slapped on as a condition of approval. The tree ordinance clarifies all the things that are expected of a developer, spells it out and formalizes it. KenCairn also commented, more emotionally than factual, regarding the values associated with affordable housing. Does this mean that any large tree is not worth protecting because the density on a piece of property is minimized? People that end up living in affordable housing units also deserve shade. There is not enough encouragement to try to develop these properties. What the ordinance does is to push to try and save the trees and still get the density. If the options do not work and the trees have to be cut down, there are ways to mitigate for that. Mitigation is not going to make a potentially affordable housing development become unaffordable. McLaughlin recommends leaving the hearing open and continuing it at the beginning of next month’s meeting to see if there is any additional testimony. Staff will have a few recommendations to make, based on tonight’s discussion. OTHER There will be a joint study session with the City Council and Historic Commission to discuss maximum house size on April 23, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 4 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 9, 2002 The Planning Commission retreat is scheduled for Saturday, May 4, 2002. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 5 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 9, 2002