I. Call to Order: Chair January Jennings called the Ashland Tree Commission meeting to order at on
Commissioners Present: January
Ted Loftus (arrived at )
Council Liaison: Cate Hartzell (arrived at )
Staff Present: Amy Anderson, Assistant Planner
Donn Todt, Parks Department (absent)
Carolyn Schwendener, Account Clerk
II. Approval of Minutes: The following corrections were noted for the
Amy announced that the ODOT Planning Action #2005-01050 had been postponed.
III. Welcome Guests & Public Forum:
There were no guests in attendance tonight.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
OWNER/APPLICANT: Archerd & Dresner, LLC.
Amy read the staff report. She reminded the Commissioners that this planning action had previously come before them. There are six conditions pertaining to the trees, one of which states that final tree protection plan consistent with the standards with 18.61.200 be submitted for review by the Tree Commission and approval of staff advisor prior to the issuance of building permit. Amy felt that this might be a typing error because otherwise the staff would need the Tree Commission every time a building permit goes out. Amy will confirm this condition with Bill Molnar. Because each house will be submitted separately with specific foundation construction Sager suggested that the condition should read that the foundation construction needs to be viewed by an arborist before construction but not necessarily the Tree Commission.
The Commissioners discussed the discrepancy regarding the number of trees that are to be removed. Rose asked if the applicant was obligated to take care of the trees for two years. Amy stated that the applicant is writing in the CCR’s of how the trees should be cared for. This only applies as long as there is a Home Owners Association however. Rose asked if a Bond will be in place to insure that the trees survive for a minimum of two years. Amy stated that this Planning Action will have a landscaping bond because it has Physical and Environmental Constraints though there is no obligation of a two year survival.
Applicant Testimony: Evan Archerd, applicant, and James Love from Galbraith and Associates were present to answer questions. Loftus asked Mr. Archerd if he and his partner will be building these homes themselves or selling the lots to other builders. Mr. Archerd stated that the current plan is to sell one lot and build on the other two. Loftus’ concern was that the intent of tree protection and requirements change when there is different builders on site. Mr. Archerd stated that the CCR’s specifically states that no other trees can be removed other then those indicated on the plans without going back through the process again. Pritchard asked Mr. Archerd if within the CCR’s does it state that a certified arborist would be on site if there was another builder. Mr. Archerd stated that it is not in the CCR’s but that it could be.
Sager suggested that a site plan showing the trees that were meant to be preserved be included in the CCR’s so the buyer can beware. Mr. Archerd thought that was a great idea. Holly told Mr. Archer that the Tree Commission is trying to be consistent with all applicants so they will be requesting this with future applicants that come before the Commission.
Mr. Archerd wanted the Tree Commissioners to know that they relocated the road so that it would be much friendlier to the trees, topography and the site in general. He shared that they spent a lot of time going through a County approval process because the road is now on primarily County zoned property. They placed the road where the existing driveway is to do the least amount of harm to the trees and the grade. Mr. Archerd stated that in their developments it is their intent to be as tree and environmentally friendly as they can.
Sager thought it would be a good idea to see the mitigation plan. Holley asked Mr. Archerd if he cared if he did the mitigation off site. Mr. Archerd said he would be happy to mitigate off site if that was the request of the Tree Commission. Pritchard inquired about the future irrigation of the trees on the lots and how it will be regulated. She is concerned about over watering the trees on the property because oaks typically do not do well when they are watered. Mr. Archerd stated that they created the building envelope primarily in areas where there isn’t a lot of trees so that there won’t be irrigation right next to trees.
1) Tree Commission would like to see clarification of the number of trees to be removed on the Final Landscape and Tree Protection Plans
2) Tree Commission recommends including a copy of the revised Tree Protection plan with the CC&R exhibits.
3) Tree Commission recommends a re-review of the mitigation plan for the trees that are to be mitigated on-site.
4) Tree Commission recommends including irrigation usage language in the CC&R’s emphasizing low water use similar to the Oaks Subdivision.
Cate Hartzell arrived at
PLANNING ACTION 2005-01050 is a request for a Land Partition to create a flag lot from the rear of two existing parcels for the properties located at 720 and
OWNER/APPLICANT: Dale Shostrom
Amy read the staff report reviewing the trees sited for removal.
The Tree Commissioners acknowledged that the site visit to this property was very helpful. Amy noted that Pennie Rose was unintentionally left out of the site visit. The Tree Commissioners talked about the need to remove additional trees that were not originally planned for removal. Holley noted that there is an electric box at tree #56 located near the alley that needs to be taken care of.
Loftus commended the applicant for trying to save so many trees but wants the applicant to be aware that some of them might be compromised.
Hartzell asked the Commissioners if they were recommending taking out the Ponderosa Pines just to open up the canopy. The Commissioners reassured Hartzell they were concerned about the pines but not recommending taking them out.
Public Testimony: Stephen Sincerny,
Holley urged Mr. Sincerny to take his concerns to the Planning Commission because the Tree Commission doesn’t look at things from the riparian point of view. Hartzell inquired if this property would be listed under the Riparian Ordinance. Mr. Shostrom stated that it is mentioned in the staff report that it will be a part of the Riparian Ordinance. Hartzell would like to note that we should look at why this Commission isn’t part of the Riparian Ordinance. She feels that trees are intrical to riparian areas.
Pritchard asked Mr. Shostrom if they intend to leave the area natural. Mr. Shostrom confirmed that their intent is to keep it as natural as possible. There will be no outbuildings, no fences, no elaborate landscaping, no assessory units, etc. Mr. Shostrom also stated that they would not have approached this project if they didn’t feel that they could do a good job in saving the trees. This is the environment that the applicant wants to live in.
1) Recommendations: Acknowledge the importance of the Ponderosa Pines during and after construction.
2) Clear construction debris and electrical box from the base of tree # 56.
V. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Car Free Day – Tree
The Commissioners agreed to have the tree tour at for one hour. It was decided that Rose and Pritchard will do a railroad district tour. Amy will give Tracy Harding the contact information for Rose and Pritchard.
B. Over the
Holley appeared before the Planning Commission representing the general views of the Tree Commission. Subsequent to that Randall Hopkins gave Holley a memo regarding “Bad Things That Happen to Trees during Construction.” Mr. Hopkins has a totally different understanding of the ordinance. Holley would like to suggest that the Tree Commission do nothing at this time regarding the ordinance. He would like to have it removed from the September 6, 2005 City Council agenda. Holley would like to go slow on the building permit ordinance and work with the new Planning Director and consultant to come up with the Tree Commissions own suggestions to resolve the building permit issue. Hartzell reviewed the process of hiring a new Planning Director stating it could take up to 9 months to a year before the City has a new Director. Her suggestion was not to worry too much about tying it to that contract with the consultant or a new Planning Director.
Pritchard feels that educating the home owners is still necessary. Amy reminded the Commissioners that a large percentage of
VI. ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS
A. Liaison Reports
Cate Hartzell had nothing at this time.
a. Heritage Tree Sub Committee
B. Old Business
a. Potluck / BBQ at
Possible dates are September 10th, 11th, 17th or 18th. It was suggested that a Sunday afternoon would be the best for everyone. Holley will send a memo regarding the dates.
C. New Items
a. Loftus would like to keep mitigation trees on the forefront and put it on next month’s agenda. He would like to discuss where to put mitigation trees. Sager stated that in the past the Commissioners put this decision on Donn Todt.
It was decided that all the Deboer trees should go to
b. Holley brought in labels from hoses which were both donated and purchased. Holley installed the hoses this afternoon and they are watering three of the trees on the
c. Current Balance $750.00
d. Tree Commission Goals
1. Daily Tidings Back Page. Holley received notice on July 27, 2005 that the Tidings is ready for articles. The Commissioners agreed to bring their information for articles to the next meeting.
ii. Tree Clinics
Pritchard’s plan is to approach
1. Tracking Reports to City Council
Commissioner Pritchard adjourned meeting at