ASHLAND TREE COMMISSION

MINUTES

June 8, 2006

CALL TO ORDER –Chair Bryan Holley called the Ashland Tree Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. on June 8, 2006 in the Siskiyou Room in the Community Development and Engineering Services Building located at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Page 2, first paragraph under applicant testimony, Commissioner Siewert’s name was misspelled.  Pritchard/Sager m/s to approve the minutes of May 5, 2006. Voice vote:  all AYES, Motion passed.  The minutes of May 5, 2006 were approved as corrected.

PUBLIC FORUM

None present

PUBLIC HEARINGS

PLANNING ACTION 2006-00878 is a request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove a 30-inch Ponderosa Pine Tree from the property located at 1505 Siskiyou Boulevard.  The tree proposed for removal is located partially within the Walker Avenue right-of-way.  COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:  Commercial; ZONING: C-1; ASSESSOR’S MAP #: 39 1E 15 BA; TAX LOT: 100

APPLICANT: Steve Meister

Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts – All the Commissioners did a site visit. Holley acknowledged he had conversations with Robbin Pearce as well as sending out an email.  Sager also sent out an email.

Robbin Pearce, City of Ashland Water Conservation Auditor & Inspector, was present to answer questions.

The Commissioners agreed that this Planning Action had been very confusing.  Sager noticed that there was construction happening on the site along with a sign that reads for lease or sale. She wondered if there was some sort of development proposal attached to the Planning Action. 

Amy reviewed the history of this Planning Action, read the staff report and addressed the questions in Holley’s email.

Amy stated that all Tree Removal’s are processed as Staff Permits. Originally the application came for a Street Tree Removal Permit.  Pearce processes all Street Tree Removal Permits and historically all Street Trees, irregardless of size, have been processed through 13.16.  Holley had pointed out that under 18.61 it talks about all significant trees which is a tree greater then 18” in DBH, under the control of the City of Ashland, is subject to 18.61.  Consequently the applicant was told they would need to go through 18.61 Tree Removal for a Street Tree Permit.  Since the owner is the City of Ashland it created a strange situation which staff is working on to remedy at this time.

Amy explained that Pearce has the ability to do Street Tree Removal permits much faster then Planning Actions that take a minimum of 30 days.  Staff permits have a 100 foot noticing area and do not require that a sign be posted on the property.  There is a 10 day time period allotted for citizens or staff to call it up to a public hearing.  This notice went out as a Staff Permit for Tree Removal that staff called up to a public hearing.

Amy informed the Commissioners that there is no development proposed at this time.  The plans that the Tree Commission was given to review showed a gas station on the site and did not show the tree that was to be removed.  Amy stated that the plans were from an old survey that was provided by the Public Works department to Mr. Meister and he didn’t white out the gas station.  It is not on the site. Amy explained that the applicant is putting in a new sewer line on the site and that is the construction they are seeing.   A sewer line is an over the counter permit that does not require any site plans to be shown.  

The Commissioners discussed the possibility of requiring some kind of landscaping plans when sewer lines are being installed.  It was also suggested that during the permit process the applicant is simply asked if there are any trees of 12” in diameter or better within 10 feet of their sewer line since the Oregon Plumbing Codes do not require applicants to provide any kind of plans.

Pearce suggested that the Commissioners approach this issue from a different angle.  She asked where the Heritage Tree List was?  It is a protective measure for some trees and could help in these situations.  However there still would be trees not on the list that would not be protected.

Holley shared that his concern was not so much about the tree but about the process that the applicant is taking.  Amy suggested that if the Tree Commissioners wanted to change the process they would need to have a study session for the Planning Commission in order to change the procedure section of the ordinance.   Sager said she would be happy to be part of a sub-committee to develop a set of handouts that would show an applicant how to address 18.61.  Pritchard confirmed that what everyone wants is the reassurance that if there is a significant tree on a property that the applicant has looked at every single possibility of saving that tree.  The Tree Commission needs to be privy to that process, ideally in writing. 

Recommendation:

Tree Commission recommends mitigation off-site with three (3) six foot to eight foot Ponderosa Pines.  The applicant shall work with the Staff Advisor and Ashland Parks and Recreation Department regarding where the mitigation trees will be planted.  The mitigation trees shall be planted within 180 days of the approval of this application.

Pearce asked if the issue of landscape inspection by the landscape professionals is going to happen.  She would like to see it on the agenda soon.    

ACTION ITEMS:

Type I Review sign-up

July 6, 2006 – Sager, Siewert, Holley

August 3, 2006 – Sager, Holley, Pritchard

September 7, 2006 – Loftus, Pritchard, Siewert

DISCUSSION ITEMS

Commission Powers and Duties 2.25 –Chapman explained that the Council is doing a review to find out if the original goals for each Commission are still proper.  Chapman proposed questions for the Commissioners to think about.  A few examples were: Does what your doing match what your duties are? Do you have the right number of members? Do you need three staff members? Does the Commission vote?  Would they like to review Pre-Apps? Chapman suggested that they consider a quorum being half plus one and removing Street from the Commissions name.

The Commissioners discussed 2.25 and made comments and corrections.  Holley will write a draft and send it to Amy who will then forward it to the other Commissioners.  Put this on next month’s Agenda. 

ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS

Liaison Reports – Chapman asked if the Commissioners were involved in the Fire Department’s Vegetation Ordinance.  Amy stated that neither the Tree Commission nor Planning had been involved.

NEW ITEMS

Amy distributed the Planting Diagram from the American Standards for Nursery Stock.  ANLA.org 

Sign-Up schedule for back page article. -  “Special Care of Trees in Summer” was the topic discussed to write about next.  Sager volunteered to help with the article. Amy said Adam is working on doing an internet ballet for the Ailanthus replacement tree.  Holley suggested a news release would be a good idea so that the paper could write the article. 

ADJOURNMENT - Commissioner Holley adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m.

Respectfully submitted by

Carolyn Schwendener, Account Clerk