Back to Homepage

Learn about the City's plan to construct and move the water treatment plant - Clean drinking water is an essential right

Agendas and Minutes

Tree Management Advisory Committee (View All)

September Minutes

Agenda
Thursday, September 04, 2014

CALL TO ORDER – Ashland Tree Commission meeting was called to order at 6:04 p.m. on September 4, 2014 in the Siskiyou Room in the Community Development and Engineering Services Building located at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon.

Commissioners Present	Council Liaison
Ken Schmidt - Absent	Carol Voisin
Gregg Trunnell	Staff
Russ Neff	Michael Pina, Planning liaison
Casey Roland
Christopher John

APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Neff motioned, and John seconded the motion, to approve the July 7, 2014 regular meeting minutes and the motion carried unanimously.

WELCOME GUESTS & PUBLIC FORUM
No guests

PLANNING ACTION REVIEW

PLANNING ACTION: PA-2014-01226

SUBJECT PROPERTY: 345 Lithia Way

APPLICANT:                       Double R Products
OWNER:                               Hays Oil
DESCRIPTION:                  A request for a Site Review approval to convert the Lithia Way Texaco located at 345 Lithia Way into a retail and restaurant establishment that sells growlers.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial; ZONING: C-1;
ASSESSOR’S MAP: 39 1E 09BD; TAX LOTS: 1801

All commissioners visited the site. No ex parte contacts declared. Piña gave a brief staff report outlining the application’s proposal to convert the existing gas station into a retail/restaurant establishment. The applicant will remove the pump island, canopy, and the air and vacuum stations, as well as decommission the underground gasoline storage tanks. The car wash bay will converted to the equipment and storage area, while the existing retail area will be enlarged through to the conversion of the mechanic bay to additional retail/restaurant area. In deliberating the request, the Tree Commission provided the following recommendations: That a revised size- and species- specific landscape and irrigation plan be submitted with building permit submittals. That the proposed street tree’s be chosen from the Lithia Way Tree list, be staggered from one-another, and be fitted with perforated sleeve to protect the bark.

Trunell motioned, John seconded, to approve the application as presented with the following recommendation: That a revised size- and species- specific landscape and irrigation plan be submitted with building permit submittals. That the proposed street tree’s be chosen from the Lithia Way Tree list, be staggered from one-another, and be fitted with perforated sleeve to protect the bark. The motion carried unanimously.

PLANNING ACTION:        PA-2014-01499
SUBJECT PROPERTY:     157 Garfield St.
APPLICANT:                       Canopy LLC
OWNER:                               Sue Lawrence
DESCRIPTION:                  A Tree Removal Permit request to remove an approximate 26-inch DBH Mulberry tree from the rear yard of the property located at 157 Garfield St. The tree has been topped multiple times causing an increased possibility of failure.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low-Density Multi-Family; ZONING: R-2;
ASSESSOR’S MAP: 39 1E 10CB TAX LOT: 3601

All commissioners visited the site. No ex parte contacts declared. Piña gave a brief staff report noting that the application proposes to remove a single 26-inch DBH Mulberry tree from the rear yard of one of the units. The applicant’s findings state that the tree has been severely topped multiple times over the years, causing the tree to have a poor structure with weak attachments, and subsequently an increased risk of failure. Therefore attempting to restructure the tree via pruning is not an option. In deliberating the request, the Tree Commission was supportive of the request, however a specific mitigation tree what not proposed, therefore the Commission recommended that a minimum three-inch caliper tree be chosen as a replacement tree, or multiple trees at the minimum size of 1.5-inches, with irrigation.

Neff motioned, John seconded, to approve the application as presented, with the recommendation that a minimum three-inch caliper tree be chosen as a replacement tree, or multiple trees at the minimum size of 1.5-inches, with irrigation. The motion carried unanimously.

PLANNING ACTION:        PA-2014-01474
SUBJECT PROPERTY:     943-949 East Main
APPLICANT:                       Gabino Remigio
OWNER:                               Ron DeLuca
DESCRIPTION:                  A Tree Removal Permit request to remove 13 trees of varying species, all greater than six-inches DBH, from the property located at 943-949 East Main Street. Twelve Cedar and Cypress trees were removed prior to approval. The remaining tree is an approximate 30-inch Maple tree is located in the front yard between the parking lot and structure.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low-Density Multi-Family; ZONING: R-2;
ASSESSOR’S MAP: 39 1E 09AD TAX LOT: 3801

All commissioners visited the site. No ex parte contacts declared. Piña gave a brief staff report indicating that the applicant requests a retroactive approval for the removal of twelve trees without permits, and an additional removal request for a 36-inch Maple tree located between the parking area and building along the East Main frontage. The difficulty in reviewing this proposal is that being constructed in 1965, staff does not have an approved landscape plan on file, therefore, we have nothing in which to compare the proposal to. Nevertheless, AMC 18.042.D requires an Tree Removal Permit for all trees greater than six-inches Diameter at Brest Height (DBH) within a multi-family zone. In speaking with the applicant, the trees removed were a mix of five Leland Cypress along the building’s east elevation, and five volunteer Cedars along north building’s northern elevation, and two within a nine-by-ten landscape area between the two buildings. The applicant asserted that he was unaware that removal of the aforementioned trees required a permit.
Piña noted that in similar situations, planning staff has issued citations for removal without permits. However in this case, since the applicant is requesting a permit for one of the trees on-site, staff would rather have compliance than enforcement on tree removal and replacements. In deliberating the request, the Tree Commission felt that the property owner should have been aware of tree removal requirements on multi-family zoned properties, or at least inquired with staff to what the process is for removing trees. However, if the applicant had came before the Commission to request removal prior to removing the trees, the commission and staff would have likely approved the request based upon the materials presented. However as this is not the case, it is difficult for staff to assess the potential impact or removing the trees on this and adjacent properties. Therefore, the Commission recommended that the applicant come back before the commission with a mitigation and irrigation plan for this property and any other off-site mitigation for their review. As for the requested Maple, the Commission agreed with the applicant in that the tree presents a potential danger to pedestrians by creating a tripping hazard, and due to its aggressive root structure can will cause damage to the building and utility systems, therefore removal is approved.

Trunell motioned, Neff seconded, to continue the application at the next hearing, so that the applicant can develop a revised landscape and irrigation plan for this property and others in common ownership in which mitigation trees will be planted. The motion carried unanimously.

DISCUSSION ITEMS
Commission Roland, whom was absent last meeting, spoke about a replacement tree for the one in the plaza. Roland thought that perhaps rather than one single tree, a group of multiple trees placed in a way as to provide a greater canopy of shade may be another option. Piña stated that could be an option if wanted to make a motion, but at the previous meeting, the Commission discussed this very topic and made a recommendation of a minimum four- to six-inches DBH, preferably a Burr or Red Oak; contain an appropriate amended soil mixture; planted in the fall according to City specifications.

Commission Chair Trunell, whom was absent last meeting, discussed the need for standardized tree protection procedures on all city projects, equal to or greater than those the planning division requires of the public. Piña noted that at the previous meeting, the Commission also discussed this topic, and made a recommendation, however Trunell pointed out that a motion was made to this specified point.

Trunell motioned, Roland seconded, that on all city projects within the right-of-way, that the City follows the same if not greater tree protection measures the planning division requires of the public. The motion carried unanimously.

LIAISON REPORTS
Carol Voisin, City Council Liaison – Voisin updated the Commission on the wok of the City Beautification Committee, and that the committee is seeking input from the Tree Commission on six areas downtown. These will be brought forth to the Tree Commission for their review in the coming months.

COMMISSIONER REPORTS

Meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.

Respectively submitted by Assistant Planner Michael Piña

September 4, 2014

CALL TO ORDER
6:00 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room of the Community Development and Engineering Services Building located at 51 Winburn Way.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of August 7, 2014 regular meeting minutes.

PUBLIC FORUM
Welcome Guests

TYPE I REVIEWS