Ashland Tree Commission

Regular Meeting

August 4, 2005

Minutes

I.              Call to Order:   Chair January Jennings called the Ashland Tree Commission meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. on August 4, 2005 in the Siskiyou Room in the Community Development/Engineering Services Building at 51 Winburn Way.

Commissioners Present:  January Jennings

Bryan Holley

Mary Pritchard

Laurie Sager

Pennie Rose

Ted Loftus (arrived at 7:08 p.m.)

Council Liaison:                 Cate Hartzell (arrived at 7:30 p.m.)

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 July 7, 2005 minutes. Page 2, section of public testimony, second paragraph that starts with Mr. Gomez.  Esthetically was misspelled.  Page 3 of 5 bottom of the page.  Donn Todt’s name was misspelled two times. Page 4 of 5 at the top, Scott Green’s last name is Kaiser not Green.  Pritchard/Sager m/s to approve the minutes of July 7, 2005 with the above corrections.  Voice vote: All Ayes, Motion passed.  The minutes of July 7, 2005 were approved as corrected.

                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: 

A.      PLANNING ACTION:  2005-00870 is a request for Final Plan approval for a four-lot (one County lot) development under the Performance Standards Options for the property located at 795 Orchard St.  A Physical Constraints Review Permit is also requested to allow road development within floodplain corridor lands associated with Wrights Creek. Comprehensive Plan Designation:  Rural Residential and Woodland Residential; Zoning:  RR-.-5-P and WR; Assessor’s Map #:  39 1E 08 BA; Tax Lot:  500.

              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. 

Recommendations:

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 7:30 P.M.

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 730 Liberty St.  A Physical Constraints Review Permit is requested to construct a driveway across a Riparian Drainage and to create a parcel with slopes 25% and greater in Hillside Lands.  Comprehensive Plan Designation:  Single Family Residential District; Zoning:  R-1-7.5; Assessor’s Map:  39 1E 16 AA; Tax Lot 7302.

              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.  Jennings also stated that it would be more economically efficient to know what needs to be removed and remove it before hand.

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, 790 Liberty St. spoke.  Dale Shostrom representative for the applicant was present for questions.  Mr. Sincerny acknowledged that this is a great plan and development and is pleased with the concern the applicant has with saving the trees.  His concern is that this is a real transition from what was going on there before and that it is a riparian area.  He stated they are changing what was a shady covered area with lots of deer and wildlife.  It is a total transformation from a riparian zone to an open building lot.  The other concern that Mr. Sincerny had was that the Tree Commission just approved the removal of canopy on the property downstream from this property and now by removing the canopy off this lot they are totally changing this riparian zone. 

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. 

Recommendations: 

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.

Jennings asked to be excused at 8:15 because she had company.  Pritchard continued as Vice Chair.

V.             DISCUSSION ITEMS

A.                  Car Free Day – Tree Tours

The Commissioners agreed to have the tree tour at 4:30 p.m.  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 Counter Building Permits – Tree Protection Memo

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 Ashland residents do care about the protection of their trees.  Hartzell stated that she would like to see this dealt with in a separate meeting where Mr. Hopkins is present along with others and the constraints are put out as constraints not as boundaries.  Hartzell suggested putting it all on the table and doing some problem solving.  Amy suggested that they devote next months agenda to discussing what are the issues, what are the ramifications, what are the benefits, what are the pit falls of tree protection fencing etc.  The Commissioners decided to have one sub-committee meeting regarding the ordinance to look at potential inconsistencies and discrepancies.  At the September meeting the Commissioners will discuss a date.  Amy agreed to notify the City Administrator of the Tree Commissions plan to continue to review the ordinance and ask to be removed from the City Council Agenda at this time.

VI.           ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS

A.                 Liaison Reports

Cate Hartzell had nothing at this time.

a.       Heritage Tree Sub Committee

Tracy has resigned from the Tree Commission so it was suggested that someone else help Rose with that committee.  It is tabled at this time.

B.                 Old Business

a.       Potluck / BBQ at Bryans

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.  Bryan would like everyone to email him back with any dietary needs.

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 Siskiyou Blvd.  Loftus volunteered to contact Todt and let him know their plan so he can get the ball rolling for tree removal.  Loftus said there are open spaces on Siskiyou right now and he would like the Tree Commission to commit to planting 5 trees in November. Loftus suggested having a tree walk down Siskiyou talking about the sites and species.  Amy reminded the Commissioners to let her know about it first so she can notice it.

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 Lincoln School grounds.  Holley made a motion that the “Tree Commission share the cost of soaker and other hoses with Save Our Schools and Playgrounds, a citizen group, and that we allow SOSP to keep the hoses at the end of the dry season with the understanding that they will use them for School District watering projects and that the Tree Commission reserves the right to ask and work with SOSP if we have a use for these hoses.”  Holley/Loftus m/s that the Commission donate up to $100.00.  for the purchase of hoses.  Voice vote:  All Ayes, Motion passed.  The Commissioners will also work on getting donations from the local businesses. 

c.        Current Balance $750.00

d.        Tree Commission Goals

i.                     Education

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 North Mountain and speak with Linda Chesney.

iii.                  Monitoring

1.       Tracking Reports to City Council

VII.          ADJOURNMENT

Commissioner Pritchard adjourned meeting at 9:10 pm