Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 687 - Jan's Court TreeRESC7I.~U`I'I~t~i Nt7. ti137 A FEE S(JL,1JTlt~l*~ Tt~ DEI~IY A T121.~ )Zl .1i{~VAl.,1'E12MIT l`C1` t1'~; I,XIS I~ii~1C; PORT tJRI~URD CEDAR T12.EE Wl`11(11'~l THE JAh1~ COUtt'l ~lJ~3U1Vt~tC)l~l I~"ct~iial~; 1. Applicant has submitted applicatian fc~r trcu r~:~.7aval an a ~J.'7~ acre parcel lacatetl an prapez~ty identified by Jacksan Caunty as A~:cc>~~,~t 1142313 in tl7e City afCentral Paint, Oregan. 2. On, March '7, 2006, the Central Paint Planning Camn~issian c;andc:te;d a duly-noticed public meeting an the application, at which time it reviewed tl~e City staff reports anti.. heard testimony and caznments an the application. aw, therefore; BE IT RE(~LVEL7 BY THE PLAIti11NG CDMMISIOI'~l C:~l~ THE CITY OP CENTRAL PC?1NT, C?RECr01~1, AS FC.~LLC?WS: Section 1. Criteria Ai~i3licablt; to Decision. The following chapters of the Central Paint Municipal Cade apply to this a~?plicatian: A. Chapter 1.2.36, Trees Section 2. i~'intli ~~~ and. Cazaclusians. The application for a tz-ee removal permit herein is hereby denied, based upon the findings set Earth an Exhibit "A", attached. hereto by reference incorporated herein. Passed by the Platlning Camzr~issian and signed by me in authentication of its passage this 7t~' clay of March, 2006. Planni~~~Cc~~ ~~~~; ;io~~Cit~iit A'T"FT"EST: .~ u City R epresentatve Apprc~ve~ by ~~ne this '7`~' ciay cif iV]ar~,h, 2006 _ ,~" Planning Department STAFF REPORT Tom f~umphrey, AICf? Community Development Director/ Assistant City Administrator PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT March 7, 2006 EXH I B 1T `~ ~ ~p AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of a permit for retxtoval of a tree located within the tentatively approved Jat~scourt Subdivision on Tax Lot 3'7 2W 1 OAB, 1400; Shawn McFadden, Applicant. STAFF SOURCE: Ken Gerschler, Community Planner BACKGROUND: The applicant has received a tentative subdivision approval for the eight (S) lot Jans Court Subdivision. Towards the northern periphery of the project, a large Port Orford Cedar tree stands between the common lot line between lots 1 and 2. The applicant has hired a certified arborist to determine the health and safety of the tree in relation to the homes that would be built near the subject tree. In the opinion of the arborist Exhibit "A"), the tree could present an inherent danger due to its unusual branching pattern. The Planning Commission recognized the tree as a significant asset to the development and had approved the subdivision with the understanding that the tree would be integrated. Since the tree has been recognized as significant by the Planning Commission, a removal would be subject to Chapter 12.36 of the municipal code. The applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission allow the tree to be removed based upon safety and has filed the appropriate application. FINDINGS: As set forth in section 12.36.050 a decision to approve, approve with conditions, or deny a permit for tree removal shall be based on any of the following criteria: A. The tree is unsafe, dead or diseased as determined by a certified arborist. Verification of tree health maybe required, at the expense of the applicant, by a certified arborist acceptable to the city; Commission Finding 12.36.050 (A): The arborist report identifies that the tree is approximately 75 feet in height and has a branch form that is unsafe in areas with residential development. The unsafe nature of the tree is a symptom of its state of health, which is questionable. Commission Conclusion 12.36.050 (A): The arborist report recognitzes hat the tree has an unusual branch pattern that could weaken the limbs as the tree ages. The tree is in g©od health otherwise and should be preserved for the tune being. B. The tree is in conflict with public improvements. Commission Finding 12.36.050 (B): The tree is not in conflict with any public improvements. Mcliaddin Tree Removal 06056CommissioiiReport.doc Page 1 of 2 Commission Conclusion ].2.36.050 {B): Not applicable. C. The proposed removal or pruning is part of an approved development project, a public improvement project where no altez-native is available, or is part of a street iznpro~veznc3it program. Comrnissiox Finding 12.36.050 {C): The tree is located near the boundary separating Lots 1 and 2 within the te~itatively approved .Tans Court Subdivisioax. The Planning Commission was aware of the tree and approved the development with the understanding that the tree would remain. The building footprints could be modified on Lots 1 and 2 to save the tree. Commission Conclusion 12.36.050 (C): This finding cannot be met since there are alternatives available to save the tree. EXHIBITS: Exhibit "A" -Letter from Arborist William Harrington, License PN-0618 ACTION: Voted to preserve the tree with Plarzzzing Commission Resolution 687 based upon the aforementioned Endings of fact and conclusions. McFaddin Tree Removal 06056CommissionReport.doc Page 2 of 2 William `Bill' Harrir~~ton Certified Arborist PN-461 S 2148 Terrel Drive Medford, Or 97541 S4I-772-b283 January S, 240b Shawn McFadden 91 Church Street Ashland, Or 97520 RE: False Cypress Chamaecyparis Ia~vsflMiana Port Orford Cedar Dear Shawn: The faiiowing is a report based an our conversation and meeting regarding any ianpacts, recommendations, and mitigation for the Port Orford Cedar tree located at your property at 13i17 Taylor Road in Central. Point which is further described and located at the NW '/4 of Sec. 37, TWP. 37-5'R2-W' W.M. Definition of assignment: Yau informed me at our meeting that you would be developing the property at the afarerrientioned address and wanted to know how the intended construction would or could impact the Port Orford Tree to help determine the fate of the tree. I was asked to provide you with a report to determine impacts to the subject tree and provide a professional assessment of what should be done. Observations: I observed a 75 feet tall False Cypress /Port Orford Cedar located in the NE' section of your property. The f rst thing that struck me was this species of tree should have an eaccurrent foz7m that is: A major tree farm resulting from strong apical control. Trees with. this form have a strong central stem and pyramidal shape, I.F. most conifer trees. Conversely your tree had a decurrent form: A major tree form resulting from weak apical control. Trees with this form have several to Shawn McFadden 91 Church Street Ashland, OR 97520 Observations Cant: many lateral branches that compete with the central stem for dominance resulting in a spherical crown. Most hardwood trees have decunent forms. The subject tree has 4 major scaffold limbs and limb diameters measuring 10.9", 14.$", 21.9" and 25.4" measured at 4.5 feet above the ground. (See Exhibit # 1) This is un-natural for this species and these scaffold limbs are prone to entire limb failure. The subject tree appears to be in excellent health and vigor however with the firture site use changing to a neighborhood !residential use and the presence of the aforementioned malady moves the tree into a category of higher risk due to thepropensity of limb failure. It is my opinion that residents assume safety has been taken into consideration and that it is incumbent on developers to provide a reasonably safe environment for their future residents. Conclusion: After careful, review of all of the facts, site considerations and the long-term health of the tree it is my opinion that the tree should be removed for the following reasons. • Based an the review of the drawings for the proposed residences the close proximity of the dwellings and the elevation of the buildings the impacts to the subject tree would be profound and I believe the tree would ultimately become a hazard to the site, buildings and residents of the proposed sub-division after the necessary pruning and excavation were perfozmed in order to construct the residences. • The thresholds and standards and best management practices that should be considered and need to be followed when considering the pruning of trees. See "Best Management Practices Tree Pruning" a companion publication to the ANSI A-300 (American National Standards Institute) Part 1: Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Maintenance. It is generally held that no nxore than 25% of a trees foliage should ever be removed at any one tune, excessive branch removal depletes a trees energy reserves and reduces a trees ability to photosynthesize more energy. Not to mention the loss of its natural form and structure. Shawn lVlcFadden 91 Church Street Ashland, OR 9752{? Mitigation: As we discussed rt is always difficult to remove trees especially ones that have been around for a while. Based on my recommendation to remove the cedar tree and as you as you painted nut there are some possibilities for additional landscaping along the "Pedestrian Pathway" it appears there may be room for an additional 4 trees on top of the 12 trees which are currently planned for that area. The placement of additional trees would further contribute to the site directly and also contribute to the public use of the path. Placement of deciduous trees along the pathway will provide excellent summer shading from the East and allow solar energy to penetrate during winter months. l wish you good luck with your development and am available for any questions or comments you may have regarding your tree and site at (54l) 772-6283. Respectfully, William Harrington Certified Arborist /Utility Specialist Pacific Northwest Chapter, I.S.A. lnternational Society of Arboriculture