Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2003-01-22 APP1/9 Ar 2IAPP City of Lake Oswego Ad Hoc Tree Code Review Task Force Minutes January 22,2003 I. CALL TO ORDER&ROLL CALL Chair Scott Rubel convened the Ad Hoc Tree Code Review Task Force at 7:07 p.m. on January 22, 2003 in the Human Resources Conference Room, City Hall, 380 A Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. Task Force members present were Chair Scott Rubel, Vice Chair Christine Roth, Michael Buck,David Cory, Terrence Flanagan, Richard Pross, Laura Rybowiak. David Cory and May Wiley were excused. Staff present was Sandy Ingalls, Code Enforcement Specialist. II. MINUTES The Minutes of November 26,2002,were approved by unanimous vote of those present. David Cory and May Wiley were not present. III. REGULAR BUSINESS Ms. Ingalls read a resignation letter from May Wiley. Ms. Roth stated that with her health problems were too much to keep up with everything in daily life and that the task force was just too much for her to continue with. Mr. Pross asked are we going to take what we've already done to City Council, or are we going to keep working on this? Ms. Roth suggested reviewing the letters received and then decide whether to revisit any issues. Section 55.08.020 Tree Protection Plan Required. Ms. Ingalls read from a letter from Kim Gilmer, Director of Parks regarding tree protection in parks where a path wanders through the trees. Is it realistic to have protection around those trees during construction? Ms. Rybowiak suggested adding tree protection around trees in a park isn't necessary. Ms. Roth stated a specialist came out and laid out that park with tree protection in mind and so that issue has already been addressed. City of Lake Oswego Ad Hoc Tree Code Review Task Force Page 1 of 5 Minutes of January 22,2003 Ms. Rybowiak suggested adding a statement: that a tree preservation plan prepared by a certified arborist needs to be filed with the City while building trails in City Parks. Ms. Ingalls reiterated there are instances where an arborist will need to file a plan with the City when building trails. She continued that she will have to review the definitions of trail or pathway, to make sure they are both covered. Ms. Rybowiak suggested that requiring a protection plan for work that is not in the vicinity of trees, (i.e. 200 feet away), such as in a park doesn't make any sense. The TF agreed to change the language in Section 55.08.020 Tree Protection Plan Required, as follows: 2. In order to obtain approval of a Tree Protection Plan, an applicant shall submit a plan to the City which clearly depicts all trees to be preserved on the work site. The plan must be drawn to scale and include the following: a. Location, species, and diameter of each tree on site and within 15 feet on all properties adjacent to the work site; 3. For minor or major development, the Tree Protection Plan shall be prepared by a certified arborist and shall include an inventory of all trees within the work site,their condition, and recommendations for treatment for each tree. Ms. Ingalls noted she has spoken with the City's Natural Resources Coordinator about alternatives for construction of these trails and how to protect the trees and the roots. Mr. Flanagan noted that trail construction should occur under the supervision of a qualified individual. It's like being a cop on-site and if they know that someone is looking at those trees. Mr. Pross noted if it's a paved trail, if done properly, they won't have to go back and redo it. Letters Ms. Ingalls reviewed the letter received from Jean Nauman on December 24tn Mr. Pross noted the letter seems to suggest the property owner is upset,because their lot is sloped on over 41% so when they partitioned it they could only get three lots instead of four like they wanted due to tree preservation requirements. Mr. Flanagan suggested that if a properly owner wants to preserve the trees on their property in a responsible manner and needs to thin the trees from time to time that the City should offer a reduction in the fee charge for this since they are trying to ensure a healthy stand of trees. City of Lake Oswego Ad Hoc Tree Code Review Task Force Page 2 of 5 Minutes of January 22,2003 Mr. Rubel asked Ms. Roth to review what happened at the last meeting. She noted that Doug Schmitz, City Manager came to the last meeting and told the task force that there is no money for an arborist. She noted the task force had discussed going to Council with the draft Code as written knowing there will be no arborist on staff. Ms. Rybowiak noted having a City Arborist would certainly help in educating the citizens of Lake Oswego. The Task Force discussed coming up with methodology for allowing removal of trees on large tracts for purposes of thinning for the continuing health of an existing stand of trees helping preserve the resources that make Lake Oswego a nice place to live. Task Force members discussed Type I and Type II permits. Ms. Rybowiak reminded the Task Force that Cherry and Cottonwood trees are a Type I permit and you are allowed to take out as many trees of these species as you want. Ms. Ingalls reminded the task force that you don't have to mitigate for cottonwoods. Mr. Rubel noted by allowing some of these other types of trees to come out under a Type I permit,we've improved the process. Mr. Flanagan came up with new language to address thinning under Type II Section 55.02.042 Permit Classifications and Review Procedures: iv. Removal of the tree on properties larger than one acre in size for the purpose of thinning. It was the consensus of the Task Force to table this item. Tree root protection (proximity to structures) Mr. Flanagan suggested that sometimes when there is a tree within a building envelope, it's really not worth saving for one reason or another. He would much rather have a mitigation tree planted in an appropriate place of an appropriate species that will add to the natural resource of the City as a whole. Mr. Rubel reminded the task force that we let people leave trees close to the foundation, and then when the tree gets too large next to the structure they want to remove it anyway, so why not let them take it out to begin with if we can get a better species in a better location on the property. Mr. Flanagan noted that the building envelope should be 15-20 feet out of the building footprint. He suggested that we should make it easier for an existing homeowner when he needs to do any construction near the building envelope, so there are no dilemmas when it comes to trees. City of Lake Oswego Ad Hoc Tree Code Review Task Force Page 3 of 5 Minutes of January 22,2003 Ms. Ingalls noted with the infill that is taking place, the developers will be required to build on smaller lots, thus we're going to run into this problem more and more. Mr. Buck asked if Metro forced the City to rezone property? Ms. Roth replied that the City feels as if they were forced,but Metro denies that. Mr. Buck noted it's more efficient to retain some trees. Ms. Roth asked if this section is in the Community Development Code and not the Tree Code? Ms. Ingalls noted she has had Type II permits where a huge,beautiful tree had crushed the eave and the gutter of a dwelling, and the trunk was starting to lift up the foundation. It had been there approx. 30 years, it was damaging the house and everything else around it. The house was in good shape besides this one little spot. That was an obvious situation where the tree had to go,but sometimes there are similar situations, where that type of superficial evidence isn't available to base a decision on for an untrained staff person. Ms. Rybowiak asked if there was good enough reason to remove it, and would the City allow the removal. Ms. Ingalls replied yes, cases like that are reviewed on a case by case basis. Tree Protection Criteria Mr. Flanagan noted that we don't want to limit the protection boundary,because sometimes it is larger than 10 times the diameter of the tree/drip line. There have been cases where beyond that perimeter,he has run into roots that impact the tree and if it hadn't been for the fact that he was on site, the construction activity would have disturbed the tree beyond repair. It was the consensus of the Task Force to leave the protection boundary at 10 times the diameter of the tree/drip line,with the ultimate decision coming from the City Arborist. Review Hazard Tree Application Ms. Ingalls reviewed a pending hazard tree application with the Task Force. She stated sometime it was difficult to decide whether any of the trees were hazard trees or not. Mr. Flanagan stated he knows the applicant, and the information he's looking at is inadequate,however, from some of the photos he can tell for sure some of the trees are a hazard. He continued that some of the trees under the power lines have been trimmed to City of Lake Oswego Ad Hoc Tree Code Review Task Force Page 4 of 5 Minutes of January 22,2003 keep them clear of the lines, thus compromising them considerably and would feel uncomfortable recommending anything other than removal for some of the trees. Mr. Rubel reviewed one of the pictures showing the upper canopy, showing how they are leaning and have been extensively pruned. He asked if that tree is dangerous and could break? Mr. Flanagan replied yes. He continued to point out problems with the trees presented in this application. For instance, when a tree is near a house and it's in bad shape like this one, the target is too great to try and save the tree. If a qualified arborist deems a tree as a hazard, if it fall it doesn't come under an"act of god"for the insurance company. He continued, that sometimes it's possible to reduce the hazard by removing part of a tree, however, that's not always an option. Looking at pictures of trees, rather than in person, it's very hard to make a decision as to whether a hazard is present. While no one here wants to remove trees unnecessarily,we want to ensure that a tree doesn't fall on a target, which could have been prevented,because no matter the size of the tree, the target it's aimed at has more monetary value. Mr. Pross said the new Code would deal with situations like this by having an arborist on staff who could deal with these questions. It was the consensus of the Task Force that by adding some flexibility to the Code with an arborist on staff,these situations would be handled more effectively. Ms. Ingalls noted there are just a few cross references that need to be changed to make sure the correct section of the Code is being referenced. Ms. Roth stated she found 3 cross references. The TF concurred to change all the references from a LOC 045 to LOC 050. Ms. Ingalls commented that after the TF has finished with their review, then she will have the City Attorneys review these changes one more time before presentation to City Council. Mr. Rubel suggested the next meeting should be used for reviewing the new drafts, discuss how to divide up the presentation and discuss how it shall proceed before City Council. IV. ADJOURNMENT The next meeting was scheduled for January 27, 2003. There being no further business, Chair Rubel adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 3(.A.45_ / Sandy Ingalls Code Enforcement Specialist L:\treecodetaskforce\minutes\01-22-03 draft.doc City of Lake Oswego Ad Hoc Tree Code Review Task Force Page 5 of 5 Minutes of January 22,2003