HomeMy WebLinkAbout20 - Appeal of Denial of Special Neighborhood Trees Removal Request at 1317 and 1323 Ashford Lane - PowerPointAugust 24, 2021
Item No. 20
H
s.
L.
a PtC,.IAL
NE,l
a'�•,BO
RH
V., ti REE
1317 & 1323 Ashford Lane
February 2021 - Property owner requested the removal of
two Lemon Scented -Gum Eucalyptus (Co.
citriod ora) :
• 1317 Ashford Lane (Front 1) (ID#983931)
• 1323 Ashford Lane (Front 1)(ID#983932)
• The purpose of the request was to accom
installation of a new driveway and landsc
• Also, concern that the trees were hazards
• Both trees are Special Neighborhood Trei
the G-1 Policy, Section I and Exhibit A: NE
Trees
In contrast to Landmark Special Trees, Sf....,���
Neighborhood Trees are significant as a group rather
than as individual trees.
• DEFINITION:
Neighborhood Trees are Special Trees
that by their unusual size, number, species,
or location lend a special character to a
residential, commercial, or business area.
• The Lemon Scented -Gum Eucalyptus
(Corymbia citriodora) Neighborhood Trees
outlined in the G-1 Policy, Exhibit A
include:
• Commodore Road - 2
• Starlight Circle - 14
• Sandalwood Lane - 3
• Candlestick Lane - 17
• Glenwood Lane* - 8
• Ashford Lane - 2
.r
11
z {
INITIF3L INSPECTIAN: FINDIMCS
• Trees appear healthy with vigorous
reaction growth: Large Live Crown Ratio
etc...
• History of limb failures, but only small
limbs
• No history of property damage due to limb
failures
• Work history shows trees pruned annually
in the Fall since 2018
• No recent history of root pruning,
grubbing etc. (80 sq. ft. repaired over 20
years ago) .
DENIAL & APPEAL
The condition of the tree did not meet the requirements
for removal listed under Council Policy G-1, Section 1: ,
Special City Trees
• "Ill Special Trees shall be retained, unless
there are overriding problems which will
require their removal such as death, disease,
interference with infrastructure, or the creation
of a hazardous situation,"
After the Denial Letter was issued by staff, the applicant
appealed the denial to the Parks Beaches and Recreation
Commission under the provisions outlined in Council
Policy G-1, Section IVA (Removal of Special City Trees)
• Submittal of an Application
Petition & Signature gathering of at least 60% of
property owners within 500 foot radius of the trees
approve of the removal.
37 Signatures for approval, 4 for denial were gathered
(out of 62 total)
BARKS BEACHES & RECREATION COMMISSION:
JURE 11 2021
• Additional issues raised by the applicant included:
• Fear of limb failures.
• Fear of whole tree failure.
• Limited use of front yard by their children due to
fear of tree failures.
• Applicant offered to pay for the removal of the trees
and the planting of two 48 -inch box Strawberry Trees
(Arbutus unedo).
• The City has done patching and asphalt ramping to
the sidewalk and both the sidewalk, curb and gutter
and the foundation for the street light need repair.
• The roots of the trees had impregnated a water meter
box.
• Several small limb failure have occurred but resulted
in no known property damage.
A
Public Comments:
• Several letters in opposition and
support were received by staff
• Several phone calls in opposition
were received by staff.
• Public comments included:
o Approval would set a
precedent for future
removals.
PB&R RESULTS &
9.41
' rI�iliIIrID
• PB&R Commissioners voted 6 in favor and 1 in
opposition to uphold the denial for the request to
remove the Special City Tree.
• City Arborist was called to a meeting with the property
owners to inspect and discuss the City infrastructure
adjacent to the trees.
• Issues raised were on the manner and method of
repair since the property owners were likely to be
mandated to repair the infrastructure as a condition
of their building permit.
• Due to the size, nature and status of the trees, no
root pruning was authorized to help implement the
repair of the City infrastructure.
INFRASTRUCTURE REPAIR AT
1317 ASHFORD LANE
C&G and Sidewalk damage
INFRASTRUCTURE REPAIR AT
1323 ASHFORD LANE
Street Light base lifted
4
7
j -
S
l' 2
Sidewalk damage
yy
Water meter box absorbed
Street Light base lifted
4
7
j -
S
l' 2
Sidewalk damage
MITIGATION OPTIONS
Limitations:
• Must involve little to no root pruning.
• Only roots 4" or less and only beyond
diameter of the trunk of the tree.
• Repairs must be ADA Compliant.
• Grade change
• Rule of thumb...
<2
5 times the
<1 inch of grade change in 4 feet,
4' < 4'
155
INFR,RSTRUCTURE REPAIRS: OPTION # 1
Conventional Ramping &Root Shaving +Thin Pour
Ashford1317
r
.,;oe�eal'k4
Y
• Temporary solution.
• Decrease the thickness of
slab from 4 to 3 -inches.
• May not be effective for
1317 Ashford because of
limited space to
accommodate grade change
(not ADA Compliant)
• Similar issue for 1323
Ashford but required slope
for rain run-off (>2%)
requires raised sidewalk on
property side (> 1 -inch) .
• If root shaving is
implemented incorrectly, it
can lead to a whole tree
failure.
I..NFRASTRUC TURF REPAIRS: CIPTION #Z
Asphalt Ramping
• No Root Pruning Necessary
• Temporary Solution
Requires regular upkeep of walking surface
due to swelling of the root system
RECOMMENDED OPTIONS:
1. Uphold PB&R Commission decision to
preserve the trees.
• City Fiscal impact - $5,000 (Near-term)
• Includes cost of repair/replacement
mitigation work for damaged sidewalk, and
curb & gutter.
• City Water Meter Cost relocation TBD
• Will need repeated infrastructure repair
work in coming years
2. Agree w/ Apelet and allow one or both trees to be
removed.
• City Fiscal Impact --$15,050 (Near & Long-term)
• Includes values of both trees (per City Inventory
$27,050)
• Minus the cost of infrastructure repair, tree removals
and replacement trees ($12,000)
k I
W