PC 091102 - Laserfiche WebLink

r Mr. Iserson summarized the staff report, and noted that the business park was constructed in the 1980s, which featured the trees as a landscaped gateway into the park. The trees had been growing for approximately twenty years, and met the City Code definition of a heritage tree. The applicant had requested the removal of the trees several times in the past, and had been denied. They had submitted a tree removal plan and an arborist report with this application. This application is considered as a major modification to the PUD. Mr. Iserson advised that the applicants cite maintenance issues as the reason for the application. He added that some roots had surfaced to the ground level at one of the corners, which caused problems with the lawn and irrigation system in that area. Some of the trunks had begun to lean, and the trees had developed some mild diseases. The arborist report supported the removal of the trees because the trees were not suitable for the location, and that they had the diseases of canker and crown gall. The applicant proposed to remove the cottonwoods this year, and replace them with the red oaks and gingkos. The willows would be replaced the following years with four crape myrtle trees. Staff recommended denial of the application because the trees were heritage trees, and that the General Plan encouraged their preservation wherever possible. The tree preservation ordinance gave criteria for when heritage and other trees may be removed, particularly when they presented a hazard or were dead, diseased, or dying. He added that they may be removed as part of a PUD plan, when there was no other alternative. ,--. Staff believed the trees were not yet a hazard, and did not show any obvious signs of poor health. The trees were in the middle of their lifespan, and according to Mike Fulford, the City's landscape architect, could be expected to live another twenty years. Mr. Fulford's report noted that the cankers and crown galls were not lethal diseases. Although they could lead to problems in the future, they were not in a poor enough condition to warrant removal at this time. The trunk lean did not pose a public safety threat at this time. The root surfacing was limited to one of the four corners where the trees were planted, and the bare spots in the turf were being repaired and filled in. Staff believed this was more of a maintenance issue, but if the problems continued, the applicant could consider using other types of ground cover besides lawn at that corner. The City's landscape architect believed the tree replacement plan was a good one should they be removed. Staff did not support their removal at this time. The trees had grown into significant trees at the intersection, and staff did not see a threat to public health or safety. The trees still looked good to the casual passerby, and they acted as a significant entry feature to the intersection. He believed their removal would be a loss to the area. Staff believed the trees had many years of healthy growth, and that they made an aesthetic contribution to the City. Staff believed their removal would set a bad precedent to other property owners desiring to move heritage trees without a good reason to do so. Staff understood the applicants' reasoning, and acknowledged the support of the applicant's arborist, but did not see a significant reason for consideration oftheir removal for another five or ten years. r- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 11, 2002 Page 3