2007-01-02 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

7 remove the tree. She said she informally asked the City’s arborist to look at the tree from the street, and he said the condition of it was inconclusive, but he did not go up into the tree. She said if Council overturns the BAR, it would be good to add a condition that the applicant work with the BAR on a suitable replacement tree. Ms. Hamilton asked why the City did not send the arborist to look more closely at the tree, and Ms. Scala said she did not feel it was her place to do that. Ms. Hamilton asked about the City’s liability if Council upholds the BAR and the tree comes down. Ms. Scala said she does not know. Mr. Ed Bain, owner of the property at 420 Park Street, said he has owned the property since 1976 and has spent thousands of dollars on the trees. He said there are two large ash trees, and his arborist said that one needs extensive work, but could be saved, but after examining the other tree, the arborist said it is becoming a danger and needs to come down. He said what he feels he has done is reasonable for his and his neighbor’s property. He said he has had a landscaper give recommendations regarding new trees, but has no problem working with City staff. He said he thinks the tree is a significant hazard and asked that he be allowed to remove it. He said his plan is to replace the tree. Responding to a question from Mr. Lynch, Mr. Bain said he estimates the tree to be between 125 and 160 years old. Responding to a question from Dr. Brown, Mr. Bain said his arborist has worked on the trees for about ten years. Mr. Syd Knight, Vice Chairman of the BAR, a landscape architect, said that when the BAR receives requests for demolition of large trees it is treated similarly to demolition of property. He said ash trees can live for several hundred years. He said that for demolition of structures, a structural report is required and the BAR felt that the same criteria should be applicable here. He said the BAR asked for information about the diagnosis and treatment, but did not receive it from the applicant and therefore they felt they did not have enough information to make an informed decision. He said they wanted to avoid setting an improper precedent by allowing a non-specific justification. He said they asked for more information and a second opinion. He said he tried to gather more information himself, but neither he nor the people he enlisted went up into the tree, but they could not see any problem from the ground. Mr. Knight said this tree is a major contributor to the property and the entire block. He said even if there is a replacement tree, it will not be a good replacement for a well maintained 150 year old tree. Mr. Knight said that from what he saw, he feels the tree is treatable. Ms. Hamilton asked if the process for tree demolition is spelled out in the BAR guidelines, and Mr. Knight said not specifically for trees, but for any part of an important property. Ms. Hamilton asked if there have been other applications of this criteria for tree demolition, and Mr. Knight said only for structures as the BAR has not had any requests to remove a major tree in recent years. Mr. Lynch asked if it would be possible to have a City staff person check it out, and if so what would be the cost, and Ms. Scala said there is someone in Parks and Recreation that could do it but she said she does not know the cost. Mr. Lynch said we might want to get a second opinion, but he does not want to ask the applicant to have to pay more. He said he looked at the tree from the street and it seems fine. He said it is in a bad spot and if it dropped a limb it could do damage. He noted that part of the roots have been paved over. He said he would like to know what specifically is wrong with it even if the City has to pay to determine that. He said the tree has lived only one third to one half of its typical life span.