July 2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DANIEL PHILPOTT: After we had submitted our initial application and the arborist's tree report; Temple Tree Service strongly recommended that we also get rid of a second tree in addition to the first tree that we wanted cut down. It is a cedar tree that is located on the Riverside Drive side of the house. The tree is quite old and is close to dying on its own. It is very dried out and needs to be cut down. We agree with their recommendation and would like that tree cut down as well. We did follow up with a letter regarding this. (refer to copy of letter sent to Catherine Hostetler, Director, attached to C of A application in meeting binder). So there are really two trees that need to be cut down. The first tree is a hemlock, which is right in front of the house. We would like to have this tree cut down for the following reasons. 1. Aesthetic reasons - it creates too much shade for the house and it obstructs the view of the house. 2. Structural reasons — the roots are crowding and threatening the foundation, the acid from the tree corrodes the shingles, the roof, and the paint on the sides of the house. 3. The needles and the shedding from this evergreen prevents the growth of any ground cover and grass below it. This is a huge area of dirt that we would really like to fill in with ground cover and greenery. 4. It is also preventing the growth of two nearby smaller trees; one of which is right underneath this tree. We would like to give those trees a chance to grow up. We already have three large trees on that side of the house as you can see in the picture. We don't think that this would diminish at all the sense of the house being very wooded. The second tree is the cedar tree which is on the Riverside Drive side of the house. The house sits on the comer of Golden Street and Riverside Drive and faces Golden Street. This is the tree that Temple Tree Service recommended that we cut down because it is near death anyway and is dried out and needs to be cut down. We also feel that it blocks the house and is hindering growth beneath it. On that side of the house there is already a tall tree standing between it and the side walk in the near vicinity. So from the perspective of a person walking by the house; there is already a tall tree there and it's not going to create a sense of sparseness. JOHN OXIAN: In the picture which shows the east side of the house there are three trees there. The middle tree is the one that you want to cut down that is right up close to the house, right? Mr. Philpott showed commission members where the cedar tree and the hemlock tree are located in the pictures that he presented with his C of A application. MARY JANE CHASE: I will make a motion on application 2005-0609 that the two trees recommended on 1077 Riverside Drive be removed as stated. DIANE WROBEL-ILLES: Seconds the motion and it passes unanimously. B. LANDMARK 1. Second Reading: 16977 Adams Landmark 1880 Barn CLINT ZALAS: I am an attorney here in South Bend with the fine of Lee and Groves. I was contacted this afternoon by the Sieradzkis. They are the landowners whose property the landmark sits on. They object to the designation of the bam on the property as a historical landmark. I don't know if you have in your file a copy of the correspondence that Mr. Sieradzki faxed to Catherine Hostetler on June 20`h. It