Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotice PLANNER 5/8/2008 ~' ;;.J ~~ Date ReceIved: AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE MAY - 8 2008 v"ivt.. Pb Submittal ~&~ (-- STATE OF OREGON) ) ss County of Lane ) " I, Karen LaFleur, being first duly sworn, do hereby depose and say as follows 1 I state that I am a Program Technician for the Planning DIvIsion of the Development Services Department, City of Springfield, Oregon 2 I state that In my capacity as, Program Technician, I prepared and caused.to be mailed copies of DR..C2008-000;)..1 '1 . tJ.It.u.~ ~ (See attachment "A") on .5 g 2008 addressed to (see ~ Attachment S"), by causing said letters to be placed In a U S mall box with postage fully prepaid thereon KAt.;~ dfJ~ STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane '6 2008 Personally appeared the above named Karen laFleur, Progra Technician, who acknowledged the foregOing Instrument to be their voluntary act Before me . OFFICIAL SEAL DEVETTE KEll V NOTARY PUBLIC. OREGON COMMISSION NO 420351 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUG 15. 2011 ,twffiiL 10V4f' My Commission Expires ~ /J~II / , . .. City'of Springfield Development Services Department 225 Fifth Street Springfield, OR 97477 TREE FELLING PERMIT Staff Report & Decision '" Project Name: Leatham Corrective Tree Felling Permit Project Proposal: Removal of eight trees without obtaining a permit Case Number: DRC2008-00027 Project Location: 4661 Bluebelle Way 17-02-32-43, TL 5700 Zoning: Low Density Residential (LOR) Overlay District(s): N/A Applicable Refinement Plan: East Main Refinement Plan Designation: Low Density Residential (LOR) Metro Plan Designation: Low Density Residential (LOR) Application Submittal Date: April 11 , 2008 Application Accepted as Complete Date: April 28, 2008 Decision Issued Date: May 8, 2008 Recommendation: Approval with Conditions ...., 'III " MOR" .," . < <h"" .. ..... "'1' , . " - , - LO.R '" <ll - ~t\ , i ... J, - , f I -, ~.' . 5 Bluebelle Way ~,~ I ." ..... : Qj '" !, l ,:W: . 'J ~ , =ij"o:: :1- f 1/ 0:: I U5 I C 9 .II'J:: '- . T- ~ J ...J ':(/) :- . . ~ " . :.....: 1 ~. I .. 'LOR .; _. t ~aisy ~treet " '->N?l - , -, / . . LMOR Appeal Deadline Date: May 23, 2008 Associated Applications: SUB2007-00056 (Partition Tentative), PRE2008-00020 (Pre-Submittal for Plat) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE POSITION REVIEW OF NAME PHONE Planner II Land Use Plannina Mollv Markarian 726-4611 Public Works Civil EnQineer Public Works Matt Stouder 736-1035 Deputy Fire Marshal Fire and Life Safety Gilbert Gordon 726-2293 APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM Owner/Applicant Scott Leatham 2073 Musket Street Eugene, OR 97408 Case No. DRC2008-00027 1016 DECISION This staff report and decIsion grants approval with Icondllions to the subject application, as of the date of this decIsion The standards of the Spnngfleld Development Code (SDC) applicable to each cntenon of approval are listed herein and are satisfied byl the submitted plans and notes unless speCifically noted In this decISion with findings and condition,s necessary for compliance Tree felling and re- vegetalion must be In conformance with submitted plans and as condllioned herein This IS a limited I land use deCISion made according to city code and state statutes Unless appealed, the decIsion IS final Please read this document In ItS entirety I .. .. I REVIEW PROCESS I This application has been reviewed under the procedures listed In SDC 5 1-130, Type II Applications, and SDC 5 19-100, Tree Felling Permit This application was accepted as complete on Apn128, 2008, and this decIsion IS Issued on the 1010 day of the 120 days perrnltted per ORS 227 178 COMMENTS RECEIVED Applications for Type II limited land use decIsions require notification of property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the subject property and any applicable neighborhood aSSOCiation, allowing for a 14- day comment penod on the application per SDC 5 1-130 The property owner, applicant, If different, and parties submitting wntten comments dunng the comment penod have appeal nghts and are mailed a copy of this decIsion for conSideration In accordance with SDC 5 1-130, notice was mailed to the property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the subject property on Apnl 21, 2008 No wntten comments were received dunng the comment penod SITE INFORMATION The subject property IS a 49 acre (21,344 square feet), rectangular-shaped lot on the south side of Bluebelle Way between 4610 Street and 47th Street and IS located inside the City limits The property slopes sllgthly from southeast to northwest, and sOils are mapped as Salem-Urban Land Complex-119 and Courtney Gravelly Silty Clay Loam-34 Currently, the property contains a residence on the north side of the property, facing' and taking access from Bluebelle Way Although land In the vIcinity of the property to the north and southeast IS zoned Medium DenSity Residential, the property IS zoned and deSignated Low DenSity Residential, and land Immediately surrounding the property on all sides IS zoned Low DenSity Residential The applicant requested approval for dividing the subject property Into three parcels via Case No SUB2007-00056 On November 15, 2007, the City Issued a deCISion on that application, granting approval subject to 22 conditions of approval The Site Assessment of EXisting Conditions sheet Included with the land DIVISion Tentative application Identified eight eXisting trees on the subject property, all of which were greater than five Inches In caliper The Land DIVISion Tentative Plan proposed removing only one of these trees to Install the panhandle dnveway and thus a tree felling permit was not reqUired at that lime However, the applicant had been advised on the Pre-Submittal Checklist for the Tentative application that If five or more trees were proposed to be removed that a Tree Felling Permit would be reqUired On March 21, 2008, the applicant submitted a pre-submittal application for the plat, Case No PRE2008-00020 Dunng a site VISit on Apnl 2, 2008, City staff found that all eight of the previously eXisting trees were removed without a Tree Felling Permit Therefore, pnor to final plat approval, the applicant was reqUired to submit and receive approval for a Corrective Tree Felling Permit TREE FELLING PERMIT - CRITERIA SDC 519-125 states that the Director, In consultation With the Public Works Director and the Fire Chief, shall approve, approve With conditions, or deny a tree felling permit request based on the cntena listed In SDC 5 19-125 A through H I Fmdmg. The Development ReView Committee (DRC), including representatives from the City's Development Services Department, Public Works Department, and Fire and Life Safety Department Case No DRC2008-00027 2 of 6 reviewed the application, ~elr comments have been Incorpor~nto the findings and condllions below Criterion 1 (SDC 5 19-125 A I Whether the conditions of the trees wilh respect to disease, hazardous or unsafe condillons, danger of fallmg, proxlmily to eXlstmg structures or proposed constructIOn, or mterference with utilIty seNlces or pedestnan or vehicular traffIc safety warrants the proposed fellmg Finding At the time of Land DIVIsion Tentative approval for Case No SUB2007-00056, the applicant only proposed removing the 22-lnch evergreen tree on the west side of the property to Install utilities and construct a panhandle dnveway While the remaining seven trees were located within the bUildable area of the proposed parcels, none were proposed to be removed However, had these trees been proposed for removal as part of a concurrent tree felling permit, an affirmative finding could have been wntten stating that proposed construction warranted the proposed felling Conclusion ThiS application satisfies Cntenon 1 (SDC 5 19-125 A) ) Criterion 2 (SDC 519-125 B I Whether the proposed fellmg IS consistent with State standards, Metro Plan policies, and Cily Ordmances and proVISIOns affectmg the envIronmental quality of the area, mcludmg but not limIted to, the protectIOn of nearby trees and wmdbreaks, wildlife, eroSion, SOil retentIOn and stabilIty, volume of surface runoff and water quality of streams, scemc qualIty, and geological siles Finding Forestry practices In the State of Oregon are governed by the Oregon Forest Praclices Act State forestry regulalions are not applicable In thiS case because 1) the limited number of regulated trees removed, 2) the trees were removed for planned development not timber harvest purposes, and 3) suffiCient re-planling can be accomplished In accordance With the conditions of thiS permit Finding' The SDC IS the pnmary Implementing ordinance for the environmental protection poliCies contained In the Metro Plan SDC 519-100, Tree Felling Permit, SDC 5 17-100, Site Plan Review, and 512-100, Land DIvIsions, generally Implement environmental protection poliCies of the Metro Plan dUlrng development review No eVidence has been submitted that indicates any City, State, or Metro poliCies protect or preserve the trees proposed to be felled beyond the City's Tree Felling standards Finding The trees removed from the site Without a Tree Felling Permit Include one 22-lnch coniferous tree, as well as seven deCiduous trees of varying sizes and ages (6-14 Inches In diameter) Finding The trees removed Without first obtaining a permit were pnmanly located along along the south and southwest property lines of the site As such, these trees could have prOVided a buffer between the subject property and adjacent less Intensively-developed properties to the south and west At the same lime, none of the trees removed were part of a natural or scenic area and likeWise did not compnse part of a larger contiguous stand of trees In addition, the applicant has proposed planling four replacement trees In the VICInity of the onglnal trees on the proposed southernmost parcel, as well as three replacement trees on the middle proposed parcel The applicant would have been required to perform felling actiVities, as well as erosion control and slope stability practices, In accordance With City standards, had the permit been submitted concurrently With the land diVISion application to minimize Impact to the environment However, by replaCing the felled trees, the Impact of the unauthonzed tree felling on the surrounding phYSical and Visual environment Will be mlligated to some degree ConclUSIon, ThiS application satisfies Cntenon 2 (SDC 5 19-125 B) Criterion 3 (SDC 5 19-125 C I Whether It IS necessary to remove trees m order to construct proposed Improvements as speCified m an approved development plan, gradmg permits, and construction drawmgs Finding' Although all eight eXlsling trees on the site were removed Without a permit, all were either located In the bUildable area of the proposed parcels or Within the area proposed for a panhandle Case No DRC200B-00027 30f6 driveway Thus, had these tr!!lteen propose'd for removal concu!a, with the land dlvlslorr I application, an affirmative finding could have been written stating that proposed Improvements as I speCified In an approved development plan warranted the proposed felling I Conclusion ThiS application satisfies Criterion 3 (SDC 519-125 C) Criterion 4 IsDC 5 19-125 D I In the event that no development plan has been approved by the City, felling of trees will be permitted on a limited basIs consistent With the preservatton of the site's future development potential as prescnbed In the Metro Plan and City development 'regulations and consistent With the following cntena I 1 Wooded areas associated With natural drainage ways and water areas shall be retained to I preserve npanan habitat and to minimiZe erOSIOn, 2 Wooded areas that will likely prOVide 'attractive on-stte views to occupants of future developments shall be retained, I 3 Wooded areas along ndge lines and hilltops shall be retained for theff scemc and wlldltfe value, 4 Wooded areas along property lines shall be retained to serve as buffers from adjacent properties, 5 Trees shall be retained In suffiCiently large areas and dense stands so as to ensure against Wlndthrow, 6 Large scale clear-cuts of developable areas shall be aVOided to retain the wooded character of future bUilding sites and so preserve hOUSing and deSign options for future City reSidents Fmdmg While thiS IS a corrective rather than concurrent tree felling permit, the subject property has an approved development plan, Case No DRC2007-00056 Therefore, Criterion 4 IS not applicable ConclUSion. ThiS application satisfies Criterion 4 (SDC 5 19-125 D) Criterion 5 IS DC 5 19-125 E I Whether the applicant's proposed replanting of new trees or vegetation IS an adequate substttute for the trees to be felled Fmdmg. The applicant felled one 22-lnch COniferous tree, as well as seven deCiduous trees of varying sizes and ages (6-14 Inches In diameter) The applicant has proposed re-vegetatlng the site With seven deCiduous trees, three on the proposed middle parcel and four on the proposed southernmost parcel, which amounts to a re-plantlng rate of nearly one to one Fmdmg' The SDC regulates street trees, vegetative screening, curbSide planter stripS, landscaped setbacks, and parking lot planting areas However, the subject felling and re-vegetatlon does not fall Within any of these categories as It occurred on the Interior of a reSidential site Therefore, to address Criterion 5 In thiS case, staff must rely on general urban forestry best practices In reviewing proposals to determine whether the re-vegetatlon IS adequate given the context of the tree felling and the use of the property Fmdmg: Mature trees protect SOIl from eroSion, retain preCipitation and reduce stormwater runoff, serve as Windbreaks, and prOVide scenic quality and habitat for Wildlife Therefore, re-vegetatlon In the area near where trees have been felled IS necessary to mitigate the loss of these environmental benefits It IS assumed that while the felling of trees Will likely have a negative short-term environmental Impact, the planting of replacement trees has the potential to prevent long-term net loss If the re- planting ratio IS at least one successful new tree for each tree removed and replacement species proVide Similar mature canopy spread and blodlver~lty to the area I Findmg, SDC 5 19-130 A states that If Issuance of the Tree Felling Permit IS conditioned upon the I applicant's proposed plan to replace the trees, lanilscape, or otherwise reduce the effects of the felling, the time Within which the plan IS to be completed shall be specified on the permit Case No DRC200B-00027 4 of 6 , '" Fmdmg" It IS not practical to reqUire replanting pnor to the construction of dwelling units on the newly created vacant parcels of the subject property Therefore, provided that the applicant meets the secunty and assurances requirements of the SDC, the applicant may defer replanting for a year or until new dwelling units are constructed on Parcels 2 and 3, whichever comes first Fmdmg' SDC 5 17-150 B states that required secunty shall equal 110% of the cost of the design, matenals, and labor, as determined by the Director ReqUired secunty may consist of cash, certified check, time certificate or deposit, or lending agency certification to the City that funds are being held until completion SDC 517-150 C states that If the installation of Improvements IS not completed Within the penod stipulated by the Director, or If the Improvements have been Improperly Installed, the secunty may be used by the City to complete the Installation, or the secunty may be held by the City and other enforcement powers employed to prevent final occupancy until the Improvements,are completed SDC 517-150 D states the upon completion of the Improvements as certified by the Director, any portion of the remaining secunty deposltled Within the City, including any accrued Interest, shall be returned ConditIon 1 Within a year of the date of thiS deCISion, or pnor to any occupancy of new dwelling umts on Parcels 2 and 3 of Case No SUB2007-00056, whichever comes first, the applicant shall plant a minimum of four trees on Parcel 3 and three trees on Parcel 2 Trees shall be a minimum of two Inches In diameter at breast height (dbh) In addition, trees shall be selected and planted In conformance With the standards of the SDC and EDSPM and shall at a mlmmum, at full matunty, be Similar to the eXisting trees In terms of canopy spread and biodiverSity Finally, pnor to Plat approval for the subject property, the applicant shall provide secunty for the planting of the trees, to the salisfaclion of the City Attorney, In conformance With SDC 5 17-150 B Fmdmg. As conditioned herein, the proposed re-vegetatlon plan IS an adequate substitute for the felled trees ConclUSIon. ThiS application satisfies Cntenon 5 (SDC 519-125 E) as conditioned herein Criterion 6 15 DC 5 19-125 F I Whether slash left on the property poses slgmflcant fIre hazard or lIabIlity to the CIty Findmg Given the corrective nature of thiS application, all slash has already been removed from the property ConclUSIon" ThiS application satisfies Cntenon 6 (SDC 5 19-125 F) Criterion 71SDC 5 19-125 G I Whether the felling IS consistent with the gUidelines specIfied In the Field GUide to Oregon Forestry Practices Rules published by the State of Oregon, Department of Forestry, as they apply to the northwest Oregon regIon Fmdmg Oregon forestry regulations are designed to provide safety and other gUidelines dunng logging operations and to assure continuous growing and harvesting of forest tree species and the continued prodUctiVity and stabilization of Salls The subject tree felling and re-vegetatlon are not subject to these regulations given the relatively limited number of trees to be removed and given that trees are being removed for urban development and not for commercial timber harvest Therefore, Cntenon 7 IS not applicable ConclUSIon' ThiS application satisfies Cntenon 7 (SDC 519-125 G) Case No DRC2008-00027 5016 Criterion 8 ISDC 519-125 HI" .. " Whether transportatIon of eqUIpment to and eqUIpment and trees from the sIte can be accomplIshed wIthout a major dIsturbance to nearby resIdents I , Fmding. Given the corrective nature of this application, It IS not possible to ensure that transportation of equipment to and equipment and trees from the iSlte IS accomplished without a major disturbance to nearby residents Conclusion. This applicalion satisfies Criterion 8 (SDC 5 19-125 H ) CONCLUSION The application, as submitted and conditioned he'reln, complies with the eight criteria listed In SDC 519-125 A through H The tree felling plan approved as submitted and conditioned herein may not be substantively changed ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The applicalion, all documents, and supporting eVidence are available for free Inspection (copies are available for a fee) at the Development Services Department APPEAL ThiS decIsion IS conSidered a Director's Type II decIsion and as such, may be appealed to the Planning Commission SDC 5 3-115 states that only the property owner, applicant, If different, and those persons who submitted written comments within the 14-day comment period have standing to appeal thiS decIsion SDC 5 3-115 also states that an appeal application In accordance with 5 3-100 shall be fIled With the Development Services Department Within 15 calendar days of the Director's decIsion (the date of thiS deCISion) In accordance With thiS policy and the Oregon Rules of CIVil Procedures, Rule 1 O(c), the appeal period for thiS decIsion expires at 5 OOpm on May 23, 2008 QUESTIONS Please call Molly Markarian In the Development Services Department Planning DIvIsion at 726-4611 or emall her at mmarkarlan@cl springfield or us If you have any queslions PREPARED BY Molly Markarian Planner II Urban Planning Seclion Case No DRC2008-00027 6016 . DEVELOPMENTSERWCES 225 FIFTH STREET SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 Scott Leatham 2073 Musket Street Eugene, OR 97408 ~Jb