Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotice PLANNER 6/19/2007 .< ~~ AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE srATE OF OREGON) ) ss County of lane ) I. Karen laFleur, berng first duly sworn, do hereby depose and say as follows 1 I state that I am a Program Technician for the Plannrng DIVISiOn of the Development Services Department, CIty of Sprrngfleld, Oregon 2 I state that rn my capacity as, Program Technician, I prepared and caused to be mailed copIes of])P.C2007-oC031 n.c;w.... ~ ~~'...... ~ ~ - ,4....Jo ~ (See attachment "A") on tq) 19 ,2 07 addressed to (see ~ Attachment S"). by causing said letters to be placed rn a U S mall box with postage fully prepaid thereon ~~~ KAREN laFlEUR STATE OF OREGON, County of lane ,2007 Personally appeared the above named Karen LaFleur, r m Technician, who acknowledged the foregorng rnstrument to be their voluntary act re me ~~ Mtf CommIsSIon ExpIres II/l~.../200fb I ' My . OFFICIAL SEAL , SANDRA MARX , NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON COMMISSION NO 385725 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES NOV 12, 2008 Date Received Planner AL tfr/ZLJa7 / / .I,ll Notice of DecIsion - Tree Felling SPRINOFIELD ProJect Name. Tree Fellrng - Dove Estates SubdivIsion PrOject Proposal The applrcant proposes to remove more than twenty trees to develop the property with a 14-lot residential subdivIsion Case Number DRC2007-00031 ProJect LocatIon: 1057 Anderson Lane, Sprrngfield, 17-03-33-11 TL 101 Zonmg LDR Metro Plan/Refinement Plan DesIgnatIon: lDR ApplicatIon SubmItted Date' Aprrl 30, 2007 ApplicatIon Accepted as Complete: May 9, 2007 DeCISIon Issued Date: June 19,2007 RecommendatIon. Approval With Conditions Appeal Dead/rne Date: July 5, 2007 AssocIated Apphcatlons SUB2006-00066 APPLICANT Dave Collrer 75506 Blue Mountarn School Road Cottage Grove, OR 97424 OWNER Vern Benson 940 HIghway 99 N Eugene, OR 97402 NATURE OF APPLICATION The applrcant submitted a Type II Tree Fellrng Applrcatlon to the City of Sprrngfield requesting approval to fell more than 20 trees from the 2 I acre subJect property The purpose of the proposed tree fellrng IS to develop the subJect property With reSIdential uses, consistent With the standards of the low DenSity ReSIdentIal (lDR) zonrng dlstrrct The owner has previously received SubdiVISion Tentative Plan approval for the proposed site development (Case No SUB2006-00066) The purpose of the tree fellrng IS to prepare the site for construction of the subdiVIsion pubhc and prrvate Improvements The proposal rncludes tree felling wlthrn proposed publrc rrghts of way and wlthrn the rnterror and perrmeter of the proposed lots DECISION Tree Felhng approval WIth condItIons, as of the date of thiS letter The standards of the Sprrngfield Development Code (SDC) applrcable to each cnterron of Tree Fellrng Approval are Irsted herern and are satisfied by the submitted plans and notes unless specifically noted With findrngs and conditions necessary for complrance ThiS deCISion requrres the demarcation of trees to be felled and an on-site meeting With Clt;y staff to review the proposed fellrng prror to the fellrng of Irve trees 5" diameter dbh or larger from the Site Tree Felling shall be as conditioned rn thiS deCISion Any requrred revegetation/mitigation must Tree Fellmg ORCl007-0003/ Date Received Planner AL t/;9/;la77 / f / \, conform to this decIsion The street trees requrred for this development, as approved rn the SubdivIsIon Tentative Plan shall be counted towards the requrred revegetation to mitigate for the proposed tree fellrng The final plans for these features (the Publrc Improvement Plan for Dove Estates SubdiVISion) shall be rn conformance With this decIsion This IS a Irmlted land use deCISion made accordrng to City code and state statutes Unless appealed, the decIsion IS final Please read thIs document carefully OTHER USES THAT MAY BE AUTHORIZED BY THE DECISION None The review contarned herern pertains to Tree Fellrng only The proposed use IS permitted rn accordance With Sprrngfield Development Code (SDC) Other uses permitted rn the zone but not listed on the apphcatlons requrre addItIonal review and permIts REVIEW PROCESS. This applrcatlon IS reviewed under Type II procedures Irsted In SDC 3 080 and the Tree Fellrng crrterra of approval 38040 The Tree Fellrng applrcatlon was accepted as complete on May 9, 2007 ThiS deCISion IS Issued on the 50th day of the 120 days mandated by the state SITE INFORMATION The property IS located at 1057 Anderson Lane, at the southeast corner of Centennial Boulevard and Anderson Lane The property IS currently developed With one residence and IS heavily wooded A "Welcome to Sprrngfield" sign IS located 10 the rrght of way abutting the site at the southeast corner of Centennral Boulevard and Anderson Lane ThiS sign and the cluster of mature trees behind It marks an Important gateway IOto Sprrngfield from the west The property has numerous very large Oregon white oak, Oregon blgJeaf maple and other mature trees which are currently overgrown WIth Englrsh 'VY, blackberry and other IOvaSlve plant species and thus difficult to see and evaluate According to the SOil Survey of lane County, the mapped sorl serres are 76 - Malabon Urban land Complex (depth to water table >6 feet) The site IS relatively level MAP -------- ------- , 17-03-27-33 SUBJECT PROPERTY 1057 Anderson Lane 2 I Qcres I -.- _r1200 11300 11400 11600 I I _I - ," ^" I 17-03-33-11 SEQuar......vE - - - -, WC/:NTE"""IA~BL\fO 33070 ---------- ------- ------ 0000 101 6100 002 o ~ 6300 3 g ~ , , I I I 33048 102 16600 I I 100 1 6700 I I I 17000 I I \ 000 -, 002 ~---- ,-----, I I I I I I I I I I I I , ------______1 Tree Felling ORCl007-00031 2 Centennial Blvd and Welcome to Sprmgfield 51gn location COMMENTS RECEIVED: Applrcatlons for limited Land Use DecIsions requrre the notification of property owners/occupants within 300 feet of the proposed development and allow for a 14-day comment perrod prror to the staff deCISion [SDC 3 080 and 14030] The applrcant and parties submlttrng wrrtten comments dUring the notIce perrod have appeal rrghts and are malJed a copy of thiS decIsIon for consideratIon In accordance with SDC 3 080 and 14030, notice was sent to owner/occupants wlthrn 300 feet of the subJect site on May 10, 2007 The followrng comments were received rn response to the Notice of Surraundlng Property Owners Kevin and Suzanne Zerby reSIde at 1444 W,mbledon Place, Sprongfield 97477. In therr letter dated May 17, 2007, they stated "Some of the trees slated far felling are located close to property Itnes and could possIble be saved depending on hause footprint and placement" They Identified a 36" oak on the eastern portion of lot 12, (2) 12" maples rn the SE corner of lot II, a 10" maple near the property Irne between lots 10 and II and a 36" oak rn the NE section of lot 6 as trees which possibly could be saved dependrng on house footprrnt and placement They stated that rn the Oak Tree SubdiVISion (east of the subJect property) trees were left standrng on the site until house deSigns were chosen Houses were deSIgned and placed to reduce tree loss and to protect the values provided by mature tree canopy They also requested that the fellrng be scheduled after brrd nesting and fledgrng are completed for the season They requested that staff carefully consIder the Impact of each and every one of the trees Staff Response' City staff have carefully reviewed the fellrng proposal to ensure that the proposed tree felling of each tree IS warranted and meets the cnterra of Sprrngfield Development Code Article 38 Since the site IS so heavily wooded, and srnce the eXlstrng trees are currently covered With Englrsh 'VY, blackberry and other vegetation, approval has been Tree Fellrng ORCl007-0003/ Date Received :/;5/./#>7 3 Planner AL I I conditioned to requrre the developer to c1early1flag all trees proposed to be felled and to conduct an on-site meetrng with City staff to review the proposed tree felling prior to fellrng \ The Zerbys are correct rn stating that the surr~undlng neighborhoods to the east and south were developed In a manner which retarned many of the eXlstrng native trees, espeCially oaks These heritage trees create d,strnct,ve residential neighborhood character and provide numerous ecological and aesthetic benefits whrl~ enhancrng values of residential property The tree felling cannot commence until publrc Improvement plans are approved and bonded As thiS decIsion IS being Issued, plans have yet to be submitted, so It IS Irkely that fellrng would not begrn dUring the current nestrng and fledging season The City strongly encourages the applrcant to consIder the Impacts to wlldlrfe habitat when scheduJrng thIS work Conformance With SDC Artl~le 38 - Tree Felling Standards The Intent of the City'S Tree fellrng regulatIons IS stated rn the purpose statement of SDC 380 I 0 SIgnificant tree removal os permItted only when specIfic development plans have been approved by the CIty, conSIstent WIth plan poliCIes and CIty development regulatIons. Interrm removal of trees may be permItted to the extent that such removal does not SIgnificantly detract from the natural and cultural amenitIes that I make a partIcular SIte attractIve for futur!" development SDC 38 0 15 requrres a Tree Felling PermIt prior to the felling of more than five trees 5" dbh (diameter at breast height) or larger wlthrn a period of 12 consecutive months from a lot/parcel of private property under common ownership conslstrng of I 0,000 squar~ feet or more of a total area Finding: The applrcant proposes to fell more than 20 trees from the site The trees as Identified In the applrcant's plan range rn size from 6-12" diameter at breast height (dbh) holly orchard and frUit trees to 36" dbh Oregon white oak heritage quality trees The trees are located predomrnantly around the site perimeter and rn the eastern portion of the property Nrne trees are located wlthrn the proposed stre;et right of way (rncludrng a hammerhead turnaround) FInding. The applrcant has receIved SubdIVISIon TentatIve Plan Approval to develop the subject I property With the Dove Estates SubdivIsion (Case No SUB2006-00066) Thus, a specific I development plan has been approved by the City, consistent With plan polrcles and CIty development regulations I I , BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSAL. When the applrcant's SubdiVISion Tentative Plan applrcatlon for Dove 'Estates was approved, a Tree Felling applrcatlon , had not been submitted for review The SubdiVISion approval criterion at Springfield Development Code (SDC) 35050 (6) requrres ~he applicant to demonstrate that phYSical features have been evaluated and protected as requrred by the SDC Tree fellrng rn the City IS regulated through SDC Article 38 AT ree Felling permit IS required before removrng more than five trees 5" diameter at breast high or larger Srnce a Tree Fellrng applrcatlon was not submitted concurrently, the trees had not beenlevaluated The applrcant's SubdiVISion Tentative Plan application did not meet the approval cnterron at SDC 35050 (6). Based on the site assessment plan submitted rnto the record for <tase No SUB2006-00066, the follOWing conditions of approval were Imposed on the ap~lrcant's SubdiVIsion Tentative Plan approval SubdIVISIon TentatIve Plan CondItIon 4 p"l, to PIP approval, the followong eXIsting I trees located along Anderson Lane and adJacent to the proposed street servong the I Tree Felling' I DRC2007-0003 , 4 subdIVISIon shall be evaluated for retentIon to meet the Springfield Development Code, as stated In the DeSIgn Standards and Procedures Manual 6 02 I ExISting Trees 36" dbh oak Lot I I Anderson lane frontage 36" dbh oak lot I I Anderson Lane frontage 36" dbh oak Lot 12 Anderson Lane frontage (2) 6-12" dbh holly Lot I Anderson Lane frontage 14" and 6" apple lot I New street frontage 30" dbh oak lot 5 New street frontage 24" dbh oak lot 5 New street frontage 48" dbh spruce Lot 6 New street frontage 38" dbh oak lot 7 New street frontage 6" dbh frUit Lot 8 New street frontage SDC 38030 (I) states Apphcatlons for a permIt to fell a tree or trees shall Include a Plot Plan showrng the locatIon of trees to be removed and their SIzes. FindIng: The applrcant's tree fellrng plan depiCts trees proposed to be felled and trees to be saved It also rnclude the follOWing notes . Trees In proposed rrght-of-way and bUilding sites are deSignated for removal . Trees along east boundary are to remarn The plan depicts "overgrown arbor Vita" along the Centennial Boulevard property frontage Frndrng- Based on the site assessment plan submitted rnto the record for Case No SUB2006- 00066 and the plan submitted with the subJect Tree Fellrng applrcatlon, there are no eXlstrng trees adJacent to the Centennial Boulevard rrght of way along proposed lots 7, 8, 9, 10 and II This area IS shown rn the applrcant's plans as "overgrown arbor Vita" Frndlng: The applrcant's plan shows trees to be felled and trees to be retarned The proposal IS not clear Finding: Staff performed a visual anaJysls of the site on June 12, 2007 and found that the Centennial Boulevard property frontage (the area depicted as "overgrown arbor Vita" on applrcant's plans) IS completely and densely vegetated with trees larger than 5" dbh Staff observed a number of mature Oregon blgleaf maples (Acer macrophyllum) and one large (approximately 20" dbh) cherry (Prunus aVlum) wlthrn the arborvitae hedge perrmeter area and found that most of the arborvitae are trees (ThuJa ocadentalls) larger than 5" dbh In summary, there are numerous eXlstrng trees larger than 5" dbh that do not appear In the applrcant's tree fellrng plan The applrcant's tree fellrng proposal does not address these trees with suffiCient specificity to provIde for an adequate review of the proposal Several of the eXlstrng trees appear to be good candidates for preservation as street trees and could be counted towards the requrred trees for the subdivISion development Staff also found that the trees along Anderson Lane are so overgrown with Englrsh 'VY that they are difficult to see, measure, locate wIth accuracy and evaluate There appear to be three or more very Jarge herrtage qualrty Oregon white oaks (Quercus ganyona) and one very large Oregon blgleaf maple south of Centennial Boulevard City Publrc Works Marntenance staff VISited the site In an emarl memorandum sent to the planner on May 2, 2007, Mike RIsley recommended that these trees be preserved as street trees and that the 'VY be cut from the base of trees Staff also recommended removal of the remnant holly orchard trees (lIex Tree Fellmg ORCl007-00031 Date Received Planner AL t./;'lP<1117 I I s I aqulfolrum) and three fruIt trees (two apple and\one UnidentIfied fruit tree) whIch are located near the rrght of way The applicant's plan calls ,for all of these trees to be preserved Do to the wooded nature of the Site, staff did not conduct a vIsual analYSIS of the property rnterror and could not ascertarn whether the applrcant's vegetation mapprng as shown was complete and/or accurate , 1 I Flndrng. The applrcant proposes to save all trees which were Identified rn SubdivIsion Tentative Plan Condition 4 Finding The applrcant's plan rncludes the statement. "trees along the east boundary are to remarn," but the plans do not clearly depict exactly which trees are to remarn and which trees are to be felled FIndIng: Some, but not all of the eXlstrng trees Identified In SubdivISion Tentative Plan Condition 4 have been evaluated by Publrc Woriks staff The large trees Identified as oaks along Anderson Lane shall be preserved and the 'VY removed The remnant holly orchard trees (I/ex aqUlfollum) and three frUit trees (two apple and one unrdentlfied frUit tree) which are located I' near the proposed rrght of way may be removed after the trees are flagged and reviewed pursuant to ConditIon I The other rnterror Slt~ trees, rncludlng trees Identified by the Zerbeys, have not been evaluated Other eXlstrng trees which are not shown rn the applrcant's plan have not been Identified nor evaluated rn the applrcant's proposal , ConclUSIon: SubdivIsion TentatIve Plan Condl1:ron 4 has not been met. Condition I IS I requrred to Implement SubdiVISion TentatIve Plan Condition 4 I ConclUSIon: When the applrcatlon was accep~ed as complete, staff assumed that all trees 5" dbh (diameter at breast height) or larger propo~ed to be felled were depicted rn the plans Upon more detailed review and site analYSIS, staff determrned that the plans do not provide a clear tree fellrng proposal Condition I IS necessary to ensure that the applrcant's tree fellrng proposal IS accurate and conSistent With the crlterra of SDC Article 38 ! CondItIon I: Prior to PIP approval, Issuance of a Land Drarnage and Alteration permit and prror to fellrng any live trees 5" dbh (diameter a,t breast heIght) or larger from the subJect property, the applrcant shall clearly mark With s~rvey tape.M[ of the Irve trees 5" dbh (diameter at breast height) or larger proposed to be felled The applrcant shall arrange an on-Site meetrng With the City planner and other City staff as deemed necessary by the planner to review the proposed tree fellrng and to determine whethe~ eXisting trees along Centennial Boulevard may be retained as street trees Tree retention shall be conSIstent With the City'S Engrneerlng DeSIgn Standards and Procedures Manual, chapter 6 After the on-site meetrng, the City may requrre the applrcant to provide a Final Tree Fellrng Plan to provide a clear, accurate Tree Felling plan for the record Englneerrng DeSIgn Standards and Procedures Manual 6 02 states "When conslderrng a street tree deSign, eXisting trees, desrrable tree species, tree locations, planting procedures, and plant establrshment shall be taken rnto account The goal IS to have street trees that are planted approximately 30 feet apart, but not planted In sites that Will cause trees to a nUisance or rnterfere With nelghborrng utllrtles or eXlstrng vegetatIon .. ConclUSIon: As conditioned, the proposal meets the submIttal requirements of SDC 38030 " Tree Fellmg I ORC2007-00031 I I 1 I 6 SDC 38040 Tree Fellmg Standards The DIrector, In consultatIon wIth the Pubhc Works Director and the Fire ChIef shall approve, approve wIth condItIons or deny the request based on the standards of SDC 38.040 (1-8). ~ Tree Felling Standard I SDC 38 040 (I) Whether the condItIons of trees wIth respect to dISease, hazardous or unsafe condItIons, danger of failing, proXImIty to eXIsting structures or proposed constructIon, or Interference wIth utilIty servIces or pedestrian or vehIcular traffic safety warrants the proposed felling Flndrng: The applrcatlon does not Identify condItIons of trees with respect to disease, hazardous or unsafe conditions, danger of failing The applrcatlon states "The tree fellrng IS for a new subdivIsion Trees need to be removed for burldrng sites and the construction of the road" Flndrng Nrne of the trees proposed to be felled are located within the rrght of way and are rn the drrect path of the proposed street, therefore the fellrng IS warranted and IS consistent with SDC 38 040 (I) The trees to be felled from the future nght of way are Identified rn the apphcant's plan as S,ze In dbh SpecIes 36" oak 36" oak 6" cedar 12" cedar 28" oak 6" cedar 16" cedar 30" fir 24" cedar Flndrng: Two eXlstmg frUit trees are located adJacent to the proposed street nght of way and are within the zone where new street trees Will be requrred when the lots are developed City staff evaluated these trees and determrned that they are not acceptable street trees and thus must be removed by the apphcant The fellrng of these trees IS warranted by therr proximity to the proposed street and IS therefore consistent with SDC 38 040 (I) The trees are Identified rn the applrcant's plan as S,ze In dbh SpecIes locatIon 14" apple lot I 6" frUit lot 8 CondItIon 2: The 14" apple on lot I and the 6" frUit tree on Lot 8 as Identified as "save trees" In the applrcant's plan shall be felled by the applrcant. Finding. Two eXisting holly trees are located on lot I and are wlthrn the zone where new street trees Will be requrred when the lots are developed Crty staff evaluated these trees and determrned that they are not acceptable street trees and thus must be removed by the applrcant The fellrng of these trees IS warranted by their proximity to the proposed street and Tree Fellmg ORCl007-00031 Date Received Planner. AL 6J?/~1 , , 7 IS therefore conSistent with SDC 38040 (I) are Identified 10 the applrcant's plan as Ttie trees to be felled from the future rrght of way I S,ze In dbh SpecIes I LocatIon 6-12" holly lot I Anderson Lane frontage 6-12" holly lot I Anderson Lane frontage CondItIon 3: The two 6-12" holly trees along~ the Anderson Lane frontage of lot I which are depIcted 10 the applrcant's plans as "save trees" shall be felled by the applicant Frndlng: The applrcant proposes to retarn three mature oak trees along the Anderson Lane frontage of Lots II and 12 These trees are IdentIfied 10 the applrcant's plans as S,ze 10 dbh SpecIes LocatIon 36" oak lot I I Anderson Lane frontage 36" oak lot I I Anderson Lane frontage 36" oak lot 12 Anderson Lane frontage The City approves the retention of these trees as street trees CondItIon 4' The trees Identified 10 the applrcant's plan as 36" oaks along the Anderson Lane I frontage of lots II and 12 and/or other approprrate exlstrng street trees found 10 the Immediate vlcrnlty of the "Welcome to Sprrngfield" sign an? along the Centennral Boulevard frontage to be determrned at the requrred on-site meetrng sha!1 be retarned and counted as street trees for the Dove Estates SUbdiVIsIon The Land Drainage and AlteratIon permIt plan and publrc Improvement plan for Dove Estates SubdivIsion: shall depict all trees to be preserved and shall rnclude the followrng Tree PreservatIon Notes and Specifications from the Engineering DeSIgn Standards and Procedures Manual 6 02 to proVide rnformatlon necessary to protect the eXlstrng street trees . Surround the trees With a fence along the drrp Irne (edge of tree canopy) ThIS area shall be considered off limits to construction actiVIty . A warnrng sign shall be promrnently displayed on the fence The sIgn shall be a minimum of 8 5 rnches by II rnches and clearly state WARNING - Tree ProtectIon Zone- ThIS fence shall not be removed. , . Apply a four-lOch layer of chIps or mulch around the tree roots to prevent compaction of SOil where construction machrnery would cross the roots I . Prune all roots encountered durrng construction usrng sharp tools . Trrm low branches to prevent breakage I . DeSign Sidewalks of varrable WIdth, elevatIon, and drrectlon to help save an eXlstrng tree . Tunnel or bore for utility Installations rather than trenchrng around the trees In addition, the English 'VY shall be cut from thel base of trees and 'VY shall be removed by or under the supervISion of a trarned profeSSional : Since these treeS are located In or adjacent to the proposed publrc Utllrty easement (PUE) ple~se note that any utllrtles to be located 10 thiS PUE shall be rnstalled 10 manner consistent wlt~ tree preservation best management practices The City strongly encourages the applicant to rnclude an ISA-certlfied arborrst, landscape architect or ecological restoration speclalrst on 'the proJect development team to guarantee that thiS condition IS enforced I Fmdmg. The applrcant's plan proposes to save three additional trees which were Identified 10 SubdiVISion Condltlon'4 These trees are Ident:fied 10 the applrcant's plans as S,ze In dbh SpecIes I LocatIon 30" oak I I lot 5 New street frontage , Tree Fellmg ORCl007-00031 I I B 24" 4S" And one additional tree oak spruce lot 5 New street frontage lot 6 New street frontage S,ze In dbh SpecIes LocatIon 3S" oak lot 7 New street frontage at hammerhead Frndrng' The applrcant proposes to fell the followrng trees which are located In the rnterror of proposed lots S,ze In dbh SpecIes LocatIon (16) 6-12" hollies lots 1,2, and 3 S" apple lot I 10" maple lot 4 * plan not clear whether thIS tree IS to be saved 30" oak lot 5 36" oak lot 5 24" fir lot 6 16" fir lot 6 IS" cedar lot 6 36" oak lot 6 36" oak lot 7* plan not clear whether thIS tree IS to be saved 16" frUit lot 7 (2) IS" maples lot 7 (3) 10-16" maples lot 10 (4) 10-14" maples lot II NE corner 16" maple lot II (behind City sign) 36" fir lot I J (behrnd City sign) 12" maple lot II (behind City sign) 30" maple lot II SE corner (2) 12" maple lot II SE corner 36" oak lot 12 Felling of these rnterror Site trees Will be warranted as homes are constructed on the lots The proposed lot Sizes of these lots range from 4500 sq It to 6430 sq It and thus any trees located rn the portion of the lot rnslde the reqUired perrmeter setbacks would Irkely preclude development of the property With low DenSity Residential uses consistent WIth SDC ArtIcle 16 Therefore staff finds that the felling of the rnterror lot trees on lots 1,2, 3, 4, 5 6, 7, 10, II ~nd 12 IS reasonabJe and warranted by the proposed development. ConclUSion: As conditioned, the proposed tree fellrng IS consistent With SDC 3S 040 (I) Tree Felling Standard 2 SDC 3S 040 (2) Whether the proposed felling IS consIstent WIth State standards, Metro Plan polICIes and CIty ordinances and proVISIons affecting the environmental qualIty of the area, including but not limIted to, the protectIon of nearby trees and Windbreaks; WIldlIfe; erOSIon, SOIl retentIon and stabilIty, volume of surface runoff and water qualIty of streams; scenic qualIty; and geologIcal SItes Tree Fellmg ORG007-00031 Date Received' Planner AL 6/;,/.$tJOl / I 9 Frndrng: The eXlstrng trees provide extensive tree canopy at the site which currently protects I sorl from erosion, and retarns precipitation to r7duce runoff The trees provide scenic qualrty and habitat for wlJdlrfe Staff performed a visual analysIs of the property and noted that the site I contarns an unusual abundance of herrtage qualrty trees The applrcant IS encouraged to retarn as I many of these valuable herrtage trees as possible to enhance the value of development and to retarn the Important functions of these trees I EROSION PROTECTION, SOIL RETENTION AND STABILITY VOLUME OF SURFACE RUN-OFF AND WATER QUALITY OF STREAMS I Flndrng: The site Will be sublect to landscape alsturbance and changes In land cover as It IS I converted to more rntenslve urban uses The loss of tree canopy can be replaced over time as new replacement trees mature I Finding: The proposed fellrng Will rnltlally rncrease the amount and rate of surface runoff when canopy IS removed I Flndrng' As part of the SubdiVISion Tentative Plan review process, the City requrres the I applrcant to submit a stormwater management plan for the development area The plan must meet City deSign standards for control of stormwater quantity and quality I Finding: The activity of mechanical removal of the trees has the potential to disturb SOil The I activities associated With the tree fellrng must be performed In accordance With City codes to I protect, retain and stabilize sorl durrng construction I Condition 5: The applrcant shall obtarn Land Drarnage and Alteration Permit approval from I Sprrngfield Public Works Englneerrng prror to removal of the trees All fellrng activities, rncludlng I rngress and egress for the loggrng operations, shall rnclude erOSion control measures rn I conformance With the Englneenng DeSIgn Standards and Procedures Manual All felling and I removal activities shall be performed In a manner which avoids site Impacts, Includrng but not I Irmlted to sorl compaction around trees to be preserved, SOil compaction rn the root zones of trees on nelghborrng properties, and damage to trunks of trees to be preserved Any sorl and I debns tracked rnto the street by vehicles and eqUipment leavrng the site shall be cleaned up With I shovels rn a timely manner and not washed Into the storm drarn system [SDC 38040(2)] IMPACTS TO WILDLIFE HABITAT Finding: local effects of tree loss can be at least partially mitigated by on-site replantrng, but I the abllrty to marntarn contIguous stands that c'imserve wlldlrfe habitat value may be severely Irmlted, especially on small urban parcels level of disturbance may also degrade habitat value I Finding: Tree retention, new street trees ana trees planted by new home owners Will create I canopy for brrds and other wlldlrfe as they mature TREE RETENTION I FindIng: Tree retention retains habitat for urban wrldlrfe, protect SOils from erOSion, rntercepts I and retarns rainfall to reduce the volume and rate of stormwater runoff, and enhances scenic qualrty The applrcant proposes to retarn trees:on lots 4,5,6,7, II and 12 Two or more addItional trees to be saved as street trees along Centennial Boulevard may be discovered at the I on-site meeting requrred by Condition I The applrcant IS encouraged to save additional trees Tree Fellmg ORCl007-00031 10 which Will fall wlthrn or proximate to setbacks, at least untrl the homes are designed and constructed ConclusIon: As conditioned, the tree felling proposal IS consistent with State standards, Metro Plan poliCIes and CIty ordrnances and provIsions affecting the environmental qualrty of the area As conditioned, the tree felling proposal meets Tree Fellrng Standard 2 Tree Felling Standard 3 SDC 38040 (3) Whether It IS necessary to remove trees m order to construct proposed Improvements m accordance WIth an approved development plan, gradmg permIts and constructIon draWings Finding: The applrcant has an approved development plan for the subJect property (SUB2006- 00066) Flndrng The construction of publrc Improvements to serve the development of the property requires the removal of trees wlthrn the drrect path or proximate to proposed construction ConclUSIon' It IS necessary to remove trees rn order to construct proposed Improvements rn accordance With an approved development plan Grading permits and construction drawrngs must be consistent With this deCISion The proposed tree fellrng IS consistent With SDC 38 040 (3) Tree Felhng Standard 4 SDC 38040 (4) In the event that no development plan has been approved by the CIty, fellmg of trees shall be permItted on a lImIted baSIS conSIstent WIth the preservatIon of the SIte's future development potentIal as prescrIbed In the Metro Plan and CIty development regulatIons, and conSIstent WIth the follOWing cntena Frndrng: The applrcant has an approved development plan for the subJect property (SUB2006- 00066) Finding. At the time of this deCISion, the applrcant has Tentative Plan approval only Publrc Improvement plans have nOt been submitted The City has no assurance that the subdiVISion Improvements Will be constructed or that requrred revegetation Will be planted CondItIon 6: To ensure that the applrcant Will prOVIde revegetation rn conformance With this deCISion, tree fellrng shall not commence until after Publrc Improvement Plan approval and receipt of a bond from the developer for the requrred street trees ConclUSIon' As conditioned, the Tree Felling Standard of SDC 38040 (4) has been met Tree Felling Standard 5 SDC 38 040 (5) Whether the applicant's proposed replanting of new trees or vegetatIon IS an adequate substItute for the trees to be felled SDC 38030 (2) states that an applrcatlon for a permit to fell trees shall Include "A descroptlon of any plan (VegetatIon and Re-vegetatlon Report) to replace, landscape, or Tree Fellmg ORCl007-0003 J Date Received Planner AL t/;'~"7 I / II otherwise reduce the effect of the felhng that addresses the apphcable standards In SectIon 38.040." I PROPOSED REPLACEMENT PLANTING/REVEGETfTlON Flndrng The applrcatlon did not Include a revegetatIon plan The applrcant states that "Street trees shall be planted per City'S requrrements "I The City'S street tree standards and the Irst of approved street trees species are found In the Engineering DesIgn Standards and Procedures Man'ual, chapter 6 601 states 'The purpose of I creating design standards for street trees IS to ensure that City streets are Irned With healthy, I vigorous trees chosen for therr aesthetiCS according to type and speCies, and planted rn I approprrate locations SUitable to VISion clearance and overhead obstructions, whrle minimizing root damage to utllrtles, curbs, and Sidewalks ~ well-deSigned street tree layout Will promote a pleaSing Image of the City and appreciate the value of the neighborhood" I Engineering DesIgn Standards and Procedures Manual 6 02 2 states "Where curbSide Sidewalks eXist or are proposed, street trees shall be planted at least five feet back of Sidewalk, but not more than 10 feet" SDC 32050 (I) states New street trees shall be at least 2 Inches rn caliper. New 1 street trees shall be selected from the CIty Street Tree LIst and Installed as specIfied In the CIty'S Engoneerlng DeSIgn Standards Manual. The Pubhc Works Director shall determine which specIes aie permItted or prohIbIted as street trees Finding: Street trees are requrred to accomp,,;ny aU new development In the City of Springfield The apphcant's subdIVIsion plans did not Include a street tree proposal Proposed I lots I, II and 12 have frontage on Anderson Lane Proposed lots I, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 have frontage on the new street servrng the sulldlvlslon (referred to as "Dove Lane" rn the subdiVISion plans) Proposed lots 7, 8, 9, 10 and II have frontage on Centennial Boulevard I FindIng. Condition 5 of the applrcant's SubdiVISion Tentative Plan Notice of Decision requires I the public Improvement plans to Include a street tree proposal which provides street trees that I are planted approximately 30 feet apart EXlstrng trees which have been evaluated pursuant to Condition 5 and found to be acceptable by the publrc Works Drrector's authorrzed I representative shall be counted as street trees and shall be protected durrng construction In I accordance With best management practices and Engineering DesIgn Standards and Procedures Manual 6 02 I The requrred 2" calrper size str~et trees shall be Installed 5-10 feet behind the I Sidewalk, In accordance With the Engineering DesIgn Standards and Procedures Manual Additional \ street trees may be requrred at bUlldrng permit reView, when drrveway locations are proposed All trees shall be large canopy species trees sel~cted from the "Planter Strrps 8-12 feet" Irst In the Engineering DesIgn Standards and Procedures Manual, chapter 6 Trees shall be Installed prror to Plat approval or bonded InstallatIon shall b~ as specified rn the Crty's Engineering DesIgn Standards Manual Finding. As conditioned, the applrcant's subdiVISion publrc Improvement plans WIU provIde I street trees In accordance With SDC 32050 and the Engineering DesIgn Standards and Procedures I Manual, chapter 6 and shall provide for tree preservation of eXlstrng street trees to be retarned I Frndlng Street trees provide canopy shade, sorl retention, rarnfalllnterceptlon and absorption I of preCipitation to reduce stormwater runoff, and provide sceniC amenity Preservation of Tree FellIng , c ORClOOHJ0031 12 eXisting street trees and planting of new street trees Will retain some of the functions and values of the eXlstrng tree canopy cover and replace new tree canopy over time CRITERIA USED TO EVALUATE THE REPLACEMENT PLANTING PROPOSAL SDC Article 38 040 (5) does not establrsh the reVIew cnterra to be used to evaJuate replacement plantrng proposals to determrne whether they prOVide "an adequate substitute for the trees to be felled" The SDC does not establrsh tree replacement formulas or revegetation requrrements The SDC does not define tree replacement, revegetatIon or mitigatIon Therefore, staff relres on Urban Forestry Best Practices to provide gUidance In revlewrng mitigation/revegetation proposals to determrne whether replantrng proposals are adequate, conslderrng the context of the tree fellrng and the proposed use of the property Srnce trees prOVide many valuable benefits rn the urban envrronment, trees are requrred for new developments rn the City of Sprrngfield, rn accordance With SDC Articles 31 and 32 MITIGATION Finding: Replanting of trees on-site IS a mitIgation measure which Will prevent the net loss of tree canopy or forest type from a Site Over the short term, the proposed felling Will reduce tree canopy on the SIte The planting of replacement trees has the potentia' to prevent long- term net loss If . Mitigation ratio IS at least I successful new tree for each tree removed . Replacement species have similar mature canopy spread . Replantrng or natural regeneration malntarns the mitigation plantrng rn perpetuity (Mitigating for Tree Loss, Phytosphere com) Flndrng. In general, on-Site replanting does not mitIgate for loss of mature canopy over the short term (e g not until new plantrngs mature) Frndrng. In general, on-SIte replantrng does not mItigate for aesthetic Impacts aSSOCiated With the loss of mature trees over the short term Finding: In general, on-site replantrng does not mitigate for loss of habitat values associated With mature trees over the short term New plantrngs do have habitat values, but these typically differ from those values associated With mature trees and stands Finding: In general, on-site replantrng usually reduces age diverSity of a woodland or grove Plantrngs of new landscaping and street trees typically give rrse to even-age stands Finding: The applrcant proposes to fell more than 54 trees plus arborvitae and additional trees along Centennial Boulevard Frndlng. As proposed and as approved rn thiS deCISion, at least 19 mature canopy trees Will be retarned on the 2 I acre subJect property Finding. Street tree quantity and placement requrrements Will be determrned followrng submittal of publrc Improvement plans and at bUIlding permit review Street trees are requrred at 30-foot Intervals, With adJustment for driveways, Finding At a ratIo of I I for each tree felled, 54+ trees would be necessary to prOVide a I mitigation ratio Assuming one new street tree per lot, approximately 14 new street trees would hkely be requrred The requrred replantrng of new street trees Will not prevent the net Tree Fellmg ORCl007-0003/ Date Received Planner AL 6/1f/2AJ7 I /3 loss of tree canopy from this site, but considering that this property IS designated and zoned for residential development, and also conslderrng the applrcant's proposal to retain 19 mature trees, I the proposal as conditioned will provide for an adequate substitute for the trees to be felled The criterion of SDC 38040 (5) has been met ConcluSIon: Tree Fellrng Standard of SDC 38040 (5) has been met I Tree Felling Standard 6 SDC 38040 (6) Whether slash left on the property poses SIgnificant fire hazard or lIabIlity to the CIty I I CondItIon 7' Trees and slash shall be removea Within 72 hours of fellrng [SDC 38040 (6)] I ConclUSIon: As conditioned, the Tree Felling Standard of SDC 38040 (6) has been met I Tree Felling Standard 7 , SDC 38 040 (7) Whether the felling IS consIStent with the gUIdelines set forth In the FreId GUIde to Oregon Forest PractIces Rules publIShed by the Oregon Department of Forestry I as they apply to the northwest Oregon regr~n I Srnce the reforestation stockrng standards given rn the Forest Practices Reforestation Rules are I deSigned for commercial timberlands, not urban development, and were established to assure I contrnuous growrng and harvestrng of forest tree species and the continued productIVIty and I stabllrzatlon of sorls, the reforestation portion of Felling Standard 7 IS not applrcable I ConclUSIon As conditioned, the Tree Felling Standard of SDC 38040 (7) has been met I (8) Whether transportatIon of eqUIpment to and eqUIpment and trees from the SIte can I be accomplIShed wrthout a maJor dlSturban~e to nearby reSIdents I CondItIon 8' All fellrng and buckrng shall occur between the hours of 8AM and SPM Monday I through Saturday to Irmlt nOise Impacts to the neighbors The Applrcant shall notify the City I Planner at the Development Services Department 5 days prror to commencement of the felling activity [SDC 38 040 (8)] I ConclUSion: As conditioned, the Tree Felling Standard of SDC 38 040 (8) has been met. I ' CONCLUSION: Conslderrng these findings 'i'f fact, the proposed tree felling, as conditioned through thiS deCISion, Will be rn conformance With the applrcable cnterla of Springfield Development Code Article 38 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The followrng summary of conditions are the mrnlmum I necessary to ensure that the proposed tree felling Will be In conformance With the approval criteria of Sprrngfield Development Code Article 38 CondItion I: Prior to PIP approval, Issuance if a Land Drainage and Alteration permit and prror to fell 109 any Irve trees 5" dbh (diameter it breast height) or larger from the subJect property. the applrcant shall clearly mark With s~rvey tape.El! of the Irve trees 5" dbh (diameter Tree Felling ORC2007-00031 14 at breast height) or larger proposed to be felled The applrcant shall arrange an on-SIte meetrng With the City planner and other City staff as deemed necessary by the planner to review the proposed tree felhng and to determine whether eXisting trees along Centennial Boulevard may be retarned as street trees Tree retention shall be consistent With the City's Engineering DesIgn Standards and Procedures Manual, chapter 6 After the on-site meetrng, the City may requrre the applrcant to proVide a Frnal Tree Felling Plan to provide a clear, accurate Tree Felhng plan for the record CondItIon 2' The 14" apple on Lot I and the 6" frUit tree on lot 8 as Identified as "save trees" In the applrcant's plan shall be felled by the applrcant CondItIon 3: The two 6-12" holly trees along the Anderson lane frontage of lot I which are depicted In the applrcant's plans as "save trees" shall be felled by the applrcant CondItIon 4: The trees Identified In the apphcant's plan as 36" oaks along the Anderson lane frontage of lots II and 12 and/or other approprrate eXlstrng street trees found rn the Immediate vlcrnlty of the "Welcome to Sprrngfield" sign and along the Centennial Boulevard frontage to be determrned at the requrred on-site meetrng shall be retarned and counted as street trees for the Dove Estates subdiVISion The Land Drainage and Alteration permit plan and publrc Improvement plan for Dove Estates SubdiVISion shall depict all trees to be preserved and shall rnclude the followrng Tree Preservation Notes and Specifications from the Engineering DesIgn Standards and Procedures Manual 6 02 to provide rnformatlon necessary to protect the eXlstrng street trees . Surround the trees With a fence along the drrp Irne (edge of tree canopy) ThiS area shall be consIdered off Irmlts to construction activity . A warnrng sign shall be promrnently displayed on the fence The sign shall be a mrnlmum of 8 5 rnches by II rnches and clearly state WARNING - Tree ProtectIon Zone- ThIS fence shall not be removed . Apply a four-lOch Jayer of chips or mulch around the tree roots to prevent compaction of SOil where constructron machrnery would cross the roots . Prune all roots encountered durrng construction uSing sharp tools . Trrm low branches to prevent breakage . DeSign Sidewalks of varrable Width, elevation, and drrectlon to help save an eXisting tree . Tunnel or bore for Utllrty Installations rather than trenchrng around the trees In addition, the Englrsh 'VY shall be cut from the base of trees and 'VY shall be removed by or under the supervision of a trarned profeSSional Since these trees are located rn or adjacent to the proposed publrc Utllrty easement (PUE) please note that any utllrtles to be located 10 thiS PUE shall be rnstalled rn manner consistent With tree preservation best management practices The City strongly encourages the applrcant to rnclude an ISA-certlfied arborrst, landscape architect or ecologICal restoration speclalrst on the proJect development team to guarantee that thiS condition IS enforced CondItIon 5: The apphcant shall obtarn land Drarnage and Alteration Permit approval from Sprrngfield Publrc Works Engrneerrng prror to removal of the trees All felling activIties, Including Ingress and egress for the loggrng operations, shall rnclude erosion control measures rn conformance With the Engineering DeSIgn Standards and Procedures Manual All fellrng and removal aCtivities shall be performed rn a manner which aVOids site Impacts, rncludlng but not Irmlted to sod compaction around trees to be preserved, sorl compaction rn the root zones of trees on neighboring properties, and damage to trunks of trees to be preserved Any sod and Tree Fellmg ORCl007-00031 Date Received Planner AL 1),I.7od7 I I 15 debris tracked Into the street by vehicles and equipment leaving the site shall be cleaned up With shovels In a timely manner and not washed rntolthe storm drarn system [SDC 38040(2)] Condition 6: To ensure that the applrcant Will, provide revegetation rn conformance With this deCISion, tree felling shall not commence until after Publrc Improvement Plan approval and I receipt of a bond from the developer for the requrred street trees I CondItIon 7: Trees and slash shall be removed Within 72 hours of felling [SDC 38040 (6)] I CondItIon 8: All fellrng and buckrng shall occur between the hours of 8AM and SPM Monday I through Saturday to Irmlt nOise Impacts to the neighbors The Applrcant shall notrfy the City I Planner at the Development Services Department 5 days prror to commencement of the felling activity [SDC 38 040 (8)] I ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The applrCatlOn, all documents, and eVidence relred upon I by the applrcant, and the applrcable crrterra of approval are avarlable for free rnspectlon and I copies are available at a cost of $0 75 for the first page and $0 50 for each additional page at the I Development Services Department, 225 Fifth Street, Sprrngfield, Oregon APPEALS; If you Wish to appeal thIS Tree Fellrng Approval, a Type 1\ limited land Use deCISIon, your applrcatlon must comply With SDC Artlcle IS,/>iPPEAlS Appeals must be submitted on a City form and a fee of $250 00 must be paid to the ~Ity at the time of submittal The fee Will be , returned to the appellant If the Plannrng Commission approves the appeaJ application In accordance With SDC 15020 which provides for a 15 day appeal perrod and Oregon Rules of C,v,l Procedures, Rule 10(c) for service of notice by mall, the appeal perrod for thiS deCISion exprres at 5'00 p.m. on July 5, 2007. NOTE: The applrcant shall not commence anYI construction activities on the site Without an approved Land Drainage and Alteration PermIt approved by City Publrc Works Department. I QUESTIONS Please contact lrnda Pauly Wltp the Development Services Department at (541) 726-4608 If you have any questions regardrng thiS process PREPARED BY: lrnda Pauly Planner 3 (541) 726-4608 .t-,- ~' Tree Feflmg " ORCl007-0003/ 16 iJEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DEPARTMENT 225 FIFTH STREET SPRINGFIELD OR 97477 " IIJ - B T DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DEPARTMENT 225 FIFTH STREET SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 Clrr1JlVo.::lrlCl..J...J, \../11 .:JI....." Dave Colller 75506 Blue Mountaln School Rd Cottage Grove, OR 97424 Vern Benson 940 Hlghway Eugene, OR 99N 97402 Kevln and Suzanne Zerby 1444 Wlmbledon Place Sprlngfleld, OR 97477 ~ ~l ,.) "6 Date Received Planner AL 6}~7 I I