HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecision Planner 12/13/2021D,Lutrm
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
STATE OF OREGON )
) ss.
County of Lane )
l, Shannon Morris, being first duly sworn, do hereby depose and say as follows:
1. I state that I am an Administrative Specialist for the Planning Division
of the Development and Public Works Department, City of Springfield,
Oregon.
2. I state that in my capacity as inistrative ialist, I prepare.d and
caused to be mailed copies of
(See attachment "A") on
l>t e-p IA 2021 addressed to (see tAttachment "B"), by
causing said letters to be placed in a U.S. mail box with postage fully
prepaid thereon.
Shannon Morris
STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane
Deceubcr l?+h ,2021, Personally appeared the above named Shannon
Morris, Administrative Specialist, who acknowledged the foregoing instrument
to be their voluntary act. Before me:
u/6;-.x. OFFICIAL STAMP(,,"ffi) - r,it"|t Hr.oJmI -\WZ coMMrssroN No. e84347
- MY C0MlvllSSlON EXPIRES MARCH 18, 2023
,-l I tro,' /A U\"f o*r"[-
My Commission Expires:l.,tarCl tt )0/1
*)rt ll,t
SPRINGFIELD
TYPE II TREE FELLING PERMIT
STAFF REPORT & DECISION
OREGON
Case Number:
8l l-21-000274-TYP2
Project Name:
Mountaingate 2'd Addition - Lots 163 & 164
Retroactive Tree Felling Permit
Nature of Application:
The applicant submitted a tree felling application to
formalize the removal of approximately 20 trees.
Project Location:
Map 18-02-03-10; TLs 5000 & 5100
Zoningz
Low Density Residential (LDR)
Comprehensive Plan Designation :
Low Density Residential (LDR)
Application Submitted:
October 14,2021
Decision Date:
December 13,2021
Appeal Deadline:
December 27,2021
Associated Applications: Building Permit, 811-21-002421-DWL; LDAP 8l l-21-000438-PW
APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM
POSITION REVIEW OF NAME
Project Manager Planning Andrew Larson 54t-736-t003
Transportation Planning Transportation Michael Liebler
Public Works Engineer Utilities Clayton McEachern 54t-736-1036
Deputy Fire Marshal Fire and Life Safety Eric Phillips-Meadow s4t-726-2293
Building Official Building Chris Carpenter 541-744-4153
Site Information: The subject properties are in Mountaingate Subdivision Second Addition at the intersection of
South 66th Place and South 66th Court. The site is 0.56 acres and are in the Hillside Development Overlay. There is
a l0' wide slope and public utility easement along the frontage of each lot. northern boundary and adjacent to
Dogwood Street. Lot 163 is currently vacant, and Lot 164 has been issued a building permit for a new dwelling.
Applicant:
Denick Westover
Bruce Wiechert Custom Homes
3073 Skyview
Eugene, OR 97405
Applicant's Representative:
N/A
Attachment A
i
a
{t!
,|
I
E
il
PHONE
54r-736-t034
This area, including these two lots, were subject to an illegal Tree Felling operation during the late spring of 2021
The previous owner, Gene Gramzow, and the current owner of these lots were notified in writing on October 7,
2021 statingthat the City would not issue any building permit in the subject area until the necessary Tree Felling
Permits were obtained.
DECISION: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS. The standards of the Springfield Development Code
(SDC) applicable to each criterion of Tree Felling Approval are listed herein and are satisfied by the
submitted plans unless specifically noted with findings and conditions necessary for compliance. This is a
limited land use decision made according to City code and state statutes. Unless appealed, the decision is
Iinal. Please read this document carefully.
OTHER USES AUTHORIZED BY THE DECISION: None. Future development must be in accordance with
the provisions of the Springfield Development Code and all applicable local, state and federal regulations.
REVIEW PROCESS: This application is reviewed under Type II procedures listed in Springfield Development
Code Section 5.1-130 and Tree Felling standards of SDC 5.19-100.
Procedural Finding: Staff reviewed the plan diagrams and supporting information outlining the requested tree
felling and replacement. City staff s review comments have been reduced to findings and conditions only as
necessary for compliance with the Tree Felling Criteria of SDC 5.19-125 .
Procedural Finding: Applications for Limited Land Use Decisions require the notification of property
owners/occupants within 300 feet of the subject property allowing for a 14 day comment period on the application,
in accordance with SDC 5.1-130. The applicant and parties submitting written comments during the notice period
have appeal rights and are mailed a copy of this decision for consideration (see Written Comments below and
Appeals at the end of this decision).
Procedural Finding: Notification was sent to property owners/occupants within 300 feet in accordance with the
SDC on November 4, 2021 . No written comments or phone calls were received.
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL:
Springfield Development Code 5.19-125
The Director, in consultation with the Fire Chief must approve, approve with conditions or deny the request based
on the following standards.
A. Whether the conditions of the trees with respect to disease, hazardous or unsafe conditions, danger of
falling, proximity to existing structures or proposed construction, or interference with utility services or
pedestrian or vehicular traffic safety warrants the proposed felling.
Applicant's Submittal: "We purchased lots 163 and 164 Mountaingate Subdivision from Gene Gramzo. The
lots and trees are currently in the same condition as when we purchased. We had no part in removing or
clearing any tress. We are trying to work with the City to come to a remedy for the previous owners' actions.
It would appear from the aerial phots that at one time there were approximately 9-l I trees on the lot [64].
There are currently four oak trees on the lot which need to be removed for construction of the home and
installation of utilities. We would like to propose 6-8 replacement trees be planted on the lot prior to issuance of
certifi cate of occupancy.
It would appear that there were between 10-14 trees on this lot at one time. There is currently one oak tree on
this lot. Due to the location of the current tree, I believe it will need to be removed for construction of the
home. We would propose 6-8 replacement tree be planted on this lot.
2
811-21-000274-TYP2
Replacement trees would be of approved Mountaingate species. These are trees that grow to be quite large. It
would be hard to plant more than this with appropriate distance from each other and the house."
Finding: This area, including these two lots, was subject to a felling operation without the necessary Tree
Felling Permit required by Springfield Development Code (SDC 5.19-100). Staff notified the previous owner
and current owners of the lots on October 7,2021. The notice stated that no building permit would be issued
until the necessary approvals were obtained from the City of Springfield.
Finding: The applicant has stated that there are four oak trees on Lot 164 and one oak free on Lot 163 that must
be removed to construct residential dwellings. The applicant's submitted site plans confirms that the home
placement and remaining trees must be removed.
Conclusion: As submitted, the trees proposed for removal are in conformance with this criterion.
B. 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 streamsl scenic quality; and geological sites.
Finding: The Springfield Development Code (SDC) is the primary implementing ordinance for environmental
protection policies contained inthe Eugene-Springlield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan\. SDC
Article 5.19-100 - Tree Felling Standards generally implements environmental protection policies of the Meu'o
Plan for the subject property.
Finding: The area subject to the tree felling request is inside the Urban Growth Boundary ruGB) and City
limits and is therefore subject to Springfield land use jurisdiction.
Finding: The applicant's submiffal, as confirmed by staff, states that many of the trees have been removed
without the necessary tree felling permit. The remaining trees are within an urbanized residential area and are
not considered commercial timber.
Conclusion: As submitted, the trees proposed for removal are in conformance with this criterion.
C. Whether it is necessary to remove trees in order to construct proposed improvements as specified in an
approved development plan, grading permits and construction drawings.
Finding: The applicant has submitted a building permit on Lot 164 and Lot 163 will be submitted soon. The
proposed tree feeling is necessary to construct future residential development.
Conclusion: As submitted, the trees proposed for removal are in conformance with this criterion.
D. 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 preservation of the site's future development potential as
prescribed in the Metro Plan and City development regulations, and consistent with the following
criteria:
1. Wooded areas associated with natural drainage ways and water areas shall be retained to preserve
riparian habitat and to minimize erosionl
2. Wooded areas that will likely provide attractive on-site views to occupants of future developments
shall be retained;
3. Wooded areas along ridge lines and hilltops shall be retained for their scenic and wildlife valuel
3
8l l-21-000274-TYP2
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 wind
throw; and
6. Large-scale clear-cuts ofdevelopable areas shall be avoided to retain the wooded character offuture
building sites, and so preserve housing and design options for future City residents.
Finding: The subject property is subject to residential development and the removal of the trees is necessary.
Conclusion: As submitted, this criterion is not applicable.
E. Whether the applicant's proposed replanting of new trees or vegetation is an adequate substitute for the
trees to be felled.
Applicant's Submittal: "Replacement trees would be of the approved Mountaingate species. These are trees
that grow to be quite large. If would be hard to plant more than this [6-8 per lot] with appropriate distance from
each other and the house."
Finding: The applicant has proposed to replant six to eight replacement trees on each lot and would be chosen
from identified native species in the Mountaingate Subdivision CC&Rs. The CC&Rs identiff Douglas-fir,
bigleaf maple, grand fir, Oregon white oak, ponderosa pine and incense cedar as the primary trees within the
Mountain gate area.
Finding: The replanting plan indicates approximate location of the trees to be planted but does not identi$ the
species. The applicant must submit a suitable replanting plan indicating the species of each tree to be replanted;
six trees is the minimum required.
Staffnote: These trees do not need to line the property lines as proposed; the applicant may clump trees
together in desired locatiotrs to more accurately iimulate a naturai forest area.
Condition of Approval: Prior to planting the replacement trees on each lot, the applicant must submit a
replanting plan for each lot showing the location and type oftrees being planted to ensure that the trees
selected are native to Mountaingate area.
Conclusion: As conditioned, this criterion has been met.
F. Whether slash left on the property poses significant lire hazard or liability to the City.
Finding: Where necessary, removal of slash reduces fire hazards and prevents debris and sediment from being
deposited into drainage courses and stormwater drains. The applicant stated on sheet TR-l that the felled trees
will be removed from the site and erosion control measures will be implemented.
Finding: Removal of the trees, stumps, woody material, and debris from the site significantly reduce the fire
hazard liability on the site. The site has been cleared of most of the trees, stumps, and slash from the previous
illegal tree felling and the applicant will remove the remaining trees, stumps, and slash post tree felling on the
lots.
Conclusion: As submitted, the trees proposed for removal are in conformance with this criterion.
G. 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.
4
8l l-21-000274-TYP2
Finding: The site that is subject to the tree felling request is within the Springfield UGB and City limits and is
considered within existing urban development. For this reason, the proposed tree removal does not rise to the
level of a regulated timber harvest or commercial logging operation. Therefore, the action is governed by the
applicable provisions of the Springfield Development Code. However, the applicant and their licensed tree
removal contractor will need to follow State forestry guidelines for safe operations and fire prevention during
the removal of trees, slash and debris approved under this permit.
Conclusion: As submitted, the trees proposed for removal are in conformance with this criterion.
H. Whether transportation of equipment to and equipment and trees from the site can be accomplished
without a major disturbance to nearby residents.
Finding: Staff observes there are residential dwellings immediately adjacent to the proposed tree felling area.
The tree removal activity is a short-term step necessary to prepare the site for future house construction and is
not out of character with typical construction activities in the area. Therefore, staff finds that the activity will
not create a conspicuous change to the traffic patterns for the area and the proposed tree felling should not
constitute an trnusual or adverse impact to the neighborhood.
Conclusion: As submitted, the trees proposed for removal are in conformance with this criterion.
CONCLUSION AIT[D DECISION:
SUMMARY OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
l. Prior to planting the replacement trees on each lot, the applicant must submit a replanting plan for each lot
showing the location and type oftrees being planted to ensure that the trees selected are native to
Mountaingate area.
The above findings and conclusions demonstrate that the proposal meets the standards of SDC 5.19-125 for Tree
Felling Permit Approval. This written decision constitutes approval the Tree Felling Permit.
The following general construction practices apply when tree felling is initiated on site:
Notification shall be provided to the City at least 5 days prior to commencement of the tree felling
operation. Please contact Andrew Larson at 541-736-1003 (direct) or by email: alarson@springfield-
or. so\'.
All felling activities, including ingress and egress for the tree removal operations, shall include erosion
control measures in conformance with the City's Engineering Design Standards and Practices Manual.
All felling and removal activities shall be performed in a manner that avoids ground disturbance and soil
compaction extending beyond the established point of access to the tree felling area.
Any soil and 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 into drainage channels or the public stormwater system
lsDC 5.19-l2sl.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The application and documents relied upon by the applicant, and the applicable criteria of approval are available for
a free inspection at the Development Services Department,225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon. Copies of the
documents will be made for $0.75 for the first page and $0.50 for each additional page.
APPEAL
If you wish to appeal the decision of approval, you must do so by 5:00 PM on December 27,2021. Your appeal
must be submitted in accordance with the Springfield Development Code, Article 15, APPEALS. Note: Appeals
a
o
a
a
5
8l l-21-000274-TYP2
must be submitted on a City form and a fee of $250.00 must be paid to the City at the time of submittal. The fee
will be returned to the appellant if the Planning Commission approves the appeal application.
lf you have any questions regarding these matters, please call (541) 736-1003 or send an email to:
aIarson(Zrsorinsheld-or. sov.
6
811-21-000274-TYP2
,.'+.-+o)
C)
-J3(D
=F+
G
iH"#*I
Dwrt
CITY OF SPRINGFIETD
DEVELOPMENT & PUBUC WORKS225 srh st
spRrNGFrELq oigtttz
bvvoc
q-Wslo\n(
bme V)kry,*yqWv 0)slw Fffruxo^)
0,r lorq1