Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotice PLANNER 2/7/2008 , I ? '..... ..... >- , AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE cf\~ 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 Departm~nt, City of Sprin~field, Oregon. 2. I state that in my capacity as, Program Technician, I prepared and caused to be . , mailed copies of ::Mc..Z008-oooo<j- NoTl<~...af-De.cls}oIl/~e.&.I.liN2/ LTD//Ej~1eW....,~ (See attachment "An) on ;)../1 .2008 addressed toJ(see Attachment Bn), by causing said . letters to be placed in a U.S. m'ilil box with postage fully prepaid thereon. 1<tJ fl f) AI\: _ ;:AfJ'- -1e.v . , KA~N LaFLEU-R j , . STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane r0b. l' , .').(:JIJ 1\ ,2008. Personally appeared the above named Karen LaFleur, Program Technician, who acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary act Before me: ' , .-;- ';-'~l" ~-- ' ~'-'-' ,OFFICIALSEAL I'}"-= BRENDA JONES ' ( NOTARHUBLlC.. OREGON '. ' COMMISSION NO, 379218 . ,'~y~o~~.~~~!.!:~~~~.~.~:~~. /J1ln/~W' My Commission Expires: ~ n, daJ ( . .~ Datfl n?ceived' Planner: AL 217~r / I t~, TYPE II TREE FELLING PERMIT STAFF REPORT & DECISION Case Number: DRC20OB-00004' Project Name: L TD Gateway Mall Station Tree Felling Permit Nature of Application: The applicant submitted a tree felling application necessary for removing 28 trees from parking lot islands and a planter strip along Gateway Street (generally between Roadhouse ,Grill and Umpqua Bank) Project Location: 3000 Gateway Street (Map 17-03-23-00, TL 2200 & 2300) Zoning: Community Commercial (CC) Metro Plan Designation: CC Application Date: January 15, 2008 Decision Date: February 7, 2008 Appeal Deadline: February 22, 2008 i>~:F}'jt\t:::.;:;:: . ",' .::L:"':',i ~'ii , ;./:~~ "".' .," L"l,f.!.l j ~j'll"L" i r-.::~ 0<........" /l.'!'fill,j '<\' ~ , ri,pt"1. ': ,.._,~~_:~~'Q;,t j~j,,,: ,/ ':', " r"" i :i'f ! :I ".. ,T~ansit~iatf '~I..:.:::t'Jl-9akdal '.;~';~' ~.J n!fi' -..>iN i,:~,\.<.,:,~~il i~l"'/~V:~" ! .~ it ~:~}1 't '~;~;:' ':;ui-ee,"';: I !~p,'&'1~ ~ '. ~'.. . .. ".,,' I" i.' ""\ . .. trees~/ ,., ~ ".'~Af~W~yT~/':';:;~;;': \:""",,'; IF 1'[ ':~ ',~", :,'t~fI2 rip',:,,";'''';:-/> ,j ',.', , 1 .; .,' "".' I 'j"" "'.' .,'.. ' 1-' , "l!!!!1" ,_,j ..:,1.... ...,' 'i'" ". . " \ ,.'.y- . , ._._, I': " ;~".....~i!'!!'f t:,": ' Qj'-I"'i', ,(I !~rW;-~- 'j ~'I;-_'f~i"'ff' ,:'._, ~'-':'_ij" !~~':;:t."~'V :-,:. ,,' ' . _' ,I' ,_, .. i.' I .' , ,5"- .,..... " ...,,;," en. "A"')" ",I, <<p" ,.' "';,, .' ". "",~$' : :,,1"""&':'.."'" . . #".. "i"><" w" DB -~.. i'iJ.':'+s'~~i ' ;.';",";'-".'!:c,,::'1j1g!: .; ". .!'!! Ii;!!' .;4,v .trees..",,,,.~~7I;;. .,,,,,,,,f.tl>:,,i'" I' ~"."ci, 'oo .-.JF.. ,..>;.' . ,"\ ''''.'.' "..j.''''.-''; m,'1 ,..; 'f'''''''-;'):;''~: .~:~.: t,~.,'J .. ":c~1C~.< ,< l ,<,...., "',.iil. -, P.l'll'" . l";':~ \)-. Associated Applications: ZON2007-00025; PRE2007-00082; DRC2007:00081 ~j;f , ","il..~: ,.."81 APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM . Denotes regulated tree proposed for removal Owner Representative: Ron Glover General Growth Properties Inc. 3000 Gateway Street Springfield OR 97477 Applicant: Stefano' Viggiano Lane Transit District 3500 E. 17th Avenue PO Box 7070 Eugene OR 97401-0472 Landscape Architect: Sara Geddes Satre Associates PC 202 East Broadway, Suite 480 Eugene OR 97401 CITY OF SPRINGFIEW'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM I POSITION I Project Manager Transportation Planning Engineer I Public Works Civil Engineer I Public Works,CivilEnglneer I Deputy Fire Marshal I Community Services Manager " "','" ", REVIEW OF Planning Transportation Utilities I Sanitary & Storm Sewer I Fire and Life Safety I Building NAME Andy Limbird Gary McKenney Eric Walter I Eric Walter I Gilbert Gordon I Dave Puent PHONE 726-3784 726-4585 736-1034 736-1034 726-2293 726-3668 Dat\"I.<'\ ",~"\'1ed:-i;//<''' t Planil';l~ AL. .. ' ;, Site Information: The applicant has received tentative approval for a site plan modification to relocate . the Gateway Mall transit platform from inside the mall parking lot to the eastern edge of the site along Gateway Street (DRC2007-00081). The approved site plan provides for construction of a bi-directional transit platform north of Umpqua Bank and straddling the boundary between Gateway Street and the mall internal loop road; and construction of a dedicated 250-foot long covered pedestrian walkway connecting the transit platform to the southeast mall entrance. The site plan proposes to remove 28 street and parking lot trees from the project area, including 22 street trees between Umpqua Bank and Roadhouse Grill. The applicant's site plan provides for a total of 77 replacement trees within the project area, including 12 street trees and 65 site landscaping trees. ' DECISION: APPROVED. This decision constitutes an approved Tree Felling Permit to remove the 28 trees identified by the applicant in this application. The standards of the Springfield Development Code applicable to each criterion of Tree Felling Approval are listed herein and are satisfied by the submitted plans uuless specifically uoted with findings aud couditions necessary for compliauce. This is a limited land use decision made according to City code and state statutes. Unless appealed, the decisiou is final, Plel!-se read this document carefully. . OTHER USES AUTHORIZED BY THE DECISION: None. Future development will be in accordance with the provisions of the Springfield Dyvelopment Code for Site Plan Review and all applicable local, state and federal regulations. REVIEW PROCESS: This application is reviewed under Type IT procedures listed in Springfield Development Code Section 5.1-130 and Tree Felling standards ofSDC 5.19-100. Procedural Finding: Staff reviewed the, plans detailing the proposed tree felling (3 Sheets -Tree Removal and Planting Plans by Satre Associates Landscape Architects, Sheets TPI -c TP3, dated 12/13/2007) and supporting information. 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 I',vp~'~i allowing for a 14 day comment period on the application (SDC Sections 5.1-130 and 5.2-115). 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 Comment!; below and Anneals at the end ofthis decision). Written Comments: Limited Land Use Decisions require the notification of property owners/occupants within 300 feet of the proposed development, allowing for a 14-day comment period prior to the staff decision. Notification was sent to adjacent t" vp~,;o owners/occupants on January ,17, 2008. Two written comments were received by emait Comment # 1 from Clint Simpson: "1 received your notice of tree removal. 1 own a duplex on Cloverleaf Loop that backs up against [G]ateway [Street]. There are two rows of trees between my backyard and the [G]ateway sidewalk. 1 assume you[r] notice pertains to some of these trees. Can you. confirm where 'the property line runs, either in so many feet from' the center of [G]ateway [StreetJ., or, better yet, so many feet from the inner or outer edge of the sidewalk. My impression has been that at least 1 row of the trees is on my property. Thank you for clarifYing this." Staff Response # I: Staff responded to Mr. Simpson by email and clarified that the proposed tree felling was for street trees on the west side of Gateway Street inside the Gateway Mall property. Trees on the east side of Gateway Street, including the rows of trees behind P<VI'~' ;ies on Cloverleaf Loop, will not be affected by the proposal. Staff explained that the maps sent out with public notification are extremely small for ease of mailing, and that full size maps are available for review at the Development Services Ql;lte Received: Planner: AL -z..11IZo.~ t {, -', office. Mr. Simpson thanked staff for the clarification response and did not provide any further comments. Comment #2 from Joel Mansfield: "I just received notice that LTD plans to deforest my neighborhood. I strongly urge a reconsideration of this notion. . The trees along Gateway Str~ei are truly one of the few good things we in the concrete jungle have and hold dear. I have lived in the Driftwood Villa Condos for over 10 years and my family and I have grown up with these trees. 1, recently in springtime, had a group of visitors stay a week at my home, and they were ,awestruck by the beauty of these trees. They photographed themselves in front of them for their memory books. I understand that LTD needs a new bus stop, but why not locate it on the 1-5 side of the Gateway Mall? And leave the little beauty my hood has alone. Please. In the immortal words of Joni Mitchell, 'They paved paradise and put up a parking lot.' Please try to plan around this prophecy. " Staff Response #2: Staff responded to Mr. Mansfield and clarified that the proposed tree felling did not affect trees on the east side.ofthe Gateway Street right-of-way and that 33 trees were to be removed from the site [Note: the applicant's tree felling plans call for removal of only 28 trees]. The applicant's plans propose to replant new trees at better 'than a 2 to I ratio to replace. the ones identified for removal. Additionally, the applica:nt's proposed landscaping plan includes plantings of ornamental shrubs and grasses around .the transit platform and covered pedestrian, walkway that, in combination, will greatly exceed the amount oflandscaping proposed for removal. . ' ' , . , Staff advise that locating the station on the west side of the mall Would significantly increase the out-of- direction travel distance that buses would have to make in order to reach the platform. For transportation efficiency and. to encourage ridership, it is desirable to. have the bus stop on or adjacent to the public right- of-way and close to the primary mall entrance. The relocated transit platform is intended to serve a dual function for both "standard" L TD buses and the future ErnX .Iine planned to run along, Gateway Street. Additionally, relocating the transit platform to the edge of Gateway Street reduces the number of bus turning movements and maneuvering required inside the Gateway Mall parking lot and loop road. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL: Ref. Article 5.19-125 of the Springfield Development Code: The Director, in consultation with the Public Works Director and Fire Chief shall 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 Submittal: "The requested tree felling and replacement is not requested due to the condition of the trees, but due to proximity to structures and potential for interference with utility services or traffic safety as listed in Criterion A. The requested removal and replacement complies with landscape standards and does not diminish the appearance of the subje~t site." Staff Response: Finding A. l: Ther~ are a total of 28 tree~ proposed for removal from the project area. Twenty-two trees proposed for removal are considered street trees and occupy a linear strip on the west side of Gateway Street south of the intersection with Oakdale A venue (generally between Umpqua Bank and Roadhouse Grill). Six trees are located within the parking lot outside the southeast entrance to the mall building. , Dat" ~~~e!\Ied:_ ~ /,,6,,01' Plal",cl: AL 77, ~, Finding A2: The regulated trees proposed for removal-from the property include: II Sweetgum, 11 Scarlet Oak, two Tulip Trees, two Deodar Cedar, one Chanticleer Pear and one Plane Tree. All of the trees proposed for removal are greater than 5 inches diameter at breast height (SDC 5.9-110.A). The areas subject to tree felling will be re-Iandscaped pursuant to the site plan modifications for the L TD Gateway Mall Transit Station (DRC2007-00081). Finding A.3: The applicant's project narrative states tlie proposed tree removal is to facilitate construction of the transit platform along the west side of Gateway Street and extension of a covered pedestrian walkway to the mall entrance. Removal of the former transit station and relocation of parking spaces also will require the removal of parking lot trees. Finding A.4: The applicant has received tentative site plan modification approval to remove and replace landscaping within the mall parking lot and along the western edge of Gateway Street (DRC2007-00081). Finding A.5: The approved development plan is not conducive to retaining the trees, because the road right-of-way is to be widened to accommodate a dedicated bus lane and portions of the 'transit platform. The street tree planting strip is proposed to be relocated further' west into the mall site to allow for construction of a northbound bus-only lane at the Oakdale A venue intersection. Conclusion: As proposed"the above fmdings support the conclusion that the locations of the trees, with respect to proposed construction, warrant their removal. . B. Whether the proposed feDing 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, s6i1 retention,and stability; volume of surface runoff and water quality of streams; scenic quality; and geological sites. . AppliCant Submittal: "The trees proposed for removal are located within an existing urban retail setting, , , with twenty two (22) trees located along Gateway Street and the remaining trees located in parking lot planting areas. The environmental quality of the site or the surrounding area will not be significantly impacted by the trees' removal because the trees are in parki,!g lot planter islands and not 'in substantial groupings of trees and thus do not provide windbreaks for adjacent trees. Removal of the trees is not expected to have an adverse impact on any other trees in the area; they are not located, in close,proximity to trees to be retained and the remaining trees will be proteCted prior to removal (se.e plan sheet TPI)." Staff Response: Finding B.I: Forestry practices in the State of Oregon are governed by the State Forest Practices Act State :u..,,;'j regulations are not applicable in this case because: I) the limited number of regulated trees removed; 2) the trees are being removed for planned development not timber harvest purposes; and 3) sufficient re-planting can be accomplished in accordance with the conditions of this permit and site plan review procedures. ' . Finding B.2: The Springfield Development Code (SDC) is the primary implementing ordinance for environmental protection policies contained in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan). SDC Article 5.19-100 - Tree Felling Standards and SDC Article 5.17-100 - Site Plan Review generally implement environmental protection policies of the Metro Plan during development review on the subject site. ' Finding B.3: The trees proposed for removal from the subject site include 28 regulated trees of varying species, heights and ages (ranging from 6 to 14 inches in diameter). i.....,.......... , , DatE:! t{eceivelj:....2+J-/1--o"", Planner: AL I' Finding B.4: The trees existing on the subject site are planted ornamental species within a commercial site development and parking,lot. As such, the trees proposed for removal are not part of a natural or scenic area, nor do they comprise part of a larger contiguous stand of trees., Finding B.S: The applicant has received tentative approval to modifY the site and parking lot landscaping, and to make changes to the western edge of Gateway Street including the Oakdale Avenue, intersection. In accordance with site plan review procedures and the approved tentative site plan, the applicant is proposing to re-p]ant 77 site landscaping trees within the project area including 65 trees around the transit platform and along the covered walkway. Twelve trees are proposed to be planted along the western edge of adjusted Gateway Street to replace the removed street trees. Erosion and sediment control measures will be required during tree removal, site grading and lands9aping installation. Finding B.6: The areas surrounding the subject site are zoned Community Commercial (CC) and are part of the Gateway Mall complex. All of the trees proposed for removal are located on private property. Finding B.7: Removal of the trees from the subject site will have no appreciable effect on the surrounding physical and visual environment because: a) Planted ornamental trees elseyvhere on the Gateway Mall site and surrounding properties will be unaffected by the proposed tree felling;, b) The deciduous and coniferous trees that are to be removed are not part of a contiguous natural stand of trees; and , c) Planting of replacement trees, shrubs and groundcover plants at higher densities than the existing landscaping is proposed with the approved site landscaping plans. Conclusion: Springfield Development Code (SDC) Section 5.19-100 - Tree Felling Standards, and Section 5.17-100 - Site Plan Review, generally implement environmental protection policies of the Metro Plan and have been applied herein and d!lring development review. As conditioned under this permit and the associated applications, the proposal is consistent with applicable policies and provisions of State law, the Metro Plan and the Springfield Development Code for protection of environmental quality. '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. Applicant Submittal: "The site is subject to an approved Site Plan and Development Plan (Jo. No. 88-03. 35). Concurrently with this application, the applicant isosubmittingan application for Site Plan Review Modification to the existing Site Plan and Development Plan. Contingent upon approval of the Modification application, the tree removal 'proposed herein is necessary in order to build the proposed LTD transit station." . Staff Response: ' Finding C.I: The applicant has already received tentative site plan approval for relocation of the transit platform and site landscaping' modifications on the mall site (DRC2007-00081). ' , , Finding C.2: The locations of the trees are within a planter strip along Gateway Street and parking lot islands identified for reconfiguration and incorporation into a covered pedestrian walkway. Replacement trees are proposed to be planted along the western edge of Gateway Street (as adjusted), along the pedestrian walkway, and at various locations within the mall site ensuring that there is no net loss of landscaping or tree cover. . O<.tt.2,l'{eCeived:-74I,wo1 . Planner: AL Firidirig C.3: The landscaping plan approved with the Site Plan Modification (DRC2007 -00081) iricreases the quantities of plants, plantirig densities, lJ!ld total area of landscapirig' withiri the affected project area; Conclusion: As detailed on reviewed site 'assessment and landscaping plans; the trees are located iri a planter strip along Gateway Street and withiri parkirig lot isllJ!lds proposed for recorifiguration. Theref~re, it i~ necessary to remove the subject trees iri order to construct proposed'improvements. The tentative site plan proposes to replant trees along the adjusted western edge of Gateway Street and at various locations within the mall site to compensate for the trees to be. rem<;lVed with the applicant's submittal. 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 regulation~, and consistent with the following criteria: ' ".Wooded areas associated with natural dralnagewaysand water ,areas shall be retained to preserve riparian habitat and to minimize erosion; . ".. 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 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 windthrow; and 6. Large-scale c1ear~cuts of developable areas shall be avoided to retain the wooded character of future building sites, and so preserve housing and design options for'futur<; City residents. ' . Applicant Submittal: "A Development ,Plan has been approved by the City (Jo. No. 88-03-35) and the site is fully developed so Criterion.D does not apply." Staff Response: Findirig D.I: The above standard applies where no site plans have been approved. As noted above, the applicant has received tentative site plan modification approval iri accordance, with Plannirig Action DRC2007-0008I. Firidirig D.2: The subject property is developed with ~ commercial parking lot and mall buildirig and does not contairi a natural, contiguous wooded area. Most of the trees are proposed to be removed from a liriear plantirig strip seIJarating Gateway Street from the iriternal mall loop road. Conclusion: The above findirigs of fact demonstrate that Criterion of Approval D does not apply because the applicarit has received tentative site plan approvaJ, arid no naturally-occurring or contiguous wooded areas exist on the site. .,,' Dat~ ReCeivc); '211 l '2..0 Planner: AL -, L "" J E. Whether the applicant's proposed replanting of new trees or vegetation is an adequate substitute for the trees to be felled. Applicant Submittal: "Replacement trees are of a 2" caliper in accordance with SDC 4.4- I 05(E)(l) and (F). Replacement is proposed to occur on a one-to-two and a half basis with 28 trees removed and 77 trees to replace them. In accordance with SDC 4.4- I 05(F), parking lot planting area replacement trees and tree types meet City street tree standards set forth in the Springfield Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual. Therefore, the proposed planting plan (sheets L2.1 and L2.2) adequately replaces the existing trees with approved types and sizes of trees in appropriate locations in compliance with this criterion." Staff Response: Finding E. I: Staff have determined that a total of 28 regulated trees are proposed for removal and . replacement with the subject application. The trees are planted omamental trees of varying species, heights and indeterminate ages. All of the subject trees range from approximately 6 to 14 inches in diameter. Finding E.2: The applicant has included a landscape plan with the site review packet which shows 77 maple, pear, red oak, serviceberry, and Japanese stewartia trees to be planted in association with the site , plan modification. ' Finding E.3: The replacement trees will be minimum 2" caliper trees as described in the applicant's project narrative, and consistent with requirements of SDC 4.4-105 and the City's Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual. The proposed trees are species that are suitable for planting as street trees and in site parking lot landscaping areas, and were selected by a licensed landscape architect. Finding E.4: In addition to street and site landscaping trees, the developer is proposing to plant ornamental shrubs and groundcover plants in the planter areas subject to reconfiguration. The shrubs.and groundcover plants are supplementary to the site landscaping trees and are not proposed as substitutes for required tree plantings. , Conclusion: The trees, shrubs ,and groundcover plants depicted on the site plan review landscape plans (DRC2007-0008l) are an adequate substitute for the trees to be felled because the number of trees provided (a total of 77), type (as selected by a landscape architect), and location (in maintained planted areas) will exceed the canopy cover and longevity expected of the 28 regulated trees subject to ,removal with this application. F. ,Whether slash left on the property poses significant fire hazard or liability to the City. Applicant Submittal: "All trees and slash will be removed from the site within 72 hours. No slash or other fire hazard posing liability to the City will result from the proposed removal ofthe trees." Staff Response: Finding F.I: Removal of slash reduces fire hazards and prevents the mixing of organic materials with engineered fill and other materials that will be placed on the site during construction. Conclusion: The applicant has proposed that a contractor will remove the trees and slash from the property during tree felling. As proposed, this standard' has been met. Date. Received:_~//;d' Planner: AL \ G. Whether the felling is consistent with the guidelines specified in the Field Guide to Oregon , Forestry Practices Rules publisbed by tbe State of Oregon, Department, of Forestry, as' tbey . apply to tbe northwest Oregon region. Applicant Submittal: "The proposed tree felling is consistent with the specified guidelines., The Oregon Department of Forestry, through its Community and Urban Forestry program, advocates for selecting appropriate tree species based on site conditions, avoiding invading exotics, and reforesting the urban environment. As discussed above, the applicant is proposing replacement plantings at a rate Of two and three quarters to one and has chosen species from Springfield's approved species list that are compatible' with commercial scale development. Therefore,. the Oregon Department of Forestry objectives bave been met by this tree felling proposaL" Staff Response: Finding G.1: Forestry'practices in the State of Oregon are governed by the State Forest Practices Act. The Field Guide to Oregon Forestry Practices Rule provides safety and other guidelines for compliance with the State Forest Practices Act during logging operations. The guidelines are standards in the industry and are generally followed during all operations performed by licensed and bonded logging contractors. Finding G.2: The proposed tree felling, removal and re-planting proposed as part of this permit.do not rise to State forestry regulations because: I) the limited number offegulated trees to be removed; 2) the trees are being removed for planned development not timber harvest purposes; and 3) sufficient re- planting can be accomplished in accordance with the conditions of this permit and site plan review procedures. . Conclusion: The subject site is within Springfield's city limits. The proposed tree,felling, removal and re-planting are regulated by the applicable provisions of the Springfield Development Code. . State. forestry guidelines for safe operations will be followed as applicable to the limited felling of trees approved under this permit. H. Wbetber transportation of equipment to and equipment and trees from tbe site can be accomplisbed witbout a major disturbance to nearby residents, Applicant Submittal: "Construction access to the site will be from Gateway 'Street and Harlow Road and therefore will not pass through residential neighborhoods. Tree felling activities will take place between the hours of 8:00 am,and 5:00 pm Monday through Saturday and will be of limited duration. Areas from which tree removal is proposed are buffered from residential areas by the streets and by the Gateway Mall's large parking lot area. Therefore, transportation of equipment and trees from the'site will be accomplished without a major disturbance to nearby residents in compliance with this criterion." Staff Response: Finding H.I: Tree felling traffic will use the adjacent public collector and arterial streets, and on-site commercial roads to access the site during regular business hours. Finding: H.2: The areas proposed for tree felling lire part of the Gateway Mall complex, which typically experiences high volumes of traffic throughout the day: The mall hours of operation, ,including the movie theaters, results in daily commercial vehicle traffi~ from early morning hours to late in the evening (seven days per week). Additionally, the site is surrounded on three sides by high_volume traffic streets (1-5, Harlow Road and Gateway Street). . Date Received: '7.-/7 J ~D%, Planner: AL -r, .t Conclusion: The traffic generated by the tree felling activity will ,be no more intrusive than other heavy vehicle traffic normally associated with existing commercial development; therefore, the proposed work will not constitute a major disturbance. CONCLUSIOlV .4.ND DECISION: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: None. The above fmdings and conclusions demonstrate that the proposal meets the standards of SDC 5.19-125 for Tree Felling Permit Approval. This written decision and the approved Final Site Plan arising from Planning Action DRC2007-00081 (including the Planting and Parking Lot Plans) constitute the Tree Felling Permit. . The following general construction practices apply when tree felling is initiated on site: ,. Notification shan be provided to the City at least 5 days prior to, commencement of the tree felling operation. Please contact Andy Limbird at 726-3784 or alimbirdlalcLsorin!!field.or.us. . All felling activities, including ingress and egress for the logging 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 which avoids site soil compaction in areas of existing or future landscape planting. . 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 the storm drain system [SDC 5.19.-125]. 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 February 22, 2008. Your appeal must be submitted in accordance with the Springfield Development Code, Article IS, APPEALS. Note: Appeals 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. If you have any questions regarding these matters, please ,call (541) 726-3784 or send an email to: al imbirdlalci .sorinmeld.or. us. PREPARED BY f22 :-/ Date Received: Planner: AL ;./7 ~"'/ / / .. ". .' III ..;...".~_ '\ - . ! ~', I ~ ~~ . } ~ '1, -------..--.....------------.................---"--- .- I CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 225 5th ST SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 J Clint Simpson 3840 Meadow View Dr Eugene, OR 97408 , . ..,..".,......... ............. . I . 1:1:.__.-,\ .' CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 225 5th ST SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 ",.. .iol_ ._. ,lIu ,.., ,..,. J Joel Mansfield 2727 Gateway Street, Apt 13 Springfield, OR 97477 ", I.....' . ~ CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 225 5th ST SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 I .~ ;. : ,I ..... .. ..---".-. Ron Glover General Growth Properties 3000 Gateway, Street Springfield, OR 97477 Date I'l.eceived: z-/;I.hftJi".. Planner: AL (\~.l "..,-.-. "'..____.... ..,,10.... ..__oo 11_. ,...,.".., . . 0 1..- , ~ ......, u , ":1 JII,..." . ,CITY OF SP.RINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 225 5th ST SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 - Sara Geddes Satre Associates PC 202 E Broadway, Ste 480 Eugene, OR 97401 ... .'.......111.. . .....-. ...".... ......'.._1 '.01. ,._........... . CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 225 5th ST SPRINGFIELD, OR 9741'1 ..' - '" ___,... -----...-oo ~. __ .'. Stefano Viggiano Lane Transit District 3500 E 17th Avenue 'PO Box 7070 Eugene; OR 97401-0472' j . 1 I I J ". Date Received: iift>eif Planner: AL