HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotice PLANNER 12/12/2006
,
- '/,..1 ~tL
~~<r-
r
"
,~
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
STATE OF OREGON)
) 55.
County of Lime )
I; Karen-'l::aFleur,'being first duiy sworn, do hereby depose and say as follows:
.' "'0.1;.- I state'that I am a Program Technician for the Planning Division of the
, -;. ;,i",'3Development Services Department, City of Springfield, Oregon.
. ';'~;'''~:2!8i;st3tethatin my capacity as, Program Tec.h'nician, I p'r~pared and causeq to be '-', .".
.,' .. mailed copies of 1>R.C.zoob-()(XJ&'f- n~A 7)UUJJh, J;,~ -I( ~
': .~" "(See-attachment "A") on I~/:L--- , ~006 addressed to (see '
, ., Attachment B"), by causing said letters to be placed in a U.S. mail box with
postage fully prepaid thereon.
~1lLA< ,XIJJkk
~R~N LaFLEUR l.../ r
STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane
~ K (:;v, , 2006. Personally appeared the above named Karen LaFleur,
Program Technician, who acknowledged the foregoing instrument tobe their voluntary
act. Before me: '
,~.'{)~
(J My Commission Expires: ' ~ n. -:J-o-t-i
:; --------~;~I~;~L--~J
,; .'. BRENDA JONES I
<: ", ./ NOTARY PUBLIC, OREGON I
': '" COMMISSION NO, 379218 I
Ii MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 27, 2008J
c~- -- -- -- --- -- -_._- -~ -- -- _. -.--'
Date Received: IY!kKJ6
Planner: AL
of"
--... : .,:
. TYPE II TREE FELLING PERMIT
STAFF REPORT & DECISION
Case Numbe~: DRC2006-00084
". .
Project Name: R Keepers Investments Commercial Site Plan Tree Felling Permit
Nature of Application: The applicant is requesting
to perform tree felling necessary to prepare a site
for constructiqn of two new 2-story office buildings
with associated parking and landscaping.' Approval
would result in eight regulated trees being removed.
Project Location: 1887 2"' Street, in Springfield
(Assessor'.s Map }7,03,26,24, TL# 1100)
Zoning: Community Commercial (CC)
Metro Plan Designation:CC
-Application Date: Gciober 25, 2006
Decision}?,!lJ,e:..December 12, 2006 .
Appeal Deadline: December 27,2006
,.,'
AssoCiated Applications:. PRE2006-00067;
DRC2006'00083 .'"
';: '"j},:-: ~.
----.---.- .
~c',...~:::1.:
" API'LI~AN'f.'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM
.-"""-..,....,- -'" ,,~ -,
" .?,~.-,,~
Gwner/Applicant:'; ,
.~_:~;_~1'~.::~~",:~.~'~,"-:"~'. .~._. _..
.' 'Civil Engine.er:
..
. Denotes regulated tree proposed for removal .
. -''-;
. "
, Architect:
. ::....'~..
. -"
Nathan Keepers .
~_.;i-'";';"~__^_"-"_ .'- ..
R Keepers'Investments
r _ . i. . ~..,,_ ._~~~'..".. _ .. ",_.,., ,. .
......'., .... Po. Box,703" , , . ,
_-r....-.......________,..._. ,".. _ _ """."',''c'-::-''-'--''--
, ",' ,Pleasani'HilJ'OR"97455
J. .
Scott Morris" '" .'"
Glson & Morris
380 Q Street, Suite 200
Springfield GR97477"
'" Kenneth Nagao
Nagao Pacific Architectural
. 1680 Pearl Street ,. .
Eugene, GR' 97401
'.
.'
L
. :
, .' I ~ '
, ,
'. ,;
:: ,....,+-; f
"
'. -.;1. ,..+~...
, ; :-,....
CITY OF;'SPRINGFIELD'SDEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM'
1 POSITION
, 1 Project'Manager,
I Transportation Planning Engineer'
1 Public Works EIT
1 Public Works EIT
I Deputy Fire'Marshal
1 Community Services Manager
REVIEW OF
Planning
Transportation
Utilities
Sanitary & Storm Sewer
I Fire and Life Safety
Building ,
NAME
Andy Limbird
Gary McKenney
Matt Stouder
Matt Stouder
Gilbert Gordon
Dave Puent
.. ,
,,'
PHONE 1
726,3784 1
726-4585 I:
736,1035 1
736-1035 , 1
726-2293 1
726,3668 1
.......
/, ....
., .
: :'..'1-,""
'.
<..
. ,~,
. " Dat€lReceived'
, " Plal}l)er: AL
<0YMO{,
1t1<:',,<
-,. ,.... .,~,.
.'.'t.L,'..
,
....
Site Information: The applicant has made concurrent application for tentative site plan approval to'
construct two, 2,story commercial buildings with surface parking lot and landscaping, One of the
commercial buildings is to contain a second,story apartment dwelling unit. The total building floor area
proposed is approximately 9,760. ft' on the 0.,63 acre project' site (DRC2QQ6,QQQ83). In accordance with
SDC 38.0. I 0.(2), the applicant is proposing to remove eight trees greater than 5,inches diameter at breast
beight tbat conflict witb proposed site grading, parking lot and driveway construction, and building
footprints. The existing trees are remnant landscaping vegetation from a previous residential dwelling on
the site. The applicant is proposing to plant approximately 26 replacement trees as part of the site plan
and public street frontage landscaping requirements.
DECISION: APPROVED. This decision c;onstitutes an approved Tree Felling Permit granting
approval to remove the eight (8) trees reqnested by the applicant as of the date of this decision. The
standards of the Springneld Development Code applicable to each criterion of Tree Felling
. Approval are listed herein and are satisfied by the submitted 'plans unless specifi'cally noted "ith ,
findings and conditions necessary for compliance, This is a limited land use decision made
. according to City code and state statntes. Unless appealed; the decision is final. Please read this
document carefully.
OTHER USES AUTHORIZED BY THE DECISION: None., Future development will be in
accordance with the provisions of the Springfield Development Code for Site ,Plan Revi~w and all
. applicable locat'state and federal regulations.
"
REVIEW PROCESS:TIlis. application is reviewed under Type II procedures listed in Springfield
Development Code Section 3.0.80. and Tree Felling standards of SDC 38.0.40..
Procedural Finding:' ,Staff reviewed the plans d'et3iling proposed tree felling (l Sheet ~ Commercial
Development Plan by Nagao PacifIc Architectural, Sheet }\,1.o. dated 10./13/20.0.6); tentativc site and
landscaping plans(ll Sheets--' Nagao Pacific Architectural, Sheets T-Q, A,1.o., A,l.l, A,2 &}\,3, dated
10./13/20.06; Olson & Morris' Engineering; Sheets CI-C5, dated 5/25/20.0.6; and Susan Crabtree
Landscape Design, Sheet LA,I, dated 9/20.0.6) and supporting infonnation. City staffs review comments
have been reduced to findings and conditions only as' necessary for compli'ance with the Tree F~lling ,
Criteria of SDC 38.0.40.. ' , .
\.
'".'''
Proced';~al 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 ,
. "'_'_, .'. _ t. . '
'application (SDC Sections,3,0.8Q and 14.0.30.).. The applicant and parties submitting written comments'
during the notice 'period have appeal riglits and ate' mailed a copy of this decision for consideration (see
y,rritten~Comments below and Antieais at the end of this decision),' " ,
. .
Written Comme~ts: . Limited Land' Use Decisions require' tlie notification of property owners/occupants,
'within 30.0.. feet of the proposed development, 'allowing for a 14,day conmlent period prior to the staff
decision. Notification was sellt to adjacent property owners/occupants on October 30., 20.0.6. No written"
, responses were received. '" '
...- .~.;
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL:
Ref. Article 38.040. of the Springfield Development Code: ,
The Director in consultation wi'th the,Public Works Director and' Fire Chief shall approve, approve with'
cohditioils or deny the request based on the following standards. In order io receive, approval for a Tree
Felling Permit, the applicant must s~tisfy each of the applicable standards, '
,.-.
Qate;Raceived: '
Planner: AL \
, .... ....
l1..li'l.,-I-z.o~\.
t. ,.
,,'
"(1) Whether the conditions of the trees with respect to disease, haiardous or unsafe conditious,
danger of falling, proximity to existing structures or proposed construction, or interference
with utility services or pedestr~an or vehicular traffic safety; warrants tbe proposed felling.
Applicant Submittal: ,Tree species, sizes'and locations are as per the. attached site plan.
Staff Response:
Finding I, I: There are a total of eight trees proposed for removal. All the trees are located intemal to the
site and are in direct conflict with proposed parking, driving aisle and building footprint areas, The trees
are part of a fomler residential yard, but tbe dwelling is abandoned and the landscaping has deteriorated.
Therefore, removala~d replacement of the trees is warranted.
Finding I .2:Tbe trees to be removed from inside the property inchide fo~r reguiated coniferous trees
(pine and cedar), one evergreen tree (holly)' and three deciduous trees ("fruit", and oak species) that are
greater tban 5 inches diameter at breast height (SDC 38,015). The area subject to tree felling will be
graded for construction of two conmlercial buildings, parking lot, driveway and site, landscaping,
Trenching, and excavation for extension of utility lines to service the development also will C)ccur at '
various locations 'within the site. '
, . . '.
. Finding 1,3: The applicant has received tentative site plan approval to construct two, 2-story' commercial,
buildings comprising' a total'of 0109,760 square feet with a secondary apartment dwelling unit in ,the
building closest to 20d Street (DRC2006,00083). Issuance ofa tree felling penn.i.tis a condition of the site
plan review decision, ',. . '''''---':'; ,,_ .
Finding 1.4: The p;ppo'sed development' plan is not ~onducive to retaining,~'fisting'tree~ dUe tb'their:
location within areas identified for parking)ot, driveway, and building,constructiol1.
,-, .
.-,~~:.,., \'; --,,' ...... "
Finding 1.5: The proposed development plan submitted with the tree felling ~pplication does not identify
the ,location or species of all.eight regulated trees within the development,si.!e'tha.ta,re proposed for
.' removal. .As an example, a coniferous tree near the northwest comer of the, site is .not identified as to
species and size 011 the. plan" Two trees proposed for removal are identifie.da~~~ip:jt';,tfees but the species
are not provided.,:.: ,.'" " , " . <', '. " ':~~;?{i~Li"c.";;: ,: _,: ',', ," ,,:,
. ,~>"-::7 ... ._~-~ _..;:. .:...:_:;__
'"I":";;:12,i/:_:'.: " tL:-_'~~..-'~ ~ ~'.~,_
., . , . . . . -r ,. ... - _ _ _ ~
I: . Prior to initiation,of tree felling activity, the' applicant shall prepare. 'andsubniit a revis~d' 'site' -'
assessment/tree,1;enlOval plan that identifies the location, size andspeci~d;tZfhe eight regulated trees" ,
. i..'....'; 0""- ..'.
, to be removed from the development site, ....f:':-:;:~t..---_....- , '
- .' - _, ".,~t~;;;t~'{t'~'r-:'..'
'. , . ".' :;'-: PL~\'f, " . .
Conclusion 1: As conditioned herein, the above findings support the conclusionJhat the locations ofthe '
trees, with:espect to proposed construction; warrant their removal.. ' , '.',;,,,:j~:,~::;:., ,. ,
. ",; ~:-~i;'~~:r~.~~ncf" ,,-,. ~- - ! ....
(2) 'Wbethef'theproposed feIling is consistent with State standards; MeffO:,Plan policies and City .
ordinances and provisions affecting the environmental quality oUM'_area, (ncluding but not,
limited to, tbe protection of nearby trees and windbreaks; wildlife~ierosion, soil retention and
stability; volumeof.s'urface runoffand'water quality of streams; ,s~e~t~;,qualjty;'and geological
sites.,_ ' .'0 :', .' .:,_...:c_'c... .,'.. '
,~ ::;"~'~~~:;~:?:- ~ .' ~, .
.:._-,.,...l..'-..,._...,. _.
~, " ,('~f':~:~ : ';:,"',,~.
, "c:";.--""".
CoriditlonofApproval: '
+-
, Applicant Submittal: (Nostateme?t) ,
,', ",
...L.. r.,'.<
Date ~ecejverl'"
Planner: AL '
/..U{~~(7G'
." ./
J.! : :....
"
:.i:::;
,U
I'.-~'~''''-_-~.J.
Staff Response:
Finding 2, I: Forestry practices in the State of Oregon are governed by the State Forest Practices Act.
State forestry regulations are not applicable in this case because: 1) 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 pernlit and site plan
revi ew, procedures.
Finding 2.2: The Springfield Development Code (SDC) is' the primary implementing ordinance for
envirorunental protection policies contained in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan
(Metro Plan).' SDC Article 38 ' Tree Felling Standards and .SDC Article 31 ' Site Plan Review generally
implement enviromnental protection policies of the Metro Plan during development review on the subject
, site.
Finding 2.3: The trees to be removed from the subject ,site include eight regulated pine, cedar, oak, holly
and deciduous fruit trees of varying sizes and ages (8 t,o' 60 inches in dia,meter),
Finding 2.4: The trees existing on' the subject site are planted ornamental species within a fonner
residential yarp: As such, the trees proposed for removal are not part of a natural or scernc area, nor do
they com"rise part of a larger contiguous'stand of trees.
Finding 2.5: Pursuant to Planning Action DRC2006,00083, the applicant has received tentative site plan' .
approval to construct two, 2,story commercial buildings (one ,containing an attached second story
apartment Ullit), parking and landscaping on the subject site. 111eapplicant will be planting at least 26
limdscaping and street trees in accordance with site plan revie""procedures' and the submitted tentative
site plan. Erosion control will be required during tree removal and ,site grading under a required Land and
Drainage' Alteration Pernlit.
Finding' 2:6: The majority of the area surrounding the subject.site is developed with single, 'and multi-
story residential and 'comrnercial buildings. The areas' immediately surrounding the site are zoned
. Community Commercial (CC) and High Density Residential (HDR).
. - ~ . ,'.. .' ,
Finding 2.:7: Removal of the existing trees from the subject site will have no appreciable effect on the,
surrounding physical and'visual environment because: ,',' , ,,'
'a) Pla~ted orn:inleritil trees ort surrounding properties will be: unaffected by' the proposed-tree,: - ..'
" '_A<illjng;
b) The coniferous and deci4uous trees to be removed are not, part of a contiguous natural stand of
trees; and, ,--.... -...-
.. cr' Plantil1g of decid~ous replacement trees at approxinlately a three to one ratio is proposed with the
site landscaping plans. "
r_.
Conclusion 2: Springfield Development Code (SDC) Article 38 ,Tree Felling Standards, and Article 31 '
. Site Plan Review, generally implement envirorunental protection policies of the Metro Plan and have
been applied herein and during development review. As conditioned under this pemlit'and the associated
applications, the,proposal is consistent with applicable policies ' and provisions of State law, the Metro
PI{!n and the Springfield Development Code for protection of envirorunental quality.'
(3) ,Whether it is necessary to remove' trees in order to construct proposed improvements in
accordance with an approved development plan,
':,.,',1 "
Dat~t~eceived: '
Planner: AL
J'2.! 1..../1.<>Db
I I
....:":1.
~. f
,~ ;,
"
ApplicaIft Submittal: Revegetation and landscaping shall be as per the approved development plan,
submifled under site plan review Case #PRE2006-00067. This development co'!forms to'the City of
Springfield tree felling standards (SDC)8.040) Item j in accordance with an approved development
plan. ' .
Staff Response: .
Finding 3, I: The applicant has received tentative site plan approval to construct two, 2"story office
buildings comprising a total ofolo9,760 ft' with internal driveway, parking lot and landscaping on the 0.63
acre project site (DRC2006,00083). .
Finding 3,2: The locations of the existing trees are within areas p~oposed for parking lot, driveway and
building construction. '
Finding 3.3: The tentative site landscaping. (tree replacement) plan submitted for site plan review depicts
26 trees to be planted within the perimeter setbacks for the site, including three street trees.
Condition of Approval:
'2, No tree felling shall occur prior to approval of the Fina) Site Plan, unless a ']and and .drainage" "
alteration pemlit (LDAP) is approved and issued,for the development site.
.. '- --
Conclusion 3: As . detailed 'on reviewed site assessment andlandscapil~g pl~ns and as previously"".. ,.;;'
conditioned, the existing trees are located in the area where driveway, building footprint and parking--',..,:',:, ,
. , -"....>..-.~"..,..... .- ,,,'
areas are loc~ted, Therefore, it is necessary to remove the subject trees in order t() construct propos'ed"" ,:" .'
improvements: . . . ,:.~:~.:~trj:f~:;).'_
~ ~( . .::-
(4) In the' event that no Plot Plan has been approved by the City, felling of treesshaIL~e";..:,,,_ .
permitted ona limited ,hasis consistent with the preserv~tion of the site's future deveIop'm~,iI,~)~<' ,
potcntial as. prescribed in the Metro Plan and City development regulations, and con1ii~~:.!1tti,;:"i~"':'
with the following criteria:' . ,;;i~;>,",~:'"
" ' .. . ' , " ,"-~,,~'~~_'~:ii~~;,;i,;,.;:.:;,,:
. ':(a) , wooded areas associated with natural drainagcways and water. areas shall be retaineil'i'o:.:-:..:' '~,
preserve riparian hahitatand tominimize erosion; :. " .' ' ' . ''"'~';;{{-.~'j''.j::'''':,
. , ..' ,.. ' " ..- '. : ,.:' .+",,' ';: '~:il~::~~<.: ~:. ,~. ~
,.f(b)-:-woodcd.areas that will likely provide attractive on-site views to occupants of'futi!r"';~'::": . ...'
develop~ents shall be retain~d;. ,,' :"', " . ,'-C'::';.,;~t~~2(::f:.:-:,: 00, '--
, (c). wooded areas along ridge lines and hilltops shaUbe retained for their scenic aud wildlif.ebL:".,-.,
. ..value;:' , .. " ',."~ ' ^ " - " . ,--.':. -:.~~~;~~~~~~:~;..:-.~,;. .:
. . . ..' . " '. ....~ ....l~Ui~~:.~,.~ >~f'-' ,
(d), wooded. areas alo'ng property lines shall be retained to serve as buffets from' adJllc~!~r\':, "';~:.
propertIes;. " ' , ," ", ' ' . ~,'''' ...' ":-:'~~';;:Z~~~t~;.;:;\:" ~ - ,"_
~e) 'trees shall be retained in sufficiently large areas and dense stands so asto ensure'against,(:,.;," ..
. dth .' d " " ..:,'f,!::;::::" '. '
win row, an . " '~~:f,.~l;~:':;',::"""",
(1)
'.... .~;':~.;-:&;"-;. ", .'
large-scale clear-cuts of developable areas shall be avoided to retain the' woodei(." ,
character offuture bnilding sites, and so preservc hpusing and design options for:futiiYe:';"::
City residents.' " .' " '~--;,::;i:';..;...:",
"~, :':..~:~.~. :i.
._1:.
ApplicantSubmittal:' (No response)
: .. .,~
"
DateR~ceived:/..>.k4<?.- '
Planner: At ' , /, / , .,,"'
. ,- . . .
t. ,'-: '., '. '\ _~.
""1'..
,.. .,.., ".;~' .
"
t. ~ .
','
I':
,~
"\
"~4~.; ;'; n}....'l.
. ;. ~
.:<" .
~:I' .
,
"
",'::""_~.:' ~""-..o; :..
,.-" .
Staff Response:
Finding 4.1: TIle above standard applies where no plot (site) plans have been approved.. As noted above,
the applicant lias obtained tentative site plan approval (DRC2006-00083).
Finding 4,2: TIle subject property is a fonner residential b'ackyard and does not contain a natural,
contiguous wooded area,
Conclusion 4: The above findings of fact demonstrate that Criterion of Approval 4 does not apply
because the applicant has applied for a tentative site plan, and no naturally,occuning Dr contiguous
wooded areas exist on the site.
(5) Whether the applicant's proposed replanting of new trees or vegetation .is an adequate
substitute for tbe trees to be felled.
Applicant Submittal: (No response)
Staff Response: .
,"
. Finding S.1: The'tree~ proposed for ren;oval are eight planted ornamental species of varying sizes and
ages. All of the trees are located inten]al to the site. , .
-',
, '
, Finding S.2:., The developer has includeda'lands~ape plan with the site plan review packet that 'shows 26
trees of.:,ari?us speciesto be planted in association with the development of this site (DRC2006,00083),
'i~
"
" ,," "
Finding:S.3: The replacement trees will be minimum 2" caliper trees in accordance with,SDC Articles 31
and 32, and. will, be selected from the 'approved list of trees or as proposed' by a licensed landscape
architect' and. approved by the City of Springfield during final site plan approval procedures.
ConclusionS: The trees proposedon the associated site plan, review landscape plans are an adequate
substitute. for the trees to be felled because tbenumber of trees provided (at least 26), type (as selected 'by'
a landscape'architect)"and location (in inaintained planted areas and along't1ie street frontages) will
exceed,the canopy cover and longevity expected of the eightregulated trees proposed for re~lOval.
-~ .
6)
~.,'Vhether,slash left on the property poses significant fire hazard or liability to the City.
.......- ..." . ." - , .
.,,'., .
Applicant 'Submittal: All trees shall be removed by 'collvelltionaltree removal methods alld transported
via tJ'l;ck to LaniiCOUnfy forest debrisrecyclillgfacilit)' located 0/1 42"d Street ill Sprillgfield,
. .b""; ,....-.....
...' .
Staff Response:
. . '.' .
, ' .
Finding,'6.I:.,ReI110val of slash n.:duces fire ha~ardsand'prevents the mixing of organic materials with'
, ~ngineeredfill.and other materials that w. ill be placed on the site during construction. '
, "
-"t. "
c;onclusion 6: The applicant has proposed to remove the,trees and slash from the property by loading
"eciuip~;e;;i and truck during tree felling, and prior tQ construction or site grading, TIle applicant has
indicaiecfthetrees will be taken to a wood recycling facility, As proposed, thisstandard,has,been met.
Date Received: "
Planner: AL.
I z-l, 7-J-z..o 0(."
': I ' I _,
....
(7) Whether the feIling is consistent 'with the guidelines set forth in the Field Guide to Oregon
'Forestry Practices Rule published by the State of Oregon, Department of Forestry, ,as they
apply to the northwest Oregon region, '
Applicant Submittal: (No Statement)
Staff Response:
Finding 7.1: Forestry practices in the State of Oregon are governed by t~e 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 perfomled by licensed and bonded logging
contractors.
Finding 7.2: .The proposed tree felling, removal and re,planting proposed as part'ofthis permit do not rise
to State forestry regulations because: I) the limit"d number ofregulated 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 withlhe conditions of this pemlit and site plan review procedures, '
Conclusion-7: The subject site is within. Springfield's city limits, The proposed tree felling, remoyal and
,re,planting are regulated b'y the applicable. provisions of the Springfield Development Code. State'"
forestry guidelines for safe operations will be followed, as applicable to the limited fellingo'f trees
,approved ~nder this penni!. ' ,',: ;,:"Li:', ' , " , " ".
(8)
'.,..;'y"
-.J,'" ...,.-
Applicant Submittal:. (No Staten~~nt), ,..",..,"o~,_,._
Staff Response:" '::.,::~t~~:,'\,:,:;,,:"'" , '.,
. ,',' ':..... ,', '."-., ::r?~~~f~;:.<.',_..: :'~' ...._ .... '.' ' ."
,Finding 8.1: . Tree felling traffic wilfuse the adjacent',pup)ic,streets(2", and Q Streets) to access the site
during regular business hours. ' . ,,,:,';iJ5~:i .,. ,,' . , ' '
. '-. " '. ,."'. " . :' ,'~..::'.;~~;:~;{;i~-'..~-:;.~~~" . " ~:..~ ,_' ',,'.. . . '"., .
FlI1ding: 8.2: The surronndingpropertiesare primarily;~()ried Conmlunity Commercial, and the adjacent
HDR site is not developed., The' subject site 'direCtIY~abuts a local street (2"". Street) that 'already.
., ' experience's commercial,automobile and truck traffic ,accessing the nearby shopping center and storage'
facility. :;"':'" ,,', ,,':', ",' ",:;'?I!:~':.':,~',:' _';:;;':"":":""" ,', ,
Conclusion 8': The traffic generated by the tree felling:~H\vity wi1l'be no more !ntrusive than other heavy'
, ' 'vehiCle traffic norinally associated with existing conmlercial, development; therefore, the proposed work,
, : "will not constituie a major disturbance,' , ':,f;.;:.;,;~'t-';",' ,: " . .
-. '.-.-
...
~ -''''~''~rYr:.;~:'~':':'':'--7 '~:.'
. i, ;;tiR:]}rL~-:,,".':~.,:, .
:!e~i~~K~i~' ,
....- .-.......
,,-..-.,..,....:...._,_....
--"
CONCLUSION AND DECISION: '
.:..;:.
Conditions of Approval:
.' ,~~. --
"--'- -- .
...; ~;r__~'::'-:'" , .
1. Prior to initiatiop of, tree felling activity, th_e appli~,ant shall prepare and submit' a revised 'site
assessment/tree removal plan that identifies the Jp~a.tl2ll,' size' and species, of the eight regulaied'trees
to be removed from the development site, ~,:,:j,,<'tf:',': '",. . ,,' . .
t, ; J.,.....
:- I ,,'. ~ _,' '.~
i'"
if' ; . .1
, .
"
,...
...--.
No tree'feiling' shall occ~r prior to ,appro~al'of the Fimil Site Plan, unless' a land' and drainage'
,alteration pemlit (LDAP) is approved and issued for the development site. "
. I- , . ',' .
" , . , '. .. .' . ~
" , ' ~ . t,' :-:."', :,Dat~.r~eGeiv~d'/0~<>?6'
, , .' "', ',Planner: AL ' .' ,
, 2.
. ,
.0'
.,
As conditioned herein, the above findings ,and conclusions demonstrate that the proposal meets the
standards of SDC 38.040 for Tree Felling Pel1nit Approval. The applicant must re"submitthe tree
removal plan with the revisions required in accordance with Condition 1 above. This written decision,
Site Assessment of Existing Conditions Plan, tentative Landscape Plan (re-planting plan) and revised tree
removal plan constitute'the Tree Felling Permit.
The following general construction practices apply when tree felling is initiated on site:
. Notification shall be provided to the Cit)' at least 5 days prior to commencement of the tree
felling operation, Please contact Andy Limbird at 726,3784 or alimbird(a)ci,soiin<>:field,or.us.
. All felling activities, including ingress and egress for the logging operations, shall include erosion
eontrolmeasures in confomlance with the.City's Engineering Design Standards and Practices
Manual.'
. All felling, and removal activities shall be perfol1ned 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 vehicies and equipment leaving the site shall be
cleaned up with shovels ill"a timely manner and not washed into the stoml drain system [SDC
38.040(2)).' ,
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The application and documel)t,s,f.E'lied upon by the applicant, and the applicable criteria of approval are',
available for a free inspectiOll)(tjle Development Services Department, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield," .'
Oregon. Copies of the docum~lltsfwili be Inadefor $0,75 for the first page and $O,50-for each additiorial'
page." .,
^ ':~~:;~::~c~~t{..:~:.:.
. 1.:..:.:-.....
. '
.~.i;?t~1.::,~.
~
APPEAL
.....-.,~.,:",..,''''"-'~
. "';":;::':'i.." " .
If you wish to appeal the d~cl~ibiJ';~fapptoval, younlU~t..do so by 5:00,PM on December 27, 2006. Your '
appeal inust be submitted i~~~~.ss9fd,~nciiYith the Springfield Development Code, Article 15, APPEALS,
Note: Appeals must be submitted:on,a City'form and,afee of$250.00 must be paid to the City at the time",:'
. ~, - !",'q,1.~,.';'...J'~"\" p.. ,; - , " -.
, of submittal. The fee will be:-Te,tumed'to the appellant if the Planning Commission approves the appeal ,
, ~application, ' :'.. ',,#,~0,(;,,7:'O' y' '. ,..'. "
..1~. ;,..
. . ,'~~:7..' "",:';>-,'~ '. .
, If you have ,any questions'.i:egl)~ding these matters, please 'call (541) 726,3784 or 'send' anenlail' to:'"
. alinibird(@.ci.SDrinQfield.ory~~~~~~~:,]"... . . .
, PREPARED BY , '::~~;t;;;J,:'~~,_'
~.';:'~i~;~}~:~ .'. ,0":
- .,
~.,~ ~
~"
.<;<:~~,~rr."f':~~,.~P'~..i ~\,:: '
, <,
. 7-:~:oS(~~T1':~~::'{;~1
Alldy Limbird
Plalmer II
'~'1"j~~:1~;o:ri:'''' ~ c- .
. .;',:.~~;\~,:~}i;.~i~~~:.~:,: ;!!,' ;. ~: .
, '/i:}lE~~~~ ~':.r.
'.. "~_:',', 0,:\,;;-;;,.,<,
~ ,~ 0'0 ...+__ +
.,~ '-':~!:~~'.!:':
'0"
.. '~~7t~,~L :
, ::~.:7:~~r~
"','
" ,0
, '.
'.'
'Date Received:
Planner: AL'
Iz..I'J.--I''U>ot
{" . l~
.,: 'J
, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
225 FIFTI;f STREET
SPRINGFIELD,OR 97477
."
'~ ett~,
Nathan Keepers
R Keepers Ihvestments
" 1: PO Box-703
Pleasant .Hill; 'OR 97455
. <"
....
""l"cr"
" -.
, ... ~.'
~' -;", ~' -
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
,225 FIFTH STREET '
. SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
PLANNING DEPARTMI::N I
, 225 FIFTH STREET
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
-~
Scott Morris
Olson & Morris
380 Q Street, Suite,200
~pringfield, OR 97477
Kenneth Nagao
Nagao Pacific Architectural
1680 Pearl Street
Eugene, OR 97401
I
'DaterReceived:_ /0 YJ-i!(} ~
Planner: AL
ClttvL~4" B