HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotice PLANNER 6/26/2008
"
'.
1rL~
RECEIVED
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
'JUN 262008
By:I!~ OJ h~l~~
( v-f 10
~a.r
STATE OF OREGON)
) ss.
County of Lane )
I, Karen LaFleur, being first duly sworn, do hereby depose and say as follows: '
1,. I state that I am a Program Technician for the Planning Division of the
Development Services Department, City of Springfield, Oregon.
2. I state that in my capacity as, program"l:,ec"nicianLl~~~~~d and caused to. be '" .
mailedcopiesof'DI<L'UlO8-lXXJ3t.f- 'l&tw.dA - ~~ - !.)W~
(See attachment "A") on . I.2l1.L-, . 2008 addressed to (see - ' cJ, U
Attachment sn), by causing said hitters to be placed in a U.S. mail box with
postage fully prepaid 'thereon.
~~~~
,
STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane
J1 '//1; r ~' . 2008. Personally appeared the above named Karen LaFleur,
, ~m Technician, who acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary
act. Before me:
. OFFICIAL SEAL
. DEVETTE KELLY
" NOTARY PUBLIC. OREGON
COMMISSION NO, 420351
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUG, 15, 2011.,
D~~'
o .
My Commission Expires: ~/;sj /1
,
City of Springfield
Development Services Department
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
TREE FELLING PERMIT
Staff Report & Decision
Project Name: Dwyer Subdivision
Project Proposal: Fell 35 trees concurrently with the development
of a five-lot subdivision
...
Case Number: DRC2008-00034
.
Project Location: 5560 High Banks Road
Map 17-02-28-00, TL 303
Zoning: Low Density Residential (LDR)
Overlay District(s): Floodplain (FP)
Applicable Refinement Plan: N/A
Refinement Plan Designation: N/A
Metro Plan Designation: Low Density Residential (LDR)
Application Submittal Date: May 20, 2008
Application Accepted as Complete Date: May 22, 2008
Decision Issued Date: June 26, 2008
Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
Appeal Deadline Date: July 11, 2008
Associated Applications: SUB2008-00022 (Land Division), SHR2008-00004 (Floodplain), &
lON2008-00012 (DIM)
..
....
. .
.' LOR' .
I' : SITE :
--. .
~'~;;;'kS RJ8d \ ft,' COR
... ......:.:
~
:E..., , '. Q.1
. .lo. I -', LORi' :6
! CJ) , ,-
'r." a.
-'- ~ , I~ ~
,ll1 _ - 1-1. LO
'"'
"
t
N
--.,
j
= UGB& City Limits
1~IiE9E!:O'jMENT'R~EVIEW-C{jMMI~~e..:
rfl-:~iii6 ~ ~ t~\i E -OF
I pPanner I an~ u:'e Planninq
Public Works Enqin~er in Traininq Public Works
I Deputy Fire Marshal Fire and Life Safety
NAME
Molly ~arkarian
Jesse Jones
Gilbert Gordon
- P~~ ~
7 11 I
736-1036 I
726-2293 I
~PPL'C"NI'S'DEVELOPMENT'REVIEW TEAM
OwneriApplicant
Bill Dwyer
Eureka Development
5558 Thurston Road
Sprinqfield, OR 97478
Applicant's Representative
Tom Poage
Poage Engineering & Survey
990 Obie Street
Euqene, OR 97402
.
Case No. DRC2008-00034
10110
--
I
,
DECISION
This staff report and decision grants approval with conditions to the subject application, as of the date
of this decision. The standards of the Springfield Development Code (SDC) applicable to each criterion
of approval are listed herein and are satisfied by the submitted plans and notes unless specifically
noted in this decision with findings and conditions necessary for compliance. Tree felling and re-
vegetation must be in conformance with submitted plans and as conditioned herein. This is a limited
land use decision made according to city code and state statutes. Unless appealed, the decision is
final. Please read this document in its entirety.
REVIEW PROCESS
This application has been reviewed under the procedures listed in SDC 5.1-130, Type II Applications,
and SDC 5.19-100, Tree Felling Permit. This application was accepted as complete on May 22, 2008,
and this decision is issued on the 35th day of the 120 days permitted per ORS 227.178.
COMMENTS RECEIVED
Applications for Type II limited land use decisions require notification of property owners and occupants
within 300 feet of the subject property and any applicable neighborhood association, allowing for a 14-
day comment period on the application per SDC 5,1-130. The property owner, applicant, if different,
and parties submitting written comments during the comment period have appeal rights and are mailed
a copy of this decision for consideration. In accordance with SDC 5,1-130, notice was mailed to the
property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the subject property on May 22, 2008.
The following written comments were received during the comment period:
Three letters were received from concerned neighbors living at 5500, 5520, and 5547 High Banks
Road, The complete transcripts of the letters are made a part of this decision by reference and are
available for review at the Development Services Department. In summary, the letters focus on issues
relating to the risk that the filbert trees proposed to remain on-site pose for other filbert orchards in the
region, the potential impact of felling activities on adjacent trees, and compliance of the applicant's
proposal with the tree felling criteria of approval outlined in SDC 5,19-125, A response to these
concems is included below, as well as by reference to other sections of the staff report.
One concern that neighbors raise is the likelihood that unmanaged filbert trees proposed to remain on-
site will be vulnerable to Eastern Filbert Blight and other filbert pests and may compromise the health of
productive filbert orchards in the region. As confirmed by the Oregon State University (OSU) Lane
County Extension Service, this is a legitimate concern and thus has been addressed at length in the
findings and conditions outlined under Criterion 1 on Pages 3-4 of this report.
Another concern of the neighbors abutting the subject property to the west is the fact that the canopy of
the filbert trees located on both sides of the property line are intertwined, and felling activities on the
subject property may compromise the survival of the filbert trees on the neighboring property. This, too,
is a legitimate concern and has been addressed below under Criterion 2 on Pages 4-5 of this report,
Related to this issue, the neighbors requested a variance of the interior side yard building setback since I
filbert trees on their property hang over the common property line and will likely drop filberts onto future
homes on the subject property. However, branches overhanging property lines are a civil matter and
thus do not fall within the purview of the Planning Division, and variances are land use decisions that
must be applied for by the owners of the property for which the variance is requested.
Finally, one letter submitted listed eight questions pertaining to the tree felling proposal, and a response
to each of the questions can be found in the findings and conditions below as follows: Question 5 in
Criterion 2 on Pages 4-5, Questions 9, 11, and 12 in Criterion 5 on Pages 6-7, and Question 10 in
Criterion 8 on Pages 7-8. Questions 6, 7, and 8 express concern that the tree felling application as
submitted does not meet the criteria of approval outlined in SDC 5,19-125 D. However, the criteria
outlined in SDC 5.19-125 D. only apply to tree felling proposals where there is no concurrent
Case No. DRC2008-00034
20110
",
,
development plan to ensure that vacant woode'd land in the city is preserved until development occurs
on such property in an orderly fashion. However, as stated previously, this tree felling proposal is being
reviewed concurrently with a development plan to divide the subject property into five lots, and thus the
criteria in SDC 5.19-125 0, do noUipply to this application.
SITE INFORMATION .
T~e subject property is a .81 acre (35,376 square feet), rectangular-shaped lot on the north side of High
Banks Road between 55th Street and 55th Place and is located inside the ,City limits. The property
is relatively flat, and soils are mapped as Chapman Urban Land Complex. Currently, the property
contains a residence in the southeast corner of the lot, facing and taking access from High Banks
Road, which is proposed to remain. The remainder of the site contains an ufl-productive filbert orchard
that is proposed to be removed. The property is zoned and designated Low Density Residential, and
land immediately surrounding the property on all sides is zoned Low Density Residential.
TREE FELLING PERMIT - CRITERIA
SDC 5.19-125 states that the DireCtor, in consultation with the Public Works Director and the Fire Chief,
shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a tree felling permit request based on the criteria listed
inSDC5,19-125A.throughH i, ,,' . ' ,
" '
Finding:' The Development Review Committee (DRC), including representatives from the City's
Development Services Department, Public Works Department, and Fire and Life Safety Department
reviewed the application, and their, comments have been incorporated into the'findings and conditions
below.
Criterion 1 IS DC 5.19-125 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.
Finding: The applicant has proposed felling 35 of the existing 40 filbert trees on the site, leaving five
filbert trees remaining. , The purpose of the proposed felling is to convert the existing filbert orchard and
single family dwelling into a five-Iotsubdivision.
Finding: Felling of the 35 trees a!5 proposed by the applicant is warranted by their location, within the
buildable envelope of the lots in thE; proposed new subdivision.
. . "i.
Finding: The trees proposed to ~be retained on the site are not proposed to be maintained as an
agricultural crop. Rather, they are . proposed to serve as cirnamentallandscapihg for proposed Lot 5 of
the'subd,ivision,' .'
..
Finding: There are several .filbert orchards in the vicinity of the site that are still maintained as an
agricultural crop. In fact, the abutting property to the west contains a half-acre of filbert trees that the
owners do maintain as a productive crop. In their letter submitted during the public comment period for
this land 'use decision, the owners of the abutting property raised concerns regarding the impact of
leaving five filbert trees on the subject property due to their susceptibility to filbert Illoths and Eastern
Filbert Blight (EFB) if they are not property maintained.
Finding: City staff contacted Ross Penhaliegon with the OSU Lane County Extension Service on June
12, 2008 tei discuss" the risks inherent with leaving five unmanaged filbert trees on the subject property.
Mr. Penhallegon confirmed that bo~h EFB and the filbert worm are serious and devastating threats to
productive filbert orchards in Oregon. He also asserted that unmanaged filbert trees are susceptible to
EFB and filbert worm, likely rendering the trees dead within a few years, not to mention that they would
likely spread the disease and pests:to nearby orchards in the meantime.
Case No, DRC2008'00034
3 of 10
, .
Finding: The fact that the five filbert trees proposed to remain on the property could harbor diSease
and pests and allow their spread to other nearby orchards currently in production .both adjacent to the
site and throughout the region warrants.the felling of all of the site's filbert trees ,since there is no
guarantee that the vigilant maintenance necessary to maintain the health of these trees, will be provided
by future property owners.
Condition 1: To prevent the spread of Eastern Filbert Slight and other filbert pests to productive
agricultural land, the five filbert trees proposed to be retained on"site shall be felled by the applicant
along with the 35 filbert trees proposed to be felled. '
Conclusion: This application satisfies Criterion 1 (SDC 5.19-125 A.) as conditioned herein.
Criterion 21SDC 5,19-125 B.l
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.
Finding: Forestry practices in the State of Oregon are governed by the Oregon Forest Practices Act.
State forestry regulations are not applicable in this case because of: 1) the limited number of regulated
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 the land division process, .
Finding: The SDC is the primary implementing ordinance for the environmental protection policies
contained in the Metro Plan, SDC 5.19-100, Tree Felling Permit and SDC 5,12-100, Land Divisions,
generally implement environmental protection policies of the Metro Plan during land division
development review. No evidence has been submitted that indicates any City, State, or Metro Plan
pOlicies protect or preserve the trees proposed to be felled beyond these City standards,
Finding: The trees proposed for removal from the subject property include 35 filbert trees of unknown
size and age. In addition, as conditioned above, the five filbert trees proposed to remain on-site shall
be removed due to their potential to 'spread disease if not properly managed,
Finding: The 40 existing filbert trees located in seven rows across the subject property provide
significant tree canopy over the site, which protects soil from'erosion, retains precipitation and reduces
stormwater runoff, serves as a windbreak, and provides scenic quality and habitat for wildlife, At the
same time, there are no State. Metro Plan, or City policies requiring the preservation of these particular
trees, Therefore, it is the responsibility of the City to find a balance between the demand for new
development and ensuring' that the benefits associated with trees, open space, and other natural
vegetation are safeguarded for the community. As such, the applicant will be required to perform felling
activities, as well as erosion control and slope stability practices, in accordance with City standards, in
addition to re"vegetating the site in accordance with City regulation~:
, I
Condition 2: All felling activities, including ingress arid egress for the felling operations, shall include
erosion control measures in conformance with the City's Engineering Design Stand'!rds and
Procedures Manual (EDSPM). . ,
Condition 3: Any soils and debris tracked into the street by vehicles and equipment leaving the site
shall be cleaned up with shovels in a timely f'(1anner and not washed into tlie stormwater system.
Condition 4: Prior to initiation of tree felling activities, a Land Drainage and ~Iteration Permit (LDAP)
shall be approved and issued for the proposed tree felling. '
Finding: An abutting property owner to the west of the subject property has stated that the canopy of
the filbert trees located on both sides of the property line separating the two properties are intertwined,
Case No, DRC2008,00034
40110
"
and felling activities on the subject property may in fact impact the survival of the filbert trees on the
neighboring property. .
Condition 5: Existing trees to be retained abutting the site shall be clearly flagged, identified; and
protected from damage due to the adjacent tree removal and other site clearing work, All felling and
removal activities shall be performed in a manner which avoids site impacts, including but not limited to:
soil compaction around trees to' be retained abutting the site, soil compaction in the root zones of any
trees on neighboring properties, damage to trunks of trees to be retained, and soil compaction in areas
of future landscape planting,
Finding: As conditioned above, the proposed felling IS consistent with State standards, Metro Plan
policies, and City ordinances and provisions affecting the environmental quality of the area.
~
Conclusion: This application satisfies Criterion 2 (SDC 5.19-125 B.) as conditioned herein.
I' - .
Criterion 3 ISDC 5.19-125C.~
Whether it is necessary to remove trees in order to construct proposed improvements as specified in 'an
approved development plan, gradirigpermits, and construction drawings.
,
Finding: The applicant is receiving concurrent approval to divide the subject property into five lots via
Case No, SUB2008-00022. The plan set included with that application identifies a conflict between'
existing trees and the buildable envelopes of the newly created,lots, in addition to the threat posed by
existing filbert trees on productive orchards in the region due to the possible spread of disease and
pests from unmanaged orchards. :,Therefore, it is necessary to remove the filbert trees on the site to '
create the five-lot subdivision specified in a concurrently approved development plan.
Conclusion: This application satisfies Criterion 3 (SDC 5,19-125 C.).
Criterion 4 IS DC 5.19-125 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 erosion;
, "
2.' Wooded areas that will :,ike'y provide attractive on-site views, to occupants of future
developments shall be retained; , ',' ,
, , ,
3. Wooded areas along riage 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 5ufficifmtly large areas and dense stands so as to ensure against
wind throw;
6. Large scale clear-cuts of developable areas shall be avoided to retain the wooded character of
future building sites and so preserve housing and design options for future City residents
Finding: The subject property has a concurrent approved development plim that necessitates the
proposed felling, Case No. SUB200S-00022, Therefore, Criterion 4 is not applicable. : '
Conclusion: This application satisfies Criterion 4 (SDC 5: 19-125 D.),
Case No, DRC2008-00034
50110
Criterion 51SDC 5,19-125 E.'
Whether the applicant's proposed replanting of new trees or vegetation is an adequate substitute for
the trees to be felled.
Finding: The applicant is proposing to fell 35 filbert trees of unknown size and age, and the applicant
is required to fell an additional five ,filbert trees of unknown size and age to prevent the spread of
disease and pests as a condition of this decision. The applicant's narrative states that the area
disturbed by the felling will be seeded to protect it from minor erosion due to the removal of the
understory vegetation. In addition, the applicant has proposed re-vegetating the site with six street
trees, which amounts to a re-planting rate of far less than one for one.
Finding: Mature trees protect soil from. erosion, retain precipitation and reduce stormwater runoff,
serve as windbreaks, and provide scenic quality and habitat for wildlife. Therefore, re-vegetation in the
area near where trees have been felled is necessary to mitigate the loss of these environmental
benefits. General urban forestry best practices assume that while the felling of trees will likely have a
negative short-term environmental impact, the planting of replacement'trees has the potential to
prevent long-term net loss if the re-planting ratio is at least one successful new tree for each tree
removed and replacement species provide similar mature canopy spread and biodiversity to the area:
Finding: Given that filbert trees are an agricultural crop, and the property is being converted into a
non-agricultural urban use, re-vegetation' of the site with an equal number of similar trees is not
practical. However, street tree species will mature at sizes taller and larger in diameter than the
existing multi-trunked filbert trees and may, in fact, provide better habitats for wildlife species over the
long-term than the species to be felled, While the proposed street trees will indeed replace some of the
functions and values of. the existing filbert tree canopy cover, six street trees alone may not be
adequate substitutes for the trees to be felled. Unfortunately, the SDC provides no direction in
determining what is considered an 'adequate' substitute for trees to'be felle'd. '
In general, Planning refers to the landscaping standards outlined in SDC 4.4-105 to determine what is
considered adequate new or replacement vegetation for development proposals, However, while SDC
3,2-215 Note 5 states that all residential setbacks shall be landscaped, SDC 4.4~105 E., which dictates
the planting acceptable per 1,000 square feet of required planting area, states that such planting
standards do not apply to single-family dwellings on individual lots in LDR districts, Thus, to interpret
how residential setbacks shall be landscaped, Planning must refer to the definition of, landscaping,
found in SDC 6.1-100, which states that it includes, but is not limited to, vegetative ground cover, grass,
shrubs, trees, flowers and garden areas, ornamental concrete or stonework areas, permanent outdoor
furniture and permanent irrigation. Therefore, while the City urges the developer of the subdivision to
consider landscaping the setbacks of each lot with trees and shrubs to more adequately mitigate for the
loss of the mature tree canopy, the City cannot require re-vegetation of the site above and beyond the
required street trees for the subdivision,aUhis time,
At the same time, City staff recognizes the importance of re-vegetating sites, to mitigate for the loss of
open space as development occurs regardless of the type of development. Therefore, while there is
little Planning can do to mitigate the impact of the proposed development on the neighborhood from a
landscaping standpoint at this time, residents are welcome to suggest that the Planning Commission
consider updating its tree felling and landscaping policies to provide more concrete guiaelines for re-
vegetation and planting plans for low density residential developments,
Finding: SDC 5,19-130 A. states that if issuance of the Tree Felling Permit is conditioned upon. the
applicant's proposed plan to replace the trees, landscape, or otherwise reduce the effects of the felling,
the time within which the plan is to be completed shall be specified on the permit:
Finding: Condition 1 of the concurrent land division Case No, SUB2008-00022 specifies the time
frame for planting the required street trees. Since the applicant is required to plant such street trees
prior to recording the plat for the concurrent land division, the Public Works Director has determined
Case No, ORC2008-00034
6 of 10
I,
that a surety bohd is not necessary, In the event th'at the applicant chooses to defer the planting of any
of the required street trees until new dwelling units are constructed within the subdivision, the applicant
will be required to comply with the security and assurances provisions of the SOC. '
,
Finding: As ,conditioned in the concurrent land division approval, Case No, SUB2008-00022, and
given the context of the conversion' of the subject property from agricultural to urban use, the proposed
replanting of new trees and vegetation is an adequ'!te substitute,for the trees to be felled.
. , "I I ,
Conclusion: This application satisfies Criterion 5 (SOC5.19~125 E.).
Criterion 6 (SDC 5.19-125 F.~
Whether slash left on the property poses significant fire hazard or liability to the City.
"
Finding: The applicant's narrativElstates that all felled trees will be stockpiled on-site with a minimum
25-foot buffer from any nearby, trees or other s'ignificant vegetation, It also states that felled trees will
be chipped on-site andlor hauled off the site and that no burning is proposed on the site,
Finding: Removal of slash reduces fire hazards and prevents the mixing of organic materials with
engineered fill and other materialsi placed on the site during construction. In the case of felled filbert
trees, removal of slash also reduces the potential for spreading of disease and pests.
Condition 6: All trees and slash shall be'removed from the site within 72 hours of felling.
,>
Condition 7: The applicant shall fconsult with an OSl,) Lane County Extension Agent to determine a
safe means of disposing of the filbert trees to be felled to prevent the spread of disease and pests to
nearby orchards,
Finding: As conditioned above, slash will riot pose a significant fire hazard or liability to the City.
Conclusion: This application satisfies Criterion 6 (SOC 5,19-125 F,) as conditioned herein.
. ,
Criterion 7 (SDC 5.19-125 G.~
Whether the felling is consistent with the guidelines specified in the Field Guide to Oregon Forestry
Practices Rules published by th~ State of Oregon,- Department of Forestry, as they apply to the
northwest Oregon region. '
Finding: Oregon forestry regula.~ions are designed to provide safety. and other guidelines during
logging operations and to assure;continuous growing and harvesting of forest tree species and the
continued productivity and stabilization of soils. The ,trees to be felled on the subject property are not
subject to these regulations given ,the re,latively limited number of trees to be removed and given that
'trees are being removed for urban development and not for commercial timoer harvest. Therefore,
Criterion 7 is not applicable. ,;
Conclusion: This application sati~fies Criterion 7 (SOC 5,19-125 ,G.). '
Criterion 8 (SDC 5.19-125 H.\ ,
Whether transportation of eq~ipm(mt to and equipment and trees fro~ the site can be accomplished
without a major disturbance to nearby residents.
Finding: The traffic generated by'the tree felling activities will be no ~ore intrusive than 'other heavy
vehicle traffic associated with site development and will occur on adjacent public collector and arterial
streets, However, the subject property is surrounded by other low density residential development to
the west, east, and south, and the. trees to be felled are located in close proximity to other residences
on the abutting properties. I '
Case No, DRC200B-00034
70110
- ,~ ,
/
Condition 8:' All felling and bucking shall occur during normal business hours, to limit noise and
vibration impacts to the neighbors.
Condition 9:. The applicant shall notify the project planner at least five (5) days prior to
commencement of the tree, felling operation. Please contact, Molly Markarian in the Development
Services Department Planning Division at 726-4611 or email herat.mmarkarian@ci.springfield.or.us.
Finding: As conditioned above, the transportation of equipment to and equipment and trees from the
site can be accomplished without a major disturbance to nearby residents.
Conclusion: This application satisfies Criterion 8 (SDC 5.19-125 H,) as conditioned herein,
SUMMARY OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
NOTE: This summary of the conditions of approval is provided as a courlesy to the applicant. The
applicant should, however, carefully read the decision in its entirety to understand the basis for each
condition. In addition, as stated earlier, the applicant must comply with the entire decision, and tree
felling and re-vegetation must be in conformance with submitted plans and as conditioned herein.
1. To prevent the spread of Eastern Filbert Blight and other filbert pe~tsto productive agricultural
land, the five Jilbert trees proposed to be retained on-site shall be felled by the applicant along,
with the 35 filbert trees proposed to be felled.
2. All felling activities; including ingress and egress for the felling operations, shall include erosion
control measures in conformance with the City's Engineering Design Standards and Procedures
Manual (EDSPM).
3. Any soils 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 stormwater system.
4. Prior to initiation of tree felling actilifties, a Land Drainage and Alteration Permit (LDAP) shall be .
approved and issued for the proposed tree felling.
5. Existing trees to be retained abutting the site shall be. clearly flagged, identified, and protected
from damage due to the adjacent tree removal and other site clearing work, All felling and
removal activities shall be performed in a manner which avoids site impacts, including but not
limited to: soil compaction around trees to be retained abutting the site, soil compaction in the
root zones of any trees on neighboring properties, damage to trunks of trees to be retained, and
soil compaction in areas of future landscape planting, "
. '
6. All trees and slash shall be removed 'from the site within 72 hours of felling.
7. The applicant shall consult with an OSU Lane County Extension Agent to,determine a safe
means of disposing of the filb\lrt trees to be felled to prevent the spread of disease'and pests,to
nearby orchards.
8, All felling and bucking shall occur during normal business hours, to limit noise and vibration
impacts to the neighbors.
9. The applicant shall notify the project planner.at least five (5) days prior to commencement of the
tree felling operation. Please ccmtact Molly Markarian in the Development Services Department
Planning Division at 726-4611 or email heratmmarkarian@ci.springfield.or.us.
CONCLUSION
The application, as submitted and conditioned herein, complies with the eight criteria listed in SDC
5,19-125 A. through H. The tree felling plan approved as submitted and conditioned herein may not be
substantively changed.
Case No. DRC2008,00034
8 of 10
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The application, all documents, and supporting evidence are available for free inspection (copies are
available for a fee) at the Development Services Department.
APPEAL
This :decision is' considered a Director's Type II decision and as such, may be appealed to the
Planning Commission. SDC 5.3-115 states that only the property owner, applicant, if different, and
those, persons who submitted writ!en comments within the 14-day comment period have standing to
appeal this decision.' SDC 5.3-115 also states that an appeal application in accordance with 5,3-100
shall be filed with the, Developme'nt Service~ Department within 15 calendar days of the Director's
decision (the date of this decision). In accordance with this policy and the Oregon Rules of Civil
Procedures, Rule 10(c), the appeal, period forthis decision expires at 5:00pm on July 11, 2008.
QUESTIONS '
Please call Molly Markarian in the pevelopment Services Department Planning Division at 726-4611 or
email heratmmarkarian@ci.springfield.or.usif you have any questions.
PREPARED SY
Molly Markarian
Planner II
Urban Planning Section
Case No, DRC2008-00034
9 of 10
"
~
UR8~N GROWTH
""'.......10..... .c;..B2pNOA,RY .
' QTY liMits
/
.'<\!> -
",'~,:""'~""
":(:'~:;:~2:;"
, ,
SCAlE:I'.J:l'
/76.6'f/_
c(
X
15
z
w
c..
c..
c(
~ ~, ~jJLt( ~J
~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~J
~~~~~~ t
." .. ~ ~ .... ff!$']
.~ ~ ~ ~ "~:1" ~
." ~.. f
-',' ~-:'" ~>i:, ..' '/~"~" " ,
' "'", / ~.
' " , ,
' ~ ,
P'.- · q.............. ? ""00>' ., >
.----------. c '" '-----__.,<_ __ "~, c
5. ',,,,. <...:.-::.~~"'::.~., '<"';'::~:',,,,,: 1"
.._-::;;;;~-..__:..,.,~...<:<:..~c::__._._. :
0""--- _ ___ __.
......:....'''.......< , I
If t G If . s..;;,'N;;.................j. ?
.RO.
1-
..
~
PLAN
. E FELLiNG
T:({E , FOR 27
' 0' 8-000
Fi R E 2 0 , R 2 W W,M,
T 1V 5,. at 303 "" ~
hN 2.B., TAX L REpO...
5BdTI~ 17-0::2.-2~. OUNTY. 0
MAP ~o. LAN"!! ~
SPiUNGRIBLDJMAy 2008
PRIll'ERTYLIE
ms1'tli:l~tll~E
alSTlliGUOIII1 IlhatlSae~MoteDl
ElGSlL'IGsrpm ~
IA,tlITNttseWU
EXlSlWG Mi'.sEWacLEIINOlIJ
EXI'~ UIIT l1li1 SEW fSIU hi f.IlTEDl
EXlSTNI:II,I,/fT ~13IZEMllOncl
ElClSThG '~TEIl .
EXI$Tit1:lW...-rERI{iTSI
STHJfJt::IlYtlWfl
fJ(Inwow"TER VI'J-Ye ,
EXI ool:: hS ~orec)
D1n~oMs lltuJ'l'YL~
----TG---- EX\STlNG O~EIlHU/I
------011----- EX!STI'fOG'IOOOFENClO
E>>STlNll'WEFSlCE
EXlSTlIIOcQNC. skwALll
EllISTfI:IPgWEllPDLe
. - l.l'lP TOlWWH
f.IUIBTTIliECL
UI.tll'Iqllli~~E.Cl._
FUEiTTIliE ~_.
URBAN GROWTH
.,c 80UNqA~
.... Ory Lil1irs ~
J.E!F>
..
"
____ ri----
'II
OISCO
----~--.;.-
------Il'---
.
.
~
, ""PLJC/(NT
OWNER/^"
l~k8 OTWHt~~T'~~Et~~D 97 478
PRINGFIE2Lg~CI87 .
HONE: 1:
------- 12'88
---OH____:._",..:::::.:.:_______
..' -:. . "f-2"G ~~.:.:._
~~~-.~~~-.~...
! ---------r---------<-----
-------J-----__J lS'sr___ '
~ r ~____~___
f.o ~
:I:Y
"'<
"'-'
LO~
, Received:
Date
.
.
IE.....,
-0
o~
~
;:i
o
o
'i'
'"
o
o
N
o
'"
o
0;
z
"
w
00
o
"
. .--'
, .
)
I
iJ
.. "'
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
l ,225 5th ST
, SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
,..,............,'-'--", .._~I......,...;a.J"'" . ..... ",_,,_~'__i.""._.;....""-, ..""...-'"'-_...,....., _.."
Phyliss & Gene Highfill
5520 Highbanks Road
Springfield, OR 97478
.... -. \:5i.m
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
, 225 5th ST
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
..... ,
. ..... ..- .................. "".' .-..-...,....... '-..' - ....~....~- ",........... I~i.
-. _....,~,---,
Bill WElch
5500 Highbanks Road
Springfield, OR 97478
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
225 5th ST
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
"
Pamela Hartman
5547 Highbanks Road
Springfield, OR 97478
-,
.I
'.
I
"...'"
r' ..
.'''=
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD .
I, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
225 5th ST
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
""'-.,~. "I. .. '.'...'__11 .. .....,...,,_ ..... ..-'",
".,;.L......"-"';",;I~,.."'......., "'....... ,WL I.", ."'~;
Bill Dwyer ,
Eureka Development
5558 Thurston Road
Springfield, OR 97478
"'--~
. j
'r"'~"""'."." ..... .0""" ,""'I ,I~... """''',..Ul;'.....,.,,, "~"-....-'..,,,.,,~;....,,"~
,., .......Il.".O;';.Llll......,~."~""........
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT'
225 5th ST
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
1.11'..., .-..:..
J..'..........,'''"..'"",....~,....._ ..,......~..........;_""..,......."",........,....._".,,...,,_'-..
.."" I.. .
Tom Poage
Poage Engineering & Surveying
990 Obie Street
Eugene, OR 97402
t~
I
.;i
.,.........I........,.1oJ
j
., ,....,.,J ,....."h.