Loading...
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.