Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotice PLANNER 9/2/2008 ~' . ill RECEI\'ED. AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE SEP - 2 2008 \ By:'rJ~1J0 ~ STATE OF OREGON) )ss.' County o~ Lane .) I, Karen LaFleur, being first duly sworn, do hereby depose and say as follows: . 1. I state that I am.aProgram Technician for the Planning Division' of the pevelopment Services Department, City of Springfield, Oregon. 2. I state that in my capacity as, Progral)'l Technician, I prepared an,d caused to be mailed copies of 1>RC-z.wg-too'f.3 ~1.' c,g ~ - J.u...A.o 0"'<'$1<-' F. ,til.?, o.J4/ (See attachment "A") on q ~ . 2008 addressed to (see 1!.vtt4. Cb-t... Attachment S"), by causing said letters to be placed in a U.S. mail box with postage fully prepaid thereon. . 1<LNM' ;taJ~. KAR~N LaFLEURI STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane &Lu-n.but.,:; , 2008. Personally appeared the above named Karen LaFleur, Program Technician, who acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary act. Before me: ~~/ ~Md/ iJ u OFFICIAL SEAL DEVETTE KELLY NOTARY PUBLIC, OREGON . COMMISSION NO, 420351 MY COMMISSION EXPIRESAUG,15, 2011 My Commission Expires: . gj;m/ ,..;,;.., , (;",ceived: ;9 /;. ~ Planner: AL 7 v TYPE n TREE FELLING PERMIT STAFF REPORT & DECISION Case Number: DRC2008-00043. SPRINGFIELD i. Project Name: Peace Health Birth Center Tree Felling Permit Nature of Application: The applicant submitted a tree felling application necessary for removing 15 trees from a residential parcel to accommodate construction of a 4,000 ft' professional office building, driveway, and parking lot. Project Location: 353 Deadmond Ferry Road (Assessor's'Map l7-03-l5AO,;rL 2200) Zoning: Low Density Residential (LDR) Metro Plan Designation: LDR Application Date: July 11,2008 Decision,Date: September 2, 2008 Appeal Deadline: September 17, 2008 Associated Applications: ZON2007-00060; PRE2008-00036; DRC2008-00042; DRC2008-00044; SHR2008-00007 . Denotes mgulated tree proposed for removal APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM Architect: AppliCaDt: Landscape Architect: Jon Anderson Anderson Dabrowski ArchiteCts 1430 SE 3'" Avenue, Suite 200 PortJand,OR 97214 Philip Farrington' Peace Health Oregon Region 123lntemationalWay Springfield, OR 97477 David Dougherty DLA Landscape Architects 474 Willamette Street, Suite 305 Eugene, OR 97401 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM I POSITION REVIEW OF I Project Manager Planning; TranSportation Planning; EnJl;ineer Transportation I Public Works Err I Utilities I Public Works Err I Sanitary & Storm Sewer I Deputy Fire Marshal I Fire and Life Safety I Community Services Manager I Buildinl!. , . ~f' I NAME Andy Limbird Judy Johnduff Richard Perry Richard Perry Gilbert Gordon Dave Puent PHONE 726-3784 736-7134 I 744-4155, I 744A155 I 726_2293 I 726-3668 , , Dat(1 f'(6ceived: ~~f . Planner: AL Site Information: The applicant has received tentative site plan approval for construction of 11-4,000 if professional office building on a residential parcel (DRC2008-00042). The approved site plan provides for construction of a new driveway and parking lot, installation of underground utilities and parking lot lighting, site landscaping, and closure of an existing driveway access onto Deadmond Ferry Road. The tentative site plan proposes to remove 15 trees from the project area, including eight near the center of the site. Ten of the trees are coniferous varieties, four are deciduous, and one is a broadleaf evergreen (Magnolia). The applicant's site plan provides for a total of 12 replacement trees within the project area The applicant also will be required to provide for street trees along the property frontage on Deadmond Ferry, Road (DRC2008-00042). DECISION: APPROVED. This decision constitutes an approved Tree Felling Permit to remove the 15 trees identified by the applicant in this application. The standards of the Springfield Development Code applicable to each criterion of Tree Felling Approval are listed herein and are satisfied by the submitted plans unless specifically noted with findings and condi,tions necessary for compliance. 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 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 Review and all applicable local, state and federal regulations. REvIEw PROCESS: This application is reviewed under Type IT procedures listed in Springfield Development Code Section 5.1-130 and Tree Felling standards of SDC 5.19-100. Procedural Finding: Staff reviewed the plans detailing the proposed tree felling (2 Sheets - Tree Felling Plot Plan prepared by AD Architects dated 7/1/2008; and Landscaping Plan by DLA Landscape ,Architects, Sheet LA-I, dated7/2/2008) and supporting infonnation. City staffs review comments have been reduced to [mdings arid conditions only as necessary for compliance with the Tree Felling Criteria of SDC 5.19-125. Procedural Finding: Applications for Limited Land Use'Decislons require the notification of property owners/occupants within 300 feet of the subject property allowing for a 14 day comment period on the application (SDC Sections 5.1_130 and 5.2-115). The applicant and parties submitting written comments during the notice period have appeal rights and are mailed a copy oUhis decision' for consideration (see Written Comments below and Anneals at the end of this decision). Written Comments: Limited Land Use Decisions require the notification of property owners/occupants within 300 feet of the proposed development, allowing for a 14-day comment period prior to the staff decision. Notification was sent to adjacent property owners/occupants on July 16, 2008. One written comm~nt was received from six adjacent residents: Dianna Larsen (377 Deadmond Ferry Road), Sally and Bruce Brown (335 Deadmond Ferry Road), Jeri and Jesse Covington (349 Deadmond Ferry Road) 'and Judi Willis (349 Deadmond Ferry Road). I live next door to the proposed Peace Health Midwifery Birth Center on Deadmond Ferry Road, and have received the City's recent notices of their building and tree removal applications, This letter is in response to those. Please route the following comments through appropriate channels so that they might weigh in on decisions, This letter also represents the thoughts of Sally and Bruce Brown: 335. Deadmond Ferry Rd., and Jeri and Jesse Covington and Judi Willis: #349. Peace Health's Philip Farrington (Director, Land Use Planning & Development) hadprevioUsly mentioned the possibility of this project. His description was of a low-key, low-roofed, Northwest natural resid,ential feel. and a low level of traffic to the Center. Aside from leaving the area as residential . h '. , '. " Oate Received:~~ocl' , Planner: AL or green space, this generally seems a fairly compatible use of the lot from a neighborhood viewpoint. Following are specific concerns regarding the 'buildingand the tree removal. . , Tree removal:, It was nearly impossible to read the, tiny map accompanying the notice, and the 'trees themselves (in the .yard) don't seem to be marked. It would be useful for these notices to show a Web location where the information can easily be studied. Thanks forlater providing that. iiuringour phone conversation. Given the relatively large number of trees proposed for removal, we're concerned about the effects on the remaining flora and surrounding properties. Fundamental environmental changes will take place in terms' of wilfjlife habitat, air and soil moisture retention, air quality, drainage, and heat and light. (Homes in,this area have the lUxury of "natural air-conditioning"--a clean, free energy source which Peace Health can also employ, but which,diminishes in efficiency as each tree is removed and replaced by impervious surface). We ask that the number of trees cut be limited to what is necessarv for the foororint of the actual buildinf!. but not for a oortion of the oaved areas. We know' that this is not just individual trees. but a system,of trees, shrubs, etc. which don't observe property lines. The health of the remaining trees is difjicult to measure until it's too late. There seems to be a critical point at which the system's tolerance is over-tro:ed and fails- in the Eugene/Springfield area, often with a 75' Douglas Fir in someone 's kitchen. The spreading nature of the Douglas Fir root system seems to make them particularly dependent on neighboring trees, and sUsceptible to wind without them. The trees will be further stressed by the construction process and by the permanent covering of roots by impervious materials.....-all of this, a threat to the tree (disease, falling, pests)" and consequently, to surrounding properties. In the past, Sperry .Tree Care has been hired by Peace Health to work with the trees on ihe site in question, so they know the property. Alby Thoumsin from Sperry was recently on my property looking east to the target site and lamenting that arborists and architects are not often asked to consult with equal weight well before the drawing and dreaming begin. Perhaps it's not too late to make some small but potent acijustments to the plan. We ask that vou consider alternatives to a simificant Dortion of the DroDosed 9.900 souare feet of imoervious surfaces. These surfaces shed rainfall and surface pollutants, creating new run off and erosion issues for neighbors and for storm drains into ponds, rivers, lakes, and streams. Instead, . pervious pavements are designed to allow percolation or infiltration of storm water through the surface into the soil below it, where the water is naturally filtered, pollutants are removed, roots are fed, and, temperatures are mediated. As you laiow, there are many alternatives for either ''porous'' (infiltratenvater across the entire surface) . or permeable (can be formed ~f impervious material, but allo~s infiltration through a pattern of voids) surfaces. A combination of these could be used to pre,serve the trees and environment, and to make the Birth Center more aesthetically pleasing. Using bricks, cinders,' cobblestones, concrete blocks with plant~dopenings, "and/or large void patterns throughout paved areasare,somepossibilities. This would also be anoiher opportunity for Peace Health to make another "Gree" Statement ". In any.case, there needs to be adequate on-site drainage, to correspond .with the reduced ability of the trees and eqrth to swallow. Our concern here is that run-offfrom petroleum-based (or other) pollutants will end up on our properties and in the small wetland and seasonal pond to the south, which (in spite of its "insignificant" classification!) 'is home to a teeming array of wildlife, is a well-used stop-over for migrating ducks a,nd, other birds, and is natural perfection in flood control through decades of weather. '. ,~.... . .,... \.. Date Received:. Planner: AL 1!;.!.Mvf I I BuildinfT: We are cancerned abaut tree1"elling damage liability, facility signage, lighting, privacy, and security bath during canstructian andfuture aperatian. Yau've assured that law-maunted, law-watt, dawncast autdaar lighting is the new narm, and we assume this wauld be used at the Birth Center site. If there is ta be street signage, neighbars wauld like ta see a small, law sign'in a calar and style ta blend with the natural surroundings. If a street sign is ta be lighted, we request the minimum wattage necessary ta illuminate-keeping in mind that there is already a high pawered street lamp at the entrance ta the property, and that OM lights cantribute ta evening sf1;eet lighting. The .trend far building site theft may bring criminal attentian ta the site and the neighbarhaad during canstructian. We can alsa expect a gaad number .of curiaus wanderers. Haw will the site be secured during canstrUctian and when aperatianal? We ask that if security cameras are used, they nat be trained an .our praperties, and that barriers are established between praperties. Representing Peace Healih, Mr. Farringtan has always been caurteaus, respansible and accammadating in all"aspects.. and we have na daubt that this will be the angaing case during the Birth Center ,building praject and thraughaut future facility aperatian. As these things became knawn,- we wauld like ta be infarmed .of thepraject timelines and milestanes, including any tree felling. We wauld alsa like ta knaw whether egresslingress is planned far the sauth end .of the praperty. If sa, we wauld like tacamment an that issue a(anather time. ' This neighbarhaad is a unique residential .oasis - and naw "mixed use". Mixing uses daesn't necessarily (.or even best) imply taking dawn the .old ta put up new. Despite same exteriars, this well- established green grave pravides a very high quality .of living far plants and animals (including humans), which becames mare. and mare difficultta find, cannat be truly replicated regardless .of landscaping skills, and deserves attentian taward preservatian. It's camplex and it warks in the strictest sense .of the ward, and in myriad ways. Thaugh Peace Health may, have already addressed these issues respansibly, the camments are nanetheless .offered as a general plea far the City ta be genuine in attempts ta preserve and pratect the extraardinary beauty .of Springfield- ta balance the need far ecanamic grawth with a leadership madel far green grawth and caaperative planning. Thank yaufaryaur cansideratian. Staff Response: Issues related to the site planning and design are addressed in the companion Site Plan Review staff report, (DRC2QQ8-QQQ42). The applicant~s project narrative describes the steps that were taken to minimize the impact to the site and number of existing trees proposed for removal. Contributing factors to the need to remove the trees include: constructing a building that is large enough to meet the needs of the Birthing Center; providing sufficient on-site parking in accordance with the City's Development Code; ensuring pedestrian connectivity from the public sidewalk system and interior parking lot to the front door of the building; providing a driveway of sufficient width to address fIre and emergel!cy access considerations; and anticipating potential construction impacts to adjacent vegetation. As described in the applicant's project narrative, 8.0% of the trees will be retained on the site. The site landscaping plan provides for installation of 12 replacement trees, resulting in a net loss of three trees'on the property. A report from a certifIed arboristin support of the tree felling describes the' size, species, and condition of 68 trees found on the property during a site visit in March, 2.0.08. The applicant's project narrative indicates that the proposed building, driveway, and sidewalk have been 'sited to preserve as many trees as practicable, including placement of the building primarily within the area currently occupied by a single fainily dwelling. Wherever possible; adjustments were made to the site desigri;parking lot and sidewalk layout, and building envelope to protect existing trees'. There are 15 regulated trees proposed'for.removal including seven large, mature ',coniferous trees and eight smaller deciduous, broadleaf evergreen, and i;/JtXJ! Oat~ Received' P!!'!nnw: AL coniferous trees. ,The applicant will be : responsible for ensuring the safe felling and removal of trees without adverse impacts to neighboring properties, A professional tree service will be required to undertake'the tree felling activity due to the size and nature of the, trees proposed for removal. It is ,not expected, that removal of the trees or preservation of the remaining trees will present a hazard to the project site or adjacent properties. ' i Because the trees are inside a developed residential lot within the City limits, and are not part of a larger contiguous natural area, they have limited value as wildlife habitat for tolerant "urban" sRecies. Therefore, wildlife habitat considerations do not warrant preservation. of the 15 trees proposed for removal. " As noted in the staff report and decision for the proposed professional office building (DRC2008-00042), the applicant's site plan proposes to direct rooftop drainage into' underground infiltration galleries to maintain moisture regimes for, the tree stand and provide groundwater recharge, . , CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL: , Ref. Article 5.19-125 of the Springfield Deyelopment Code: TheDirector, in consultation with the Public Works Director and Fire Chief shall approve, approve with conditions or deny the request based on the following standards. A. Whether the conditions of the trees with respect to disease, hazardous or unsafe conditions, danger of faIling, proximity to existing structures or proposed construction, or interference with utility s,ervices or pedestrian, or vehicular traffic safety warrants the proposed feIling. Applicant Submittal: "As reflected in the plot plan and arborist's inventory report, the trees proposed for removal are in fair to good cOlidition, though some have rather sPiITse canopy due to lack of light. All of the 15 trees, proposed for removal are needed due to direct con~truction' impacts or otherwise warrant felling due to potential for property damage and human safety concerns, given proximity to the proposed Birth Center and other existing residences nearby. Whereas earlier site plan concepts used the existing driveway and minimal on-site parking, during pre-application and pre-submittal meetings City staff identified requrrements for additional parking on-site and the width and specifications for driveway construction - all of which resulted in the need for additional tree removal. Adjustlnents were made throughout the planning and design process to conserve tree canopy and some of the larger speCimens on-site. For example, a covered porch ,area initially proposed for the southwest corner of the Birth Center wasremoved to spare a 54" fir (#.18) and 48" hemlock (#19), and to keep the grove of trees at the southwest corner of the site intact. The location of the Birth Center building footprint was also adjusted northward to occupy more ,of the open area created by the existing house location, and . to provide greater separation and protection for large trees along the south side oftIie site (e.g., # I - 46" fir; #2 '- 36" fir) and protection against windthrow that could compromise the safety of the Birth Center, its occupants, and adjacent t'.~t'",.:; from southerly winds." Staff Response: " Finding A.l: There are a total of,15 trees proposed for removal from the project area. All of the trees are affected by proposed construction. ,Only one tree is affected by placement of the proposed office , building, and the remaining trees are within or abut areas identified for paved vehicle and pedestrian circulation, Finding A.2: The regulated trees proposed for removal from the property include: Seven Douglas-fir, four maple, two yew, one Grand fir and one magnolia. All of. the trees proposed for removal are greater , ',::...,..' \.': Date, f(.::;ceived' 0 ~rJ> , Planner: AL 'I ~ than 5 inches diameter at breast height (SDC 5.9-110.A). The areas subject to tree felling will be developed with site improvements and/or re-landscaped pursuant to the approved site plan for the professional office building (DRC2008-00042). Finding A.3: The applicant's project narrative states the proposed tree removal is to facilitate construction of a professional office building, parking lot, driveway and internal sidewalk, and installation of new underground utilities, The approved development plan is not conducive to retaining the trees, because the site driveway is to be relocated and widened.in order to avoid inipacts to existing mature trees in the west half of the site; the parking lot area is to be graded and paved; a sidewalk is to be installed along the western edge of the parking lot and driveway to accommodate pedestrians and handicapped access; and the professional office building is larger than the existing dwelling, despite being placed as close to the existing building footprint as possible. Finding A.4: The applicant has received tentative site plan approval to remove, and/or replace landscaping within the property and along portions of the site perimeter (DRC2008-00042). Finding A.5: Trenching for underground utilities to serve the development site can affect the root mass and structure of adjacent trees. The applicant is proposing to place utilitiesundergr6und beneath the new site driveway in order to minimize the impact to adjacent trees. However, that will necessitate removal of trees within the impact zone. for the driveway and adjacent sidewalk. Conclusion: As proposed, the above fmdings support the conclusion that the locations. of the trees, with respect to proposed construction, warrant their removal. ' B. Whether the proposed felling is consistent with State standards, Metro Plan policies and City . Ordinances and provisions affecting the environmental quality of the area, including but not' Iimited,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.' .. Applicant Submittal:, "SDC 5.19-105 states thai among [sic] the purposes of the Tree Felling permit process is tO'retain natural amenities of developable properties 'until these properties are ready for urban development'. As noted above, the Gateway Refmement Plan (GRP) identified these trees as 'Other Prominent Vegetation,' but these trees were not given Goal 5 status by the City as significant natural resources. GRP rIDplementation Action 8.4 encouraged development proposals to seek 'reasonable retention of existing trees.' This'proposal fulfills this objective by retaining nearly 80% of the existing trees on-site, removing only those necessary for development as determined by a certified arborist, and conserving open space and the greatest preponderance of tree clusters at the northeast and southwest'portions of the site. The retention of the majority of the tree stands will conserve the site's scenic qualities consistent with the above criterion'and GRP objectives. Additionally, measures.will be taken to protect the trees to remain. These measures will include tree protection fencing, designated construction paths that avoid vegetation to remain; development techniques that are sensitive to the existing trees (such as hand planting near existing vegetation), and monitoring by a certified arborist during the construction process. Metro Plan Environmental Resources Element Policy 14 states: 'Metropolitan goals relating to scenic quality, water quality, vegetation and wildlife, open space and recreational potential shall be given a higher priority than timber harvest within the urban growth boundary' (pg. ill-C-9). Although the site is within the Springfield UGB, the proposed tree felling is solely as needed to develop the proposed Birth Center, as [sic] is not being harvested for commercial timber production. Therefore, the above'Metro Ci;ltEl! ~eceived: Planner: AL Q/1.-/).<Jof , I Plan policy and other policies relative to woodlot management and forestry uses. (i.e., Policies 15-17) are not applicable." , Staff Response: Finding B.l: ,Forestry practi~es 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 J:rees removed; 2) the trees are being removed for planned development not timber harvest purposes; and 3) sufficient re-planting can be accomplished in accordance with the conditions of this permit and site plan review procedures. Finding B.2: The Springfield Development Code (SDC) is the primary implementing ordinance for environmental protection policies contained in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan). SDC Article 5.19-100 - Tree Felling Standards and SDC Article 5.17-100 - Site Plan . Review generally implement environmental protection policies of the Metro Plan during development review on the subject site. Finding B.3: The trees proposed forremoval from the subject site.include 15 regulated trees of varying species, heights and ages (ranging from 8. to 44 inches in diameter). Finding B.4: The trees existing on the subject site are identified as "Other,PromU;ent Vegetation" on the Natural Assets map of the Gateway Refinement Plan. Goal 10 of the refmement plan's Natural Assets. Ooen Soace/Scenic Areas & Recreation Element states: "Maintain prominent mature vegetation, as shown on the Natural Assets Map on page 39, for its scenic, air filtration, and noise reduction qualities to the greatest degree .practicable,"' Finding B.5: The tree stand is comprised of planted species within several contiguous residential parcels and it forms a narrow band between Deadmond Ferry Road and the oorthern edge of the Riverbend Hospital campus. As such, the trees proposed for removal are not part of a natural or scenic area, nor do they comprise part of a larger contiguous stand of trees.., Finding B.6: The applicant has received tentative approval to remove an existing dwelling and construct a -4,000 W professional office building, driveway, parking lot and site landscaping. In accordance with site plan review procedures and the approved tentative site plan, the applicant is ,proposing to re-plant 12 sitelandscaping trees within the project area. Existing mature trees and .shrubs that form a buffer with adjacent' properties are proposed to remain along, the edges of the site. As described in the applicant's project narrative, the site plan proposes to retain 8.0% of the existing trees on the property, which meets the intent ofthe Gateway Refinement Plan goaL Finding B. 7: Erosion and sediment control measures will be.required during tree removal, site grading and landscaping installation. Finding B.8.: The area north of the subject site is zoned Campus Industrial, and areas to the south are zoned Mixed Use. All of the trees proposed for removal are located on the applicant's property. I Finding B'.9: Removal of the trees from the subject site will have no appreciable effect on the surroimding physical and visual environment because: . a) Most of the mature coniferous trees on the site, including those on the western and southwestern edges, are proposed to remain; b) Trees on adjacent properties will be unaffected by the proposed tree felling; c) The deciduous and coniferous trees that are to be removed are not part of a contiguous natural ,standof~es; ~d Date I~eceived: Planner: AL ~h./~J" d) Planting of trees, shrubs and groundcover plants is proposed with the approved site landscaping plans. Additionally, wherever possible the applicant has committed to retaining existing'hedges along the northern and eastern boundaries of the property. The broadleaf evergreen hedges will maintain a visual buffer for the site. from the street and adjacent properties. Conclusion: Springfield Development Code (SDC) Section 5.19-100 - Tree Felling Standards, and Section 5.17-100 - Site Plan Review, generally implement environmental protection policies of the Metro Plan and have been applied herein and during development review. As conditioned under this permit and the associated applications, the proposal is consistent with applicable policies and provisions of State law, the Metro Plan and the Springfield Development Code for protection of environmental quality, C. Whether it is necessary to remove trees' in order to construct proposed improvements as specified in an approved development plan, grading permits and construction drawings.. Applicant Submittal: . "The tree removal identified in this application is necessary in order to construct the proposed Birth Center and associated improvements. Construction prerequisites - such as the quantity of parking spaces required, ,the width of the driveway and its construction specifications - resulted in greater tree impacts than originally planned. However, site design refinements reflected in the concurrently submitted Site Plan Review application retained as many trees on-site as possible, particularly those in established tree stands." Staff Response: , Finding C.l: The applicant has received tentative site plan approval for construction of the professional office building, installation of a new site driveway' and parking lot, and site landscaping around the perimeter of the building (DRC2008-00042). Finding Co2: 'The locations of the trees are within areas identified for driveway and parking lot installation, sidewalks and building footprint. Additionally, all trees proposed for removal are at least 25 feet from the nearest property line and the majority are in the center of the property. Finding C.3: The landscaping plan approved with the Site Plan (DRC2008-00042) provides Jor re- planting of trees, shrubs and groundcover plants within the affected project area. Twelve trees and 198 shrubs are proposed for planting within the site. Conclusion: As detailed on reviewed site assessment and landscaping plans, the trees are located internal to the property and within'areas'proposed for paved driving, parking, and walking areas, and within the projected building envelope. Therefore, it is necessary to remove the' subject trees in order to construct proposed improvements. The tentative site plan proposes to replant 12 trees within the site to compensate forthe.trees to be removed with the applicant's submittal. D. In the event that no Development Plan has been .approved by the City, felling of trees will be permitted on a limited baSis consistent with the preservation of the site's future development' potential as prescribed in the Metro Plan and City development regulations, and consistent with the following criteria: 1. Wooded areas associated with natural drainageways and water areas shall be retained to preserve riparian hahitat and to minimize erosion; 2. Wooded areas that will likely provide attractive on-site views to occupants of future developments shall be retained; , O€\te Received' PI<:Inner: AL 1/J-/JPO/ , / . 3. Wooded areas along ridge lines and hilltops shall be retained' for their scenic and wildlife value; 4. ,Wooded areas along property lines shall be retained to serve as buffers from adjacent properties;' 5. Trees shall be retained in suflicieutlylarge areas and' dense stauds so as to ensure . against windthrow; and 6. Large-scale clear-cuts of developable areas shall be avoided to retain the wooded character of futut:e building sites, and so preserve housing and design options for future , City residents. . Applicant Submittal: "Approval of the proposed Site Plan .Review application coocurrent with this application for Tree Removal constitutes development approval with buildiog envelopes as identified in Code. These applications follow established provisions for tree removal consistent with the SDC and approved RiverBend.Master Plan. [Response to D I] The proposal avoids tree removal at the southwest corner of the site, where the site elevation begins to fall away toward the drainageway and small wetland off,site. Therefore, the proposal preserves riparian habitat and positive attributes associated with this off-site drainage, consistent with this criterion. [Response to D2]As noted above and as illustrated on the, plot plan, the vast majority of existing tree masses will be retained' to provide amenity value to patients, employees, and visitors to the Birth Ceoter site, and to buffer the development from.surrounding areas. [Response to D3] There are no ridgeljnes or hilltops on the subject site.' [Response to D4] Trees near and along property boundaries were retained to buffer ,the proposed Birth Center from adjacent properties. _ [Respons~ to D5] As identified on the plot plan, trees on-site will be retained as significantly large stands to protect against wind throw. Trees proposed for removal include smaller trees (nearly half are 14" dbh or smaller), and all are roughly in the interior of the parcel to protect established stands of trees in the northeast, south and southwest portion of the site fornipotential wind throw that could' damage existing and future buildings, [Response to D6] No clear cutting is proposed. Trees will be retained on-site for buffer, amenity, and ecological value," . Staff Response: Finding D.l: The above standard applies where no site plans have been ~pproved. As noted above, the applicant has received tentative site plan approval in accordance with Planning Action DRC2008-00042. Finding D.2: The subject property is currently developed with a single family dwelling with asphalt driveway_ While there are numerous large, mature trees on ,the site, the property does not contain a natural, contiguous wooded area. . Conclusion: .The above fmdings offact demonst;rate that Criterion'of Approval D does not apply because , the applicant h~ received tentative site plan approval, and no naturally-occurring or contiguous wooded areas exist on die site. I Date f{8C~ived:~h r.... F Planner: AL , . E. Whether the applicant's proposed replanting of new trees or vegetation is an adequate substitute for the trees to be felled. Applicant Submittal: "As shown on Sheet LA-l in the Birth Center site plan package; the applicant proposes considerable new vegetative plantings on-site to buffer the proposed Birth Center, to add greater visual interest, and to screen the parking area. These plantings and the retention of existing trees and landscaping on-site will result in nearly 70% of the site being landscaped." Staff Response: Finding E.l: Staff have determined that a total of 12 trees are proposed to be planted as replacement for the 15 regulated trees proposed for removal. The replacement trees depicted on the'site landscaping plan are internal to the property along the edges of the parking lot and building. These areas will be more open and exposed to sunlight than other portions of the site. Elsewhere on the site, the deep shade cast by the existing mature trees makes planting new trees less feasible. Finding E.2: Although large, mature trees exist on the property, it.is likely that all of the trees were formerly planted and are not a remnant natural area. The trees proposed for removal are varying species, heights and indeterminate ages, and range from approximately 8 to 44 inches in diatlleter. . , Finding E.3: .The applicant has included a landscape plan with the site review packet which shows 12 replacement trees, including maple species, dogwood, pear, Korean Stewartia and Zelkova. The applicant's proposed landscape plan, in combination with the existing trees and groundcover on the property that are to be retained, exceed the site landscaping requirements of the City's Development Code. Finding E.4: In addition to street and site landscaping trees, the developer is proposing to plant ornamental shrubs and groundcover plants in the planter areas subject to reconfiguration. The shrubs' and groundcover plants are supplementary to the site landscaping trees and are not proposed as substitutes for required tree plantings. Conclusion: The trees, shrubs and groundcover plants depicted on the site plan review landscape plans (DRC2008-00042) are an adequate substitute for the trees to be felled because the number of trees provided (a total of 12), type (as selected by a landscap~ architect); and location (in maintained planted areas) over time will match the canopy cover and longevity expected of the 15 regulated trees subjeCt to removal with this application. . F. Whether slash left on the property poses significant fire hazard or liability to the City. Applicant Submittal: "Trees marked for removal will be completely removed from the site, including stumps and roots over J inches in diameter." , Staff Response: Finding F.l: Removal of slash reduces fire hazards and prevents the mixing of organic materials with engineered fill and other materials that will be placed on the site during construction. Conclusion: The applicant has proposed that the contractor will remove the trees and slash from the, property during tree felling. As proposed, this standard has been met. . . , Date Heceived: q ~ ~o/ Planner: AL r,,?iI , . ,G. Whether the felling is consistent with the guidelines specified.in t~e Field Guide to Oregon . '. Forestry Practices Rules published by the State of Oregon, Department of Forestry, as they apply to the northwest Oregon region. Applicant Submittal: "A licensed, bonded, insured professional contractor, in compliance with applicable State and local practices, rules, and ordinances, will conduct the tree felling. Felling will adhere to guidelines setin the Field Guide to Oregon Forestty Practices, Division 630, Harvesting. These standards are intended'to direct felling in such a way as to minimize soil anddehris from entering state water, and to protect fish and wildlife habitat." Staff Response: . Finding G.l: Forestty practices in the .State of Oregon are governed by the State Forest Practices Act. The Field Guide to Oregon Forestty Practices Rule provides safety and. other guidelines for compliance with the State Forest Practices Act .during logging operations. The guidelines are standards in the industty and are generally followed during all operations performed by licensed ,and bonded logging contractors. . Finding G.2: . The proposed tree felling, removal and recplanting:proposed as part of this permit do not rise to State. forestry regulations because: I) 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 conditi,ons of this permit and site plan review procedures. ' Conclusion: The subject site is within the Springfield City limits. The proposed tree felling, removal and re-planting are regulated by the applicable provisions of the Springfield Development Code. As described in the applicant's project narrative, State forestty guidelines fonafe operations will be followed . as applicable to the liwited felling of trees approved under this permit. . H. Whether transportation of equipment to and equipment and trees from the site can be accomplished without a major disturbance to ne~rby residents. Applicant Submittal: "Tree removal from the site will occur during regular business hours in order to regulate noise impacts on the local residents. The site is located adjacent to collector streets (i.e., Deadmond Ferry, Game Farm Road), so equipment and felled trees will ,have easy ll.~cess' to leave the area quickly via Beltline Road without the use of more residential streets. Transportation 6f trees and equipment should not result in any major disturbance to nearby residents.". Staff Response: Finding H.l: As described in the applicant's project narrative, tree felling traffic will use the adjacent public streets to access the site during regular business hours. Finding: H.2: The area proposed for tree felling is across the street from the Gateway Business Park, which currently experiences automobile and commercial vehicle traffic throughout the day. Additionally, the site is not far removed from the Martin Luther King, Jr. BoulevardlBeltline Road arterial street that carries high volumes of automobile and truck traffic on a daily basis. Conclusion: The traffic generated by the tree felling activity will be short-term and no more intrusive than other '(ommercial vehicle traffic normally associated with nearby Campus Industrial development. Therefore, the 'proposed work will 'not constitute a major disturbance. . uati:, i'(t:jceived:4~"'ol' Planner: AL " " " ; CONCLUSION AND DECISION: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: None. The above fmdings and conclusions demonstrate that the proposal meets the standards of SDC 5.19-125 , . for Tree Felling Permit Approval. This written decision and the approved Final Site Plan arising from Planning Action DRC2008_00042 (including the Site Landscape Plans) constitute the Tree Felling Permit. The following general construction I?ractices apply when tree felling is initiated on site: . Notification shall be proVided to the City,at least 5 days prior to commencement of the tree felling operation. Please contact Andy Limbird at 726-3784 (direct), or by email: alimbird(a)ci ,sorinclield.or, us. . All felling activities, including ingress and egress for the logging operations, shall include erosion control measures in comormance with the City's Engineering Design Standards and Practices Manual. ., All 'fellmg and removal activities, shall be performed in a manner' which avoids' site soil c~mpaction in areas of existing or future landscape planting. . . Any soil arid debris tracked into the street by vehicles and equipment leaving the site shall be cleaned 'up with shovels in a timely manner and not washed into the storm drain system [SDC 5.19-125]. . ADDmONAL INFORMA nON , . The application an~ documents 'relied upon by the appli~ant, and the applicable criteria of 'approval are available for a free inspection at the Development Services Department, 225 Fifth Street, Spnngfield, Oregon. Copies of the documents will be made for $0.75 for the first page and $0,50 for ~ach additional page. APPEAL If you wish to appeal the decision of approval, you must do so by 5:00 PM on September 17,2008. Your appeal must be submitted in accordance with the Springfield Development Code, Article 15, APPEALS. Note: Appeals must be ~ubmitted on a City form and a fee of $250.00 must be paid to the City at the time of submittal. ,The fee will be returned to the 'appellant if th.e Planning Coinmission approves the appeal application. ' If you have any questions regarding these matters, please call (541) 726-3784 or send an email to: alimbird(a)ci.sorin"field.or .US. PREPARED BY Andy Limbird Planner II Date Received: O{/;}..mJrf Planner: AL ~ . ,. ... -. ~'.."'I . . . ~ . . . ~ .,~, ,.. ," _,,,__ . ~ ." .11 ,.:.....~ :,.: ,:? ,<~:.~~~ ;:;~t?'1~i~i~~~~~;:~~\};~~~~!~ ~ CITY OF SPRINGFIELD.;.":;yy.,.,,,,:,:.'j;il! .' ", . '.'.r,. " ">:;,--,,, ',' ".!~,.qi~ DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT;?";;, ;12';'\ ~ . 225 5th ST -. ,.'. .~,i~),\ ,:::;f:::!';~f~i;!~'i~, -::,~)tE(1;X : SPRINGFIELD OR 97477 \ ::,';":(:;"~'Jig;:)1; : , '. .", :;';:~~~:~~0t~,(~~~~~ ~ ...,........... ., ....::Ii,.,_~ ~ Philip Farrington Peacehealth, Oregon REgion 123 International Way Spfld., OR 97477 L,......II__...... -h__ , ' '--;{t' .1 . "t '" ". - -',1 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD ;~;!;J'W~ DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENF ;. ";,:".:'.. ;~.":-~'", 225 5th ST ,'" ")'i',: . '-. " '''' '''''', SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477'" ...,'?,1.," , , ',,' " ,.;' : : :'::':~:i:::;a~~rt:~"_h"f,y,__~:~i~: Matt Keenan KPFF Consulting Engineers 1201 Oak Street, Ste 100 Eugene, OR 97401 ~ , ........ ;: "'~,, j ~~' :;,:/i~,;d~~I;f:~i~~;:~~~J]%,:Ii~T' .,.. ' CITY OF SPRINGFiEi.Q. "::', ::':'~'~:!:'," DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPAFmviENT i,',';i:.'~,':,;.i,j':;, 22~ 5th ST" .',: <:,~.~:,-,:,:~d~,~~:~~'~;;_;~f\;;1.?,j\~]:f~.;;~t{;~~r~_ SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 ..'.", :;,';'c',:M':";' : ,:-~~1:::.,):~j1f},~t~;:I~;m\!\\~ . l. o. I .",. .. ~ David Dougherty DLA Landscape Architects 474 Wrllamette Bt, SlOe 305 Eugen~, OR 97401 Oated~eceived: t; likJl Planner: AL 0 . 13> . ~,',"," ~ Cl)w~ 't:l .,." . 1-1 \D t:l. 1-1. ..... r:J t;j (Jq ro ~ I-tI ~ j-l. 1-" p.. f--i ro 9 ;-. ;-.0.... A..::l'oo . p.. 0.." , "'ro " " "''< '"' .,.'" ,",0 '"'''' p.. .~ .0;" 1':'=',. I . ~_. I Ill. ! ; '.0. "om . .<. ."'.~-' .. '0 (j) '"00 "0 s:- ;!:!m -I Z .z-< (;)",-10 "Tl!'VW""n m 01 m.en , r '" <:0 ~ .~' 11 . .~o.s: - :C.' . O:n' ~ ~ Z," ". (j) C> .- , c:o .>..0 '='n ~~~!& ; . , , ! i ~ ----- ~,. - ..... .. r.._ ~ ~ .I I ._. . .' . _ - _ ".: :;i<~{J~:!1)\~tl~~\r~' CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, ::f~:?&J;;i{ " DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT: ~' . 225' 5th 5T . "';:.:?;'::.f~~:!.~~~;}7~;;1~~~j::'iij~}1 SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 ,:..': \"",<"",:,';',1':1".;,,; "::::;~:1:~Jff!lii'~i~~f~! Dianna Larsen 377 Deadmond Ferry Road Springfield, ElR 97477 I ...........1....... I ,.." I .'. '. .:-'- (~;-,:/~tT'~~~Jtr' CITY OF SPRINGFIELD -'>;';',';,,; _ ,. _ DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT ,;'\{;1;Wt'i'it ' . 225 5th 8T ',-~:, . 'tW:~J.i~~lf~~~ ~ SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 "Co''' J;,:'.J ,... ~_., ____ . . .<~~!!:;J~~!;j Bally and Bruce Brown' 335 Deadmond Ferry Road Springfield, OR 97477 . oi ... I I................. ",...,...,~ .._ , ~,'."o ,:L ~,)/.~~:r1~~~~\'-;":1'- -- CITY OF SPRINGFiELD-<;;'~i';L . _' . <"t: ''''l~\..',:,___ DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMEN'rX~, "",' -j-"." 225 5th ST . '..' - . _..' .__,-",,,_:,_.-1" SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 ,1,;1.'(' .' ,-- .. . :' -c...... .,.,~ -'::~ ';<',,{;:,,:(:"';:~~;< ..;. ....w,. . < 1,,0, . Jeri and Jesse Covington 349 Deadmond Ferry Road Springfiel~, OR 97477 Date i":eceived:~h./ft:'?,f' Planner: AL . J ,,' ..', . . " , ..' ......__...,........_...._..;....-..._I_-.---!t. . .' ", ,'f,q-'i',:;'.'~~.';~:l CITY OF SPFhNGFIELD .;,::"r!i;~'1'~'i.:;~ DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENtr'''';':S~ 225 5th ST, .", , ";'f,~ 'SPRINGFIELD,OR 9747I,c, ,,;" ~i(,;"","Ij~ ' . . ,,' :.~:'l-,'~,.,/\:\'~I.;,-~~,-....",./ta:i I '. . .".~ :J' ""..l"r,":)';'1~~,:p"; ';.J\';\.)~~X, II II ., ''"III Ie. b. Jon Anderson Anderson, Dabrowski Architects 1430 SW 3rd Ave, Ste 200 Portland, OR 97214 ,', ".::. ',',," ,.' .,", " " " ...., ;'.. ..... Date, Receiv~d: 'f~/ji,.;tf Planner:' AL '",'.. ,