HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence PLANNER 5/14/2008
t
Re: Springfield Justice Center .es
'.
Page 1 of3
'.
L1MBIRD Andrew
From: L1MBIRD Andrew
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 1:35 PM
To: 'Brian McCarthy'
Subject: RE: Springfield Justice Center Trees
Brian: The suggested flowering dogwood would be acceptable, or any of the trees found on the City's street tree
list here: hllQ:lIwww.ci.sQringfield.oLus/pubworks/design/06.00 Street Trees.pdt. The witch hazel is proposed for
a -11-foot wide planter strip at the southeast corner of the building, so any listed species would be acceptable
even though overhead power lines are not a factor at this site. If yciu would like confirmation of a selected tree
species that isn't on the list, please let me know. Thanks
Andy Limbird
City of Springfield
From: Brian McCarthy [mailto:brian@cmgsla.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 200811:37 AM
To: UMBIRD Andrew
Subject: Re: Springfield Justice Center Trees
Thanks for your understanding Andy...we in no way questioned your judgment or impartiality. We just struggle at times to describe or portray our
work. in ways that compliment both the development standards, and our unders10ndings of the intent behind them in accomplishing community-
wide goals. In this instance we neither prepared the SP mod nor the tree felling info and it now is apparent that our involvement might hove
alleviated some confusion regarding the tree plantings.
Rnolly, os we selecf a substitute tree at the 2-inch caliper size for the Wifch Hazel how do you wont us to proceed? We'd rather have a p'reliminory
approval of a substitute"before preparing the Final plan so it doesn't go in incorrectly or with a substitute tree that planning isn't comfortable with
approving.
Brian
On 5/14/08 8:19 AM, "L1MBIRD Andrew" <aJimbird@cLspringfield,or.us>wrote:
Thanks for the clarification Brian
Andy
" ---~~
..---_._-~_.~------------~.._._---- '.--'---
From: Brian McCarthy [ma[IQ:_~rian@cmQsla.coml
sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 5:51 PM
To: GRILE Bill; Randy Nishimura
Cc: DONOVAN James; POLSTON Jim; KNAPEL Carole: UMBIRD Andrew; SMITH Jerry
Subject: Re: Springfield Justice Cenler Trees
We agree with the strategy and counsel autflned.
As the landscape architects we should have upslzed the one code-required tree type (the 7 Eastern Redbuds) to 2-inch cafiper as the develapment standards dictate instead ot Bsling them
at 1 &3{,j.jnch cafiper. And, we probably should have made it more clear, within the team, that the accent trees that were a discretionary enhancement to the project for aesthetic
reasons, were not Intended as replacements or mitigation for the trees that were required to be removed. That might hove helped those who prepared the SP Modification and Tree Felling
permits in their efforts, so that those accent trees weren't portrayed as replacements in the permits verbiage. The 74 trees not listed as accents still would hove provided more than
a 2:1 tree
replacement ratio.
At this point we intend, unless counseled otherwise, to upsize to 2-inch cafiper the bulk 01 those16 accent trees as condilioned in the Site Plan Modification. For the 3 Witch Hazels
along A
Street that can't be obtained at 2-inch cafiper (and to most people appear as lorge deciduous shnubs even when full grown) we hope to substitute a 2-1nch cafiper species like flowering
dogwoods) acceptable from 0 planning perspective.
Finally, lor Thursdays meeting, we have prepared a large print 01 the tree planting pion for the project to which we hove added color to the proposed trees so that all can see the 90
new
trees included in the new development and the 3 large existing Bigleot Maples that are not siated for removal at the north end of 4th street I the planting strip between the curb and
sidewalk.
Brian D. McCarthy. ASLA
Cameron. McCarthy. Gilberl & ScheIbe
Landscape Architects and Planners
P 541 485.7385 I F 541 -485.7389 I bllp:1Lcmg:ila.com
On 5/13{OB 2:36 PM. "GRILE Bilr' <bQrile@cLsprinQfield.ar.us>wrate:
5/14/2008
Date Received:
Planner: Al
s- /;r/ ;JP(JJ>
/
~
Re: Springfield Justice Center .s
.
Page 2 of3
\
.
This was a good response from Andy, Randy. To it, I would only add that we have a potenlialland use appeal here that will be avoided, hopefully. Anything that can be done 10 avoid
stepping over a dollar to pick up a nickel... if you follow me ... makes good sense. I know you'll do your best to sort this out Thanks.
...Bill
From: UMBIRD Andrew
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 9:40 AM
To: mlshlmura@robertsonsherwoo::l.com
Cc: DONOVAN James; GRILE Bill; POlSTON Jim; KNAPEL Carole; brian@angsla.com
Subject: RE: Spfd Justice Center Trees
Randy: In order to be considered qualifying site landscaping trees, all trees must meet the minimum requirements of the Development Code (2-inch caliper). The applicant's Site Plan
Modification and Tree Felling applications (Cases DRC2008-OO024 and DRC2008-OO02B) assert that trees proposed for remova,1 from the site (35) are to be replaced at nearly a 3 to 1 ratio
(90 replacement trees). If 16 of the trees do not meet minimum standards of the Development Code, they would not be counted as valid replacement trees, Planning staff are not looking
to
"impose their will" on the applican~ but if the deciSion is made to provide only 74 qualifying replacement trees this must be dearly communicated to interested residents at the neighbomooa
meeting on Thursday. Additionally, an updated proied. narrative must be provided for the Site Plan Modification and Tree Felling applications revising the replacement tree count and
ratio
from -3:1 (90 trees) to 2:1 (74 trees). A discrepancy in the provision of "qualifying" replacement trees per the Tree Felling permit (stated as 90, but really 74) could provide sufficient
grounds
for an appeal to the Pla~ning Commission. "
I would also note that Code.-required plantings are minimum standards only, and plant counts that are over and above this requirement stin must meet the caliper size requirements slated
in
the Code (ie. the City's Code does not contemplate a mix and matci1 approach for "discretionary" vs. "Code-required" plantings). J trust this addresses your inquiry and please let me
know if
you have any further queslions. Thanks
Andy Limbird
City of Springfield
From: Randy Nishimura [l!!a!!to:mi~bJ!!!u'!!!@LQ~~9!l~OQ~t,W!!!l ~1'!l_aJ!tQ:mishimufll.1L~s!lerw()QI::LJ;9!!L,*,--ScJ.2:.
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 3:42 PM
To:'UMBIRD Andrew
Cc: POlSTON Jim; 'Brian McCarthy'
Subject: FW: Spfd Justice Center Trees
Andy:
Read Brian McCarthy's (CMGS) message below regarding #11 of the Conditions of Approval for the Springfield Justice Center Major Sile Plan Modification. Note his distinction between
"code required" and "discretionary" trees. In order 10 property address this conditions of approval, Brian is seeking clarification from you regarding whether or not it is the City's
intent to
.require that all trees must be of 2-inch minimum caliper or if it is acceptabla that only the "code required" trees meet this standard.
If you could clarify this for us, we will able to provide an updated Final Site Plan that properly addresses the intent of this Condition of Approval.
Randy
Randy Nishimura, AlA, CCS
Robertsonl5herwoodlA~hitects pc
132 East Broadway, Suite 540
Eugene, OR 97401
P 5411342.8077
F 5411345.4302
From: Brian McCarthy [mallto;b!!a!!@J:rr!g~--,---CQ!!!] <mallto:brian@(n111Sla.com%5d>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 1:40 PM
To: Randy Nishimura
Cc: Cart Sherwood; Kristena McAlister
SUbject: Spfd Justice Center Trees
Randy,
In reviewing the Justice Center's Conditions of Approval ICristena and i noticed that It appears.fhe plannerWTiting the conditions erroneously assumed ali 90 trees being plonted were
"code required" trees requiring 2-inch canpersizing. Not hoving seen the Tree Feling Permit yet we weren'J sure where that notion was creeted~ Bui, only ihe Jlees lis'red as Trees 174lTees
.
total) on our Plant Ust ore "code required" under Ihe Ci';y's developmenl standards. the trees headlined os Accent Trees (16 total) on the Plant UsI ore discretionary.uthey are ooLcode
required but are inCluded in the design because we wonted to put them in beyond what the code required for oesthetic reasons and we befleve they should have no minimum size
requirements. In some cases these trees ore similar to lorge, mu~j.stem shrubs ond ore not available in 2-inch caliper sizes.
We did note thet one Tree type of the code.required trees is undersized on the Plant Ust and should be changed. There ore 7 of them called for in our design. They ore Carcis canadensis
(Cercen). We intend to make that adjustment os they should not hove been shown at the 1-3/4" col. size isted. However, we'd ~ke 0 clarification on the Conditions to make sure the
planner is not imposing their will beyond what is code required related 10 the proposed trees. We assume you'll wont to discuss this with Jim P. ond/orCoroll(. to determine how to
proceed?
Brion D. McCarthy, ASLA
Cameron € McCarthy € Gilbert & Scheibe
Landscape Architects and Planners
P 541 485.7385 I F 541 485.7389 I l11io:.lft:masla.c.QIII
5/14/2008
DatE'1 Received:
Planner: AL
oj;r/)PIJI
I