Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotice PLANNER 2/1/2010 . . b)~ AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE Date Received: FEB . 1 2010 SUbmitta~&1J-i-, 0~1un 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 Technician, I prepared and caused to be . mailed copies of Rc..z.o -0000 -' . . . ~.jo OO~'1J (See attachment "A") on 2010 addressed to (see --nu. Po-Ucb. Attachment B"), by causing sai letters to be placed in a U.S. mail box with CcJ"Kd.oS postage fully prepaid thereon. ~cY~ STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane \ .~~ I .2010. Personally appeared the above named Karen LaFleur, Program Tec nician, 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 ~ kiJ~r My Commission Expires: 8 lit; / II I I . .,. . TYPE II TREE FELLING PERMIT STAFF REPORT & DECISION Case Number: DRC2010-00002 Project Name: Pointe Condominiums Tree Felling Permit Nature of Application: The applicant submitted a tree felling application necessary for removing a total of 17 trees: eight trees already removed along Harlow Road; and proposing to remove an additional six trees along Harlow Road and three trees internal to the site Project Location: 650 Harlow Road (Assessor's Map 17-03-22-43, TL 2000 & 2100 Zoning: Medium Density Residential (MDR) Refinement Plan Designation: MDR (Gateway Refinement Plan) Application Date: January 6, 2010 Decision Date: February 1,2010 Appeal Deadline: February 16, 2010 Associated Applications: None . = Denotes tree removed or proposed for removal APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM Applicant: Arborist: Larry Miller The Pointe Condominiums 650 Harlow Road Springfield, OR 97477 James Cummings, 1SA James Cummings Tree Service P.O. Box 1521 Eugene, OR 97440 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM EfT .... , er PHONE 726-3784 726-3679 736-1034 736-1034 726-2293 726-3668 NAME And Limbird Jon Driscoll Eric Walter . Eric Walter Gilbert Gordon Dave Puent Date Received:~Jfld/6 Planner: AL . :If. 117_ . I Site Information: The site is developed with a IIO-unit residential condominium complex built in 1979. Mature landscaping and trees are dispersed throughout the site, including along the south property frontage on Harlow Road. The applicant has already removed eight pine trees along Harlow Road at the , southwest corner of the site, and is proposing to remove nine additional trees from the site. Six pine trees near the" midpoint of the south property line and three trees within the site interior are proposed for removal. The applicant's tree felling plan and a site inspection by staff suggests that the qualifYing tre(os on the site consist of Shore Pine, Magnolia, Hemlock and one deciduous tree ( unknown species). The applicant is proposiJg to plant three Red Maple trees at the southwest corner of the site along Harlow Road to replace the eight pine trees that were removed. SPECIAL CASE NOTE: PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR HAS' AN OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, ANJI) . THEREFORE HAS RECUSED HIMSELF FROM TillS DECISION. TillS DECISION HAS BEEN DELEGATED TO AND IS BEING ISSUED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE SPRINGFIELD uRBAN PLANNING SUPERVISOR. DECISION: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS. This decision constitutes an approved Tree Felling Permit to r~move the seventeen (17) 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 conditions 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, stat'; and federal regulations. REVIEW PROCESS: This application is reviewed under Type II procedures listed in Springfield Development Code Section 5.1-130 and Tree Felling standards ofSDC 5.19-100. I Procedural Finding: ' Staff reviewed the plans detailing the proposed tree felling (2 Sheets - Site Plan diagram with notations, and a hand-drawn diagram of the southwest Harlow Road frontage of the site). City staff's review :comments have been reduced to findings and conditions only as necessary for compliance with the Tree Felling Criteria ofSDC 5.19-125. Procedural Finding: ,Applications for Limited Land Use Decisions require the notification of property owners/occupants within 300 feet of the subject property allowing for a 14 day comment period on the application (SDC Se6tions 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 of this decision for consideration (see Written Comments below and Appeals at the end of this decision). Written Comments: ILimited 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 January 14,2010. Nine written comments were received from property owners within the Pointe Condominiums complex: John Mullen (650 Harlow Road #114); Brent Moon (650 Harlow Road #149); Steve Collier and Judy Fleisig (650 Harlow Road #210); Linda :Furman Grile (650 Harlow Road #249); Anne Conner (650 Harlow Road #123); Patricia LeRud (650 Harlow Road #201); Rosearin Pauson (650 Harlow Road #151); Wanda Gardner (650 Harlo~ Road #155); and Vicki Williamson (650 Harlow Road #246). " , ~.. .. . ,. Daie r~cceived:_Jl;j].tV~ Planner: AL TT"" . . Commerit #1 from John Mullen: First let me thank you and the City for the notice and also having an opportunity for input. My name is John Mullen and I own and reside in unit #II4 at The Pointe. It was my understanding, after some confusion and discussion between Pointe and City representatives, that the only trees that required a permit at The Pointe were the so-called "street trees n. I was surprised to see the City's notice also includes trees that are inside the complex. Was this a misunderstanding on the part of Pointe or City representatives? I have lived here all of the 30+ years that The Pointe has been in existence and have been directly involved in the removal and planting of many trees over that period of time - to the best of my knowledge only one of those trees might have been considered a street tree and it was removed after being severely damaged on two difference occasions by high wind. It set in approximately 20 '-30' from the sidewalk so I don't know if it qualified as a street tree. Please help me to better understand this matter. Follow Up Comment from John Mullen: Thank you for the information. On account of my age, I have had the opportunity to see a lot of mistakes made when trees or shrubs were planted when a property was first developed. Too close to buildings, sidewalks, irrigation or water lines, etc. Because there was either nothing in governing codes, or if there was it was not enforced, we seem to be put in the position of having to participate in an expensive process to correct problems that should never have existed. Is there a method whereby we would not have to apply for expensive permits, but to simply ask for a variance to code that would allow us to remove, for example, a tree that had been planted in the fashion I described above? Comment #2 from Brent Moon: I'm thanlifulthe city is involved in correcting this fiasco [our J H o.A. chairperson and manager created. They are wiihout common sense. The two of them made the decision to remove the trees without the counsel of the board of directors, or anyone else. For reasons unknown to me. The diagram the manager sent you is incorrect. There is no space between the curb on Harlow and the sidewalk. We as owners and residents here are concerned with the open space. We need a sound and visual barrier between us and Harlow Rd. I'm sure something could be found that the city would approve that would address these two factors. We could work with qualified people to find the right program. Three Red Maple trees are not the answer. The eight trees cut down were pretty much, healthy. The certified Arborist was referring only to the trees further east. Some of them are running sap. The eight were already cut before the Arborist was called in, he told me he never saw the eight that were cut down. Only the ones between the sidewalk and the garages. As stated in the first paragraph of this report. Any solution to this city ordinance violation will be unacceptable unless it creates the kind of sound and visual barrier we enjoyed from the healthy trees that were unlawfully removed. Follow Up Comment from Brent Moon: Our manager told me this morning that Greg [FerschweilerJ from public works told him the three Red Maple would be the best choice of trees to replace the ones cut down. Our manager further stated you agreed. The three Maples were a great choice. Has the decision been prejudged? We hope you will [consider J the owners input for a denser screening than just those three little trees. Comment #3 from Steve Collier & Judy Fleisig: My wife and"] support the replacement of diseased conifers within more appropriate broadleaf trees. I'm sorry that the permit application was not filed in a timely fashion, but I know the board was trying to get the work done before year's end, when the contractor had given Us a favorable rate on the job during the company's off-season. I think the red maples will be better for homeowners and for pedestrians and motorists. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Comment #4 from Linda Furman Grile: Thank you for providing notice concerning this pending after-the-fact application. Please consider my comments prior to making a decision about the application and enter this letter into the record to ",..'- Date Received: Planner: AL .t~/d<7ID / I . . preserve my right to Lpeal' although this will hopefully be unnecessary. I was the one in the family that found The Pointe dJring our housing search when my husband accepted his position with the City of Springfield, some sii years ago. The number one attraction to The Pointe was its trees, flowers and mature well-kept landscape; otherwise I would have just driven by another barren complex. There are many of these in Sp~ingfield. I am very distressed this cUlling happened without vote of the H. o.A. owners and am conc~rned removal of the trees has affected the value of the investment with our home. Therefore, I have takkn this personally and seriously, and will continue to be involved. I. The application Ii/self appears to be incomplete. Of principal concern to me, it fails to accurately describe the reason for the felling [SDC 5.19-120(A)]. The January 4, 2010 leller by Arborist Cummings is incbmplete at best and to some extent, is misleading as it implies an inspection of trees that have been re'moved in violation of code requirements. 2. I believe the CitY should view this application in two separate considerations. One is for the eight trees along Harlbw have been removed. The other is the proposal to cut even more trees. There is absolutely no evidence submitted with the application to support a conclusion that the eight removed trees were sick, imuch less sick to the extent that removal was necessary. The Cummings leller appears to address trees prolJosed for removal. The City should determine whether any of the trees removed unlawfJlly were diseased and if evidence of this cannot be determined, then it should be assumed that th~ trees were healthy; and replanting should be done to replace "like for like" a~ closely as possible. 3. The eight trees femoved were fine-looking trees that accomplished, among other things, improved community appebrance, shade and visual interest, and improved air quality. [SDC4.2-140} The eight trees are nJw stumps, gone along with the amenities required by Springfield's code. Air quality degradation hasl occurred with removal of the trees according to one neighbor who recently commented about increased vehicle exhaust since the trees have been removed from the along the street trees. Agbin, replacement with "like for like" seems justified for the area impacted by the removed trees. I 4. The applicant's replanting intentions remain somewhere between inadequate and a mystery. The application propbses to replant 3 deciduous trees (Red Maples) to mitigate the loss of the eight trees unlawfully remoJed. This is completely inadequate mitigation for the damage that has been done. The eight trees Jnce provided substantial cover, screening, etc. Three little Maples would provide disappointing coyer and screening, even years from noW when mature. Three little Maples are not '.'Iike for like." Fjurther, the replanting plan shows nothin!!: to mitigate the loss of the additional street trees proposed for removal. 5. The trees remov~d and those proposed to be removed ore street trees, although without a proper~v survey there is no evidence in the application to know whether or not the trees removed were privately owned br whether they were public trees growing in the Harlow right-oi-way. At least one of the eight remo~ed trees appears to be the laller. Regardless, all the living trees along Harlow are I street trees in the sense that they "create a streetscape that benefits from the aesthetic and environmental qJalities of an extensive tree canopy along the public street system." [SDC 4.2-140, emphasis added} The City's codes do not favor removal of street trees except under certain circumstances. [SDC 4.2- 140(B)} There i} no evidence to support a conclusion that any of the eight removed trees meet the code criteria for 'removal. Whether or not the application sufficiently supports a conclusion that the additional trees hould be removed is debatable. Some of the trees are indeed "sappy" with dead needles showing. i Whether or not these are so diseased as to require removal is for you to determine, but if additional trees are removed along Harlow, the result will expose more of the T-Ill garage siding, contrary to what the City's landscaping requirements are allempting to accomplish. I , CONCLUSION 'I A. Correctin/! the Violation. The decision to remove the eight trees was not well-considered. It doesn '( seem that many of the H. o.A. members realized what was being done until i/ was too late, but what's Date i'{eCE;ived:~/,w,o Planner: AL / . . .now done is done for these eight stumps. An after-the-fact approval decisian is in order, but subject to the imposition of conditions [SDC 5.19-130] that order replanting in the damaged area to restore the benefits previously being accomplished by the trees that were unlawfully removed Restoration should be "like for like" as much as possible. As I understand it, no fine is being imposed for the unlawfiil cutting that has occurred The H o A.. should appreciate this and invest in a quality restoration action. Clearly, three little Maples are not an "extensive tree canopy along the public . street system B. ProTJOsed Additional Tree RemovaL If any additional trees are approved for removal, the City should order planting sufficient trees or shrubs to maintain the extensive vegetative cover that currently screens the garages along Harlow. Thank you for considering these comments. I hope to receive notice af your reasonable decision concerning this application. Follow Up Comment from Linda Furman Grile: Please add this file picture to the letter I submitted previously: It illustrates the mature cover that once existed along Harlow Rd and that now is gone. Please condition any approval of the pending application on a requirement to match that which has been removed Three little "Charley Brown" [sic] trees are hardly adequate mitigation for the damage that has been done. Comment #5 from Anne Conner: I am responding to Case Number DRC2010-00002 regarding tree removal at 650 Harlow Rd I am very much against remOl'ing any more trees at the Pointe Condos. I think that the "diseased" trees could be pruned Those trees were planted as a noise barrier and for privacy. The removal of the trees at the West End has left an unsightly gap. The Homeowners Assoc. Board held a meeting regarding the tree removal and said that only a few trees behind the garages would be removed I do not think that red maples are a good choice for replacement as they will cause more leaves on the ground in the Fall and will be bare all winter. Comment #6 from Patricia LeRud: I'm confused, I thought the city had cut the trees down to widen Harlow Rd I was not aware our manager had done it. And don't know why. I'm troubled that we are in trouble with the city. If we have to replace them. I don't think trees with leaves are the way to do it. We have enough leaves dropping in the fall. I would prefer something that would prevent the smell of exhaust from reaching my unit. Maybe something to deaden the sound of Harlow Rd's traffic. And people seeing in so easily. Maybe some fir trees and shrubs between them to keep the look similar to what it was. Comment #7 from Roseann Pauson: Like some of my neighbors I thought the city had cut the trees down to widen Harlow Rd I was not aware our manager had done it. And don't know why he did so. I understand we must replace them. I would like to stay with the idea of fir as the rest of the front line is fir. The idea of Maple trees is not an option. We have enough leaves to clean up in the Fall. Somehow. include some sight and sound barrier also. I'm not able to smell the exhaust from the traffic on Harlow where before this was very seldom evident . Comment #8 from Wanda Gardner: This in regards to the trees that have been removed at The Pointe Condominiums at 650 Harlow Rd I live in unit 155 located in the south west corner of the property and have been there for sixteen years. Since the trees have been gone, the traffic noise is much worse and the exhaust fumes are considerably worse. There was no reason for those trees to be removed. Sure, they had a crooked limb or two, but that was the nature of the trees. And the request to replace with red maples - no. They would look out of place and we don't need any more leaves. Some type of fir, pine or something on that order should be planted That type would fit in with the trees east of those that were removed Even a type of cypress ,\ .- Date, Heceived:_~-Ip,o Planner: AL . . would fit the bill. Those trees east of the removed tree area should be left alone except for a couple that are definitely in poo~ condition. The owners at the Pointe were not given the opportunity to vote on the tree removal. It's a ~ad situation where two persons - the Manager and the chair-person - make it their decision to do something that affects so many persons. Hope you can read this. I am legally blind, but I can still see trees. i '. Comment #9 from Vicki Williamson: I appreciate the oppJrtunity to respond to the tree removal situation at The Pointe. I am a resident owner and very concernedlabout the di~ection the Chairman of the Board and Manager have taken and are taking the HOA. ASr an involved owner, I am most interested in maintaining not only my investment in terms of property value but that of livability and etifoyability as well. As an owner, I truly appreciate your waiver, at least for ~ow, of penalties/fines. I am hoping this matter will at least help temper the reckless behavior of the two .folks on a power trip. They have tagged a number of additional trees along Harlow Road as well as within the complex to be removed. With the City of Springfield's direction/assistance, I'm hoping owners can bk involved in that decision; many want to be. Concerning the current issue at hand... I am hopeful that th~ unsightly stumps can be removed and other trees/foliage planted that will provide the following: II . Pleasing Aesthetic Visual . Sound Barri~r . Protectionfr~m Exhaust Fumes I believe this criterih is essential to quality of life, property values and healthy sustainability moving forward. Thank you]or the "listening ear" and your involvement in addressing this situation. Staff Response: In dccordance with provisions of the City's Development Code, up to five trees may be removed from a property over any 12 month period. This includes trees that are internal to the site, or trees on the edge of the property such as street trees. The provision for removing up to five trees in a year without a permit wotild accommodate trees that are damaging irrigation or drainage lines, or have roots that are buckling sid~walks and driveways, etc. In the case of the Pointe Condominiums, a couple of trees were removed from the interior of the site earlier in 2009, and then recently eight trees were removed from the Harlow RoJd frontage. Nine more trees are proposed for immediate removal, totaling 17 trees. The quantity of trees 1(17) is what triggered the requirement for obtaining permits from the City. I When the Pointe Cohdominiums were built, trees were planted along Harlow Road and throughout the site to meet the Dev~lopment Code standards at that time. The trees were required to remain as part of , the parking lot, street front, and overall site landscaping. It is expected that trees will age and die off over time. If it becomes ~necessary to remove trees due to disease, accidental damage or other hazards, the Development Code ~pically requires that wherever possible the trees are replaced on a one-for-one basis. Therefore, replacing the trees as they are removed would ensure that there will continue to be street trees , . and site landscaping trees, and that the Pointe Condominiums do not become a ''tree-less'' site. . I' The trees removed from the Harlow Road frontage at the southwest comer of the property wer,e discovered after the~ had been cut and removed, and a complaint had been forwarded to the' City for investigation. The bomments noted above are correct: ordinarily, the City would require a more expensive Corrective: Tree Felling application (to address the trees already cut), in addition to a standard Tree Felling Permit for the nine trees proposed for removal. However, recognizing that this is a first offense and there was no deliberate bad intent, and that the Homeowners' Association would be penalized by the extra cost of the Corrective Tree Felling action, the City combined the actions into a standard Tree Felling Permit. The I applicant is advised that a second offense of this nature and scale would trigger a Corrective Tree Fellihg action. It is the City's position that tree felling actions of this nature are intended to inform, educate, ahd meet the City Council's goal of having tree-lined streets in Springfield. For this reason, staff has det~rmined the extra costs that otherwise would have been incurred by Corrective Tree Felling penalties are better directed to tree replanting efforts on the site. Date I'leCeived:_~ ~J>JO-_ Planner: AL ~ . . Regarding the quantity and type of trees used for the replanting on-site, the City maintains a list of approved trees that are appropriate for planting as street trees. The applicant proposed using Red Maple trees, which are on the approved tree list. Although the proposed type of tree is acceptable to the City, the quantity is not sufficient to meet the requirements of the Tree Felling Permit (see Section E below). To address the concerns expressed by The Pointe residents, the applicant could substitute another variety of coniferous or deciduous tree that is listed on the City's approved tree list for planting along Harlow Road and elsewhere within the site. Possibilities include suitable evergreen trees such as pine, spruce, fIr or cedar, etc. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL: Ref. Article 5.19-125 of the SpringfIeld Development Code: The Director, 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 falling, proximity to existing structures or proposed construction, or interference with utility services or pedestrian or vehicular traffic safety warrants the proposed felling. Applicant Submittal: [From Arborist's Letter] "As requested, I've examined the Shore Pines (pinus contorta) in the hedge-row along Harlow Road between the sidewalk and the garages. In my observation they are infested with Sequoia Pitch Moth (Synanthedon sequoia). In addition to this finding, many of the trees have a considerable amount of dead and dying limbs - along with overall poor form. The poor growth form' of many of these Pines poses a threat to the sidewalk and to the road (meaning they could fall-over with inclement weather). This threat stems from how the trees were planted on a mount [sic) of fill dirt - causing a potentially unstable root system. Pruning as a risk-mitigation approach for these trees is not recommended because of their sensitivity to insect pathogens. Therefore, implementing a proper tree care plan at this point would not result in proper tree preservation." Staff Response: Finding A.I: The Arborist's report indicates the Shore Pine trees proposed for removal have an insect infestation and are not viable trees due to poor root structure and decay. This predominately coastal species is not planted in an ideal location along the sunny south exposure on Harlow Road, and this may have contributed to the unstable growth form noted in the report. Removal and replacement of the trees (wherever possible) will ensure safety for pedestrians on the adjacent sidewalk, and also protect the garage structure from possible damage due to windtbrow or falling limbs. . Finding A.2: The condition of the trees already removed from the southwest corner of the site is not known, and it was not addressed in the Arborist's report. Therefore, this area will be addressed only in the replanting provisions of the Tree Felling Permit (Section E below). Finding A.3: The applicant has stated that three other trees internal to the property are proposed for removal to address root damage to the site irrigation system. The affected trees include a hemlock, magnolia, and ornamental deciduous tree (unknown species). While the tree removal can be facilitated by . this Tree Felling Permit, replanting at or near the location of tree removal will be required in accordance with Section E (below). Conclusion: As proposed, the above fIndings support the conclusion that the condition and locations of the trees warrant their removal. \ :~ . Date Received:3hOo/D Planner: AL I 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 limited to, the~ protection of nearby trees and windbreaks; wildlife; erosion, soil retention and stability; volume of surface runoff and water quality of streams; sceuic quality; and geological sites. I " Finding B, I: Forestjy practices in the State of Oregon are governed by the State Forest Practices Act. State forestry regulat,ions are not applicable in this case because: I) the limited number ofregulated trees removed; 2) the tre~s are being removed for landscaping maintenance reasons and not timber harvest purposes; and 3) sufficient re-planting can be accomplished in accordance with the conditions of this permit. I . , Finding B,2: The Springfield Development Code (SDC) is the primary implementing ordinance for environmental protedtion policies contained in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan). SDCi 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. I Finding B.3: The rbgulated trees proposed for removal from the subject site include varying species, heights, and sizes: 1:4 coniferous trees (Shore Pine), one evergreen coniferous (hemlock), one evergreen deciduous (magnolia) and one deciduous tree of indeterminate species. Because the trees identified in the permit are part of the site landscaping, it is assumed they are not more than -30 years old and do not pre- date the constructioniofthe Pointe Condominium complex (1979). Finding B.4:' The t~ee cover on the site is comprised of ornamental species within an existing parce:! already developed with 110 residential condominium units. The trees proposed for removal are not paIl of a natural or sceniclarea and, instead, are private site landscaping. The existing site drainage and overall landscaping area will not ~hange with the proposed tree removal. Finding B.5: EroSiJ and sediment control measures will be required during tree removal, root grubbing, and possible excavation to fix irrigation lines, etc. I Finding B.6: The s,!bject parcel and areas surrounding the site are zoned Medium Density Residential. All of the trees proposed for removal (or already removed) are located on the applicant's property. Finding B.7: RemovL of the trees from the subject site will not have an adverse effect on the surrounding physical and visual ebvironment because: . , a) A buffer of Jerimeter tree cover along the southern edge and the majority of trees inside the site are proposedlto remain; b) Trees on adjacent properties will be unaffected by the proposed tree felling; c) The deciduops and coniferous trees that are to be removed are private street trees; part of an identified public open space, or a designated natural area; and . d) Planting of r~placement trees on the site is required by this decision. I 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 ~pplied herein and during development review. As conditioned under this permit, the proposal is consistent with applicable policies and provisions of State law, the Metro Plan and th,e Springfield Develop~ent Code for protection of environmental quality. I I I .1 . . .. ~:-~ ,', Date. Heceived:_" /;. /;u,'iJ Planner: AL 7; . . C. Whether it is necessary to remove trees in order to construct proposed improvements as specified in an approved development plan, grading permits and constrnction drawings. Finding C.l: The site has been fully developed for about 30 years, and no additional developments or improvements are proposed. Finding C.2: The requested tree felling is intended to address lifecycle replacement of landscaping trees and issues of root intrusion into the irrigation system. Conclusion: The above findings of fact demonstrate that Criterion of Approval C does not apply because the site is fully developed and no additional improvements, grading or construction is proposed. . 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 habitat and to minimize erosion; . 2. Wooded areas that will likely provide attractive on-site views to occupants of future developments shall be retained; 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 sufficiently large areas and dense stands so as to ensure against windthrow; and 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 D.1: The above standard applies where no site plans have been approved. As noted above, the subject property is within an established neighborhood, and has been fully developed and occupied for about 30 years. Conclusion: The above fmding of fact demonstrates that Criterion of Approval D does not apply because the applicant has received subdivision and site plan app;oval, and no designated natural areas exist on the site. E. Whether the applicant's proposed replanting of new trees. or vegetation is an adequate substitute for the trees to be felled. Finding E.l: The applicant is proposing to replace 14 trees removed from the south frontage on Harlow Road and three trees removed from the site interior with three Red Maple trees. Although Maple trees are acceptable for planting along Harlow Road, these deciduous. trees are not consistent with the existing coniferous trees along the balance of the property frontage on Harlow Road. Additionally, written comments provided by residents express concerns about a lack of visual buffer from Harlow Road, ,.,- ..' "! .' Date Received:~jf'o Planner: AL . . exposure to increased traffic noise and exhaust fumes, increased maintenance to clean up leaves from deciduous trees, and Idissatisfaction with the quantity of trees proposed for replacement. Finding E.2: Staff Lte that the applicant's submittal indicates a 'couple of the landscaping trees were I removed from the interior of the property in recent years, but are not subject of this Tree Felling Permit. Finding E.3: RePlaLment of street and site landscaping trees removed for lifecycle maintenance (or other reasons) is typi~ally done on a one-for-one basis. Within the planter strip at the southwest comer of the site, there is sufficient room to accommodate at least five trees planted approximately 25 feet apart in accordance with strekt tree planting requirements. Recommended tree species that would provide visual screening and uprigJ)t growth form include Giant Sequoia, Douglas Fir, Ponderosa Pine, Western Red Cedar, Western Hemlock and Incense Cedar. , 'I Finding E.4: The loss of visual/noise buffer and significant tree canopy cover from the trees removed at the southwest corne~ of the site will not be readily replaced by planting of saplings. Staff recommends up-sizing the trees in the southwest comer of the property from a 2-inch caliper to a 3-inch caliper standard. I, , Finding E.5: Staff acknowledges that, even with the proposed removal of six trees, there will be a series of coniferous trees rkmaining between the two driveway entrances onto ' Harlow Road. However, there will be planting oppdrtunities in the gaps created when trees are cut and root masses removed. Finding E.6: Staff 1sited the site and observed that the trees proposed for removal are predominately Shore Pine, and somk are visibly distressed due to possible insect infestation, irregular growth form, and limb damage from vlind or other forces. The three trees internal to the site are apparently healthy, but have roots that are'di'srupting the site irrigation system. Ornamental trees have variable life spans, but all are expected to requite lifecycle replacement at some point. ' Conclusion: The tJee trees depicted on the applicant's submittal are not an adequate substitute for the trees to be felled. The applicant shall provide a sufficient quantity of replacement trees to ensure the site , retains suitable landscaping and tree cover, and a buffer from Harlow Road as discussed under Condition #1 (below) and geneblly depicted on Attachment A of this report. As conditioned herein, this standard I has been met. I F. Whetber slash left on the property poses significant fire bazard or liability to the City. , , I Finding F.l: Remo~al'of slash reduces fire hazards and prevents material from being deposited on the public sidewalk or Hirrlow Road. Finding F.2: RemovL of the root masses ensures the subject areas can be appropriately replanted and th,e roots will not cause aby further interference with the site irrigation system. , I Conclusion: The ap~licant and consulting Arborist have not stated how the trees and stumps will he removed. The contnictor shall provide details on how trees and slash will be removed from the property during tree felling. Pis conditioned herein, this standard has been met. , I G. Whether the felling is consistent with the guidelines specified in the Field Guide to Oregon Forestry Pracpces Rules published by the State of Oregon, Department of Forestry, as they apply to the northwest Oregon region. i Finding G.l: Forestry practices in the State of Oregon are governed by the State Forest Practices Act. The Field Guide to 0regon Forestry Practices Rule provides safety and other guidelines for complianc,e with the State ForeJt Practices Act during logging operations. The guidelines are standards in the . ,," Date Fteceived:J~/dPIO Planner: AL . . industry and are generally followed during all operations performed by licensed and bonded logging contractors. Finding G.2:. The proposed tree felling, removal and re-planting proposed as part of this permit do not rise to State forestry regulations because: 1) the limited number of regulated trees to be removed; 2) the trees are being removed for landscaping maintenance not timber harvest purposes; and 3) sufficient re- planting can be accomplished in accordance with the conditions of this permit. 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 conditioned herein, State forestry guidelines for safe operations will be followed as applicable to the limited felling of trees approved under this permit. H. Whether transportation of equipment to and equipment and trees from the site can be accomplished withont a major disturbance to nearby residents. Finding H.l: The applicant has not stated how the trees will be transported from the site. It is expected that vehicles and .equipment would arrive to the site via Harlow Road, a City arterial street, during regular business hours. Finding: H.2: With the exception ofthe three trees internal to the site, the area proposed for tree felling is adjacent to the public sidewalk and vehicle travel lanes on Harlow Road. Along the property frontage, Harlow Road currently experiences pedestrian, bicycle, automobile, truck, and commercial vehicle traffic throughout the day. Finding H.3: While the traffic generated by the tree felling activity will be short-term and no more intrusive than other commercial vehicle traffic normally associated with a 11 ~nit residential complex (moving trucks, delivery vehicles, etc.), special care shall be taken to ensure there is no undue interference with pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle traffic on Harlow Road. Finding H.4: The applicant has not stated when and at what time of day the tree felling activity will occur. Staff advises that the tree felling activity shall observe City ordinances regulating noise-generating activities at certain times of the day (ie. during daylight hours), and shall be conducted with due care and consideration for The Pointe residents and visitors. Conclusion: The traffic generated by the tree felling activity will not constitute a major disturbance. As conditioned herein, safe tree felling can be accomplished without affecting the residents. CONCLUSION AND DECISION: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Prior to initiating any tree cntting activity, the applicant shaH prepare and snbmit a revised planting plan for the site. The planting plan shaH provide for at least 10 replacement trees planted on the site to replace the 17+ trees removed from the site with this Tree Felling Permit and previous tree cutting activity. The trees shaH be planted in the foHowing locations: . At least five suitable coniferous trees shall be planted within the landscaping strip facing Harlow Road at ~he southwest COrner of the site. The trees shaH be at least 3-inch caliper at time of planting and consist of one or more of the foHowing species: Giant Sequoia, Western Red Cedar, Ponderosa Pine, Incense Cedar, Douglas Fir, Western Hemlock, or a comparable coniferous tree species acceptable to the City. ., Date Received: ...l~/,7Q)O Planner: AL . . . At least two suitable trees shall be planted within the landscaping strip facing Harlow Road and located 'between the two site driveways. The trees shall be at least 2-inch caliper at time of planting and may be either a coniferous or deciduous species from the City's approved street tree list. I 'I . At least thrE;e suitable trees shall be planted inside the site to replace the landscaping trees proposed fo~ removal or already removed. The trees shall be at least 2-inch caliper at time of planting'J Staff recommends replanting at or near the location of removed trees; however, thE; trees can be planted at locations of the applicant's choosing. I I 2. Prior to initiating any tree cutting activity, the applicant shall provide a letter from the trete removal contra~tor describing the methods to be used for cutting and removing the trees, stumps, and ro~t mass; the projected timetable for tree cutting; and the expected time of day for the tree cutting activity to occur. I I t 3. Prior to initiating any tree cutting activity, the applicant shall obtain any City permits that may be necessary to 'legally conduct work on or in the' public right-of-way, to address erosion an;1 sediment contr61 issues, and to temporarily redirect pedestrian, bicycle or vehicle traffic 011 Harlow Road. I I The above findings and conclusions demonstrate that the proposal meets the standards of SDC 5.19-125 for Tree Felling Perrriit Approval. This written decision constitutes the Tree Felling Permit: 'I The following general construction practices apply when tree felling is initiated on site: , 'I I . Notification shall be provided to the City at least 5 days prior to commencement of the tre,e feIling ope~atioi1. Please contact Andy Limbird at 726-3784 (direct) or by email: al imbird@ci.springfield.or.us, . All felling activities, including ingress and egress for the logging operations, shall include erosion control measpres in conformance with the City's Engineering Design Standards and Practices M.Alaln~alll'.1 d I' .. h II b rf d' . h' h 'd' 'I . ,e mg an remova activIties s a e pe orme m a manner w lC avO! s site SOl compaction ih areas of existing or future landscape planting. . Any soil and debris tracked into the street by vehicles and equipment leaving the site shall be cleaned up ~ith shovels in a timely manner and not washed into the storm drain system [SDC 5,19-125]. i ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The application and ~ocuments relied upon by the applicant, and the applicable criteria of approval ar'~ available for a free inspection at the Development Services Department, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon. Copies oft*e documents will be made for $0.75 for the first page and $0.50 for each additional page. APPEAL If you wish to appeaIlthe decision of approval, you must do so by 5:00 PM on February 16, 2010. Your appeal must be submitted in accordance with the Springfield Development Code, Article 15, APPEALS, Note: Appeals must be submitted on a City form and a fee of $250.00 must be paid to the City at the tirn,~ of submittal. The f~ will be returned to the appellant if the Planning Commission approves the appeal application, Date f1eceived:_74&/l> Planner: AL 7- . . If you have any questions regarding these matters, please call (541) 726-3784 or send an email to: alimbird@ci.soringfield.oLus. PREPARED BY r4~ Encl.: Attachment A '~ . -.,:: . Date Received:_W'b Planner: AL . . r. "0 '" o a:: ~ o ;:: '" <( :c, I-g' z.Q w<( :iiH! :I: ~ 'i~ O['j . <(0 1---' I-g' <(:;:: c '" 0. Q) a:: Q) ~ I- Date izeceived:--zijd:!:?.IO Planner: AL S."'NG"ECD~ ~:;;;Ul'[rj;j/:/~'~;I:i~ DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 225 FIFTH STREET SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 . Linda Furman Grile 650 Harlow Road #249 Springfield, OR 97477 IPi;N~~~~'~;~::;;~;:;--- 225 FIFTH STREET SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 ~......______ u_______________._ .-.-- Anne Conner 650 Harlow Road #123 Springfield, OR 97477 ..,-- n DEVEfoPMENT SERVicES PLANNING DEPARTMENT 225 FIFTH STREET SPRiNGFIELD, OR 97477 ~. ~... Patricia LeRud 650 Harlow Road Springfield, OR 1/201 97477 Date, Received:~;:!frl" Planner: AL WrQC~ 1\ (I B ------ ...-.... -_.......,...~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT 225 FIFTH STREET SPRING FJELD, OR 97477 , " -- - . . J~hn Mullen 650 Harlow ~~, #114 Springfield, OR 97477 j-- - SPRONG"RD~ Elil'};JJ.i;;:III'ltj;/~~'J/!I'l:I;(t['ll'~ DEVELOPMENT SERVICES _ PLANNING DEPARTMENT 225 FIFTH STREET SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 Brent Moon 650 Harlow Road Springfield, OR 11149 97477 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DEPARTMENT 225 FIFTH STREET SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 -.. ~.... Steve Colli~~ Judy Flesig 650 Harlow Rd #210 Springfield, OR 97477 Date f~eceived:_y!~/o Planner: AL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DEPARTMENT 225 FIFTH $T.REET SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 ~..... e, . L"rry Miller Pointe" Co-:"'.dnll1ini_n~s 650 Harlow Road Springfield, OR 97477 ,"_.' ~. _d. "r -....."......-~-.,,- ._~.~., ,,co -r:<- <~"" .,. _. _ ,,,:"",,,> , f' _."" '<;.-';;._<-:.:l:'~"" ,.....-. "" -4~.;. ._Eo" > '. - ...~.~~ -- ..-- --~ ~._--- - .- ~ SPR'NGHECD~ ~/I"~);/~ DEVELOPMENT SERVICES tuJ PLANNING DEPARTMENT 225 FIFTH STREET SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 James Cummings, ISA James Cummings Tree Service PO Box 1521 Eugene, OR 97440 ------- raliZ2)."j:J;IJI'{tj;tJ~9'1;I::(tf'11,~DN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT - 225 FIFTH STREET . SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 Vicki Willip.~~o- 650 Harlow Rd #246 Springfield, OR -97477. PI~~~,~:::;~~ed: .zNdP<l ~i;J:III'[tj~J::iI/J7l!J:/::ici~O~ DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT 225 FIFTH STREET SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 Rosean"'. Pauson 650 Harlow Road Springfi'eld, OR . 11151 97477 __~., - - .._ _______________.0-__ -::;;- -.......----------- SPR>NGP"CO~ ~;jlil(~:[ci.lil DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ~ ~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT 225 FIFTH STREET SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 Wanda Gardner 650 Harlow Road Springfield, OR , -.j i , \ \ , \ \ , '-.'~~ 11155 97477 . ~I~~~~t~~ed: VI?/O :\' . :~ .>/'t.... .