Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotice PLANNER 5/11/2010 .. , . MAY 11 2010 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE By: D --P- J f1; 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 Pr<C2.0/tI .O~ It) ~ ~ -~~ (See attachment "A") on 6. I ( ,2010 addressed to (see Ja-& ~ Attachment S"), by causing said letters to be placed in a U.S. mail box with postage fully prepaid thereon. ~AU< q4i/,~ KARE LaFLEUR STATE OF OREGON, County of lane { 2010. Personally appeared the above named Karen laFleur, ra Technician, who acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary Sefore me: . OFFICIAL SEAL DEVETTE KELLY NOTARY PUBLIC. OREGON COMMISSION NO, 420351 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUG, 15. 2011 IY1f1tr ;(~ My Commission Expires: '?/;'s/II . I '. . . ,j Notice of Decision -Tree Felling Project Name: Mohawk Taco Bell Project Proposal: Remove six trees to allow redesign of existing site. Case Number: DRC2010-00010 Project Location: 1505 & 1537 Mohawk Blvd. Tax parcells): 17-03-25-34 TL4101 Property size: 0.39 acre. Leased portion of the referenced tax lot. Base Zone: MUC (Mixed Use Commercial) Overlay District(s): Nodal Development, Drinking Water Protection Overlay: 1- 5 year Time of Travel Zone (16th & Q Street well) Metro Plan Designation: Nodal Development Area Refinement PlanfDesignation: n/ a Pre-Submittal Meeting Date: none Application Submitted Date: March 18, 2010 Decision Issued Date: May 11, 2010 Appeal Deadline Date: May 26, 2010 Other Application(s): DRC2009-00049 (site plan review) CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT REVIEw TEAM w " ~ , . POSITION REVIEW OF NAME PHONE Project Manager Planning Steve Hopkins 726-3649 Transportation Planning Engineer Transportation Jon Driscoll 726-3679 Public Works Civil Engineer Utilities, Sanitary & Clayton 736-1036 Storm Sewer Mceachern Deputy Fire Marshall Fire and Life Safety Gilbert Gordon 726-2293 Community Services Manager Building Dave Puent 726-3668 APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT.REVIEW.TEAM;~!it?'<;;fi,j:'J;.'!l;~C~!!~'r1'~"\"~'f'."""~'0;:':,n~?', i; ,~ ,'. '!l<' ,:,;<," "".".':_"';'" ,,, "'., .~'i,"~,'!, ,:-, " /,>,,-1'." . :~"~;;"' ~ ,:,11:':,';' ';",k ';",~,.'.,~.;,"";'t"" "..;t~";,,,,\~,1".., i",';,i,.l"- ...": .,''); ~i,.7'f!rr~I;.!:",( .:;' .::,~!'.'~ed. ;,',<. ",. 'I', 'jd!t; _~' ;;:'~$",2<' _;''/;).' Owner: Applicant Representative: Cuddeback Commercial Properties, Robin and Mike Sanders Larry Reed Inc/Campbell Commercial Real Bellco Enterprises, LLC JRH Estate PO Box FF 4765 Village Plaza Loop, 859 Willamette St, Suite 520 Springfield OR 97477 #201 Eugene OR 97401 Eugene OR 97401 Taco Bell tree felling Case No. DRClO I 0-0001 0 . . Site: Summary of proposal: On February 2, 1010, a site plan was approved to replace the existing Taco Bell Restaurant with a new style Taco Bell Restaurant, and reconfigure the drive aisle. A tree felling application was not submitted with the site plan because the applicant was uncertain if the trees would need to be removed. The applicant is proposing to fell 6 douglas fiT trees. The trees are located adjacent to the common property line of 1505 (Taco Bell) & 1537 (Jalisco) Mohawk Blvd. They are located on the Jalisco site and are 9 inches or less from the property line. This application was submitted by the owner of the Taco Bell, but the owner of Jalisco has consented in writing to the tree removal. The applicant has stated the location and depth of the new bio swale for the Taco Bell will conflict with the trees. The swale will require excavation up to the property line, to at least 3' below grade. According to the applicant, a statement from Superior Tree Service, and Greg Ferschweiler, the PW Maintenance Supervisor, this will cut through roots, stress the trees and make them less stable. Taco Bell tree felling Case No. DRQo f 0-000 I 0 2 J '. . . ij In accordance with SDC 5.19-125(E), replacement trees are required. The new trees need to be an adequate replacement for the trees to be felled. It is not possible to replace the large trees with trees of similar size. However, the replacement trees can provide similar shading, screening and aesthetic value. Greg Ferschweiler, PW Maintenance Supervisor, recommends six replacement trees. These can be Incense Cedars (6' minimum), or a mix of Incense Cedars and maples (2" caliper minimum). These will provide screening and shading, as well as minimize the amount of leaves on the ground. Dog woods and other small trees are not allowed. Decision: Approval with conditions, as of the date of this letter. The standards of the Springfield Development Code (SDC) applicable to each criterion of approval are listed herein and are satisfied by the submitted plans and notes unless specifically noted 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 SDC, filed easements and agreements, and all applicable local, state and federal regulations. Review Process: These applications are reviewed under Type II procedures listed in SDC 5.1- 130. Procedural Findings: . 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 applications (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 of this decision for consideration. . Notice was sent to adjacent property owners/occupants within 300 feet of the subject site on March 24, 2010. . On April 6, 2010, the City's Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed plans. City staff s review comments have been reduced to findings and conditions only as necessary for compliance with the Tree Felling approval criteria contained in SDC 5.19-125. . This decision was issued on the 50th day of the 120 days mandated by the state. Comments Received: No comments were received. T aca Bell tree felling Case Na. DRClO I 0-000 fO 3 . . 5.19-125 Tree Felling Approval Criteria The Director, in consultation with the Public Works Director and the Fire Chief shall approve, approve with conditions or deny the request based on the following criteria: , A. Whether the conditions of the trees with respect to disease, hazardous or unsafe conditions, danger of falling, proximity to existing structures or proposed construction, or interference with utility services or pedestrian or vehicular traffic safety warrants the proposed felling. Finding: No evidence has been presented that the trees are hazardous or diseased. Finding: The proximity of the trees to the new swale necessitate their removal. The excavation to build the swale will cut through roots, stress the trees and impaCt their health and stability. 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; scenic quality; and geological sites. Finding: For this cluster of six trees, removal should be all or nothing. Refer to the comments from Superior Tree Service and Greg Ferschweiler. These trees form a cluster that protects each one from windthrow. Removal of one will impact the stability of the others. Finding: The applicant is proposing to remove all six trees. 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. Finding: On February 2, 1010, DRC2009-00049 was approved. The applicant submitted plans to replace the existing Taco Bell Restaurant with a new style Taco Bell Restaurant. That site plan includes a drainage swale along the north and west property lines, which will require excavation approximately 3 feet below grade. This excavation will remove tree roots which will stress the trees and reduce their stability. Refer to the comments from Superior Tree Service. 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; T Qeo Bell tree felling Case No. DRC20 I 0-000 I 0 4 . . '. 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; , 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: This is not applicable. On February 2, 1010, DRC2009-00049 was approved. The applicant submitted plans to replace the existing Taco Bell Restaurant with a new style Taco Bell Restaurant E. Whether the applicant's proposed replanting of new trees or vegetation is an adequate substitute for the trees to be felled. Finding: In accordance with SDC 5.19-125(E), replacement trees are required and shall be an adequate replacement for the trees to be felled. It is not possible to replace the large trees with trees of similar size. However, the replacement trees can provide similar shading, screening and aesthetic value. Finding: Greg Fershweiller, PW Maintenance Supervisor, recommends six replacement trees. These should be Incense Cedars (6' minimum), or a mix of Incense Cedars and maples (2" caliper minimum). These will provide screening and shading, as well as minimize the amount of leaves on the ground. Dog woods and other small trees are not allowed. Condition: Prior to occupancy of the Taco Bell, there shall be six replacement trees planted. They shall be Incense Cedar (6' minimum), or a mix of Incense Cedar and maples (2" caliper minimum). F. Whether slash left on the property poses significant fire hazard or liability to the City. Finding: No slash will be left on site. G. Whether the felling is consistent with the guidelines specified in the Field Guide to Oregon Forestry Practices Rules published by the State of Oregon, Department of Forestry, as they apply to the northwest Oregon region. Finding: This is tree felling is not part of a commercial forest management activity. H. Whether transportation of equipment to and equipment and trees from the site can be accomplished without a major disturbance to nearby residents. Finding: The felling will be done in coordination with the redevelopment of the site. No major disturbance is anticipated. Finding: The site is zoned MUC (Mixed Use Commercial) and Nodal Development This area is designated Mixed Use/Nodal by the Metro Plan. There is no refinement plan applicable to this site. T aca Bell tree felling Case No. DRC20 1 0-0001 0 5 . . DETERMINATION: Based on the evidence in the record. the Director determines the site plan complies with SDC 5.17-125IAHEl. subject to the Conditions of Approval attached to this report. Summary of conditions Condition: Prior to occupancy of the Taco Bell, there shall be six replacement trees planted. They shall be Incense Cedar (6' minimum), or a mix of Incense Cedar and Maples (2" caliper minimum). Additional Information: The application, all documents, and evidence relied upon by the applicant, and the applicable criteria of approval are available for free inspection and copies are available for a fee at the Development Services Department, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon. Appeal: This Type II Tentative decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission. The appeal may be filed with the Development Services Department by an affected party. The appeal must be in accordance with SDC, Section 5.3-100, Appeals. An Appeals application must be submitted 'to the City with a fee of $250.00. The fee will be returned to the appellant if I the Planning Commission approves the appeal application. . In accordance with SDC 5.3-115(B) which provides for a 15-day appeal period and Oregon Rules of Civil Procedures, Rule 10(c) for service of notice by mail, the appeal period for this decision expires at 5:00 p.m. on May 26, 2010. Questions: Please call Steve Hopkins in the Planning Division of the Development Services Department at (541) 726-3649 if you have any questions regarding this process. Prepared by: Steve Hopkins, AlCP Planner II Development Services - Urban Planning Division T aca Bell tree felling Case No. DRaO I 0-000 I 0 6 rU.UVIVIIVb Ut:;YAHrMENT 225 FIFTH STREET SPRINc;F:EL'D, OR 97477 . . Cuddeback Commercial Properties, Inc. Campbell Commercial Real Estate 859 Willamette St, Suite 520 Eugene, OR 97401 -'Il';fjWlr::fl..'1;J;/lI'[~;;I:t~'JiI'];I;f~']I'~ 'N'--. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ._ PLANNING DEPARTMENT 225 FIFTH STREET SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 Robin and Mike Sanders Bellco Enterprises, LLC PO Box FF Springfield, OR 97477 225 FIFTH STREET SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 Larry Reed, JRH 4765 Village Plaza Loop #201 Eugene, OR 97401 b ~~~