Appeal Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

structure clearly contributes to the need for the proposed tree removals. Considering the combination of site constraints and code requirements, it is likely that any commercial development project on this property would result in removing the majority of existing trees. Base Zoning: In their final argument, the appellant states "The site is zoned C-2 and is expected to develop consistent with the uses and magnitude of development allowed in that zone" (Final Argument submitted June 29, 2016, page 5). The Planning Commission agrees with the appellant that the impacts of the of the proposed hotel development are reasonable given the commercial zoning of the property, and recognizes that tree removals are necessary to allow for the type of development permitted in the C-2 zone. Parking: The Planning Commission finds the following statement from the staff report to be important: "For hotels, one (1) onsite parking space is required for each guest room. The proposed hotel includes 101 guest rooms, which means 101 onsite parking spaces are required. However, as a right of development the applicant is entitled to a 25% reduction in the number of required onsite parking spaces, which reduces the figure to 76 parking spaces. The applicant proposes 85 onsite parking spaces, which meets this minimum requirement and does not exceed the maximum number of parking spaces (125% of the minimum required)" (Staff Report, page 19). While the code theoretically would allow for up to 126 parking spaces at 125% of the minimum required, the applicant proposes only 85 parking spaces which is less than one parking space per guest room and much less than the maximum allowed by the code. While the opponent argues that additional parking spaces could be removed to facilitate the preservation of more on-site trees, the Planning Commission concludes that the applicant is not proposing an unreasonable amount of parking given the proposed use. Site Restoration: EC 9.8440(2)(c) Restoration and Replacement requires that "...the proposal mitigates, to the greatest degree attainable or feasible, the loss of significant natural features described in criteria (a) and (b) above, through the restoration or replacement of natural features." The staff report states, "The project proposes restoration of the onsite /WR conservation area. Terra Science, Inc. completed an inventory of riparian species commonly found growing along the Willamette River; this list of native species (Attachment M-2, Table 2) was used to design the restoration plan, which is included as Sheet L1.3. The restoration plan proposes a number of replacement trees and other native vegetation within the Water Resource Conservation setback area. More specifically, the applicant proposes to plant 52 new trees throughout the site. Additional native shrubs such as Henderson's sedge, snowberry, ocean spray and Oregon grape will be planted in the restoration area" (Staff Report, page 11). The Planning Commission finds that the tree replacement plantings and site restoration efforts will mitigate the removal of 25 existing trees and improve habitat within the /WR conservation area (the southern portion of the site closest to the Willamette River). This mitigation further contributes to the Planning Commission's conclusion that the approval criteria at EC 9.8440(2) are met. Priority Characteristics: As part of his findings regarding tree preservation, the Hearings Official stated, "EC 9.8440(2)(B) continues to list 10 characteristics to be given priority for preservation. At the least, an application must make an attempt to review the significant trees to be removed against the priority characteristics for significant trees to be preserved. In the present case, the applicant did not make any such attempt" (Hearings Official Decision, page 13). In this case, the Planning Commission disagrees and finds that the applicant did adequately demonstrate its consideration of the priority characteristics for 4