HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotes, Meeting PLANNER 8/29/2008
c
~ .~
1. In cnrlier discussions with city staff, city staff qucstioned the stntus of "Tract A" and "Tract B" of the
Jeff Parker Subdivision as platted and recordcd September 9,2002. The specific issue raiscd by staff was
whether the designation of "Tract A" and "Tract B" as "Wetland Mitigation Areas" restricted
devclopment Oil the site. In other words, even if the City agrccs to 'lift thc deed restriction, does that fact
that the plat labels Tract A and Tract B as "Wetland Mitigation Areas" by itself somehow limit the
devclopment potential of these tracts? A related question is whether the fact that the two tracts/lots are
labeled "tracts" rather than "lots" or "parcels" have any legal significance? The applicant's position is
that neither fact affects the ability of the applicant to develop the property. The mere fact that the plat
labels the tracts in an unusual way, does not limit the dcvelopment potential of the tracts as legal, discrete
lots crcated by subdivision. Please consult with the city attorney's ?flice regarding this issue prior to the
DIM.
2. Assuming Corps and DSL approve modifications to the mitigation site and all proposed development
meets applicable city, state, and federal regulations, would the City of Springfield allow the document
titled "Dcclaration of Development Restrictions, Protective Convenants, Conditions and Rcstrictions and
Maintenance for Tracts A and B of the Jeff Parker Subdivision as platted and rccordcd September 9, 2002
Recorder's Reception No. 2002069738 Lane County Oregon official records in Lane County, Oregon to
be amended?
3. What stonnwater function(s) do the mitigation parcels provide? Is the following information accurate?
I f not, why?
The impacted wetlands on the Brentwood Apartments site were characterized as severely degraded. wet
prairie wetlands. The wctlands and surrounding area had been subjected to significant disturbance and the
result was a series of shallow, isolated depressions vegetated with Il)ostly non-native Facultative species.
Stormwater functions for the impact site were documented in Scoles Associatcs, Inc. Wetland Delineation
Report, December 1992. A I-IGM assessment ofthc functional attriqutes of the impacted wetland states:
"The site was found to have low to very low (functional) value for passive recreation, nutrient
retention/removal, on- and offsite flood storage/ desynchronization, sediment trapping, and food chain
support."
The compensatory wetland mitigation plan for Tract A & B states: "As a historically filled wetland, the
mitigation area has essentially no wetland fUllctions ancl valucs.".UIl.der the CWM Functions and Values
section, the document statcs: "All of the area for mitigation is currently upland (filled wetland to be more
precise) and currcntly has no wetland functions and values."
Hydrology'for the compensatory mitigation wetlands is entirely precipitation. Rainwater is trapped in
shallow depressions and retained to percolate through the clay soil profilc. Tract A does not have an inlet
or outlet Becausc thc parcel is not a floW-Ihrough system, water quality functions are limited. Tract B
does not have an inlet but does have a pennitted outfall that functions only to regulate water level and not
water quality. Thc outfall is a stand pipc located beside the drainage,ditch in the southwest corner of Tract
B. The top of the pipe is set at an elevation dcsigned to maintain water levels to support thc prescribed
wetland vegetation.
In general, storm water functions include "Water Storage and Delay", "Sediment Stabilization and
Phosphorus Retention", "Nitrogen Removal", and "Thermoregulation". Because th'O~~~~~ti:
AUG 2 9 2008
Original Submittal
~.
not permanently inundated or connected to surface water in the summer, thermoregulation is not
applicablc. The mitigation sites do provide a "water storage and delay" benefit by retaining potential
floodwater for the 6.36 acres included within the parcel boundaries. Moreover, water quality is improved
through phosphorus retention and nitrogen removal for both sites but sediment stabilization would not
apply to thc castern site with the water control structure that might,allow introduction of turbid water.
4. Does the proposed site developmcnt adversely affect the existing stormwater treatment functions or
does the proposed development include appropriate dcsign to improve stormwater functions? How can
the proposcd development design be improved 10 increasc the stoni1\vater runoff quality?
5. Would thc City provide assistance, planning and/or funding, to find solutions to the problems listed
below? One possiblc solution is to make the forcsted arca a pocketpark. An urban park would benefit the
local community and would be compatible with the proposcd development. The park would be accessible
to all, lighted at night, be regularly maintained and would deter unfavorable use.
80th sites havc nuisance problcms including the following:
. Trespassing is a constant problem.
. Fencing along thc sidewalk is regularly vandalized or struck by vehicles missing thc corner.
.. 80th sites havc become pedestrian pathways for pcoplewalkingto shopping areas in the Mohawk
81vd area.
. Site has becomc a de facto dirt bike park, trash dump, vagrant campsite, and drug dcaling hang-
out.
Date Received:
AUG 2 9 2008
Original Submittal