HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous PLANNER 3/22/2004
"
"
..
~
.
!
t-lr ·
/
/'
Conceptual Develop~nent Plan __ /' . . .' .,
The East Main Refinement Plan establishes policies relatll1g to' the area IdentIfied
as Low Density Residential Area # I on the refinement plan diagram (Residential.
Element, Policy 3) and specifically calls for the developnient off a Conceptual
Development Plan (CDI') for this area. The Implementation Element provides further
requirements for the CDI'. The following demonstrates conformance with this
requirements.
Residential Element Policy 3(A): Developmellt with ill Area #1 shall follow the
developmellt stalldards cOlltailled ill Article 26 of tI,e Springfield Development Code,
Hillside Development Overlay District. The Overlay District shall apply to all of Area
#1.
The minimum lot size in the LOR zoning district is 4,500 square, for areas of
slope less than 15 percent. Any land with slopes of 15 percent or greater is subject to the
standards of Article 26, Hillside Development Overlay. A slope analysis was completed
for the property that shows. several portions of the property have slopes of 15 percent and
greater. The lot size arid dimensions for the proposed subdivision are in accordance with.
SDC 26.050(1) as described below.
The slope analysis was completed using the formula described in SDC
26.050(1 )(a) and (b). After the portions of the property with slopes 15 percent or greater
were identified, the proposed lots were overlaid onto the site. The Jots were modified so
the average slope of land within each lot is less than 15 percent. On Apri]' 28,2003, this
methodology was discussed with Mr. Greg Mott, Planning Manager for the City of
Springfield and it was agreed that this approach is valid since the City does not have a
specific methodology for executing the standards of Article 26. The CDI' is in
compliance with SDC 26.050 (I).
Residential Element Policy 3(B): Density trallsfer to other portions of Area #1 shall
also be allowedfor portiolls of Area #1 with developillellt constraillts otfl/!r tflall slope.
III 110 case shall the total Ilumber of ullits exceed tfle maximum dellsity allowed ill tfle
LDR district.
The proposed 99 single-family residential units is well within the 10 units per acre
allowed by SDC 16.0 I O( I). full build out of the remaining CDI' area will also fall under
this maximum a1l9wable density.
Residential Element Policy 3(C): Trallsportation alld access shall be desiglled to be
sellsitive to tI,e terraill alld recogllize City alld regiollal transportatiollneeds.
The public street layout contained in the CDI' diagrams conforms to street grade
.standards in SDC 26.060. The layout also is consistent with provisions for an
interconnected transportation system as outlined in the Springfield Conceptual Local
Street Plan. TransPlan. and 1985 agreement betweenlhe City and Weyerhaeuser.
oate ~eaelved: 3 - 22 -uf.
Plann6t~ I 6 jLj+p~
RLSUi<1\. Dcd:zL
.
.
)
.-
, ,
Adopted neighborhood refinement and community plans (examples in Cha
the Plan).
~;':.'
3.
4.
Adopted special purpose and functiQnal plans (examples in Chapter I of th
5.
Information generated throughprepanition .of wQrking papers (1978 and I
the update prQcess. Those papers are on file in the planning departments I
. Springfield, and Lane CQunty, as well as the Lane Council of Govemmen'
most significant provisions are contained in the Technical Supplement .of
Metropolitan Plan, printed and available under separate cover. Subjects I
include public services and facilities; environmental assets and constraint
agricultural land, the economy, housing, and residential land use, and ene
terms of existing conditions and projected demand.
Land Use'Desil!natiolls
....--__l::
.
o
U
QJ
-
...
....
~
-
~
I::
o
....
...
~
Z
~.
...
....
-
QJ
"C
....
~
Land use desigmitions shown 011 the Plan diagram are depicted at a metropolitan scale.
Used with the text and local plalls and policies, they provide direction for decisions
pertaining tQ appropriate reuse (redevelQpment), urbanization .of vacant parcels, and
". additiQnal use of underdeveloped parcels. They are not intended to invalidate lQcal zoning
.or land uses which are not sufficiently intensive or large enough to be included on the
diagram. They are based on local plans and policies.
C' --".
. .
Because of their speciai nature or limited extent, certain land uses are nQt individually of
metroPQlitanwide significance in terms .of size .or location. TherefQre, it is not advisable to
account for mQst .of them on the General Plan diagram. The standards below are intended
to provide minimum guidelines to local jurisdictions in determining appropriate new and
expanded sites ~nd locations for such uses in urban areas.
1. Residential
This categQry is expressed in gross acre density ranges. Using gross acres,
apprQximately 32 percent of the area is available fQr auxiliary uses, such as streets,
elementary and junior high schQols, neighborhQQd parks, .other public facilities,
neighborhoQd cQmmercial services, and churches nQt actually shown on the diagram. .
Such auxiliary uses shall be allQwed within residential designations if compatible
with refinement plans, zQning ordinances, and other local controls for allowed uses in
residential neighborhoQds. The division into low, medium, and high densities is
consistent with that depicted on the 1990 Plan diagram. In other words:
(
'"..
Low-Densitv Residential--Through ten units per gross acre
Medium-Densitv Residential--Over 10 through 20 units per gross acre
Hil!h-Densitv Residential--Over 20 units per gross acre
. Metro Plan Replacement Page
ll-E-2
February 2002
\
\
,
.
.
.<
Jo. No. 95-02-39
May 13, 1998
Page 22 of 42
of MountainGate Drive within three years.
51. Appendix E of the MountainGate Master Plan is revised to relocate Line "A" to a point
along Street "D" no more than 1,000 feet from the intersection with MountainGate
Drive provided a secondary emergency access is provided, otherwise, 400 feet from the
. intersection.
52. Secondary accesses to each phase of the Master Plan for police and fire response must
be provided as development progresses along the directions indicated in Appendix E of
the MountainGate Master Plan. .
Protection of Resources'
This decision is founded, in part, on the assumption that the provision of adequate park
and recreation and other services will be adequate to serve the proposed development
because the resources will be transferred to public ownership and because they will be
appropriately designated on the Metro Plan Diagram and rezoned accordingly. In regard
to the former expectation, the following shall apply:
An agreement between the applicant and the Willamalane Park and Recreation
District for the transfer of Mountain Park and West Park into public ownership
shall be executed prior to the platting of the subject property south of Line "A."
An agreementbetween the applicant and the Willamalane Park and Recreation
District for the transfer of SchoollPark (Quarry Park) into public ownership
shall be executed prior to the platting of the subject property south of the
intersection of MountainGate Drive and Street "C." Also, and within this
timeline, the applicant shall submit to the District a reclamation plan for the .
quarry that will demonstrate that the proposed rehabilitation of the quarry will
result in a site suitable for its intended purpose; i.e., a neighborhood park.
An easement providing pedestrian and bicycle access between Mountain Park
and West Park shall be executed prior to the platting approval of Phase II of the
proposed development.
54. Open space depicted on the Conceptual Masier Plan, page I, Figure 1 of Exhibit 2,
including Mountain Park, West Park, park access easements, and archaeological Site
35AL657, excepting the School (quarry) Park, shall be designated Park and Open
Space on the Metro Plan Diagram and classified Public Land and Open Space on the
Springfield Zoning Map. The Metro Plan amendment shall be initiated, with
concurrence by the applicant, by the City and the Willamalane Park and Recreation
District prior to platting any lots south of Line "A" on Exhibit 2, Appendix E of the .
Master Plan. .The zone change shall be initiated by the applicant prior to platting any lots
south of Line "An on Exhibit 2, Appendix E of the Master Plan, .... .'.
.;/: 53.
0.
I
--?' 55.
,-,' t.
a.
c.
The School Park depicted on the Conceptual Master Plan, page I, Figure I, of Exhibit
2 shall be designated Park and Open Space on the Metro Plan Diagram and classified'
Public Land.and Open Space on the Springfield Zoning Map,TheMetro Plan ,.'; .1, ,';i i
amendment shall be initiated, with , concurrence by the applicant, by the City .andthe
'. ,
;~/,;-,:1! I .
"....
j l. .:r.";'~:',
.
.
..
Jo. No. 95--02-39
May 13, 1998
Page 23 of 42
56.
Willamalane Park and Recreation District, prior to platting any lots along MountainGate
Drive south of the intersection with Street "C," including the south cluster.The zone
change shall be initiated by the applicant prior to platting any lots along MountainGate
Drive south of the intersection with Street "C," including the south cluster.
Except for vegetation control and removal nece. ssary to address hazardous conditions, '"
no trees or understory shall be removed in the planned open space areas depicted on the "-
Conceptual Master Plan, page 1, Figure 1 of Exhibit 2,including Mountain Park, West
Park, park access easements, and archaeological Site 35AL657.
the "Tree Preservation Plan" of Exhibit 2, MountainGate Master Plan, shall specify
that removal of more than five trees greater than five inches in diameter may require a
. tree felling permit fromthe City.
An urban forester shall be employed to analyze the street design and proposed cutting
plan for the rights of way of each phase and determine what trees can be retained to
serve as required street trees:The trees shall be depicted on the tentative subdivision
plan and the final constrUction drawings for the public improvements. Appropriate
measures to protect the trees during construction shall be specified on the construction
drawings. .
57.
58.
59.
The trees on lots smaller than 15,000 square shall be considered in aggregate and.
building envelopes adjusted accordingly to protect the largest number of trees
. practicable. '
. The applicant shall employ a tree or forestry consultant who has had previous
experience with forested hillside construction of a similar scale. The consultant will
prepare a vegetation/re-vegetation report for the area supporting the treeline along the
subject property's lower northern ridge paralleling Main Street. This area shall include
adjacent properties with tree species necessary for the preservation of the treeline. The
..' report shall include:
a. A description of plant material and condition, pathology (if any), structural
problems (if any), corrective measures and methods to improve .
health/condition.
60.
b. Identification of patches to be retained after assessment of vigor, species, size
and estimated size at maturity, ability to support some forms of disturbance.
c. Notation of individual specimen trees and their suitability for preservation.
d.
. Evaluation of the impacts of constrUcting the pubic improvements addressing
soil compaction, fill, paving, location of disturbance with respect to remaining
.. . vegetation;'excavation methods/trenching, and measures to mitigate the impacts.
e..:.. :Stipulatethe health of trees intended to.be removed and adjacent trees, and '.'
.::c. ...... provide. typical pr6tectionmeasures to.preserve the adjacent trees and.
,jC;:,::,understotyvegetation during removal.. , . ~':"..;.:;.;:",.L;.;. :.c':" .... ,c:.:;:.'; ,.,,;,,;.....0:0.
..' .".....
", c:~~~:~:;..
\~:..:~:...r)......:l~~~t'<::-~y,-_;~,;..; ;~l \..
.-,...-.- ,
_> 2.
.
.
10. No. 95-02-39
May 13,1998
Page 39 of 42
was a resource subject to scenic protection. The applicant's reliance upon the
private enforcement of Section 28.040 of the SDC and the provisions of the
Tree Protection Plan is insufficient as these tools will not ensure that the scenic
resource of this ridgeline will be protected. No comprehensive strategy to'
achieve this goal has been identified since tree-cutting and tree-preservation
will occur on a case-by-case, lot-by-lot basis. Nor is there any standard that
will be applied to ensure that a cumulative impact of the lot-by-lot decisions
will protect the scenic view. .
This "flip side" of this interpretation is that tree protection on the remainder of
the subject property is largely restricted to the tree felling standards of Article 38
. of the SDC. While not necessarily balanced by concerns about impacts on the
cost of development, the comments' from UFACwere a reasonable response to
'the primary goal of preserving the maximum number of trees on the site. These
. comments, however, do not represent current standards adopted by the City for
. the protection of trees.
The Hearings Official believes that the directive of the ESEE analysis can best
be achieved through the application of a modified version of disputed
Conditions #7 _ # I 0 to development that may affect the scenic quality of the
northern ridgeline of the subject property. These conditions (See Condition of
Approval 59) will not be applicable to other areas of the proposed development.
Mineral Resources _ There are mineral resources on the site at the quarry.
However, the quarry is not protected by the Metro Plan or Springfield zoning
map for quarry and mining use. The applicant wishes to reclaim the quarry for
use as open space or possibly as a future school site.
The quarry is not under the jurisdiction of the Oregon Department of Geology
and Mining Industries (DOGAMI) (phone conversation with John Grey of
DOG AMI) because it was never considered a commercial quarry operation by
. DOGAMI and consequently the owner was never required to obtain an ..
operation and reclamation permit from the state. The quarry is not on any state
or local inventory of mineral 'aggregate sites and is not a significant resource
pursuant to Statewide Planning Goal 5.
As the quarry does not represent a resource that is recommended for protection,
the appl!cant's intention to utilize the area for open space and/or school
purposes is consistent with Section 37.040(5) of the SDC.
3. Wildlife _ The applicant employed a consulting zoologist to investigate the
likelihood of the presence of the sharp-tailed snake on the site, a threatened
specie known to be in habitat similar to that found on MountainGate. The
zoologist found no evidence of the snake and stated that the logging and grazing
activity on the site had probably destroyed essential habitat. The Oregon .
Department of Fish and Wildlife expressed concern over trees on the site which
serve as perching sites for band tail pigeons known to water at the adjacent
pond on reighboring property. Further analysis by ODFW found that the
development lictivity or the site would not affect the pigeons. The Master Plan,
.
,-
Jo. No. 9S--D2-39
May 13,1998
Page 19 'of 42
(,
master stomiwater system sufficiently to comply with Section 32.110(4) as determined
by the City Engineer. "
Prior to or concurrent with development of any phase south of Line" An on Exhibit 2,
Appendix E, th~ applicant shall provide detailed plans for the detention ponds'
proposed at the "SchoollPark" site.
;..'
29. Prior to or concurrent with the development application for any phase north of Line "An
on Exhibit 2, Appendix E, the applicant shall provide detailed plans for the detention
, pond and wetland mitigation near Aster Street and MoimtainGate Drive.
30. For all publicly maintained ponds, maintenance vehicle access must be provided around
the entire perimeter of eachpond::For publicly maintained open drainage channels,
access patllS, a minimum of 7 feet wide, must be provided along at least one side of
every channel. Access must also be provided and guaranteed for,all storm drain
manholes located outside of a street right-of-way.
31. Discharge of stormwater from public facilities onto private property is expressly
prohibited and all lots tributary to such storm drains will be restricted from development
until a connection to a public system is provided.
32. The design engineer shall incorporate drainage benches, private storm drain systems,
and other features as may be recommended by the project geotechnical engineer and
approved by the City Engineer, at the top of all cut slopes, and along the exposed face
of all cut and fill slopes to reduce the potential of erosion on these slopes.
Transportation
33., The following design modifications shall be made:
;..0.,;,"
a.
A variance reqilest must be submitted for K. M and I Streets and any other
location where the maximum length of a cul-de-sac (dead end street), excluding
the bulb, exceeds 400 feet.
b. The length of a temporary dead end local street (due to phasing sequence)
cannot exceed 1000 feet. Local dead end streets in excess of City standards
shall not be allowed without a financial guarantee (bond) that the street will be
completed through to another outlet point within three years. The temporary
dead end street will always provide appropriate turnarounds for emergency' '
vehicles. ,
c. ' , Temporary dead end streets in excess of City standards will be provided with a, ' '
, :.temporary ,secondary emergency vehicle access until the completion of the ";,, " '.: '
'street provides a permanent secondary access. ,',,' '
d." -Temporary,dead end collector streets requirements are addressed in the
" evaluation of development phasing. .
,..,",.'
. .. ~ :... : .' ~'. '
. \ ---
,----_.~~..---..,
---.--~---
,.
Jo. No. 95-02-39
May .13, 1998
Page 40 of 42,
as it addresses wildlife on the subject property, is consistent with Section
37.040(5) of the SDC. '
Wetlands
The Master Plan refers to Appendix M for the Wetland Delineation Report. The
delineation area is .07 acres of relatively low value wetlands with moderate value for
stormwater retention. The fill for MountainGate Drive will cover most of the wetland.
The applicant proposes to enhance and enlarge the remaining wetland to approximately
, .20 acres. The hydrology of the wetland will be maintained with stormwater outfall
, from the nearby detention pond.
< Open Space
.,.. ...
The Master Plan states that 92.7 acres of the site is planned to be transferred to the
public for park and open space use. The land is very steeply forested hill top and slope
areas proposedfor passive recreation use. The quarry is proposed to be reclaimed for
open space use and stormwater detention and treatment. Land slated for open space
protection by the ESEE analysis includes Mountain Park, West Park, Quarry Park, the
identified wetlands (that are not impacted by the access road), waterways and
archeological site 35AL657.,
The ESEE analysis,recommendation is that the City of Springfield initiate a change to
the Metro Plan Diagram to designate the non-ilevelopable portion of MountainGate
Subdivision as Park and Open Space and that the applicant initiate with the City the
rezoning of the same property to Public Land and Open Space. This recommendation '
appears reasonable although the Hearing Official believes that it is more appropriate that
the proposed plan amendment be co-initiated by the City and the WiIlamalane Park and
Recreation District.
Willamalane Park and Recreation District staff urge the Hearings Official to require that
park access pathways be included within the redesignationand rezoning-flfthe
undevelopable land. The Hearing Official initially believed that this step was overhill.
Upon reconsideration, however, the Hearings Official believes that the "graphic nature"
of the Metro Plan Diagram would not prohibit the inclusion of this strip of land within
the amendment that encompasses the other lands to be designated as open space. The
proposed plan amendment would include a detailed map that depicted the access
pathway at a readable scale and this map would become a part of the legislative history
supporting that amendment. The Hearings Official further agrees with staff that this
decision should ensure that the pathway will be protected by easement and this
requirement has been included within the conditions of approval.
District staff also urges the Hearings Official to require that the applicant provide a
detailed reclamation plan for the'conversion of the quarry into a neighborhood park.
Staff has correctly pointed out that ESEE analysis did include the Quarry Park as a site
that was to receive open space protection. The staff has correctly noted that the
applicant, through the MountainGate Master Plan, has agreed to the reclamation. In
order to ensure that this area serves the open space purpose for which it is to be
designated, it follows that a reclamation plan must be developed. This plan will enable
. .~;. ..
,"
..:
"
<-.>
,.
,..'
.
.
.
/
/
.<
Jo. No. 95-02-39
May 13, 1998
Page 41 bf 42
the District, the City and the public to determine whether the reclamation, as proposed,
will make the quarry area suitable for a neighborhood park.
Archaeolol!ic and Historic Features
A state recognized archeological site, Site 35LA657, was investigated by Heritage
Research Associates. The results of the study are confidential in order to protect the
location of the site. A total of 190 artifacts were collected during the test excavation by
the consultant including 189 pieces of flaked pieces of debitage and one flaked stone
,too\. Chert was the most common raw material but there were 40 obsidian flakes and
nine basalt specimens. The site was surficial in nature with most of the artifacts found
near the surface. The consultant estimated the site to be between 2,000 and 4,000 year
old and was a short term campsite for native Americans. As a result of the survey, the
applicant relocated Street "D" to the north and proposed open space over Site 35LA657
immediately south of Street "D" from MountainGate Drive to Street "E".
. The ESEE Analysis, Attachment 4, page 22, recommends placing the archaeologic Site
35LA657 in the park and open space area of the Master Plan. The Master Plan, page I,
Figure 1, of Exhibit 2, depicts the site in the open space area. The ESEE recommended
realigning Street "D" to be opposite Street "F' and placing land north of Street "D" in
open space as shown on page 4 of the ESEE. Approximately seven proposed lots
would be displaced for protection of the archaeologic site and the elimination of a
substandard street off set (See page 18 of the ESEE Analysis).
The ESEE analysis, adopted into this report as findings in support of SDC Section
37.040(5), concludes in all categories of analysis that protection of resources is
warranted, and development, as conditioned, will not adversely effect the resources.
The conclusions of this analysis are as follows: 1) the identified resources of this site as
described herein shall be protected; 2) the development of the site shall be allowed
pursuant to the measures proposed in the pending master plan and as conditioned by
this report and subsequent phase approvals; and 3) this report as adopted in a public
hearing by the Hearings Officer will serve as the determination of significance and Goal
5 decision for this site, and all subsequent p~oposed development plans shall contain
measures to protect the resources identified on this site by the ESEE.
Based on the analysis of the ESEE consequences, Metro Phin policies and standards in
the SDC, the Hearing Official concludes that both the resources and the proposed
residential development are important relative to each other. The proposed development
shall be allowed but limited in any ways necessary to protect the resources to greatest
extend practicable. The Hearing Official, via this ESEE analysis, determines that the
conflicting land uses specified in Sectio~ 16.100 of the Springfield Development Code
and as proposed in the MountainGate development, are allowed within the areas for
development described in the MountainGate Master Plan pursuant to the provisions of
the Springfield Development Code, especially Article 26 HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT
and Article 38 TREE FELLING, and conditions of approval mandated by this decision.
. -STf>..ff- 1j2~r.---oc('X
- ..
~"'I:i1\!!\"""'."": d<p"'ol 0' tho """"""'" ""'" P... ,..., 1, ,- 1 of E><hib' 2, mcluding
'_ ~6\i~iainP8rk, West Park" park access easements, and archaeological Site 3SAL6S7, excepting the
$clioo}i(quarry)Pilrk, shall be ,designated park and Open Space on the Metro Plan Diagram and
"".",' .. ..' . '
c;la5Sified,PublicLand and Open Space on the Springfield ZoniJlg Map. The Metro Plan amendment
t:AI~ne;;change shall be initiated by the applicant prior to platting any lots south of Line 'W' on
,:ib.if2/Appendix E of the Master Plan. . " , - " -' " ' ' " " ,
';Ilti:i;';;. "", "'" ., ,
ei $oo\:,Parkdepicted on the Conceptual Master Plan, page I, Figure I, of Exhibit 2 shall be
,'Oj~""",.ond o,on S,"" on tho Mdro PIm _ "'" ""''''''',_0 Lond "'" """
~:",,", S_oId 1'>""" Mop, Tho M_ "on .....- "'" """ """'" .... '" .......
li$.:~~ priM,? ,1_ ..., Int. 010", Moon...."'" nri" - o"be",""",y_ri
, th Street {'C" ,mcludmg the, south cluster.
",;)11'21\~J~~;f'i'i!)"\" ,." ." "'. ' " ,,- .
o tji1:esi'or, \iiiderStoly shall be removed in the planned open space areas depicted on the Conceptu3\
~,;. ....",. '~l ,_,'>, ., .. ......... .
'T:,_~~.;PI~l,\page 1, Figure' 1 of Exhibit 2, including Mountain Park, West Park, park access
""em~~tsi'and archaeological Site 35AL657. '
'i;;_~~:~l~l~v~f~B~~~\i':(:i~~'~ ';'," ".; . '. .
~",J;ii;,~on "on".f _on 2, MnOOuI.G'" "''''' P... .1Wl .,ociIY 'M' rem.V>!
Rf..'ii\9r_~'jh~five trees greater than five inches in diameter requires a tree felling permit from the
"~~1~;~::2:L", ' '.' ,,'
,,;. !\I'1fqrester shall be employed to analyze the street design and proposed cutting plan for the rights -
.llii:!f."",, pho<'" dotnnnloo w,'" -',"" "" re...... to ""''' ~ """'""" Tho
w__,,~~\~!,\.l>eAeplcted on the tentative subdlVlSIOn plan and the final construction drawmgs for the '. '
:~PY91i#ipl-9yements:''Appropriate measures to protect the trees during construction shall be specified
',\"1--", -,.-},..,-,,--;,--- -, . .
ri'tIIe'cO~ction drawings.'
.'jJ;{~t};iit;\,'\;;';"' · . . . .
,.,-"~:,,ees:'on lots smaller thim 15,000 square shall be considered in aggregate and lot lines arid
\il,ii~4m~ envelopes adjusted accordingly to protect the largest number of trees practicable.
,:;":i;;'S,;;..".,i;,,,.' .' '
,,,,"~~~plicant will employ a tree or forestry consultant approved by the Urban Forestry Advisory
<;;,oriUnittee(UFAC) who demonstrates knowledge of soils and vegetation of this site and who
n~;lia:~ 'pteVious experience with forested hillside construction of a similar scale. The consultant
~t{~!(;t;r . . . . .
-U;t\~~1~;;':' .' .....
:",P;t:~~~~;?"\-:~;:' ,,:..' .'
'iMriUritiliriOOe Master Plan .'
glo'iUii81,Number 95-02-39 ..' ."
."- "',,.-' -,
,.."
.,."",-",' "
:~~1?:,t;,:~;',~f:r\~:: ..
,-'" .,,,,':;.:,"
51
('.
t
"
, "
'.
,,' C'
.
.
"
wili prepare a vegetation/re-vegetation report for each phase of the development. The report shall
include:
,a. A description of plant material and condition, pathology (if any), structural problems (if
any), corrective measures and methods to improve health/condition. '
b. Identification of patches to be retained after assessment of vigor, species, size, and
estimated size at maturity, ability to support some forms of disturbance.
c. Notation ofindividual specimen trees, and their suitability for preservation.
d. Evaluation of the impacts of constructing the public improvements addressing soil
" compaction, fill, p'aving, location of disturbance with respect to remaining vegetation,
excavation methods/trenching, and measures to mitigate the impacts,
e. Stipulate the health of trees intended to be removed and adjacent trees, and provide
typical protection measures to preserve the adjacent trees and understory vegetation
, during removal. '
f. Evaluate existing vegetation conditions on each proposed lot and an assess the least
impact for placement of buildings, decking and ol!tbuildings. Building envelopes shall be
created pursuant to this analysis.
, g.' The revegetation 'plan will consist of one acre canopy for each acre canopy removed. This
method eliminates the need for counting trees. Replacement trees will be a species that is
, suitable to the site and compatible with adjacent uses. Characteristics such as longevity,
hardiness and wind firmness will be considered. The revegetation plan must include a
, , management section detailing planting methods. The replacement trees may be located
anywhere on the MountainGate Master Plan site including proposed open space.
~..~-'
8. Significant understory species shall be protected throughout the site to the greatest extent
'practicable. Invasive non-native plant species such as blackberries, ivy and scotchbroom can be
removed.
9. ' The applicant shall retain trees in sufficiently large areas and dense stands to prevent windthrow.
A stand of trees shall constitute an area not less than 2,000 sq. ft.
....;,
, IO.,The few very large Oregon White Oaks on the site shall be preserved. These trees shall be
, " specifically irlentifiedon the tentative plans for each phase and the vegetation report shall specify
, critical root zone and detail measures to prevent damage to those trees.
Summarv Finding: The inventoried natural resources, wetlands, open spaces, archaelogic and
. historic features of the MasterPlan development area have been evaluated by the ESEE' analysis,
and the protection measures established in Exhibit 2, Springfield Develoflment Code, and the
"',,'
MountainGate Master Plan
Joumal Number 95-02-39
52
..~ '.
I
.
.
'S TPf'i=- !Z.i":?{7ii~(,
t=r:\S4, l c; '\ S>
,-
(1) , THE ZONING OF THE PROPERTY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE METRO
PLAN DIAGRAM AND/OR APPLicABLE REFINEMENT PLAN DIAGRAM;
The Metro Plan designation of the property is Low Density Residential and the zoning isLow
Density ResidentiaVUrban Fringe 10 Overlay District (LDRlUFI0) within the Hillside
, Development Overlay District (HD).
Findin2: The Low Density Residential zoning i~ consistent with the Metro Plan designation.
Proposed uses pennitted in the LDR district include detached single family dwellings, duplexes on
. corner lots, attached dwellings within approved cluster developments and neighborhood parks.
Cluster developments are allowed with Discretionary Use approval as examined below. TheUF-
10 Overlay District classification will cease to apply when the property owner initiates annexation
to the City as each phase of development occurs. The applicant has submitted two discretionary
use applications for proposed uses within the LDIVUF 1 0 zone classification;
. RECLAMATION OF THE OUARRY - 10. No. 97-05-122, Exhibit 2, Appendix K-l,
and K-l Supplemental Findings
. CLUSTER DEVELOPMENTS - 10. No. 97-05-123, Exhibit 2, Appendix K-2, and
K-2 Supplemental Findings
.
.', DISCRETIONARY USE FOR
RECLAMA nON OF THEOUARRY - Jo. No. 97-05-122, Exhibit 2, Appendix K-l, and
K-l Supplemental Findings
"....
The Gity required the applicant to submit this discretionary use application because the Director
determined that the proposal was similar to an expansion of a non-conforming use and should be
reviewed in a public process. The quarry is a pre-existing use on the site that operated in the
1960's and 70's. The applicant is proposing to reclaim the quarry for park and open space or
possibly a school site. The reclamation process will be a site improvement but one that is out of
, the ordinary. The reclamation use does not appear as a pennitted use in Section 29.050 of the
SDC, however, staff considers the reclamation proposal an incidental use necessary for the .
development of pennitted 'uses within the LDRIUF 1 0 District, somewhat analogous to tree felling
, . and road or sewer excavation for a development. Nevertheless, reclamation would require
quarry mining activities (blasting, excavation and crushing) which may have adverse impacts on
MountainGate Master Plan
Journal Number 95-02-39
5
"""",:;::::;:;;,.;:,:;.:.
..
.
.
"
surrounding properties. It is iriappropriate to consider a Metro Plan amendment and zone change
to the Quarry and Mining.District in the midst of a LDR Plan designation. It seems equally
, inappropriate, and somewhat irresponsible,.to leave the qua1!Y in its current hazardous condition.
. The applicant proposes to conduct a quarry mining operation on the site for two principle
purposes: 1) reclaim the existing quarry for use as open space or a school site; and 2) provide
, rock for building streets in the development. The applicant proposes to blast and crush rock on
site at specific times for the, duration of the development of MountainGate. Due to the unique
nature of quarry operation, staff recommended that the proposal be processed as a discretionary
,use, in order to provide'the affected property owners an opportunity to comment and recommend
conditions to the activity to minimize impacts. Staff recommends that the reclamation, if
approved by the Hearings Officer, be further subject to a subsequent discretionary hearing to
review the detailed reclamation plan pursuant to Article 24 and other related statutes and rules.
A Discretionary Use may only be allowed if the Hearings Officer finds that the proposal
conforms with the following criteria:
(a) The proposed use shall conform with other permitted uses in terms of scale, lot
coverage, deSign; intensity of use and operating characteristics.
The applicant states that the quarry operation is only temporary and necessary for
, " developing the site for permitted uses in the zone.
Findinll: The quarry is a large excavation in the side of the western slope of the butte. The
walls are nearly vertical and rise 30 to 40 feet. The quarry is unusable for any of the
, permitted uses in the LDR District and a liability and a safety hazard in a residential
, district. The proposed use of the quarry site for paf<<: and'operi space or as a school site
are permitted uses in the zone. The proposed uses will conform with other permitted
uses via site plan review. However, the temporary quarry operation which is necessary
to establish the permitted uses will not be compatible with the surrounding uses in terms
of operating characteristics. The reclamation plan should be established pursuant to
SDC Article 24 via a discretionary use approval in a public hearing. The plan should
i.:' include a schedule Of operation coordinated with the phasing of the residential
" 'development.
(b) The proposed uile shall not generate more traffic on local streets or more demand
'for puhlic facilities than would permitted uses in the same zoning district.
MountainGate Master Plan
Iournal Number 95-02-39
6
.
.
,<
The applicant asserts that the operation of an on-site quany to provide rock for the
development of Mountain Gate will replace approximately 4,000 heavy truck trips (2,000
inbound/2,000 outbound) hauling crushed rock from off-site "locations. On-site hauling
will save wear and tear on the existing streets and reduce traffic at nearby intersections.
Findinl!: The temporary quany use will actually decrease traffic and demand for public
facilities during the quarty operation. The reclamation plan should be evaluated in a
discretionary use hearing and haul routes for the crushed rock specified and conditioned
, as necessary to meet tJ:Us criterion. . '
(c) Tbe proposed use conforms with applicable Metro Plan poliCies and applicable
, descriptions of Land Use Designations sbown on tbe Metro Plan Diagram.
Expansion' of an existing Discretionary Use sball be exempt from conformance with
Metro Plan land use designation descriptions.
The applicant cites Metro Plan Policy lIon page II1-C-8 to make the relationship
between quany reclamation and the proposed use of the site. Reclamation plans are
required by the Metro Plan to promote reuses of the land for uses permitted by adopted
plans. .
Findinl!: The description of residential uses in the Metro Plan on page II-E-2 specifies that
schools and parks are auxiliary uses allowed in the LDR designation. Policy II1-A-I on
,page II1"A-4 requires the coordination of new residential development with the provision
, of adequate infrastructure. Policy ill-C-II requires reclamation for reuse of the land in
conformance with adopted plims. The quany is designated LDR on the Metro Plan and
Springfield zorung map. Policy 8 on page II1-E-3 requires local'development standards
to allow for creative solutions to site design problems. Reclamation of the quanywould
, fulfill these Metro Plan policies by preparing the land for permitted uses, allowing the
construction of street infrastructure to be accomplished in an efficient manner and
overcoming a difficult site design problem.
,Findinl!: A Discretionary Use proposal may also be required to comply with the Site plan
Review criteria of approval in accordance with Section 31.060 of this Code. Normally, a
site plan review staff report would accompany a discretionary use application to the
Hearings Officer. However, the Master Plan is not required to provide the level of
specificity found in the site plan review criteria. The detailed reclamation plan will be
MountainGate Master Plan
Joumal Number 95-02-39
7
-=-",-=..:.:.::;,.~-"...=.;;;;... .
"\.,"."
, .
.
.
.'
. prepared at the time of development review. A condition of approval of the reclamation
should be the requirement that it be submitted for discretionary use approval, consistent
with the provisions of the Springfield Development Code and state law governing.
reclamation. . .
Condition: The detailed reclamation plan and operation schedule shall be submitted for
. discretionary use approval, consistent with the provisions of the Springfield
Development Code and state law governing reclamation.
Summarv Findinf!: The ap'plication for quarry reclamation (Io.No. 97-05-122), as conditioned,
meets the criteria of approval for discretionary use. .,
..'
.. DISCRETIONARY USE FOR
. CLUSTERDEVELOPMENTS - Jo. No. 97-05-123, Exhibit 2, Appendix K-2,and K-2
Supplemental Findings
The applicant proposes two "clusters" of housing: south and north clusters. The south and north'
clusters are anticipated to be developed as separate residential projects with dwelling units'
. constructed on commonly owned ground within the density allowed by the Low Density
,,' Residential classification (1 - 10 dwelling units per acre). Proposed cluster development in the'
. Low Density Residential District which does not abut a zone of higher intensity use requires
discretionary approval. In order to ensure that the clusters may be developed subsequent to
. Master Plan approval without additional public hearings for each cluster, the applicant has
'.' submitted this 'discretionary use application with the master plan application. If the cluster
developments are approved as part of the master plan public then subsequent review of the
cluster developments will occur under a Type II administrative process in conjunction with phase
development of the master plan.
A Discretio!lary Use may only be allowed if the Hearings Officer finds that the proposal
, conforms with the following criteria:
(a) The proposed use shall conform with other permitt~d uses in terms of scale, Jot
. coverage, design, intensity of use and operating characteristics.
MountainGate Master Plan
Ioumal Number,95-QZ-39
8