HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous PLANNER 3/23/2004
. ~-)'
.
e--,)(,
~:;',:E'"
.. -. /- i'-"~' // ~.'
01 ,/lr~ F" /b,:(t7..~ ,r-
.b.::;..(.;..; :::'Il.-~''''~~
, .
MOUNTAIN(;ATE MASTER PLAN
. I
DISCRETIONARY USE APPROVAL
I '
SECTION 37.040 .
I
SUMMARY FINDINGS AND CONDmONS
I
EXHIBIT I-A
., I
MASTER PLAN CRITERIA OF APPROVAL
,i I
I
(1) THE ZONING OF THE PROPERTY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
I
METRO PLAN DIAGRAM AND/OR APPLICABLE REFINEMENT PLAN
DIAGRAM. I
, I
Summarv Findinf! for Criterion 1: The Low Density Residential zoning is consistent
With the Metro Plan designation. Propose~ uses permitted in the LDR district include
detached single family dwellings, duplekes' on corner lots, attached dwellings within
approved cluster developments and neighborhood parks. The discretionary uses for quarry
, ,
reclamation 10.No. 97-05-122 and clusters 10.No.97-05-123 can be approved with
conditions.
':{; /'//0" (, /
. ! tv ,}',....t.>
, c'
0/"'; r:{I'P ~~ ~ -,,'~,..
J t '-.. /",'"-.:>:""''---
A-I/!.I" (lC."'. fi.:.-'-ji.) S-
. .. V'.~'" .
.,
~~)
Condition 10.No. 97-05-122: The detailed reclamation plan and operation
schedule shall be submitted for discretiondry use approval, consistent with the
provisions of the Springfield Developmerit Code and state law governing
reclamation. , . I .
Condition 10.No. 97-05-123: 'The de~elqpment plans for the two clusters within
the MountainGate Master Plan shall b~ supmitted for site plan approval,
consistent with the provisions of Articli~ 3 i1 and the approved Master Plan.
(2) THE REQUEST AS CONDm0NED CONFORMS TO THE APPLICABLE
,;. I
SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIREMENTS, METRO PLAN
,
POLICIES, FUNCTIONAL OR REFINEMENT PLAN POLICIES,
, ,
APPLICABLE STATE STATUTES AND ADMINISTRATIVE RULES;
.. I
I
I
Summarv Findinf! for Criterion 2: The Master Plan, as qualified by the
variance findings and conditions, conforms to the standards of the SDC, Metro
Plan policies, and state statutes and rules. I ' .
, I
Summarv Findinl! 10. No. 97-05-124 The applicant's request to allow 60 feet of ROW
instead of70 feet for MountainGate Drivb as required by SDC Section 32.020, Table 32-
1, will meet all the requirements of SDC ~ection 32.020 (1) (a) for this specific hillside '
development. Seventy feet of right of, way is not needed because the collector street will .
predominantly serve trips internal to the development area and will not need to be widened
in the future to serve a significant increasb in traffic from adjacent vacant land. The
reduction in street width from 36 to 28 felet should be denied because unsafe traffic
Journal Number 95-02-39
Summary Findings and Conditions
Page 1
EXHIBIT 1-A
I
, !t-SfArcJiJATP4-
I rJ f3~ 3ft:s/o.9"
.
.
.
"
(1)' THE ZONING OF THE PROPERTY IS CONSlSTENT WITiI THE METRO
PLAN DIAGRAM AND/OR APPLICABLE REFINEMENT PLAN DIAGRAM; , '
The Metro Plan designation of the prope~ is! Low Density Residential and the zoning is Low
Density ResidentiallUrban Fringe 10 Overl!lY District (LDR/UFI0) within the Hillside
Development Overlay District (lID). . I, .
Findin1!: The Low Density Residential zo;Unk is consistent with the Metro Plan designation.
Proposed uses permitted in the LDR district mclude detached single family dweliings; duplexes on
corner lots, attached dwellings within approvJd ,cluster developments and neighborhood parks.
Cluster developments are allowed with Discrdtionary Use approval as examined below. The UF-
10 Overlay District classification will ceas~ tol apply when the property owner initiates annexation
to the City as each phase of development oCClfrs. The applicant has submitted two discretionary
use applications for proposed uses within the f'DR/UFI0 zone classification;
I
. RECLAMATION OF THE OUARRY - 10, No. 97-05-122, Exhibit 2, Appendix K-l,
and K-l Supplemental Findings I . .
. CLUSTER DEVELOPMENTS - 10. No. 97-05-123, Exhibit 2, Appendix K-2, and
K-2Supplemental Findings I
I
, I
DISCRETIONARY USE FOR ' I
RECLAMA nON OF THE QUARRY ~. Jo. No. 97-05-122, Exhibit 2, Appendix K-I, and
'K"'I'1 Supplemental Findings
I .
TheCity required the applicant to submit this Idiscretionary use application be~ause 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 i~ a ;pre-existing use on the site that operated in the
1960's and 70's, The applicant is proposing ~o recliUm the quarry for park and open space or
possibly a school site. The reclamation pr6ce~s will be a site improvement but one that is out of
the ordinary. The reclamation use does not appear as a permitted use in Section 29.050 of the .
SDC, however, staff considers the reclamatio~ proposal an incidental use necessary for the
development of permitted uses within the LDR/UF 1 0 District, somewhat analogous to tree felling
and road or sewer excavation for a development, Nevertheless, reclamation would require '
.quarry mining activities (blasting, excavati?n~nd crushing) which may have adverse impacts on
.
/~\~~ >'!,'::'Ji.:
""-) t VI i
/)"C' ,.,...., 1<'../.U!! S
("-< ._NY
",
MountainGate Master Plan
Journal Number 95-02-39
I
I
I
I
I 5 ~.:i
I
" . C' I I
/1],; V ,/,' .",'1,""'/';" / 1,'\/> /,\'./ ""1":(
!II /-:/1 - - .-. U
I\~[, wd; :"/ r. .<, ..1",::;) C
/r '" . ~.........,...
r.. ". .~.1---:.,. _._ /i ~ ,
.r-v'- L-f. "L,': I ~ ~1 ./ ~ r'r' ~ ~......
.I' -). L',- ~j.G~. ~. ~-,j'~.V~'i'1 ""'f'\
I fL', 1"..1), .~...';'- ..
.
.
surrounding properties. It is inappropriate to Iconsider 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 qua':Y in its current hazardous condition.
The applicant proposes to conduct a quarry rilining operation on the site for ~o principle
purposes: 1) reclaim the existing quarry for Jse as open space or a school site; and 2) provide
rock for buildiilg streets in the development. The applicant proposes to blast and crush rock on
site at specific times for the duration of the d~velopment of Mountain Gate. Due to the unique
nature of quarry operation, staff recomme9de~ that the proposal be processed as a discretionary '.
use in order to provide the affected property bwners an opportunity to comment and recommend
conditions to the activity to minimize imp~cts! Staff recommends that the reclamation, if . .
approved by the Hearings Officer, be further ~ubject to 'a subsequent discretionary hearing to
review the detailed reclamation plan pursu'ant to Article 24 and other related statutes and rullis.
. .
A Discretionary Use may only be allowed ifthe Hearings Officer finds that the proposal
. conforms with the following criteria:
(a) The proposed use shilll conform with other permitted uses in terms of scale, lot
coverage, design, intensity .of use and oper~ting characteristics.
The applicant states that the quarry operatiJ is only temporary and necessary for
I: I . .
developing the site for permitted uses in t~e zone. .
Findinfl: The quarry is a large excavatio~ in the lide of the western slope of the butte. The
walls are nearly vertical and ri~e 3.0 to 40 fee~. The quarry is unusable for any of the
permitted uses in the LDR District and a liability and a safety hazard in a residential
I .
district. The proposed use of the quarry site for paI1c and open 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 te'm~orary quarry operation which is necessary
to establish the permitted uses will not be corhpatible with the surrounding uses in terms
of operating characteristics. The reclamatiori plan should be established pursuant to
SDC Article 24 via a discretionary use appro~al in a public hearing. The plan should
include a schedule of operation coordinated J"ith the phasing of the residential
development.
(b) The proposed use shall not generate more traffic on local streets or more demand
for public facilities than would permitted uses in the same zoning district.
MountainGate Master Plan.
Journal Number 95-02-39
6
. I .
I
I "
The applicant asserts that the '~peration of an lon-Site quarry to p:ovide rock for the '
development of Mountain Gate will replace aJproximately 4,000 heavy truck trips (Z;OOO
inboundlZ,OOO outbound) hauling crushedrodk from off-site locations. On-site hauling
will save wear and tear on the existing stre,ets arid reduce traffic at nearby intersections.
Findinf!: The temporary quarry use will actually; decrease traffic and demand for public
facilities during'the quarry operation. The're?lamation plan should be evaluated in a .
discretionary use hearing and haul routes for the crushed rock specified and conditioned
. II .
as necessary to meet this criterion.
(c) The 'proposed use conforms with applicable Metro Plan policies and applicable
descriptions of Land Use Designations ~ho~n on the Metro, Plan Diagram. .
Expansion of an existing Discretionary Use shall be exempt from conformance with
Metro Plan land use designation descripti~ns. '
~he applicant cites Metro Plan Policy lIon Jage ill-C-8 to make the relationship
, between quarry reclamation and the proposed use of the site. Reclamation plans are
, required by the Metro Plan to promote reuse~ of the land for uses permitted by adopted
plans, "
'Findinf!: .The descriptiori of residential uses in t~e Metro Plan on p~geTI~~:~~ecifies that
schools and parks are auxiliary uses allow~d in the LDR designatiorPolicy ill-A-l on
page ill-A-4 requires the coordination of!le~ residential development with the provision
of adequate infrastructure. Policy,ill-C-l~' requires reclamation for reuse of the land in
. . ". , ,--' I. " '
conformance WIth adopted plans:- The quarry Is.deslgnated LDR on the Metro Plan and
Springfield zoning map. Policy 8 on pagdII-'E-3 requires local development standards
to allow for creative solutions to site design problems. Reclamation of the quarry would
fulfill these Metro Plan policies by preparing the land for permitted uses, allowing the
construction of street infrastructure to be acdomplished in an efficient manner and
overcoming a difficult site design problem: I' , '
Findinf!: A Discretionary Use proposal may alJo 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 accompady 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
, I ' ,
I
MountainGate Master Plan
Journal Number 95-02-39
I
I
I 7
I
.'
,
.
, "
prepared at the time of develdpment 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 Develo~ment Code and state law governing ,
reclamation.' I"
Condition: The detailed reclamation plan and operation schedule shall be submitted'for
discretionary use approval, consistent witli th~ provisions of the Springfield
Development Code and state law governing r~c1amation,
Summarv Findin/!: The 'application for quarry rlclamation (Io,No. 97-05-122), as conditioned,
meets the criteria of approval for discI etionarY use. '"
"
DISCRETIONARY USE FOR, I
CLUSTER DEVELOPMENTS - Jo. Np. ~7-05-123, Exhibit 2, Appendix K-2, and K-2
, , Supplemental Findings . , ,
The applicant proposes two "clusters" of~Jsing: south and north dusters. The ~outh and north
clusters are anticipated to be developed a~ se~arate residential projects with dwelling units
constructed on commonly owned ground :within the density allowed by the Low Density
Residential classification (1 - 10 dwelling ]Jnits 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 th~t the clusters may be developed subsequent to
Master Plan approval without additional public hearings for each cluster, the applicant has
'submitted this discretionary u~e application +th the masterylan application, Ift~e cluster
developments are approved as'part of the master plan pubhc then subsequent reVIew of the
cluster developments will occur under a Typb II administrative process in conjunction with phase
development of the master plan. I " " "
" I '
A Discretionary Use may only be allowed if the Hearings Officer finds that the proposal
, conforms with the following criteria: ," i,. "
(a) The proposed use shall conform with other permitted uses in terms of scale, lot
, ,
coverage, design, intensity of use and operating characteristics,
, I
I
MountainGate Master Plan
Journal Number 95-02-39
8
.
.
1. Appendix E is revised to show Line "A' extended to the east to a point extending across Street
"C" 400 feet south of Street "K". .< . .
2. No lots shall be platted south of Line "A'" along MountainGate Drive without a financial .
guarantee that MountainGate Drive will be e~ended to South 58th Street within three years; or
along Street "C" without financial assurante that .Street "C" will be completed either to South
58th Street or to the constructed terminus' of;MountainGate Drive within three years. .
. " I
3. Appendix E is revised to relocate Line "A" td a point along Street "D" no more than 1,000 feet'
. from the intersection with MountainGate pri~e pro~ided a secondary emergency access is
. provided; otherwise, 400 feet from the intersection.
. I . '.
4. Secondary accesses to each phase of the Master Plan for police and fire response must be
pro\:'ided as development progresses along tl1e directions indicated in Appendix E
Summa", Findinl!: The Master Plan schedu,le Jf phasing and coordination' of public improvements,
as conditioned, provides adequate guidance for development of the plan.
(5) INVENTORIED NAtuRAL RES(i)URCES, WETLANDS, OPEN SPACE AREAS,
ARCHAEOLOGIC AND HISTORIC FEATURES ARE EVALUATED AND
,
CONSIDERED CONSISTENT WITH THE OREGON ADMINISTRATIVE RULE
,
PROCEDURE FOR STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 5, AND;
. .' I' .
, ,
, .
. Exhibit 2, page 20, Park and Open Spa,ce;, page 22, Wetlands; pages 23-26, Tree
Preservation Plan; and pages 26-28, Natu~al Resources; Appendix l\'! .
The Master Plan states that 84.2 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 proposed for
passive recreation use. The quarry is prol1os~d to be reclaimed for open space use and _
stormwater detention and treatment.
The Master Plan refers to Appendix M for tlje Wetland Delineation Report. The delineation area
. is .07 acres of relatively low value wetlangs ""ith 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 approxirpatbly .20 acres. The hydrology of the wetland will be
maintained with stormwater outfall from the Inearby detention pond. .
. MountainGate Master Plan
Journal Number 95-02-39
., r,
I~.r-"
'---' /'
4 "/' ('/ p.. -.-I'.' ~-
,', "/,-:.,,'-, _ "'IN" .-..,--' --
Mtl'l......t....-... I' ..' . I. ,. ("'--'"
"f .~)
.I - ~?(~r. .;~B "1- /.) '~'iY-~_i ~~" (.~..-,)
46
.
.
'.'
The applicant has prepared a Tree Preservation Plan proposed to be included in Convents, .
Conditions and Restrictions (C,C&R's) recotded with the I?lat and encumbering each lot in the
development. The plan insures that there ,shall not be unlimited cutting of significant trees in the
deyelopment unless procedures are follo~ed !pursuant to the C, C&R' s. The developer anticipates
. clearing trees for constructing public imp~ovements and the like or as necessary to proceed with
the development, facilitate marketing or i~st~lI structures or to remove diseased or hazardous
trees. Building envelopes, required by SDC ~ection 26.070(5), will be recorded for each lot as .
part of the C,C&R's.AlI trees, includingsigruficant trees, having a trunk diameter of 14 inches
dbh or larger, may be cut within the envelop'e to facilitate construction of buildings and .
impfOvements. Outside the envelope, restrictions apply and the lot owner must seek the approval
of the Architectural Review Board for permiksion to remove a significant tree. Penalties are
provided for violations.'
The Master Plan address natural resources: cultural, mineral and wildlife. A state recognized
I
'archeological site, Site 35LA657, was investigated by Heritage Research Associates. The results
of the study are confidential in order to piotJct 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 tool. Chertl was the most common raw material but there were
40 obsidian flakes and nine basalt specim~ns.1 The site was surficial in nature with most of the
artifacts found near the surface. The consult1ant estimated the site to be between 2,000 and 4,000
year old and was a short term campsite for nhtive Americans. As a result of the survey, the
applicant relocated Street "0" to the north ahd proposed open space over Site 35LA657
immediately south of Street "0" from MountainGate Drive to Street "E".
I .
There are mineral resources ~n the site at'thJ quarry. However, the quarry is not protected by the'
Metro Plan or Springfield zoning map fo~. qu~rry and mining use. The applicant wishes to reclaim
the quarry for open space and possibly a ~,re school site.
)6 The applicant employed a consulting zool~gist to investigate the likelihood of the presence of the
sha~-tailed snake on the site, a threatened sbecie 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
I
grazing activity on the site had probably des~royed 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 adjacert ~ond on neighboring propertY. Further analysis by
ODPW found that the development activity brr the site would not affect the pigeons.
. MountainGate Master Plan
Journal Number 95-02-39
47
I
. I .
I
I
, . I . '. ~
The site had been inventoried in the Metro Natural Resources Special Study as an important Goal
S natural resource for upland habitat, water quality, and scenic values (Site 08, Draft Natural
Resource Functional Plan, 1992, Map 1). ,:As required by Policy 36 ofthe Metro Plan, page III-C-
'11, and Oregon Administrative Rules Chaptet 660-12, implementing Statewide Planning GoalS,
the City and applicant have conducted an ecqnomic, social, environmental and energy analysis
(ESEE) of the site (please see Attachment 4). . Tn summary, the ESEE concluded that the
development shall be allowed and the naturai resources protected. The City Council made "pre-
,determination'; of the level of protection for this site in Resolution 84-lS when they made a , .
finding that: "implementation of the propose,d plan (logging the site) would substantially reduce
development opportunities offered by the natural amenities of the site."[emphasis added] ,
, .' Subsequent to Resolution M:'1s, in 1987 thelCity updated the Metro Plan and reconfirmed their
intentions that the site shall be in the UGB and remain designated for residential development.
The City has concurrently adopted hillside ddvelopment regulations (Springfield Development
Code Article 26) and tree protection regulatidns (SDC Article 38). Theseregulationsimpose
stamjards on development in hillsides like thi~ site and are intended to protect identified resources
, and allow development. However, devel6pnient of the site will impact a large number of the
existing trees outside of the open space areas:. While the applicant has provided a "Tree
',Preservation Plan" as a component of the C, € &R's, the plan does not ensure protection of trees
" because it relegates the authority to gove~ ttee removal outside of the building envelopes to a
.homeowners group with no particular expertjse in trees or forestry.
The Springfield Urban Forest Advisory Committee (UF AC) has reviewed the Master Plan
I
provisions for tree protection and provides comments in Attachment S. The UFAC recommends
that lot sizes be larger, building'footprints (ertvelopes) be smaller to reduce excavation and tree
removal or damage, and other design principies be employed to acheive continuous tree coverage
and retention ofgrove~ and'p~tc,hes oftrees.l~he UFAC finds that the pro,:,isions and definitions
ofthe "Tree Preservation Plan" mthe MO)lntamGate C,C&R's do not prOVIde an, adequate level
of protection and will ultimately result in the 'removal of most of the trees outside of the planned
open space areas. An urban forester should ~e required to evaluate the site conditions or'the
forest before construction begins on and public or private improvements. The forester would
create a tree conservation plan based on significant tree stands, individual specimen trees and
health, vitality anq ability to withstand de:velppment stress. Clearing underbrush and thickets as
proposed in the Master Plan can damage the overstory trees and initiate an unhealthy forest
,condition. , ' ,: I ' ,
Findinf!: The quarry is not under the jurisdiction of the Oregon Department of Geology and Mining
Industries (DOGAMl) (photleConversation \tith John Grey of DOG AMI) because it was never
considered a commercial quarry operation, by! DOGAMI and consequently the owner was never
MountainGate Master Plan
Journal Number 95-02-39
48
.
" I
I
.
, , .
required to obtain an operation and reclamati<?~ permit. from 'the' state. The quany is not on any
state or local inventory of rnil!eral aggregate sites and is not a significant resource pursuant to
Statewide Planning Goal 5. . I .'.
I . .
I
I
I . .
Findinl!: The ESEE Analysis, Attachment 4, page 22, recommends placing the archeologic Site'
35LA657 in the park and open space area of\he 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 nortl) of Street "D" in open space as shown on page 4 of the
ESEE. Approximately seven proposed lots wo~ld be displaced for protection of the archeologic site .
and the elimination ofa substandard street offset (See page 18 of this report). .
. I
Findinf!: Based on the City's history with this site, and the ESEE analysis, adopted into this report
, II I
as findings for this criterion 5, which concludes in all categories of analysis that protection of
resources is warranted, and development as c~nditioned will not' adversely effect the resources,
the conclusions of this analysIs are as fo\1~ws~ 1) the identified resources of this site as described
herein sha\1 be protected; 2) the developmyntlofthe site sha\1 be a\1owed 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 a\1 subsequent proposed
development plans sha\1 contain measures :to protect the resources identified on this site by the
ESEE. . I .
Findinl!: Based on the analysis of the ESEE cons~uences, Metro Plan policies and standards in the SDC:
the City finds that both the resources and the proposed residentia.I development are important relative
to each other. The proposed development shall be allowed but limited in any ways necessary to protect
'. I
the resources to greatest extend practicabl,e. IThe City, via this ESEE analysis, determines that the
conflicting land uses specified in Section 16.100 of the Springfield Development Code and as proposed
in the MountainGate development, are allow~d within the areas for development described in the
MountainGate Master Plan pursuant to the pro~sions of the Springfield Development Code, especially
Article 26 IllLLSIDE DEVELOPMENT and Article 38 JREE FELLING.
Findinf!: The opinion of the Urban Forest Advi~Ory Committee is that bu;lding on steep wooded
slopes requires an increase in lot size. It is difficult to retain patches oftrees on lots smaller than
15,000 square feet. The trees on lots smalle~ than 15,000 square should be considered in
MountainGate Master Plan
Journal Number 95-02-39
49
. v:.
..
.
aggregate and building envelops adjusted ~cjrdinglY to protect' the largest number of trees
practicable. .' '
, ,
Findinl!: The "Tree Preservation Plan", Exhibit 2, page 23, specifies that trees may be removed
, '
within the building envelope for the purposes [of constructing improvements. SDC Section' ,
26.070(5) requires a Development Plan R~port which depicts building envelopes and requires that
the envelopes be recorded with the subdivision plat. The development plan shall be based on the
findings of the required reports of Sectioni26!070 and the lot coverage standards. SDC Section 2
DEFINITIONS defines building envelope,aslfollows: "The area ofa lot or parcel proposed for
building construction that is equal to or le~s than the lot coverage standard of the zone." The lot
coverage standard forlots in the.lID Ove~laylDistrict is 35%. The removal of more than five
trees greater than five inches in diameter ~utside of the building envelope will require a tree felling'
permit from the City.' " " I, '. ,
Findinl!: Back lot line sanitary sewers and st!Jn1). water facilities cause the removal of many , .
significant trees on wooded lots. If allowJd in combination with tree removal for streets,
driveways and dwellings, which impact the frbnt lot line, most of the trees on anyone lot are
removed. This situation is contrary to Mi:itrolPlan Policy 18 on page III-C-9, the provisions of
the SDC Section 38.040. Bac~ lo~ line se*er~ should be prohibited. The ESEE Analysis ,
(Attachment 4, page 25) stated "the develoP'rent should specify scenic protection of the
treeline along the lowe( ridg~ paralleling Main Street to preserve the scenic view from that
very traveled roadway," Back lot line sewers are shown in tl:1is area, (See Condition 5 ,page 28
of this report,) . :: I ,".
Findinl!: Existing trees within the public right of way but outside of the area of public improvements, and
trees within 10 feet of the right of way, caIibeiretained and counted as required street trees, An urban
forester should be employed to anaylyze th~ tli,e 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 tret;s, '
, "I, '
Findinl!: The Springfield Urb~ Forest AdvisoJ Committee states that avegeta~ion and revegetation
Ij I .
report prepared by an approved tree or forestryl consultant is necessary to ensure the proper assessment
, Ii
of the identified forest values and to mini~e the impacts of hillside development.
MountainGate Master Plan
Journal Number 95-02-39
",
50
.
.
.<
Conditions: .
1. Open space depicted on the Conceptual ~er Plan, page 1, Figure 1 of Exhibit 2, including
Mountain Park, West Park, , park access ease~ents, 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
. '
and zone. change shall be initiated by the applicant prior to platting any lots south of Line "N' on
Exhibit 2, Appendix E of the Master Plan.
2. The Scho~l Park depi~ed on the conce~tuall Ma:er Plan, page 1, Figure 1, of Exhibit 2 shall be .
designated Park and Open Space on the Meu;o Plan Diagram and classified Public Land and Open
Space on the Springfield Zoning Map. The M~tro Plan amendment and zone change shall be initiated
by the applicant prior to platting any lots along MountainGate Drive south of the southerly intersection
with Street "C", including the south cluster. I . .
3. 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. I
4. The "Tree Preservation Plan" of Exhibit 2, ~ountainGate Master Plan, shall specify that removal
. of more than five trees greater than five i~chJs in diameter requires a tree felling permit from the
City.
5. An urban forester shall be empldyed to analyze the street design and proposed cutting plan for the rights
of way of each phase and deterii1ine' what treesican be retained to.serve as required street trees. The
trees shall be depicted on the tentative subdi:visipn plan and the final construction drawings for the
public improvements. Appropriate measures to protect the.rrees during construction shall be specified
on the construction drawings.'! I . .
6. The trees on lots smaller than 15,000 squarelShall be considered in aggregate and lot lines and
building envelopes adjusted accordingly to p}otect the l~rgest number of trees practicable.
7. The applicant will employ a tree or forestry Jonsultant approved by the Urban Forestry Ad:visory
Committee (UFAC) who demonstrates kD.oy.,ledge of soils and vegetation of this site and who
has had pre:vious experience with forested hillside construction of a similar scale. The consultant
. I
MountainGate Master Plan
Jounla1 Number 95-02-39
I
I I 51
I
I
i
I
.1 ...
will prepare a vegetation/re-vegetation reportl for each phase of the development. The report shall
. I d . I-
mcu e.. . .
a. A description of plant material and cohdition, pathology (if any), structural problems (if
any), corrective measures and metl}o~s to improve health/condition. . .
Identification of patches to be retaine~ after assessm'ent of vigor, species, size, and
estimated size at maturity, ability to support some forms of disturbance. .
Notation of individual specimen trees 'and their suitability for preservation.
Evaluation of the impacts of constructing the public improvements addressing soil
compaction, fill, paving, location of disturbance with respect to remaining vegetation,
excavation methods/trenching, and mbasures to mitigate the impacts.
Stipulate the health of trees intencjed ~to be removed and adjacent trees, and provide.
typical protection measures to prese~e the adjacent trees and understory vegetation
during removal. . I 'C
Evaluate existing vegetation conditions on each proposed lot. and an assess the least
. impact for placement of buildings, ,dedking and outbuildings. Building envelopes shall be
..created pursuant to this analysis. I .
g.. The revegetation plan.will consist of one acre canopy for each acre canopy removed. This
. method eliminates the need for cotintipg 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 c6nsidered. The revegetation plan must include a .
inanagement section detailing planting methods. The replacement trees may be located
anywhere on the MountainGate Master Plan site including proposed open space.
, .
, '
1 . . .
8. Significant understory sjJecies shall be pro~ec~ed throughout the site to the greatest extent
practicable. Invasive non-native plant species such as blackberries, ivy and scotchbroom can be
removed. . " I . ..
. ., I ,
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.
. 1 . .
10. The few very large Oregon White Oaks on th~ site shall be preserved. These trees shall be
specifically identified on the tentative plan~ for each phase and the vegetation report shall specity
critical root zone and detail measures to p;'ev~nt damage to those trees. .
Summarv Findinf!: The inventoried natural ;esLrces, wetlands, open spaces, archaelogic and
historic features of the Master Plan developttient area have been evaluated by the ESEE analysis,
and the protection measures established in E,fuibit 2, Springfield Development Code, and the
.
.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f
MountainGate Master Pllm
, Journal Number 95-02-39
52
II I
.
.
conditions above, are consistent with Orbgon Administrativ~ RJ,ile procedures for Statewide
Planning GoalS.
(6) LOCAL PUBLIC FACILITIES. P:t,ANS AND LOCAL STREET PLANS WILL
. ,-
NOT BE ADVERSELY IMPACTED BY:THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
The applicant ~tates that their is sufficient ca~acity in the existing and planned facilities to
accominodate the development wit? no a9vtse impacts.
Findinf!: The Springfield Sanitary Sewer Master Plan has sufficient capacity to accommodate
this development and will not be adversely irhpacted. . - .
'. I
Findi~~: The Springfield Storm Sewer MaJter Plan does not have sufficient capacity to
accommodate this development and will be ~dversely impacted without the conditions imposed
- 'I
elsewhere in this report. .. '
, Findinf!: The Springfield Local Street pjan ,was not adopted when this application was submitted
and therefore does not apply to this development. The transportation system depicted in
Transplan does not have the capacity to acc6mmodate this development and will be adversely
impacted without the conditions imposed els1ewhere in this report.
Summarv Findin!!: The Mast~rPI~n, as prdpoled and conditioned elsewhere in this staff report,
does not adversely affect any local publicfa~ility plans or the local street plan.
MountainGate Master Plan
Journal Number 95-02-39
53