Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutComments Miscellaneous 4/18/2004 ,. ; ~\ . e Willamalane Park & Recreation District MEMORANDUM I ' . To: Jim Donovan From: Greg Hyde Date: April 15, 2004 Subject: Application for Discretionary Use Pumit MountainGate Quarry I Jo. No. ZON2004-00006 Willamalane offers the following comments for yoJr consideration. I. Willamalane does not oppose the applicant'~ reLest for Discretionary Use approval. We have concerns, however, about several aspects of the applicant's submittal, regarding which concerns we would like the record to be clear. . 2. Willamalane has not, in any way, directed or re\luested the applicant to use the methods proposed in this application (blasting and rock crushing). The proposed methods are entirely of the applicant's choosing. Notwithstanding our interest in haviAg a clear record on this point, we also want to be clear that we do not object to the proposed methoqs.1 3. We disagree with the applicant's assertion that MountainGate Master Plan Condition of Approval 53b has been met by this application. Condition 53 establishes that the Master Plan approval is founded on the assumption that park and recreation resources adequate to serve the devel'opment will be transferred to public ownership. In the interests of ensuring that outcome, section "lJ" ~fthe Condition requires two things. First, Condition 53b requires that "an agreemJt between the applicant and the Willamalane Park & Recreation District for the transfer of the School/Park (Quarry Park) into public ownership shall be executed prior to platting of the subject property south of the intersection of MountainGate Drive and Street "C"." That part of Condition 53b caim~t be met througl) this l!iscretionary Use approval process. It can only be met by the executionoflan agreement between the two parties, Negotiations are ongoing, but as yet no such agreement exists. Second, Condition 53b requires that, "withi~ tJis timeline, the applicant shall submit to the District a reclamation plan for the quarry that will demonktrate that the proposed rehabilitation ofthe quarry will result in a site suitable for its intended purpose; i.e., a neighborhood park." WILLAMALANE COMMENTS MG QUARRY DU APP The record shows that this requirement stemmeo from the applicant's reliance on the parks and open space aspects of the Master Plan to demonstratd that various criteria of approval, Metro Plan policies, and Goal 5 directives were met. Willamalane arid City staff testimony and reports also supported the " d' i-/ -( gljd' Date Receive . ~ PAGE 1 OF 3 Planner: ~ u->>'" 4/18/2004 . I ()f 3,?~ ,. ''\ .. . requirement. In his suppOlting findings, the Hearings Official cites Willamalane staff testimony recommending that his decision "require that the applicant provide a detailed reclamation plan for the conversion of the quarry into a neighborhood p~rk" [emphasis added]. The Hearings Official concludes that, "In order to ensure that this areJ serves the open space purpose for which it is to be designated, it follows that a reclamation plan mhst be developed." . The Hearings Official was referring to written tlstimOny from Willamalane staff, dated February IS, 1995, and April I?, 1995. In the February IS t~stimony, Willamalane argued that, "... in order to ensure the usability of the quarry site as a neighborhood park, the reclamation plan should be required to: I) be prepared by a team of qualified profes~ionals; 2) include a post-reclamation grading and drainage plan; 3) specifY the depth and charact~ristics of the soil to be deposited at the site (adequate to support park plantings and to provide for utility trenching and foundations); and 4) include geotechnical certification of the post-reclamatidn stability of the side slopes." Our April I? testimony included the following additional information. The most pressing issue here has to do with thefeasibility of converting the quan)! site to a neighborhood park. This is.a vel)! ambitiou,s proposal. In orderfor it to be developed as a neighborhood park, substantial amountN>fgood topsoil will have to be deposited at the site. The topsoil will need to be deep enough to allow for trenchingfor utilities and of the planting and growing of park trees. SubsUlface drainagJ may have to be provided. ... The problem is that the Master Plan provides Vel)! little specificity Ifegarding this proposed reclamation. Without additional details it cannot be demonstrated that the proposal is feasible, and that adequate public park and recreation services will be providJd. . The logic then, of requiring the applicant J prepare a,detailed plan for a publicfacility ofwhich he 'will not be the ultimate user, is the sa;ne!logic by which he is required to prepare plans for proposed storm water management systims, streets, and sewers. It is to ensure that the public will not end up accepting perpetual responsibilityfor systems andfacilities that may not work proper(y, or worse, may result in the los~ ofllife or limb. It is the same logic, in fact, by which he is required to prepare the Master Plan itself This part of the condition has not been met BecLse the submittal does not include enough information to demonstrate that the proposed activities will \-esult in a site that is suitable for a park. The level of detail described in our earlier testimony is the Ibvel that we believe is required to meet the Condition. Specifically, we offer the following observaiiorls. . The submittal does not include a certificatidn by qualified professionals such as a landscape architect, soils engineer, or hydrologist thatlthe post-reclamation condition will be adequate to support park plantings and to provide for utility trenching and foundations. . The submittal does not include a post-reclarhation grading and drainage plan with enough detail to , demonstrate that provision has been made for placement of an adequate amount of topsoil. . The submittal does not demonstrate that thel proposed depth and characteristics of soil to be placed is adequate to support park plantings and to [provide for utility trenching and foundations. It states that one foot of soil will be placed at the wetland mitigation site and at the detention basin. Elsewhere, it says that "clayey" soil will bJ placed. ~layey soil is not conducive to supporting park plantings that would typically include turf and trees. As stated in our earlier testimony, good topsoil will be required. In our opinion, onb foot of soil is not adequate to support park trees or to provide for utility trenching. The submittal!is silent on the quantity or quality of soil to be placed on side slopes. The submittal offers no info,nnation to demonstrate that the soil to be placed will be adequately drained. Soil that is saturated with water will not support park plantings, park development, or park use. WI LLAMA LANE COMMENTS MG QUARRY DU APP PAGE20F3 4/18/2004 " ;. . . 4. Willamalane has serious concerns regarding suggestions in the submittal that details of the quarry reclamation, detention basin design, and/or wetland mitigation site design should be resolved through a future Site Plan Review process, particularly ifthe expectation is that Willamalane would be responsible for preparing such a Site Plan.] Th6se details must be resolved by the applicant in order to determine compliance with the Master Plan cortditions and with subdivision approval requirements. Willamalane does not accept responsibility for j.esolving those issues. . 5. Willamalane supports the applicant's argumentl in the last paragraph on ~age 2 ofth.e narrative, that the detention basin design should be designed to direct storm water to specified areas (such as the proposed "low-flow" stream and pools) during most stonn events, in order to optimize the amount of time that the remainder of the area would be well drained and thus suitable for recreation use. I In the last paragraph on page 5, the applicant's narrative states, "a site plan will be developed by Willamalane." In the third paragraph on page 6, it states that, ""A future site plan required for park developrhent will incorporate specific final details for the detention pond, wetland mitigntion areas, associated trails, and vegetation." I WILLAMALANE COMMENTS MG QUARRY DU APP PAGE3 OF 3 4/18/2004