HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence APPLICANT 5/27/2004
,.
.'
.
.
.'
, ,
LAND PLANNING CONSULT ANTS
1071 HARLOW ROAD
SPRINGFIELD OR 97477
Phone 541-7268523
May 26, 2004
To:
From:
RE:
Gary Darnielle
Mike Evans
MountainGate Preliminary Conditions of Approval
The consultants involved in the application to reclaim the MountainGate Quarry have
reviewed the preliminary decision for the primary purpose of assuring a practical and
functional implementation of blasting and crushing procedures. We offer the following
comments and requested revisions to the text and preliminary conditions of approval:
Findings
5 - page 5
Our intended notice procedure would deviate from the Code guidelines of "not more than
six hours nor less than 30 minutes prior to detonation". Our notification plan is explained
later in this letter.
6 - page 7
We didn't intend to limit alternative crushing sites to only 2. It is doubtful that the third
site will be needed but we would prefer to have it available as an alternative. Because it
is internally located and not within the line of sight from residences we proposed no
sound protection for this site. Consequently we didn't include a cross section map for
site 3 otherwise shown on the map submitted and labeled as "potential rock crusher
locations" .
Site 3 is located over 1500 feet from the closest dwellings to the West and is blocked by a
ridgeline that is elevated 70 feet above the crusher site. The site is over 1800 feet from
the closest dwellings to the South and is approximately 160 feet higher than ground
elevations within this residential area. The acoustical engineer, Arthur Noxon indicates
in his report dated 3-3-04, that at a distance of 1200 feet typical noise levels from a
crusher would be 66dB,A with a direct line of sight Since site 3 is farther than 1200 feet
from residences and is not in a direct line of sight, noise levels are expected to be less
than those anticipated at sites I and 2 (63 to 64dB,A)after sound attenuation.
Preliminary Decision (Conditions)
RECRTV'FtU
MAY 2 7 20M
BY: -:i~~
4- page 9
/;n~
~
I D+9.p~
"
.
.
We don't believe an LDAP is necessary for the quarry reclamation. Rock placement for
streets is regulated under the Public Improvement Permit (PIP) required for construction
of public improvements. Fill for lot development (grading outside public right of ways)
is regulated by an independent LDAP permit. These permits regulate material
specifications, locations of processed materials etc. If there are additional issues that
need to be addressed we prefer that they be made conditions of this Discretionary Use
Permit.
This condition implies that DSL and USACOE permits are required. These permits have
been issued for the wetland mitigation site shown on the plans submitted for the quarry
reclamation.
5 - page 9
We request this condition be eliminated. The amount of rock to be removed has been
estimated in the application and is shown on the plan submitted It will vary slightly
based upon final detention pond and park design. The rock will not be removed from the
property and will be relocated to City standards under either an LDAP or PIP permit. An
accounting of rock removal and placement appears to be redundant and nonproductive.
10 - page 10
Normal construction activity for subdivision development may begin at 7 a.m. We're
concerned that neighbors may confuse this activity with that of the reclamation activity
(blasting and crushing). We request that this condition be revised to prohibit drilling,
blasting, crushing or loading at the quarry reclamation site prior to 8 a.m. and after 6 p.m.
II - page 10
For clarity we request a rewording from ". . . crushing at the work site shall be limited
. ." to " ..... crushing at the quarry site shall be limited.. "
12 - page 10
Based upon public input received and the experience and recommendations of the
blasting consultant we propose notice and preblast surveys as follows:
Notice of our blasting schedule will be expanded from 500 feet to 1800 feet to the
West so that it includes residences along 57tl, Street located approximately 1300
feet North of Mount Vernon Road and those residences between 57th Street and
the quarry. (please refer to slide 13 ofstatrs power point for map reference). One
time written notice will be mailed to these addresses at least two days prior to the
beginning of the blasting activity. The notice will specifY the days and times that
blasting may occur. A phone number will be provided where residents may call
in advance to learn the next days plans for blasting. The notice will also explain
that blasting signals will be used just prior to blasting to inform residents. A
2
.
.
possible example would be "an air horn warning signal of 5 long blasts will sound
5 minutes prior to the blast. Immediately prior to the blast arapid air horn signal
will be heard. After the blast, an all-clear air horn signal will be sounded."
We concur with condition 12 for residents that are to be offered preblast surveys.
For clarity we request better identification of those located within 250 feet of the
quarry property. The applicant submitted a "proposed preblast survey locations"
map at the public hearing. Staff showed their intended 250-foot survey boundary
on slidel3 of the power point presentation. We propose expansion of applicant's
original proposed boundary to be more consistent with staff's intended boundary.
The boundary proposed on applicant's submittal would move West to include an
additional lot North ofJessica Lane; an additional lot on each side of Kalmia; and,
an additional lot on each side of Lilac. (A total of 18 residences are identified
immediately South of the quarry)
18 - Page 11
As requested at the hearing, we request that this condition be modified to allow
placement of rock from the quarry for maintenance and construction of the section of
MountainGate Drive located South and West of the quarry (to 57th Place.)
Justification (Conclusion)
(a) scale design - page 13
To be consistent with the intended detention pond and neighborhood park designs we
suggest a rewording as follows:
Currently, the quarry site is not of a scale and design that is consistent with the residential
character of the adjacent properties to the west and south. It currently has 30 to 90-foot
vertical walls along the majority of its north and east perimeter. The purpose of this
application is to shape the quarry through blasting to make it into a neighborhood park
that will be safe to use and also functional in the respect that it (the retention pond) will
treat and manage stormwater that will be generated by the development of the
MountainGate Subdivision'. The concept that the quarry site will become a park has been
integrated into the MountainGate Master J:'lan and the proposal is consistent with this
adopted plan. The actual design of the quarry will occur during the blasting and rock
r
removal but several operating guidelines ensure that the resulting product will be
attractive and useable by the public~. Where I"xulI'aliolls 11111'1" /.>1'1"/1 me Ii I" 10 a 1101""
Ir'-'ol'illg .\'Imlo: banks will be sloped no ste:eper than one foot vertical to two feet
horizontal to a water depth of three feet below the low water mark and to three feet above
the high water mark; grading will be done so as to establish safe access to and egress
from the water for persons and wildlife'. ..Ivl vertical wall spillway will be created; the
contours of the quarry walls 0"'''' "5 kcl hi"h that exceed 45 degrees will be benched
, tl...
with a ratio not to exceed one and one-half feet vertical to one foot horizontal with
benches being at least fffifillll feet in widthl; and some form of trail system will be
incorporated. In conclusion, the scale and design of the rehabilitated quarry site will be
I
3
.'
.
.
such that it will be suitable for a neighborhood park to serve the existing residential
development to the west and south and the proposed MountainGate development.
Operating Characteristics - page 15
In the second fbll paragraph we request that the discussion be modified to reflect the
notice procedures proposed previously in this document.
Thank you for your consideration.
4
,"
..
.
Page 1 of 1
Geri Betz
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:
"Greg Hyde" <gregh@willamalane.org>
"Mike Evans (E-mail)..<landplancon@comcasl.net>
Wednesday, May 26,20042:41 PM
MG Quarry "Benches"
Mike,
This is to confirm that I support and concur with your suggestion that it
would be best if the Hearing's Official's decision could leave maximum
flexibility regarding the minimum width of future "benches" in the reshaped
quarry walls. Pending further review of more specific plans and of various
design and regulatory issues, I wOuld not, at this point, rule out the
possibility that benches as narrow as 4' might be the best solution.
OS/26/2004
. .
',i.- JI .J'
V't .,. loll
5 ')... () ) J.-
I~ It 3'
tD -
~ rJ I!.' J
III I
rJ In I) 4-
b.... U [) 31'
3 uJ \J 0
Q, 0(' 1 r:
J
r ) ~ D
III u.1
'S l!J fY :) tJ
'J I- <t
~ I),}
J,)
(\-V' ~ 0
~
t
A ~
S N
S
-
0 0
.
Posl-it" Fax Note 7671
To ~
oJ ("^ [):;>rJOv' A
Co./Depl. 1:>
, f CI>.N/oJ(.....
Phone' 11..b - >b8<)
Fax #
Phone #
Fax #
......"..n...
"1
~
I
:1
f" In
.,., " I
~.~~ :
~rJ ,
,-- 1.1) I I)}
C) ,- I -'
" ':)
I gl '"
-- a......-- ._,J~ - 0
'"
f'f) 6)
I ~ ~ "
et,
<=' .=
6) 6)
-t;t't~:
....
::i
.:
~
0'
'"
~/.:
1-: 5! ,
.0' .
u., ,
d w ~ , '" t
'" z I ~
"'''i "
. 9 ~I "
"
w "': 1
z
. I
"- I
'" ,; II "
'" I
I
6>
C'l
I
g~1
F'I
6>
I I
II ·
.
,
I
I
~
"
I
I;
,,"- ...-.-
-..............
I .
.! --'----., ".'"
!II
.
. ;
.
.
DISCRETIONARY USE
DRAFT PRELIMINARY DECISION
STAFF COMMENTS & SUMMATION
SPRINGFIELD
~.
Case Number: ZON2004-0006
Project Name: MountainGate Master Plan - Quarry Reclamation Discretionary Use
Property Owners: Norman and Melvin McDougal, PO Box 518, Creswell OR 97426
Public Hearing Date & Location: A public hearing for the above request was held on April 28,
2004, at 9 a.m., at City of Springfield Council Chambers, 225 51h Street, Springfield, OR 97477.
At the request of a hearing participant, the written record portion of the hearing was held open
until May 7, 2004. The Hearing Official stated at the hearing that a draft decision considering all
comments would be made available to the hearing participants for review and comment.
Date of Hearing's Official's Draft Preliminary Decision: May 19, 2004. The draft decision
included instructions for review and comment by May 28, 2004. Comments are limited to what
Date of this Staff Report: May 28, 2004.
Nature of this Report: This report responds to the Hearing Official's request for clarification of
Condition 4 as recommended by City of Springfield staff in the original staff report. This report
also notes and responds to comments s\lbmitted by the public and applicants regarding the
decision and record of the proceedings as of 3pm on May 28,2004.
Materials Reviewed:
. Hearing Official's Draft Decision dated May 19,2004.
. Applicant Submittal Dated May 26, 2004.
. E-Mail from Greg Hyde, Willamal,me Park and Recreation District dated May 26, 2004.
. . Letter from Dennis & Linda Campbell, 850 S. 571h Street, Springfield, OR 97478, dated
May 26, 2004.
. Letter from Phyllis and Jesse Miller, 883 S. 571h Street, Springfield, OR 97478-5467,
dated May 26, 2004.
. Letter from Helen M. Murdoch, 840 S. 57'b Street, Springfield, OR 97478, dated May 27,
2004.
I
.
.
1. Staff Response to Applicant Submittal
Findings: Staff concurs with the applicant's submittal regarding Findings #5 & 6 and
supports any revision the Hearings Official might make to incorporate the infonnation.
Conditions of Approval:
COA 4: Staff requests the ability to require an LOAP at the quarry, crushing and stock
pile sites to establish clearly what control measures are required to prevent erosion,
offsite sediment transport and h'l'ound water contamination. If, as discussed with the
applicant, final operations plans, revised plot plans with cross sections, spill prevention
and containment plans, and approved OEQ permits demonstrate to the City Engineer's
satisfaction that the issues. are addressed, an LOA? will not be necessary.
Staff supports an approach that would provide both options and offers the following
revised/substituted Condition 4 language (bold):
Condition 4: The applicant shall subfuit a combination.offmal operations and
blasting plans, a spill prevention and:containment plan and revised plot plans with
cross sections in addition to approved DEQ permits to demonstrate that the issues of
erosion prevention, offsite sediment transport and ground water contamination
have been addressed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer or submit an LDAP
limited in scope to those issues at the quarry, crushing and stock pile sites.
COA 5: Staff requests the current condition remain as written. The intent of the condition
is not to limit the total rock removed to the estimated totals, but to track the materials'
changes and movements on site. Staff does not argue the point that tracking and
inspection of materials is required in mbre than one capacity during the overall
MountainGate project. Staff asserts that this "tool" could assist in addressing those
"
tracking procedures.
I
COA 10: Staff concurs with the applicant's appraisal of the issue (i.e. there is no way to
differentiate between noise sources occurring at the quarry and other noise sources
occurring near the quarry site). The original staff report documents the noise types and
problems that "other activities" generate. Therefore, staff recommends the condition be
revised to restrict noise sources originating in the vicinity of the quarry (bold):
Condition: The hours of operation shall be 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. for all activities
within 1000 feet ofthe Golden Terrace Subdivision. Days of operation for
crushing shall be Monday through Friday, excluding holidays.
,
The Hearings Official may choose to consider, and Staff would support, an exception for
employee vehicle traffic passing by the subdivision.
MountainGate Quarry/Park
Discretionary Use ZON2004-Q006
2
.
, .
.
.
. ,
,
COA 11: Staff does not support the requested re-wording, The requested revision, when
read with the "additional crushing" language contained in the first sentence, could be
interpreted to mean that crushing away from the quarry site is exempt from the total work
day limit Staff does not believe that that possibility was ever proposed in the record or
discussed at the hearing,
COA 12: Staff concurs with the information submitted by the applicant for notice and
survey procedures,
COA 18: Staff concurs with the clarification,
it
Justification:
Staff concurs with requested revisions,
Operating Characteristics:
Staff concurs with requested revisions, '
Additional Letters:
Staff supports the respondents' request~ for participation in the pre-blast survey program
to document the condition of structures and other improvements, such as wells, Staff
defers to the Hearings Official's wisdOl,11 and the applicant's sensibilities regarding other
issues heretofore unsubstantiated in the record, such as animal tranquilizers,
,
Summation:
With the above comments and recommendations, Staff supports the applicants' and
public's requested revisions to the Hearings Official's May 19,2004 Draft Decision,
(7~
"
MountainGate Quany/Park
Discretionary Use ZON2004~0006
3