HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous PLANNER 4/21/2004
.
.
DATE:
:
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
April 21, 2004 !
I
Gary Darnielle, Springfield Hearih. gs O::~
Jim Donovan, DSD Planne~~
Planning File ZON2004~~
(MountainGate Master Plan 1998[02-0039)
.
HEARINGS OFFFICIAL
TRANSMITTAL
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
ISSUE I
TIle applicant is requesting approval to blast and drush rock during reclamation of a fornler quarry site in
the Urban Fringe Overlay District. The use requires Discretionary Use approval by the Hearings Official
,
because the construction practices proposed are not nornlally anticipated in the residential areas of
Springfield. i
,
I
DISCUSSION
.
i
The reclamation must occur so that a park use can: be planned and designed at the site as required by the
MountainGate Master Plan (MP# 1995-02-039). The reclamation work requires re-grading the majority
of the 7 acre site from steep rock faces to slopes and benches usable for future park and utility designs.
The Hearings Official must conduct a hearing and: make a decision concerning the appropriateness of the
proposed construction activities adjacent to existing residences.
RECOMMENDATION
I .
Staff recommends approval with conditions desigbed to mitigate negative affects on adjacent property
owners and residents. The recommended conditions are summarized in Attachment B to the Staff Report.
. ATTACHMENTS
I) Staff Report with Attachments
2) Applicant's Submittals ;
3L _BackgrQl!nd Information and Oversized Exhi~its
~ ,^i
't' '" ... ) ,~
~ ~ t~
't ~ ~ >t
~' 1ft~?, ~~
~ \)1-411 ~
~ "L ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~
~ ~ ""'-.~ ~ "V. 'ls' ~
Date Received:_Lf-:L( -of
Planner. ~
. ;Drl~
/6* 4-0ptLf
.
.
GC
,.
I
,.
.
.
DISCRETIONARY USE STAFF
I
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDA nON
TO THE HEARINGS OFFICIAlL
I
SPRINGFIELD
Case Number: ZON2004-0006
Date of Report: April 21, 2004
Project Name: MountainGate Master Plan - Quarry Reclamation
Property Owners: Norman and Melvin McDougal, PO Box 5 I 8, Creswell OR 97426
Nature of Application: The applicants are tquesting discretionary use approval in accordance
with SDC Article 10 to proceed with reclarrlation of a fomler private quarry site, preparing the
site for planning and development as a pUblic park as required by Conditions of MountainGate
Master Plan (MP 1995-02-0039). The propos6d use includes blasting and crushing of rock for use
during on site construction of associated residential development.
. Project Location: The 7 acre project site is ILated along the south westerly border of the 330
acre site just north ofWeyerhaeuser Road and the Golden Terrace Subdivision at 58'h and 59'h
Streets, within Springfield's Urban Transitiorl Zone. The site is otherwise identified as a portion
of Tax Lot 300 on LC Assessor's Map l8-02l04-11. .
N
Metropolitan Area Comprehensive
Plan Designation: LOR
Public Hearing Date & Location:
April 28, 2004, 9 a.m., City of
Springfield Council Chambers, 225 5'"
Street, Springfield, OR 97477
(Testimony and written comments will
be accepted until the close of the public
hearing).
Zouing: Low Density Residential-UGB
(LDRlUF-IO)
Master Plan Approval: #1995-02-0039
Date Application Submitted: March 8, 20041
Development Review Committee Meeting Date: April 6, 2004
Staff Recommendation: Approval with coJditions for compliance with the Mountaingate
Master Plan and the Sptingfield Development! Code.
. I
Appeal Deadline Date: 21 Days After Receiving Hearing Official Decision
Associated Applications: MountainGate Malter Plan #1995-02-0039
.
6S1 face and benCh to pIt rom I
antral saddle. Face has south
"!,,.~~~~os~.!e-,-~__~!
West End of Quarry Site !
.
Quarry Site (center) from Mt Vernon/57'" St~"
East End of Quarry Site
prtandevenlualpond
natcenterofbenchlooking
10 homesapproximalely 100
saway.
Golden Terrace Subdivision South of Center
MountainGalc Quany/Park
Discrctionmy Use ZON2004~0006
Golden Terrace Subdivision South of West End
2
.
\
. f
Jf
/
)
r
,~'l _
. \ ' "
l>/&C.reAorJ //Je1
I'
, '
/
SCAL[: ," = 200'
tLse- Z{);.(20L)r~ObO{jb
~
"fHE FAVREAU"GROUP
CIVIL ENGINEERING c .
POTENTIAL RoCK CRUSHER.lOCATIONS
MOUNTAlNGAlE PHASE 4 '
-
~
-.
---
B-.OO\"" lI'll__
,
,
- ~,
,
- '----
-
J-U-<l'
C1Tf or SPRlNGr1ELD
I'VaJC_OUUfWl(l
--
"""'.....
_.
.
I .- ----
I
.. I !
,
I I
-
'" I .2 T
I '"' ~
'" V EMP iKAR \ ~ I
/1 .1 -- ",/' ,.., -j
/ ;0
nu I /" "'-., i7
/
-; I ,I '. --'".- -- .....f-TE POR Ry( OUNO
...,"'-
.. / 1_: -:.... "-.,
-.. ."- 'onu ~
- ---
/ -~- I '-EX STIN eRC NO
'" -
I ..
/' 1
j I ..
'" I ..
,
OATtN a!Y , I
~ro.lXl ~ il Ii i I ~ : ~ s ; ~ ~ '
- " -
.... .... .." .... ''''', ,.. "" ,., .... ...
SECTION A-A
.. ,/'\
.c. .. ,-
-
J
'" ..
"
XIS NG CR QUID .- .. .-
-- . ,
. 1.--- - -'-- r,
,
/' \ I !1gj , / /
'" \ Ilflil,'
./
I , - '
I
- ,., I "- -. lURE G OUNO
/
, /' I
.. Gonl,"n
,/
I -
I ,
..
, m I -
0A1IPIEtCl'
~- E ~ ~ -i ill i . - ~
~
.... .." "" I ". ",11<<1 "..
SEC1ION B-B ,
-
..
...........-'" , - POTENTlAL ROCK CRUSHER SECTIONS
THE FAVREAU GROUP I ..
~ 1 I "
CIVIL ENGINEERING I MOUNTAINGATE PHASE 4
w . I ,- --
~ 2tmW~S1JlEI' I ," c I""..... T
(UGEN'E,OI'lI7.,1 ts41,U3~'_ ,,~ '" I """- ~., CITY Of SPR1NGFlELO
w , , REVISIONS ._0_- -- jO.~_':H" 'UB\.lC WClRX! O(?~It!\ltlH I
- .'--'
.
:j;";1
il~!ll
'!i!1l
!~i!~
"'I'
... !:l ~
~"~j!:1l
I"~!
Iii.
II
0'
I'
II
I,
,
~-ll-
.
"",
@Qj)@@@@ 8
II ~~I mli ~
~ l~ s~l~l
" ,.. uu
. .,. i'I'
II 2"'~ ~ ill
ll~ i i
I!~ !!
~ :e I I
;-
THE FAVREAU GROUP
CIVIL ENGINEERING
-~-
EUGtNE,ORf7<llt(6<'I__
.
MOUNTAlNGATE SUBDIVISION
~. ~
~
REVISIONS
CITY or SPRINGfI(LD
PUlUCWO.KSCE:I'......rNT
."
~_lo-""
,.
.. ---- l--
e-. ---
/
,. -. 7
-
.. -f
,. j
EXlsn G ""j'NO
1/ / -
'" v- /
7 r "'" <~g~ ~ on
.. Ir'
PROP :~ !lAN \
MIlfG REA. .-
~ uo.__
"""''''''
","co j Ii i ~ ~ ~ ! ~ i ~ i ~ il ~
_n
.
h.
h.
,.
~
.
uoo U~ ZIlla
I
SECTION 81
,..
".
.// /
/
1/
/
/
I
I-- -----
,
'"
/ / i'-
PROPO SE WE NO /
MlnCA n >Ill[
..
~TIJIiIClE ,
~-(](] ! i '-
- =
h. h. ".
--Jt
--1---
X1SI1N CROO 0
I
I /
I E!!2!:SEO ..n /
. 17
1
I ---..
I --
. ~ 5
- - - - - - ..
". ... ,.. ". ".
I
SEOTION 82
.
.
8
I~
i~
)>
~
, ;; - - Ii -. Ii
"" 0
,
~ c-- I
65'.2
--- --- 7 I
657.0 I
./ / r I
!5U ,
--' /' ( I
6~_a
V ~ I
6l9.l ~
/ I
112.0
8'~O I
"' I
6'.' I
&IJ,T I
I
." I
,
I
11(5 I
I
61~.6 !
~ ~
~ X
115.0 0 "l
~
1'1 z
~
0 ~
616.0 ~
C
a
~)&ll
81$.0
~lU
616.0
114.5
6U.9 (
615.1
615~
ilU
5T5.!
~ I
111.! ,
------ I
till} ,
,_.. I
,
.
."
8
"
'8
"
8
lI1
rr1
"
--<
o .
2 "
8
t
"
.
8
.
"
8
~
.
.
~
~ 5 o~~ ij
8
.
.
.
.
Ii
"
.l~ 0 0 0
610.9
./ !\
~lq
- ( ~
X
v;
-.!~I!.O
---- z
~ t---- ~
~ ~
..!..:lli 0 ~
~ c
8 z
~ ~
t--"
~5l.O
_~l!!,' 1\
---- --- \
.~,
--- \
_6~g 0 r---.
t---- t----
-~!
I'---- t---.
.8~U_
_~I.s)
.
.
(/)8
rr1
"
-l
Ot
2_
OJ
GJ
8
1;
.
.
DEVELOPMENT PREPARATION AND REVIEW TEAM CONTACT INFORMATION
APPLICANT & DEVELOPMENT TEAM;
I
POSITION DUTIES I NAME PHONE
Applicants & Project Planners Planning ana Project Mike Evans & Gem 541-726-
I Betz, Land Planning 8523
Management
I Consultants
Explosive Technical Blasting Plans Dick Daniel, 503/644-
Consultant I ETS, Inc. 7544
Blasting Contractor Blasting and Crushing Kris Jeremiah, 541/747-
Operations I BJ Equipment LLC 6261
Geotechnical Engineer Hillside Development Todd Boire, PE , 541-753-
Desil!I1 I Boire Associates, Inc. 5344
Civil Engineer Public and lrivate Tony Favreau, PE, The 541-683-
Imorovement Desil!I1 Favreau Group 7048
Wetland Consultant Wetland Fill & Pat Thompson, 541-933-
Mitigation I Thompson Consulting 3318
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM
I
POSITION REVIEW OF NAME PHONE
Project Planner Master Planl& Development Jim Donovan 726- 3660
Applications
Transportation Planning Transportation Gary McKermey 726-4585
Engineer I P,E,
Public Works Streets and Utilities Eric Walter P,E, 736-1036
Civil En&ineer " I
Public Works EIT Sanitary & Storm Sewer Matt Stouder 736-1035
Denutv Fire Marshall Fire and Life Safety Gilbert Gordon 726-2293
Community Services Manager Building Issues Dave Puent 726-3668
(Buildinf! Official) I
Willamalane Parks and Future Park Design Greg Hyde 736-4050
Recreation District Plannin,g I
,
Mount..1inGute Quarrylpark
Discrellonmy Use ZON2004-0006
3
.
.
J. Executive Summary
The blasting and crushing activities proposed 'are construction practices necessary to start the
process of reclaiming a fonner quarry site to J state suitable for park development and
constructing stornl water detention facilities rbquired by Conditions 28 and 53b. of the
MountainGate Master Plan. I I
The quarry reclamation and park development mandated by the Master Plan involves a four-step
process of I) rough grading by the applicant c10nsistent with conceptual park designs, 2) a transfer
agreement and final reclamation plan approve~ by Willamalane Parks and Recreation District as
suitable for park development, 3) rezoning and re-designation of the LOR site to Park and Open
Space, and, 4) discretionary use/site plan appfoval for the design of the neighborhood park,
Incorporating rough grade of the required stofm water detention facilities in the first step of
quarry reclamation is consistent with the currJnt Phase 4 tcntative subdivision approval and
recent submittal of public improvement plans Ifor that phase of development.
. I
The initial reclamation activities will be a sitelimprovement consistcnt with Master Plan approval,
but one that entails quarry mining activities not nonnally found in residential or park
I
construction, The blasting and crushing activities will affect the existing neighbors in the Jasper
Meadows and Golden Terrace Subdivisions s6uth of the site, The discretionary use criteria arc
applied in order to provide the affected neighbors an opportunity to comment and recommend
conditions to reduce conflicts, The ultimate dJsign of the park and storm water facilities must be
considercd in blasting plans, howcver, given Steps 2-4 above, only the potcntial affects of the
proposed blasting and crushing, activities on rIle neighbors are under consideration at this time.
The intent of this decision is not to find full c6mpliance with the Master Plan conditions but to
start that process in accordance with the Discl!etionary Use criteria.
I '
This fonner quarry site has never been a penn,itted commercial quarry and is technically not
subject to Oregon Department of Geology and Mining Industry regulations. That fact
notwithstanding, the standards of the Quarry Mining Overlay District and input from the
neighborhood have been considered with disc~etionary use criteria to evaluate the proposal. Staff
has developed conditions of approval for mitikation of physical impacts such as dust, noise,
visual, vibration, traffic, airborne debris, and displaced wildlife to reasonable levels during this
necessary step toward reclamation of the quat site,
Director's Recommendation to the Hearing Official:
Based on the staff findings and conditions forlnitigation ofeffec;s on the adjacent neighbors, the
Director finds that this application can comply with the criteria for discretionary use contained in
the Springfield Development Code and the pr6posal is the necessary first ~tep to complying with
Master Plan conditions for planning and devel~pnient ofthe park site, The proposal, as
conditioned, is consistent with the intent of thJ Master Plan decision to allow development while
balancing effects on residents and natural reso~rces, The construction practices of blasting and
crushing should be allowed with a conservative technical approach and liberal amounts of
safeguards for surrounding neighbors. I
,I '
1 The Master Plan comprises the complete set of documents and attachments contained in the Hearings
Official's decision on the MountainGate' Master PIa'" as approved on May 13, 1998, Hearafter, this
complete set of documents will simply be referred t6 as the Master Plan.
I
I
MountainGatc Quany/Park
Discretionary Use ZON2004.0006
4
.
.
II. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
Discretionary Use Applications
A Discretionary Use review process is' a Type III procedure subject to the process described in
,
Section 3.080 of the Springfield Development ~ode (SDC). Under Section 3.080, when the
applicant has met the submittal requirements, the Director shall accept the application and forward
it to the Development Review Committee. In abcordance with SDC 14.020 the Director shall
schedule a public hearing before the Hearing Official and provide notice to property owners and
residents within 100 feet of the subject propert~, allowing for comments on the proposal prior to
and during the public hearing. The Director m~st prepare a recommendation on the application and
make staffs report available to the applicant and the public 7 days in advance of the hearing.
[ '.
The Hearing Official shall make a decision on the application based upon applicable criteria of
approval as specified in the SDC, the Master Plan, the Director's recommencjation, and taking into
account the public comments received during the review process. The Hearing Official may
approve, approve with conditions or deny the application. Notice of the Hearing Official's decision
is mailed to the applicants and those persons submitting comments during the public hearing
process. I
Appeal of a Type III Hearing Official decision may be made by parties with standing to the Land
Use Board of Appeals within 21 days of the HJarings Official's decision.
Procedural Findings - Article 3
I) The City accepted the application as complete for review in accordance with Articles 10
and 37 of the Springfield Developmerlt Code on March 19,2004.
[
2) The City of Springfield Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed plan on
April 6, 2004. . I
3) In accordance with SDC Article 14, a Notice of Public Hearing on the application was
mailed to residents and owners within! 100 feet of the subject property and published in a
newspaper in common circulation. TIle City of Springfield received 3 letters during
notice procedures citing concems for hructural damage to' private property, safety and
noise: I..
Letter I: "We would only request that the City make good on its promise to treat existing
state standards for explosives use as 'Iriinimum guidelines'... ..we would prefer an
approach that does not allow for trial Jnd error!"
Our own preference would be to see tt park project relocated to an area less in need of
such extensive preparation work or elde abandoned altogether. Are we not correct in
assuming that pemlission to proceed Jith the blasting would never be granted were it not
for the city's own future claim to this ~ite as park space?" .
Thomas Heath, 855 S. 57'h Street, [SPringfield, OR 97478, with cosigner:
Prudence Heath, 827 S. 57'h Street, Springfield, OR 97478
Staff Response 1: The applicant has sJbmitted and Staff has applied the standards of
Springfield Development Code Articlei24 in addition to all applicable state andfederal
MountainGatc Quany/Park
Discretional)' Use ZON2004-0006
5
.
.
standards. StaJlhas also considered p,ublic concerns before approval. (See Operations
and Blasting Plan Conditions for extinsion of pre-blast survey area and ground
monitoring equipment in AttachmentslA and B of this report). Only enough explosives to
Facture rock in place and contain physical impacts on site will be used.
I '
The eventual park use was approved in 1998 aJier extensive public involvement during
the MountainGate Master Plan revieJ, process. The seven acre site would likelv be
subject to the same request and standhrdsfor reclamation under public or pri~ate
development scenarios given its size dnd unique physical conditions. (See Findings,
page 10 (Jfthis report.)
Letter 2: "As homeowners in the area of the proposed MountainGate park site
reclamation we wish to be listed with ithose opposed to this request.
It appears to us that the proposal for blasting, rock crushing and a stockpile area all
within 500 feet of our home presents ~ safety hazard, as well as being an invasion of our
right to a reasonable noise level in a r~sidential neighborhood. ^
We believe this to be a strictly commLcial venture on ;he part of the appiicant that has no
regard for our neighborhood." I
Gerald and Darlene Spencer 5996 Lilac Lane, Springfield, OR 97478
I
Staff Response 2: The proposed use ii a temporary in nature a'nd is limited only to the
operations necessal)'for reclamation!ofthe qua,.,)' site. The applicant has proposed
methods (Jf mitigation for noise and other impacts. Staff has endeavored to reduce the
affects on neighbors and recommend.~ additional and/ or expanded mitigations to reduce
potential affects of the proposed use t7 those of other uses allowed by code on the same
property. For example, pre-blast notice and surveying procedures will be implemented
and expanded, blasting will be controlled to contain physical impacts on site, the
schcdule for blasting and crushing is limited, and no rock will leave the site for
commercial purposes. (See Criterion 1 a. at pqge 10 of this report and Attachment A -
Blasting and Operations Plans or Att~chment B-Recommended Conditions (Jf Approval).
Letter 3: "Twenty or so years ago, blasting in that quarry caused extensive damage to the
plaster ceilings in my home. The insJrance adjuster told me that the fact that the cracks
in the ceilings came from the comers bfthe ceilings towards the center of the rooms
indicated that the frame oflhe house ~as twisted and jolted.
I
I am concerned that the underlying stiata of rock at the quarry may run under my house
also. Needless to say I am very much 6pposed to the any more blasting in this quarry."
Vonda Brooks, 812 S. 57'h Street.lsPringfield, OR 97478
Staff Re^ponse 3: In accordance with ~he proposed blasting and operations plans, as
conditioned herein, seismic and sound monitors will be placed at or near the propertv
lines (Jf the quarry site to evaluate gr~und response to blasting and minimize impacts to
abutting properties. There will be no physical impacts whatsoever to properties along S.
57'" Street. (For more information refer to Attachment A (Jfthis report.)
MounlainGalc Quan)'/Park
Discretionary Use ZON2004-0006
6
.
.
The full text of the letters is part ofthe public file which is available for free review at the
City of Springfield Planning Divisionl, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield OR 97477. The issues
of property damage, noise and applic~ble criteria of approval or other code provisions are
addressed in this report at Criterion l~. on page and in Attaclunents A- Operations and
Blasting Plans and Attachment B- Retommended Conditions of Approval.
Additional public information was prbvided to the adjacent neighborhood during a
meeting with Neighborhood Watch dptains on April 7, 2004 in the Golden Terrace
Subdivision. The meeting was attendJd by 6 representatives, infonnation and handouts.
were provided by City, the applicant ~nd the blasting consultant. No written comments
were collected at the meeting, howev~r the discussion could be characterized as generally
positive. The h'TOUP supported the future park development and mitigation techniques
discussed. Staff believes that all mitigation teclmiques discussed are included in the
submittals and conditions offered to the Hearings Official.
. I
4) A public hearing before the Hearing 0fficial is scheduled to open April 28, 2004. Staffs
recommendation, written comments from the public, and all testimony addressing the
criteria of approval for the reclamatioh impacts will be heard. All comments received
after this staff report but prior to the IJearing will be forwarded to the Hearing Official.
and entered into the record of the pro6eedings at the hearing.
5) Unless extended by the Hearing offiJial at the request of the applicant, the record will be
closed and a written decision will be issued by the Hearing Official within the ORS 120
day time frame. I .
6) Notice of the Hearing Official's decision will be sent within five days to the applicants,
all parties participating in the hearingk process and all parties who submitted written
comments. I
Conclusion: The processing requirements of SDC Article 3 for a Type III land use decision have
been met as of this writing; the processing requirements will be completed when Notice of
Decision is mailed to participating parties.
III. Materials Reviewed
It is the applicant's responsibility to pro,:e their proposal complies with the Master Plan and
Decision of Approval, Springtield Development Code in effect at the time of Master Plan
Approval and other applicable State and 1ederal regulations.
On March 8-19 2004 the applicant submitted a package of infoffilation containing the
following elements and components:
.
18 sets of plan drawings by Favreau: I) Detention PondlReclamation Plan with
Current Conditions and ProposedlCross Sections, 2) Potential Rock Crusher
Locations, MountainGate Phase 4, with Cross Sections, March 19, 2003.
I
Conceptual Park Designs(2) withlCurrent Conditions, by Cameron McCarthy, Gilbert
& Schiebe, March 19,2003 I .
Project narrative and response to Discretionary Use Criteria by Land Planning
Consultants, March 8, 2003 I
Blasting Plans by Dick Daniel, Explosive Consultant & Kris Jeremiah, Explosive
Contractor
.
.
.
MountninGatt: Quany/Park
Discretionary Use ZON2004-0006
7
.
.
. Proposed Operations Plan by Land Planning Consultants, March 8, 2003.
. Memo from Acoustica] Engineer,lArthurNoxon, PE, March 19,2004
. Executed City of Springfield ap~lication form with attachments (legal description,
title report) I ,
. Application fees in accordance with adopted City fee schedule.
I . . . .
IV. APPLICABLE CRITERIA OF APPROVAL
Master Plan, Decision and Conditions of A1proval: In accordance with SDC Article
37, a Master Plan is a comprehensive developnlent plan that allows phased development
over several years and shall be the basis for thd evaluation of all phases of development
on any issues which it addresses. Approval of development phases shall be granted
subject to the tenns and conditions of the Mastbr Plan, but subject to the applicable
Development Code provisions and City ordinahces on issues which the Master Plan does
not address. Changes to City ordinances, polic'ies and standards adopted after May 13,
I
1998 (the date of approval) shall not apply to the development.
I
The Springfield Hearing Official's May 13,1998 Master Plan Decision (including Findings,
Conclusion and Conditions of Approval) Plarining Journal #1995-02-0039, as attached to the
property's deed LC Filing # 99035359) is inc6rporated here by reference and is implemented in
the body of this decision where it is specific ahd applicable to the proposed use:
MP COA# 28: Prior to or concurrent Jth development of any ph~se south of
Line A, the applicant shall provide detkiled plans for detention ponds proposed at
the Park site. *
MPCOA#53b: An agreement between the applicant and the Willamalane Park
and Recreation District for the transferl of the Quarry Park site into public
ownership shall be executed prior to the platting ofthe subject property south of
the intersection of Mountain Gate Drivb and (S. Park Drive). A]so, and within this
timeline, the applicant shall submit to the district a reclamation plan that will
I
demonstrate that the proposed rehabilitation of the quarry will result in a site
suitable for its intended purpose; i.e. a ieighbOrhOod park.
10.030 DISCRETIONARY USE CRITERIA. The following standards and criteria of
the Springfield Development Code shall be a~plied to all requests for Discretionary Use
approval: I :
(1) Discretionary Use may only be allowed if the (Hearing Official) finds that the
proposal confonns with the following triteria:
I
(a) The proposed use shall confonn with other permitted uses in terms of scale,
lot coverage, design, intensity of u~e and operating characteristics.
I .
(b) The proposed use shall not generate more traffic onloca] streets or more
demand for public facilities than vJould pernlitted uses in the same zoning
district.
MountainGate Quarry/Park
Discretional)' Use ZON2004-0006
8
.
.
(c) n,e proposed use confonns with applicable Metro Plan policies and
applicable descriptions of Land Use Designations shown on the Metro Plan
Diagram. Expansion of an existing Discretionary Use shall be exempt from
confomlance with Metro Plan land use designation descriptions. .'
NOTE: As discussed at Criteria la. and operatioJ Plan (A;tachment A), the discretionary proposal is for
quarry practices used during a one time reclamatio1n project at an un-pelmitted former private quarry site
not subject to SDC Article 24-Quarry Mining Ope~ations regulations or state statUtes for commercial
mining. I' . .
V. APPLICANT RESPONSE TO CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
I
SDC 10.030(1): Except for private/public elementary and middle schools and certain
wireless telecommunications systems facilities, a Discretionary Use may only be allowed if
the Planning Commission finds that the pr6posal 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 chadcteristics. .
Applicant Submittal: The use requested is a tellporary u~e of the site that is necessary to reclaim the
quarry as required by Condition No. 53b. ofthb MountainGate Masterplan approval. The
Masterplan also requires an agreement to transfer the site to Willamalane for use as public open
space in order to accomplish the open space debgnation and use as required by the ESEE analysis
for MountainGate (May 29,1995).
The site is currently zoned UF-10 and is designated as Low Density Residential on the Metro
Plan. The Metro Plan specifies that neighborllood parks are allowed uses within the residential
land use designation. (1l-E-2, Feb. 2002). I
The ultimate use of this site as a neighborhood park has been predetennined by the Masterplan
approval and was found to be consistent with hdopted plans. Reclamation of the quarry to
accommodate this intended use is also requirea by the Master Plan and the plan must demonstrate
,
that the proposal will result in the site's suitability as a neighborhood park. Willamalane has
agreed that the reclamation process proposed \vill result in a site suitable as a neighborhood park.
Temporary use of the site as necessary to recl~im the quarry therefore conforms with other
pemlitted uses.
Staff Response:
The proposed use is temporary blasting and crushing of rock for construct'ion of land uses
pemlitted in or adjacent to a residential district. In order to conform to thel above criterion of
approval, the potential impacts of blasting and crushing activities must bel mitigated to ilJ1 impact
level as close as reasonably possible to other donstruction practices nomlally associated with
construction of residential subdivsions. . .
Combining quarry reclamation and construction activities is logically accomplished in one of two
general approaches: 1) blasting, crushing and hauling of rock for construction materials to the
northerly construction areas, or 2) drilling, haAnneringand stock piling of rock for hauling off
site and importing construction materials procbssed elsewhere onto the site for construction. The
fonner entails an acute or "front loaded" schedule of activities in descending hierarchy including
1) blasting, 2) crushing and 3) hauling ofmat~rials away from the site and adjacent residences;
I
MountainGate Quarry/Park
Discretionary Use ZON2004-0006
9
.'
.
the latter requires a more latent or drawn out impact scenario of simultaneous drilling, hammering
and hauling of waste materials to and from thk quarry site along the road next to the adjacent
residences. In discussions with neighborhood group representatives during public involvement
and neighborhood meetings, verbal input waslreceived in support of the first approach, the shorter
blasting scenario with mitigation techniques as opposed to the longer drilling and hammering
approach, Three letters in opposition to the p~oposal were received during formal notice
procedures based upon prior blasting experieAces and potential effects on the neighborhood,
Staff Findings:
Finding I: The 7 acre site is currently zoned and desi,,'llated Low Density Residential (LDR) with
an urban fringe overlay (UF-IO). The site is rbquired to be re-designated POS and re-zoned Public
Land and Open Space (PLO) prior to develop~nent as a neighborhood park (ref.: Master Plan
Approval #1995-02-0039).
Finding 2: In accordance with the Springfield Development Code, neighborhood parks are
pennitted uses in the LDR and the PLO distri6ts, subject to site plan review and discretionary
approval. (Ref.: SDC Articles 16 and 23) Coinmercial quarry use is not pern1itted at the site.
Finding 3: The site is surrounded by propertiL zoned and designated Low Density Residential
according to the Springfield Zoning Map and :the Metro Plan. Residential subdivision
development is pennitted in the LDR and is limited in scope only by hillside development
standards or other overlay districts. (Ref: SDG: Articles 16 & 23).
Finding 4: Con~truction of any permitted use hnder Articles 16 or 23 at the unique site requires
"reclaiming" or re-grading of the quarry site by use of heavy equipment for excavation and earth
moving, I
Finding 5: The applicant has submitted blasting and operations plans detailing the process of
blasting, crushing and hauling of rock necessJry to begin the process of converting the quarry site
to a site suitable for pern1itted uses (i.e, neighborhood park),
Finding 6: Staff reviewed the submitted ope~t;on and blasting plans and recommends additional
conditions of approval for mitigation of potential impacts. The potential effects of noise,
vibration, dust and fly rock are addressed undbr Attachment A- Operations and Blasting Plans,
and Attachment B- Recommended ConditionJ of Approval. Traffic concerns are addressed under
Criterion I b., below.. I.
Conclusion Criterion I: Staff finds that the submitted blasting and operations plans, with the
conditions recommended to the Hearings Offi~ial, sufficiently mitigate the potential impacts that
are incidental to the proposed use and, as conditioned, this criterion is met
(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.
Applicant Response: On site processing and usl of the aggregate material existing at the quarry will
eliminate the need to import the same amount 6r material from other locations, Engineer's
estimates for material needed for the constructibn of the MountainGate development exceeds
100,000 cubic yards of crushed rock and 100,000 cubic yards of pit run material. Reclamation of
the quarry as proposed could provide approxinJately 100,000 yards or half of the needed material.
MountainGatc Quany/Park
Discretionary Use ZON2004-0006
10
.
.
60,000 yards of the quarry rock material would be crushed for use as street subgrade and trench
backfill. , I
Dump trucks haul approximately 8 cubic yards and truck -trailer units can haul approximately 15
cubic yards per round trip, Depending on the!size of trucks used, production of rock for onsite
use would eliminate 13,000 to 25,000 truck trips to and from the site over the duration of the
street and subdivision construction project. I
The closest sources for construction rock material are South of Main Street approximately 5
miles West (Morris/Springfield Quarry) or N6rth of Beltline approximately 13 miles Northwest
(Eugene Sand, Wildish, Egge),
Depending upon the portion of the property being developed, truck routes from any of these
quarries is either along 58th Street 0.4 miles S6uth of Main Street then along a private access road
into the site or east along Main Street to a neJ. street intersection along the site frontage. The
greatest traffic impact to residences would be ifrom the 581h Street route which parallels a
residential development located along the Wekt side of the Weyerhaeuser Road. .
The use proposed will not generate more demlnd for public facilities and would result in less
traffic on local streets.
Staff Response:
Staff generally concurs with the applicant's assessment of impacts to existipg local streets
assuming that no rock is hauled along Mount~inGate Drive west of the quarry. One additional
condition is requested to clarify and memorialize this part of the submittal.
Staff Findings:
Finding 1: No commercial quarry activity is pemlitted at the site; therefore no rock should leave
the site using either the 5th Street or Aster Stieet accesses. .
Finding 2: After stock piling, the processed JCk will be used during construction of Phase I and
2 street improvements on the north side ofthe1site.lmprovement of MountainGate Drive from
Phase I improvements to 571h Street may occJr during the life of the proposed blasting and
crushing. I.
Finding 3: Circulating rock trucks onto existing or proposed local streets above Golden Terrace
Snbdivision to reach Phase I construction are1s increases dust and noise impacts on adjacent
residents. I.'
Conclusion Criterion 2: No rock will leave the site or be hauled on that stretch of MountainGate
Drive above the adjacent residences until it is !necessary for construction of that street section. As
1
proposed and conditioned below, the submittal meets this criterion of approval:
I
Condition 1: Under nomlal operations and unless authorized by the City, all rock will be moved
from the quarry/park site to the construction ateas north of the quarry using the proposed
MountainGate Drive east and north of the quatrY.
MountainGate Quarry/Park
Discretional)' Use ZON2004~0006
II
.
.
(c) The proposed use conforms with applicable Metro Plan policies and applicahle
descriptions of Land Use Designations shoWn on the Metro Plan Diagram. Expansion of an
,
existing Discretionary Use shall be exell1pt from conformance with Metro Plan land use
designation descriptions.
Applicant Submittal:
Parks and Recreational Facilities Element - 'Policy 3
I
Accelel"ate the acquisition of park land in projected growth areas by establishing guidelines
determining where and when developers will be required to dedicate land for park and recreation
facilities, or money in lieu thereof, to serve thbir developments.
A major c~mponent of the MountainGate Malter plan is the integration of a residential
,
development and large areas of open space (Mountain Park, West Park, Quarry Park and
connecting access ways). The Masterplan iha~ specific conditions for the timing of a!,'[eements
between Willamalane and the developer and for changing the plan designation and zoning of
approximately 90 acres to park and open spact See Masterplan Condition 28, 53, and 55. This
application to reclaim the quarry in preparatioh for its use as park and open space implements
Condition 28 of the Masterplan that requires the conversion and other conditions of approval
adopted by the Masterplan to implement this Policy.
Staff Response: The primary intent of the abLe policy is to provide park lands adjacent to or
within developing residential areas. The added intent to require dedication or other funding
mechanisms in local codes was pre-Do/an and is not applicable. The policy was satisfied with
other policies for the protection of natural res6urces and the provision of park space by the
approval of the proposed park lands during Mkster Plan approval.
Finding: The proposed construction practices Ld preliminary reclamation plan are a logical step
to achieving the Master Plan's requirement toltransfer land to Willamalane for parks and open
space and create storm water facilities (Ref. MP Conditions 28 & 53b.). .
Finding: Discretionary use approval ofthe:prJposed activities does not constitute a detennination
offull compliance with the applicable MasterlPlan conditions and Metro policies, as imbedded
and incorporated in Master Plan approval.(AI~o see Willamalane Parks and Recreation District
Comment #3, Hyde, April 15, 2004). That pro'cess, as discussed in the Executive Summary of this
report is a multi-step process that involves'subsequent steps in accordance the Master Plan.
Conclusion: The policy intent to provide parJ space in residential developments was directly
satisfied during Master Plan approval. The policy is only indirectly applicable at this point, except
to say that it requires the conclusion of the ' co rivers ion process. The adopted process for
conversion of the quarry site is initiated, but n( satisfied, by the current proposal.
Environmental Resources Elemelll- Policy N .
Local go~emments shall continue, through lald use planning and special regulations, to control
sand and gl"avel extraction and production in hrder to:
MounlaillGate Quarry/Park
Discretionary Use ZON2004-0006
12
.
.
a. Minimize negative effects Oil surrounding land lIses, 011 air and water quality, and Oil
other natural resources. i I
b. Require reclamation plans for extra~tioll alld proeessillg areas whieh elleourage reuse
of such lands in a manlier compatible with adjacent lalld uses, adopted plans, alld in
accordallce with state law. I
c. Allow other appropriate uses, such as agricultural productioll, timber productioll,
parks alld other opell space uses.
111is Policy may not be directly applicable to this application for a one time mining operation to
reclaim the existing quarry. None-the-less, it Jrovides guidance for how the operation should be
treated.
The only area directly impacted by the reclamation will be the quarry site itself. Adjacent land
will not be mined. A blasting plan and a minihg operations plan have been developed to control
activity such that it minimizes potential nekadve impacts upon nearby residential development as
much as possible. One purpose of the mininglis to create detention facilities within a stoml water
system designed to maintain volume and the quality of water flowing from the adjacent future
residential development. _ I -
The reclamation proposed will result in a site that will be used as open space under the ownership
and control of the Willamalane Park District.IThis is in conformance with the adopted
MountainGate Masterplan and the ESEE analysis for the MountainGate property. Use of the area
as a neighborhood park is a use allowed within the Metro Plan definition of the residential land
use designation. I .
Staff Response: The proposal is to utilize construction practices similar to quarry operations to
"reclaim" an un-permitted fonner private quafry site not subject to SDC Article 23-Quarry
Mining Operations regulations or state statutek for commercial mining.
Finding~ The intent of the above policy iSimtdded and implemented by the application of
standards contained in Article 23 of the Sprinkfield Development Code- Quarry Mining Overlay
District. While not directly applicable to the proposal because the site is not now, and never will
be, within the QMO District, the applicant-cofrectly acknowledges the utility of the standards for
protection of the adjacent neighbors and prop~rty. .
Finding:_ SDC Article 23 and state statutes fJ commercial quarry use do not apply to the
proposed activities because the site is not proposed for commercial use and has never been issued
a pemlit by the Oregon Department of Geolody and Mineral Industries.
I
Firiding: As conditioned in the Operations and Blasting Plans, and incorporated at Criterion I a,
the policy guidance for mining activities incotporated in the Springfield Development Code has
been reasonably applied to protect surrounding property and residents.
Conclusion: The available policy guidance foJ mining activities incorporated in theQMO Article
has been implemented in principle by thesubIhittal of QMO standards in the attached Operations
Plan.
Ellvironmelltal Design Elemellt - Poliey 8
Site planllillg stalldards developed by localjnrisdictions shall allow forflexibility ill design that
will achieve site planning objectives while a1l6willg for creative solutiolls to desigll problems.
MountainGalc Quarry/Park
Discrelionmy Use ZQN2Q04-0006
13
.
.
This Policy has been implemented within the ,approved design and conditions of approval for the
MountainGate Masterplan. This request to allow quarry reclamation for open space use and
storm water detention is consistent with the pian and conditions of approval. Once reclamation of
the quarry is complete and final approvals:forl stonn drainage and wetland mitigation are gained
from the City of Springfield, the Oregon Department of State Lands and the Army Corps of
Engineers, a site plan will be developed by v.jillamalane to address specific desi,,'l1 details for the
park development. Use of the abandoned qu'\IT)' as park and open space within a residential
development is a creative solution that ev6lv~d from the master-planning process to meet site
planning objectives.
Staff Response: Staff unequivocally agrees that the master planning and implementation process
for development of the former quarry site haslbeen flexible and creative in nature. This
discretionary use process provides a vehicle for public discourse on construction methods and an
,
opportunity for flexibility in response to neighborhood concerns identified before approval of the
reclamation activities. The ongoing multi-step development and design process provides a
continuing level of flexibility and creativity.
Conclusion: The level of flexibility and creativity inherent in the quarry/park conversion process
adopted during Master Plan approval somewhat inverts the standard process for quarry .
reclamation, which generally starts with the final reclamation plan and works backwards. The
multiple parties and their respective responsibilities are each subject to separate checks and
balances in the multi-step process of Master [han compliance. The proposed plans provide a
reasonable level of flexibility to the next user!and are subject to further contractual negotiations,
public involvement and discretionary approvA
Transportation Element - Policy F.l3
Support transportation strategies that enhance neighborhood livability.
Through the lengthy process of constructi~g Jtreet, infrastructure and homes within the
MountainGate project traffic impacts within the 58'h StreetlMt.Vernon neighborhood can be
lessened by reclamation of the quarry to allo~ on-site use of the aggregate resource. Onsite use
of the 100,000 cubic yards of material produc~d through the reclamation process could eliminate
up to 25,000 truck trips that would otherwise travel to and from the site on public streets.
I
Staff Finding & Conclusion: Staff concurs, while the above policy is normally imbedded in street
connectivity and local street design, the evidehce presented in the Operations Plan and
conditioned herein, is sufficient to demonstrate a reduction in truck traffic over alternative
methods of construction. . I . .
Conclusion: The applicant's response and Staffs findings lead to the conclusion that the
applicant's submittal, as conditioned herein c9mplies with Residential and Public Land and Open
Space District descriptions and Metro Plan policies applicable to temporary impacts of
reclamation and construction practices necesskry to initiate the conversion of a quarry on
residential property to a public park.
MountainGatc Quany/Park
Discretionary Use ZON2004-0006
\4
.
.
VI. DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATIONI
Based on the staff findings and conditions c0l1tained in Attachment B for mitigation of impacts
on the adjacent neighbors, the Director finds that this application can comply with the criteria for
discretionary use contained in the SpringfieldlDevelopment Code and the, proposal is the
necessary first step to complying with MasterlPlan conditions for planning and development of
the park site. The proposal, as conditioned, is consistent with the intent of the Master Plan
decision to allow development while balancilig impacts on residents and resources. The
construction practices of blasting and crushink should be allowed with a conservative technical
approach and liberal amounts of communication with surrounding neighbors.
MountainGate Quany/Park
Discr~tionary Use ZON2004-0006
15
.
.
Attachment" A"
MountainGate QuarryjPa~k Reclamation ZON2004-0006 .
Operation ~nd Blasting Plans I .
(The following StaffRespo~se to the APPlicJt's Blasting and Oper~tions Plans are incorporat~d in
the deternlination of compliance with Discreti6nary Use Criterion I a of this staff report,
,
Recommended Conditions are also incorporated in Attachment B- MountainGate Quany/Park
,
Reclamation - Discretionary Use ZON2004~0006- Recommended Conditions of ApprovaL)
APPLICANT'S MINING OPERA nONS PLlN .
This plan is submitted to provide details for th~ mining activities proposed to reclaim the quarry site
to produce aggregate material for onsite use in 'a manner that minimizes impacts upon nearby
residents.
TIle mining operation will be temporary, lasting only for the period oftime necessary to complete
the reclamation project It therefore is not subject to Springfield Development Code Article 24 that
applies to properties zoned as QMO - Quarry apd Mine Operations District However the standards
of SDC 24.050 may be used as guidelines for the reclamation process. Some standards will not
apply or will be modified due to the unique cirburnstances of this application, which are to create a
reclaimed site to be used specifically for stonn Iwater detention and for park and open space usage
. as directed by the Willamette Park and Recreation District
GENERAL OPERATION DESCRIPTION:
Reclamation of the quarry as proposed involves removal of rock from the lower (southern) quarry
floor for use as a wetland mitigation site, remo~al of rock from the upper (northern) quarry floor for
use as a stornl water detention basin, and re-sl6ping the existing wall to increase safety and function
for park and open space purposes.
Approximately 100,000 cubic yards of agb'fegate material would be removed from the quarry and
would be placed in other locations on the prop~rty for street, utility and residential construction.
60,000 cubic yards is to be crushed and 4o,000i yards of pit run material is to be placed as fill.
The quarry must be blasted to fragment the rock prior to its being removed. Standard mining
I .
practices would blast a volume of rock, remove the rock, and then repeat the process. The process
to be used here is to perfonn the blasting neces1sary to fragment all the rock to be removed from the
quarry within a single condensed time period. ~he blasting will be conducted by an experienced
blasting expert according to the recommendations of a blasting consultant .
I
Most ifnot all of the crushing is proposed within the quarry site itself TIle site plan shows two
additional locations where the crusher might operate to spread stock piles and/or during excavation
of the quarry to create a pit for the crusher. Th~ location will be determined based upon the timing
of construction permits and progress. Ideally the rock would be removed from the quarry and
placed in its final location. Where this is not pbssible the material must be left in place or will be
temporarily stockpiled. The crushing operatio~ may have to change locations to accommodate
stockpiling needs.
Crushing at the quarry will involve locating the crusher at the quarry floor. This will maximize the
setback from dwellings to the wesi and maintain a rock wall between the crusher and dwellings. It
will also allow adequate area to maintain a rock pile between the crusher and dwellings to reduce
.
.
noise impacts. On the north ridge location the crusher will also be located below existing ground
surface and a rock mound will be placed on th'; west side as a sound barrier.
I
Staff Response: The applicant has submitted a blasting plan (Daniel, Expl<?sive Technical Service,
April 20,2004) and noise attenuation opinion I(Noxon, PE, March 3, 2004)' supporting the general
information presented above and more specifiJally in Article 24 standards below. The Director, the
Fire Marshall and the City Engineer's represe~tatives have reviewed the proposal (DRC Comments,
Walter PE, April 6, 2004.) The City supports the general operations statement with the following
general findings and conditions for safe qUarryi and crushing activities. . .
General Finding: As proposed above and'in the attached blasting plan, the operations shall
comply with applicable state and federal st~tutfs for the use of explosives, including but not limited
to: CFR 29, Part 1926, Subpart U, Oregon OSHA Chapter 17,1910.109 and 1926.900 and OAR
I
Chapter 437, subdivision U, OAR 480-10 and the NFPA Explosive Code.
General Finding: As noted above, the propdsal is for quarry practices used during a one time
reclamation project at an un-pemlitted fomle~private quarry site not subject to SDC Article 24-
Quarry Mining Operations regulations or stat'i statutes for commercial mining. However, the
applicant's submittal in response to SDC 24, Section 24.050 Operations and Reclamation
Standards is accepted as minimum standards ~here relevant for the mitigation of affects on the
site and surrounding property and residents.
General Finding: The total amount ofrock to be excavated is determined by: I) final detention
pond design approved by the City, 2) the wetl:and mitigation plan design approved by OR
DSLlUSACOE and 3) the conceptual park designs reviewed by Willamalane Parks and
RecreationOistrict. The applicant's engineer bstimates 100,000 cubic yards offill will be
. removed to meet the above design perametersl. . .
I
General Finding: Pursuant to SDC Articles 27 and 32 and the Engineering Design Standards
Manual, it is the City's policy and intent to tnlck the amount and quality of fill on public and
private properties to provide safe public inlpr6vements and future private building sites.
General Finding: Discretionary Use Section 110.040 allows the Hearing Official to attach
reasonable conditions necessary to minimize negative affects on surrounding property and
residents and fully meet criteria of approval c!.mtained in Section 10.030.
Conclusion: TIle above general findings leadlto the conclusion that all certifications, licenses,
bonding, insurance and pemlits required by applicable state, federal and local requirements for
safe blasting and crushing operations have been or will be acquired by the owner/applicants and
all contractors and sub-contractors. The arilOuht of materials to be removed has been generally
quantified and can be tracked on site during tile project. The following conditions are applied for
ongoing compliance:
Condition 1: The snbmitted Blasting and Operations Plans are adopted as conditioned by the
Hearings Official and must be implemented in :the field and documented per industry standard
reports and forwarded at the end of any week that activity occurs for review and inclusion in the
City's Discretionary Use file. .
Attachment "A"
MountainGatc QuarrylPark Reclamation
ZON2004-0006
2
.
.
I.
i
I
Condition 2: All consultant, contractor and sub-contractor licenses, certifications, insurance and
bonding infonnation nonnally required by statJ and federal requirements for safe quarry and
I
blasting operations must be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the
commencement of the proposed work.. . I. I
. I
Condition 3: The City of Springfield shall be added as an insured party to the owner/applicant or
blasting contractor insurance policy in a manndr and amount acceptable to the City Attorney.
Condition4: Pursuant to SDC Articles 27, 32 Ld the City's intent to track fill on public and
private properties to provide safe public impro~ements and private building sites, a Land and
Drainage Alteration Pennit (LDAP) may be required at the discretion of the City Engineer to track
public and private fills in coordination with:public improvement projects. The pennit must include
. material specifications and final locations of prbcessed materials, truck routes on site and offsite,
electrical and water source locations, dewateri~g and temporary drainage locations and erosion
control measures for operations and stockpile sites. The applicant must also submit required DEQ,
I
DSL and USACOE pennits for City review with the PIP plans and/or the required LDAP penni!.
Condition 5: The estimated total amount ofrLk extracted during the life of the quarry
reclamation shall be tracked in industry stand.lrd status reports to the City of Springfield under
the LDAP and Discretionary Use files. The qJarried and/or crushed rock's ultimate destination on
site shall be identified to the extent practic~1.
Condition 6: The applicant shall submit a proposed testing and inspection program of materials
I
generated by this project along with the inspecting finn's resume and qualifications for review and
approval by the City Engineer. Inspecting for quality control of fill and aggregate materials
proposed to be used within public rights-of~way shall be in accordance with industry standards and
as approved by the City Engineer. I . .
Condition 7: The applicant must document the fact that materials used in public improvements
meet and/or exceed the minimum requirementd, for embankment and fill material in public rights-of-
way in compliance with the City of Springfield Standard Specifications Sections 302, 303, and 305.
I
. Condition 8: The applicant must submit a geotechnical report for the stability of the fmished rough
grading condition at the quarry/park site.
SDC 24.050 OPERATION AND RECLAMATION STANDARDS.
(Applicant Submittals in italics, Staff FindjnJ and Recommended Conditions in Bold.)
(1) Infonnation submitt~d as part oftJe Reclamation Pennit process required in
Section 24.040 of this Article shall be evaluated against the following
standards by the Director:
(a) In lieu ofunifonn setbacks for all quarry and mine extraction
operations:
Attachment "'A"
MountainGate Quarry/Park Reclamation
ZON2004-0006
3
.
.
1. Setbacks from adjacent properties shaIl be sufficient to protect
the nomlal activities 6f residences, businesses, industries
recreation and other u~es permitted under this Code.
2. Setbacks from adjaceL properties shaIl be a distadce sufficient
to minimize hazards tb persons and property resulting from
blasting, slides, slipp~ge, subsidence, ground and surface water
contamination and depletion and other hazards.
The setbacksfi'om adjacent properties is predJermined by the existing location of the quany. The
mining proposed will be a temporary one-time1operation that will not expand the impact
area. Blasiing will be conducted according to inethodv designed to provide maximum
protectionfor adjacent properties. Once the ro~k is removed the quany{loor will be
sealed with a clayey soil and vegetated to IimiisubsUl.face seepage and to create a
wetland park site.
Staff Findings:
Finding: The spatial relationship between the adjacent residences in the Golden Terrace
Subdivision and the quarry site is fixed. The n6arest houses to the quarry walls (west end)
are approximately 90 yards away, residences directly south of the central walls are
approximately 150 yards, the southerly portionl ofthe detention pond area is
approximately 120 yards from the nearest houde. The future wetland area where stock
piles for screening are proposed is approximat6ly 75 yards from the nearest house. The
MountainGate Drive construction road along the south property line is approximately 40
yards from the nearest residence. (See Favreau! Detention Pond/Reclamation Plan with
Current Conditions and Proposed Cross Sections.)' '.
Finding: Sustained noise levels will be highJduring crushing than drilling and blasting.
I
Conclusion: The noise mitigating capability of the setback can be enhanced by
implementing the acoustical engineer' s recom~endations for screening with stockpiles
(mass). The following condition is reconmlended to reduce noise inlpacts to the adjacent
residents:
Condition 9: Stockpiles of on-site material shall be placed prior to crushing operations in
accordance with the Noxon, PE, March 3, 2004 Memo.
(b) Any night lighting shall bi arranged and controlled so 'as not to
illuminate adjacent properties and uses pennitted under this code.
. I.
No night lighting will be neededfor the reclamftion proposed.
Staff Fiuding: Concurrence with ilie submittal. .
(c) The hours of operation Shill be determined by what is necessary to
protect the surrounding a~tivities from disturbance caused by quarry
and mining extraction op~rations.
Attachment "A'"
MountainGate Quarry/Park Reclamation
ZON2004-0006
4
.
.
Surrounding activities that would be disturbedlby the mining operations are the .
residential uses occurring within a development located across Weyerhaeuser Road to the
south and west. In order to reduce the il11pactl~ponmost residential activities the hours of
operation are proposed to be 8 a.l11. to 6 p.m./or crushing and 70.111. to 7]Ln.for other'
activities. Days of operation for crushing are proposed as Monday through' Friday,
excluding holidays.:
Staff Findings:
'Finding: Chapter 5 of the Municipal Code precludes construction noise hetween the
,
hours of 6 pm and 7 am.. . I .
Finding: Construction noise generated from "other activities" includes but is not limited
to operating diesel engines and equipment, tru6k dump boxes and gates, moving
stockpiled materials, back up signals, air brake~ or compressors and air tools.
Finding: The MountainGate Dri~e constructiln road, equIpment parking area and quarry
site are located 40-100 yards away from residences in Golden Terrace Subdivision and
will be affected by noise generated by "other abivities" before the hour of 8 am as
proposed.
Finding: Neighbors have submitted comm~nts citing concerns about noise. To the extent
practical, operational noise of crushers and othbr heavy equipment have been mitigated in
this operation plan. TIle hour between 7 and 8 ~m is a sensitive time period for residential
districts and "other activities" have the potenti~l to generate more complaints than
operational noise. No proposal to mitigate this hoise source has been submitted.
I
Conclusion: TIle Hearings Official has the authority under Section 10.040 to adopt
conditions necessary to reduce negative affectsl on adjacent property and residents. The
early morning hour of 7-8 is l;ot covered by otlier regulations. Staff recommends the
following condition to mitigate affects of noisd on the adjacent neighbors in accordance
with SDC 10.030(1 )(a) and 10.040:
Condition 10: The hours of operation shall be 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. for crushing and 8 a.m. to
7 p.m. for other activities. Days of operatiOll fJr crushing shall be Monday through
Friday, excluding holidays.
(d) Fencing around the quarry and mining operation shall be required
when it has been deternliried that the location, type and nature of the
operation poses hazards t6 the safety of the surrounding residents
and public and privateprJperty.
The mining activity will be ~onducted on privat property behind locked gates. No
additional fencing is proposed but pedestrian dccesses into the site will be blocked.
.Attachment "N'
MountainGatc Quarry/Park Reclamation
ZON2004-0006
5
.
.
Staff Finding: Access is reasonably controlled by existing facilities and will be further
controlled by the Blaster In Charge in accordaJ\ce with the blasting plan implemented as a
condition of this approval. I
(e) When expansion of an existing operation is in close p)oximity to
existing or planned uses Jotentially incompatible with QMO District
uses, or where there is a chnflict with any other resource that appears
on an adopted environmehtal resource inventory, the application of
the QMO District or tlie dxpansion of an existing operation may be
limited to a specific porti6n of a property in order to encourage the
. compatibility and proper hlanagement of land uses.
"'7 . I" I h If' . .'. "']
1 illS app lcatlOn {. oes not propose t e expanSIOn 0 Qlrexlstmg operatIOn SIte. 1 dcre are
no adopted environmental resources that will be impacted by the reclamation of the
quany. " . I
Staff Finding: Concurrence with'the submittal. ' .
(f) All mining ~POils shall bel disposed of in such a manner that they will
, ' . I '
not create a geological hazard or contribute to water pollution
through leaking, leaching! or erosion. Management of mining spoils
shall be in a manner which is consistent with the standards of the
local soil and water consdrvation district.
, , : I '
(g) Overburden and topsoil not removed from the property shall be
placed and stabilized in a Imanner that does not create safety hazards
or nuisances for adjacent broperties.
The minor amount of overburden (soil) that m+y be created will be placed on the floor of
the quarry or in other locations on the property where it will be used as a 'planting media.
Staff Finding: The City Engineer has the authlOrity at Condition of this report to require
an LDAP for the purposes of tracking l11ate,rial's and reviewing environmental affects of
the operation.
(h) Screening shall be required where it is determined necessary to
minimize the'visual impah of the quarry and mining extraction
operation on neighboring!properties, residences, conmlercial,
industrial, park and recreational or other land use activities.
"Weyerhaeuser Road is elevated above the resitnces located to the west and south that
provides a bufferfor the quany site. The southwest wall of the detention basin will be
maintained throughout the operation and will provide additional buffering. In addition a
pile of rock will be placed and maintained weSt (jf the upper ridge crushing site. (See
attached cross sections map.) . I
Staff Response: As noted at Condition above, the temporary stockpile (earthen berm)
will provide screening for the life of the quarr) and crushing activity. '
Attachment "A"
MountainGate Quarry/Park Reclamation
ZON20Q4-0006
6
.
.
(i)
Wherever possible, existing trees, shrubs, and other types of
vegetation along road froIltages shall be preserved, maintained and
supplemented.
No vegetation 'will be removed along roadfi'ontagesfor the mining operati~n. Once the
quarry is reclaimed new vegetation will be ,esti,blished along the frontage of thefuture
MOllntainGate Drive right-or-way as part ofthie approved wetland mitigation plan.
Staff Finding: Concurrence with the submittal.
: (j) When the quarry and minl operation includes the use of open shafts
, or tunnels, the entrance to' all shafts and tunnels shall be covered, .
closed off or otherwise prbtected against entry during non-working
hours. I '
No open shafis or tunnels will be created or llSrd in the operation proposed.
Staff Findin!!:: Concurrence with the submittal.
~ ' I
Reclamation of land subjected to ~uarry and mining extraction operations is
an ongoing process, which shall Of cur as phases of the quarry and mine
extraction operation are completed. The application for the Reclamation
Pennit specified in Section 24.040 of this Article shall comply with the
following standards:. I
(a) General Provisions and riming.
. ,I '
1. A schedule for reclamation shall define areas covered by each
phase and the probable timing.
The phasingfor this reclamation operation is LticiPated as following:
I
'1) A single phase of blasting is proposedl'hat, ifapproval timelines are met, wOllld
OCCllr in late spring or early Sllmmer of 2004. Site preparation and blasting
would be completed within a period o~ appl'Oximately 4-6 weeks.
2) Phase 2 will be reshaping of qua,.,)' walls and removal ofrockfi'om the detention
pond. Depending upon construction approvaltimelines, this material would be '
extracted and be compacted in place J;ithin the subdivision beginning in early
summer 2004. The material may othel]wise be stockpiled to allow creation of the
detention basin as ear!y as possible, pnferably in 2004.
3) Phase 3 will involve the removal of rohk and shaping of the wetland mitigation
site and will basically be a continuatiqn of Phase 2. The site will then be covered
with soil and vegetated. (The DSL/USACOE permits require the wetland site to
be developed by Fall of 2006). ,I .'
4) The rock crushing operation will OCCllr concurrent with Phases 2 and 3. 1t is
anticipated that the crushing will be cbmpleted by the end (jf 2005 but is desired
for completion by the end of 2004.
(2)
Attachment "A"
MountainGatc Quarry/Park Reclamation
ZON2004-0006
7
.
.
5) Placement and use o.(the majority o.fr<,'ck is expected to be completed by the end
0.12005 (depending upon city approvals and progress o.(construction.). .
Stockpiled materials however will remllin on site ind~finitely until used in the
subdivision development project.
.staff Findings:
Finding: As noted in Discretionary Use findings, the complete reclamationofthe site is a
multi-step, multi-agency process fonnulated by Master Plan approval that differs from the
regulatory process .of working backwards from the final reclamation design:
I) rough f,'fading by the applicant consistent with conceptual park desif,'I1s,
2) a transfer agreement and final recl~mation plan approved by Willamalane
Parks and Recreation Department as duitable for park development,
,
3) rezoning and re-designation of the )--DR site to Public Land and Open Space,
4) discretionary use/site plan approval for the design of the neighborhood park.
Finding: The current application and SUbmittJd phasing plan can only begin the process
. ,
of compliance with Master Plan conditions and complete step one of the above
reclamation process. Subsequent steps are subjbct to contractual negotiations between the
parties and City review procedures.
Finding: Staff concurs in concept with the submitted phasing timelines and their
coordination subject to construction timelines but wishes to quantify some limitations on
the required blasting and crushing. . I
Finding: The applicant's submittal states that t,he blasting will take approximately 4-6
weeks to blast 100,000 cubic yards in 5,000 cubic yard shots. (See above and Daniel,
Blasting Plan, April 20, 2004).
Finding: The applicant's submittal states that crushing is expected to take approximately
,
60 working days to process approximately 60, 000 cubic yards of material. (See General
Description, above, and Neighborhood Inform~tion Memo, April 7, 2004, File
ZON20004-0006).
,
Finding: The approximate number of work days for blasting under ideal conditions is
twenty (30) and the approximate number of work days for crushing under ideal conditions
is sixty (60). These totals, plus or minus a factdr of error should be used to limit the
affects of the operation and provide a fixed'ambunt of time to be used at the discretion of
the operator over the next two years.
Finding: Allocating the number of blasting days provides a level of certainty for the
affected residents and allows the affected agencies to document activities. The applicant
has the flexibility to do subsequent blasting for: final grades and park designs after the
initial blasting period subject to the approved plan.
I .
Conclusion: The Hearings Official has the authority under Section 10.040 to adopt
conditions necessary to reduce negative affectsl on adjacent property and residents. The
broad nature of the timelines proposed provide1necessary flexibility to coordinate with'
Attachment "A"
MountainGate Quany/Park Reclamation
ZON2004-0006
8
I
I
construction schedules but do not limit overall operations during the 2 years period. Staff
recommends the following condition to limit the total amount of noise, dust, vibration and
other affects on the adjacent neighbors in accofdance with SDC 10.030(1 )(a) and 10.040:
.
.
I
Condition 11: Blasting at the quarry site shall be limited to 35 work days and crushing at
the work site shall be limited to 75 work days dver the 2 year life of the project.
Additional crushing may occur at the two aite~ate crushing locations shown on the plan
submitted by the applicant. The City may, at its discretion, extend the limitations if
unanticipated are encountered. I
2. Reclamation operations shall be consistent with the Metro Plan.
i
The reclamatioll is cOllsistellt with the Metro Plall as discussed ullder the Discretiollal)'
Use application. I
I
Staff Finding: Concurrence with the sUbmittal1 .
3. All structures and buildings used in conjunction with the
extraction and storinglof minerals shall be removed following
completion of the operation, unless such structures or buildings
are suitable for other pemlitted uses or as determined by the
Director.
The reclamatioll proposeddoes 1I0t require th~ use of structures or buildillgs. .
,
Staff Finding: Concurrence with the submittal.
'. I
(b) Topsoil and Fill MateriaI.l
. i
1. Material used ih refilling holes, pits and excavations shall be of a
quality that will not decompose, contaminate or pollute the
groundwater or surfacb, or cause subsidence either during the
operation of the excaJation or upon termination of the quarry
. .' .
and mme operatIons. I
AllY holes. pits or excavations requirillgfil/ing ~ill befilled with qual1)' rock.
Staff Finding: Concurrence with the sUbmittal1
2. All graded or back-filled areas, or banks shall be covered with
topsoil to a depth sufficient to support vegetation and/or other
approved cover adequkte to control soil erosion.
,
Both the wetland mitigation site alld the detentioll basin will have at least onefoot of
soil placed in the bottom to limit seepage alld 1upport veget(Itioll. Erosion and rUII off
is cOlltrol/ed by the storm water cOlltrol s)'stell~ to be illstalledfor the site.
Attachment "A"
MountainGate Quany/Park Rcclamation
ZON2004-0006
9
.
Staff Findings:
.
Finding: TIle stoml water detention facilities on the quarry/park site are subject to public
improvement plan approval by the City EnginJer in accordance with the SDC and
,
Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual for design, planting and bio-
filtration functions. . I
Finding: Fill and erosion control will be subject to a Land Alteration and Fill Permit at
I
the discretion of the City Engineer. I
Finding: The wetland mitigation areas are subject to the applicant's DSUUSACOE
pennits and plans for supporting vegetation and must be constructed within 2 years and
maintained for5 years. . I
Finding: TIle proposed grading does not appear to preclude conceptual park designs
reviewed by the applicant and the park district.i
Finding: Subsequent park designs and plantin~ needs are subject to a negotiated transfer
agreement and final reclamation plan approved by Willamalane Parks and Recreation
Department as suitable for park development,:rezoning and re-designation of the LOR
site to public land and open space, and discretionary use/site plan approval for the
design of the neighborhood park. I
Conclusion: The proposed soil depths are adequate for the purposes of initial grading,
back filling and erosion control. Subsequent fill is expected in the park design process;
I
where and by who is subject to the remaining steps ofthe Master Plan process.
I
(c) Slopes and Grading. Exc~vations made to any setback lines shall
meet the following requir~ments:
1. Where excavations hale not been made to water-producing
depth; l
Slopes that ar~ steeper than that of the immediately
surrounding area shall be acceptable if they are desil,,'ned
by an engineer with expertise in the field of rock and
soils mechanibs and acceptable to the State Department
of Geology arid Mineral Industries. If the slopes are
steeperthan I: vertical to I 1/2 horizontal, provisions
should be made so that people and wildlife can find safe
egress from tlie excavation area.
I
With one possible exception maximum slopes hfve been designed by the project engineer
as 1foot vertical to 1 0foot horizontal. Actual designing of the reshaped quaYl)' wall will
occur during the blasting and rock removalpr~cess by the developer, the prqject
landscape architect and Willamalane representatives. 771e object is to create a variation
infeatures as allowed by the integrity and type ~rrockformation encountered in the
removal process. Desirablefeatures include a yertical wall spillway and possible
I
I
a.
Attachment "A"
MountainGatc Quany/Park Reclamation
ZON2004-0006
I
110
I
I
.
.
climbing wall that would befencedfrom above,for safery and benching with variable
heights and widths. Some form of trail system is als'o anti~ipated. The specific design
must be submittedfor public input and City approval through a required site plan review
application. I
Staff Finding: Staff concurs with the submittal's addressing of the slope issue adjacent to
property lines. Staff has offered a condition fo~ a geo-tech certification of the site's
stability after the proposed work. The final design is subject to further Willamalane
involvement consistent with the Master Plan.
b. The bottom of any excavation shall be graded so that
drainage floJs into one low area of the excavation. If
drainage fron\ this site is practical, the site shall be
. graded to dis6harge water to existing natural chmmels.
The bottom of the detention pond basin is desi~1Cd to meet the City of Springfield
standards for the storm water system to be constructed for the MountainGate
developm~nt and is ultimately ;ubject to City approvar" The desigIJ submitted directs
water to a lowflow channel and controlledouilet into the City storm water ,ystem and a
natural channel. I
Staff Finding: Concurrence with the submittal. The discussed design is shown on Phase
4 public improvement plans under review by tl~e City Engineer.
2. Where excavations hLe been made to water-bearing strata;'
a. Excavations Lade to a water-producing depth creating
I
lakes and ponds shall be deep enough to prevent
stagnation an:d development of an insect-breeding area
or back-filled with material that will not impair the
groundwater 'quality. .
I . .
b. All banks shall be sloped at a ratio no steeper than I
vertical to 2 liorizontal to a water. depth of 3 feet, .
, .
measured from the low water mark, and to 3 feet above
the high wat~r mark.
I
,
c. All h'fading shall be done to establish safe access to and
egress from J,ater for persons and wildlife. .
I
3. Except as provided above, upon completion of operations, the
condition of the land khall allow sufficient drainage to prevent
water pockets or significant erosion. Natural drainage should be
maintained so as to ptevent harmful effects on neighboring
property. The rate of drainage shall not be increased over what
,
it would have been if1the site had remained in its original use.
Drainage of the reclaimed site is subject to'approval by the City o.fSpringfield as part of
the storm water system to be constructedfor the MountainGate development.
Attachment "A"
MountainGate Quarry/Park Reclamation
ZON2004-0006
II
.
.
Staff Finding: Concurrence with the sUbmittalr
4. All quarry faces, which exceed 45 degrees should be benched.
The bench face ratio s!Jall not exceed 1 1/2 vertical to I
horizontal. Benches bhall be at least 10- feet wide.
I
The standard, which otherwise applies to QMO zoned properties, does not apply to this
application. This reclamation is a one time Prf.iectfor the purpose of creating storm
water detention and a usable park/open .\paCe feature. As such, the qua,.,)' walls will be
designed to function for use by the public witl! appropriate safetyfeatures, utility and
aestheticfeatures.
Staff Finding: Concurrence with the submittal.
SDC 24.060 BLASTING STANDARDS.
Operators using explosives for quarry and mine extraction shall follow explosive
regulations and use engineering standards accePtable to the Public Works Director, based
on physical conditions and atmospheric conditions of the site so as to' prevent injury to
personS and damage to public and private prop~rty.
(1) When blasting is to be done withiJ 500 feet of an occupied building, the
operator, or an authorized agent, shall notify all occupants that a blast is to be
initiated.' Notice shall be given ntit fnare than six hours nor less than 30 .
~ ,
minutes prior to detonation and shall include the approximate time of the
blast. I . . .
(2) Each operator shall maintain a record of each blast for at least two years.
These records shall be available tol the City, the State Department of Geology
and Mineral Industries and other governmental agencies with appropriate
jurisdiction upon request: The records shall show the following for each
blast:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(el.
(t)
(g)
Name of quarry or mine.
Date, time and location of blast.
Description of type of exblosives and accessories used.
Time interval of delay in billiseconds.
I . ,
Number of different delays.
I
Number of holes per delay.
Nominal explosive weigJt per hole.
Attachment "A"
MountainGatc Quarry/Park Reclamation
ZON2004-0006
12
.
.
Total explosive weight per delay.
Total weight of eXPlosiJs per blast.
. I
Blast hole diameter, depth, spacing and stemming height.
. I .
The applicant proposes to submit a blasting plan prepared by a blasting consultant that
includes the above standards as well as proce~ures and methods to maintain maximum
safeo' for this site specific project. Once appr?ved. the blasting plan should be adopted .
as a condition o( approval to be met through the reclamation process.
(h)
(i)
(j)
~
Staff Findings:
Finding: The applicant has submitted a blasting plan prepared by a consultant with
decades of experience in the field, Mr. Dick Darnel of Explosive Teclmical Service.
Finding: Mr. Kris Jeremiah of the firm BJ EqJiPment is the licensed and bonded blasting
contractor that will implement the blasting plarl in accordance with this decision and all
applicable state and federal regulations as conditioned herein under General Findings and
Conditions.
Finding: The notification and blasting infonnation required by Section 24.060 is
included in industry standard documenting an~ reporting and must be forwarded to the
City of Springfield at the end of any week that blasting activity occurs as conditioned
herein under General Findings and Conditions. The City of Springfield will be included in
all pre-blast notice procedures.
Finding: The Blasting Plan includes test blasts land ground surveying equipment to set
charge strengths and monitor vibration in the blast area and at adjacent residences. The
equipment should be continuous read-out for irllmediate monitoring results.
Finding: The Blasting Plan provides for w~ttJ notification of residents within 500 feet
of the blasting area consistent with Section 24.060 and optional pre-blast surveying of
residents within 250 feet.ofthe blasting area. Hpwever,under the latter standard, it is
possible that no residences will be located within the pre-survey area depending on the
location of charges. . I .
Finding: Due to the direct line of sight, variabl~ soil conditions, past experiences of the
neighbors with previous blasting, the pre-blast ~urvey area should at a minimum include
the nearest structures in the Golden Terrace 'Subdivision to protect all parties involved
(approximately 15 structures located around thJ adjacent cul-de-sac bulbs).
I
Finding: Springfield Utility Board submitted DRC comments expressing concerns about the
affects of blasting on two million gallon water:tanks located 1500 feet northwest of the quarry
site. The applicant's blasting consultant contends that the risk is negligible given the distance to
the tank site (Daniel, April 20, 2004).
Conclnsion: TIle Hearings Official has the autliority under Section 10.040 to adopt
conditions necessary to rednce negative affects Ion adjacent property and residents. Staff
Attachment "A"
MountainGatc Quany/Park Reclamation
ZON2004-0006
13
.
.
I
recommends that the physical and legal protections of the blasting plans be fully
implemented by extending the pre-blast notice ~nd surveying to nearest affected
neighbors. Staff recommends the following conditions in accordance with SDC
1O.030(1)(a) and 10.040.:. I
Condition 12: The pre-blast notice and surveying boundaries must be measured from the
southerly property line along the south side of the quarry site.
Condition 13: Seismic and noise monitoring eLiPment must be inlffiediate read-out
models for monitoring reports. I
Condition 14: The City of Springfield will be included in all pre-blast notice procedures.
. I .
I
Condition 15: Upon request, the Springfield Utility Board will be provided a pre-blast
survey and ground monitoring equipment duririg blasting:
I
Additional Findings and Conditions
Staff Findings: I
Finding: The applicant's blasting contractor Jas submitted a preliminary Spill Prevention,
. Control and Countermeasure Plan. The plan c~ntains materials to be used on site, protections,
notification and emergency response provisions. (Jeremiah, BJ Equipment, April 15, 2004).
Condition 16: A site specific Spill preventiJ, Control and Countermeasure Plan shall be
submitted for City review and approval prior tb the commencement of work on site. The
approved plan must be kept on site and be available for review by City staff upon request.
. . I
Finding: During previous blasting and other dn site activity, neighbors have noted increased
,
activity of rattlesnakes. By all anecdotal accounts, the snakes migrate from the MountainGate site
to adjacent properties and structures during in6reased activity on the mountain.
Finding: Rattlesnakes are not an endangered species and were not surveyed or included in
previous inventories of wildlife at the site. I
I
,
Finding: The applicant has responded to the concerns by employing a wildlife specialist, Mr.
John Applegarth, to survey rattlesnake populations, provide habitat and behavior infornlation and
relocate snakes found on the neighbor's property during blasting and crushing activities. The
snake survey is ongoing and results will be available in late May.
Conclusion: Staff takes the histo~cal and anJdotal snake reports a legitimate concern. Staff
finds the applicant's response to the neighbor'~ concerns proportional and appropriate. The
following condition is recommended for on-going mitigation of blasting activity on the snake
population and the adjacent neighbors in aeco~danee with SDC 1O.030( I )(a) and 10.040:
I
Condition 17: The applicant shall contract witl\ a wildlife expert for ongoing survey and
monitoring of rattlesnake populations and relo~ation of snakes found on the neighbor's property
during blasting and crushing activities. I
Attachment "A"
MountainGate Quarry/Park Reclamation
ZON2004-0006
14
.
.
i
Attachment "B"
MountainGate Quarry/Park RecIaIAation - Discretionary Use ZON2004-0006
,
Recommended Conditions of Approval
The following is a compilation of the recoLnended conditions of approval to the
Hearings Official arising from the review bf all Discretionary Use materials submitted.
Discretionary Use:
Condition 1: Under normal operations and unless authorized by the City, all rock will be moved
from the quarry/park site to the construction ateas north of the quarry using the proposed
MountainGate Drive east and north of the quahy.
Blasting and Operations Plans:
Condition 1: The submitted Blasting and Operations Plans are adopted as conditioned by the
,
Hearings Official and must be implemented in the field and documented per industry standard
reports and forwarded at the end of any week that activity occurs for review and inclusion in the
City's Discretionary Use file.
Condition 2: All consultant, contractor andsuli-contractor licenses, certifications, insurance and
bonding information nornlally required by stat~ and federal requirements for safe quarry and
,
blasting operations must be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the
commencement of the proposed work..
Condition 3: The City'of Springfield shall be added as an insured party to the owner/applicant or
blasting contractor insurance policy in a manne~ and amount acceptable to the City Attorney.
Condition 4: Pursuant toSDC Articl~s 27, 32 Ld the City's intent to track fill on public and
private properties to provide safe public improVements and private building sites, a Land and
Drainage Alteration Pennit (LDAP) may be re~uired at the discretion of the City Engineer to track
public and private fills in coordination with public improvement projects. The permit must include
material specifications and final locations of pr6cessed materials, truck routes on site and offsite;
electrical and water source locations, dewaterin~ and tenlporary drainage locations and erosio~
control measures for operations and stockpile sites. The applicant must also submit required DEQ,
DSL and USACOE permits for City reviewwit'h the PIP plans and/or the required LDAP pernlit.
Condition 5: The estimated total amount of rLk extracted during the life ~fthe quarry
r~clamation shall be tracked in industry standa~d status reports to the City of Springfield under
the LDAP and Discretionary Use files. The qukrried and/or crushed rock's ultimate destination on
site shall be identified to the extent practical.
Condition 6: The applicant shall submit a proppsed testing and inspection prol,'ram of materials
generated by this project along with the inspecting fIrm's resume and qualifications for review and
approval by the City Engineer. Inspecting for quality control of fill and aggregate materials
proposed to be used within public rights-of-way shall be in accordance with industry standards and
as approved by the City Engineer.
.
.
Condition 7: The applicant must document the fact that materials used in public improvements
meet and/or exceed the minimum requirement~ for embankment and fill material in public rights-of-
way in compliance with the City of Springfield' Standard Specifications Sections 302, 303, and 305.
. . . I . .
Condition 8: The applicant must submit a geotechnical report for the stability of the finished rough
grading condition at the quarry/park site. .
Condition 9: Stockpiles of on-site material shall be placed prior to crushing operations in
,
accordance with the Noxon, PE, March 3, 2004 Memo. .
Condition 10: The hours of operation shall belg a.m. to 6 p.m. for crushing and g a.m. to
7 p.m. for other activities. Days of operation folr crushing shall be Monday through
Friday, excluding holidays.' I
Condition 11: Blasting at the quarry site shall be limited to 35 work days and crushing at the work
site shall be limited to 75 work days over the 2 :year life ofthe project. Additional crushing may
occur at the two alternate crushing locations shown on the plan submitted by the applicant. TIle
City may, at its discretion, extend the limitatioris if unanticipated are encountered.
I
Condition 12: The pre-blast notice and surveying boundaries must be extended from the
southerly property line along the quarry site 250 feet. .
Condition 13: Seismic and noise monitoring ekuiPment must be immediate read-out
models for monitoring reports. I
. Condition 14: TIle City of Springfield will be included in all pre-blast notice procedures.
I .
Condition IS: Upon request, the Springfield Utility Board will be provided a pre-blast
survey and ground monitoring equipment diIririg blasting. .
I
Condition 12: The pre-blast notice and surveying boundaries must be extended from the
southerly property line along the quarry site 250 feet. .
Condition 13: Seismic and noise monitoring e~uiPm~nt must be immediate read-out
models for monitoring reports. I
Condition 14: The City of Springfield will be included in all pre-blast notice procedures.
. . I
Condition IS: Upon request, the Springfield Utility Board will be provided a pre-blast
survey and ground monitoring equipment duririg blasting.
I
Condition 16: A site specific Spill PreventiOl't, Control and Countenneasure Plan shall be
submitted for City review and approval prior tb the commencement of work on site. The
approved plan must be kept on site and be available for review by City staff upon request.
Condition i 7: The applicant shall contract wiJ a wildlife expert for ongoing survey and
monitoring of rattlesnake populations and relobtion of snakes found on the neighbor's property
during blasting and crushing activities.
I
.....,
.
.
,
I
Attachment "8"
I
/
MountainGate Quarry/Park Reclamation - Discretionary Use ZON2004-0006
,
Recommended Conditions of Approval
. ,
The following is a compilation of the recommended conditions of approval to the
Hearings Official arising from the review bf all Discretionary Use materials submitted.
,
Discretionary Use: I
Condition I: Under normal operations and unless authorized by the City, all rock will be moved
from the quarry/park site to the construction a}eas north of the quarry using the proposed
MountainGate Drive east and north of the qua\,-y.
,
I
I
Condition I: The submitted Blasting and Operations Plans are adopted as conditioned by the
Hearings Official and must be implemented in the field and documented per industry standard
reports and forwarded at the end of any week that activity occurs for review and inclusion in the
City's Discretionary Use file. I
Condition 2: All consultant, contractor and sub-contractor licenses, certifications, insurance and
bonding information normally required by state and federal requirements for safe quarry and
blasting operations must be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the
commencement of the proposed work.. I
,
Blasting and Operations Plans:
Condition 3: TIle City of Springfield shall be added as an insured party to the owner/applicant or
blasting contractor insurance policy in a manner and amount acceptable to the City Attomey.
. i
. Condition 4: Pursuat;t to SDC Articles 27, 32 ~nd the City's intent to track fill on public and
private properties to provide safe public improVements and private building sites, a Land and
Drainage Alteration Pemlit (LDAP) may be re~uired at the discretion of the City Engineer to track
public and private fills in coordination with pUblic improvement projects. The permit must include
material specifications and final locations of pr6cessed materials, truck routes on site and offsite,
electrical and water source locations, dewaterin~ and temporary drainage locations and erosion
control measures for operations and stockpile sites. The applicant must also submit required DEQ,
DSL and USACOE permits for City review with the PIP plans and/or the required LDAP permit.
,
I
Condition 5: The estimated total amount of rock extracted during the life of the quarry
reclamation shall be tracked in industry standa~d status reports to the City of Springfield under
the LDAP and Discretionary Use files. The qu1rried and/or crushed rock's ultimate destination on
site shall be identified to the extent practical. I . .
Condition 6: The applicant shall submit a proposed testing and inspection program of materials
generated by this project along with the inspecti~g firm's resume and qualifications for review and
approval by the City Engineer. Inspecting for q~ality control of fill and aggregate materials
proposed to be used within public rights-of-wa~ shall be in accordance with industry standards and
as approved by the City Engineer.
1j,1o-
Ktv.
.....
.'
,...
.
I
.
Condition 7: The applicant must documenlthe fact that materials used in public improvements
meet and/or exceed the minimum requirement~ for embankment and fill material in public rights-of-
way in compliance with the City of SPringfieldl Standard Specifications sec,tions 302, 303, and 305.
Condition 8: The applicant must submit a geotechnical report for the stability of the finished rough
, grading condition at the quarry/park site.
Condition 9: Stockpiles of on-site material sh~ll be placed prior to crushing operations in
accordance with the Noxon, PE, March 3, 2004 Memo.
Condition 10: The hours of operation shall bels a.m. to 6 p.m. for crushing and S a.m. to
7 p.m. for other activities. Days of operatio~ fo~ crushing shall be Monday through
Friday, excluding holidays., I
Condition 11: Blasting at the quarry site shall be limited to 35 work days and crushing at the work
site shall be limited to 75 work days over the 21year life of the project. Additional crushing may
occur at the two alternate crushing locations shown on the plan submitted by the applicant. The
City'may, at its discretion, extend the limitatioris if unanticipated are encountered.
I
Condition 12: The pre-blast notice and surveying boundaries must be extended from the
,
southerly property line along the quarry site 250 feet.
C d't' 13 S' . d' .. I. b' d' d
on I JOn : elsmlC an nOIse momtonng eqUipment must e Imme late rea -out
models for monitoring reports. I
Condition 14: The City of Springfield will be jncluded in all pre-blast notice procedures,
I
I
Condition 15: Upon request, the Springfield Utility Board will be provided a pre-blast
survey and ground monitoring equipment diIririg blasting.
Condition 16: A site specific Spill preventioL Control and 'Countenneasure Plan shall be
,
submitted for City review and approval prior to the commencement of work on site. The
approved plan must be kept on site and be avdilable for review by City staff upon request.
I
Condition 17: The applicant shall contract with a wildlife expert for ongoing survey and
monitoring of rattlesnake populations and reldeation of snakes found Oll the neighbor's property
during blasting and crushing activities.