HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotes, Work PLANNER 5/26/2004
MAY-26-2004 04:40 PM
5._75266464
541 746 5126
P.01
.
To:
From:
RE:
Gal)' Darnielle
Mike Evans
MountainGate Preliminal)' Conditions of Approval
pa8El!i~
" F'om _~\ 1&.~ E..__
"""'rI.~~ cn__
LAND PL Pll0l1el/ ' I-"hane-H
10' F.',-------'--- F;'-;;-;;---'
SPR --------
Pho', "'.7261~
May 26, 2004
The consultants involved in the application to reclaim the MountainGate Quarl)' have
reviewed the preliminal)' decision tor the primal)' purpose of assuring a practical and
functional implementation of blasting and crushing procedures, We alfer the following
comments and requested revisions to the text and preliminal)' c(lnditions of approval:
Endings
..s.-~
Our intended notice procedure would deviate from the Code guidelines of "not more than
six hours nor less than 30 minutes prior to detonation", Our notification plan is explained
later in this letter
6 - page 7
We didn't intend to limit alternative crushing sites Hl only 2. It is doubtful that the third
site will be needed but we would prefer to have it available as an alternative, Bccaust: it
is interna1\y located and not within the line of sight from residences we proposed no
sound protection for tllis site. Conseql1ently we didn't include a cross section map for
site 3 otherwise shown on the map sub'i1ilted and labeled as "potential rock crusher
locations" .
Site 3 is located over 1500 feet from the closest dwellings to the West and is blocked by a
ridgeline that is elevated 70 feet above the crusher site The site is over J 800 feet from
the closest dwellings to the South and is approximately 160 feet higher than ground
elevations witl1in this residential area. The acoustical engineer, Arthur Noxon indicates
in his report dated 3.3.04, that at a distance of 1200 feet typical noise levels from a
crusher would be 66dB,A with a directHne of sight. Since site 3 is farther than 1200 feet
from residences and is not in a direct line of sight, noise levels are expected to be less
, I
than those anticipated at sites I and 2 (63 to 64dB,A)after sound attenuation.
pfJ1.liminary Decision (Conditions}
4- page 9
I
Date Received: 5-1&6+
Planner: . I o-f" 5- p~
dM-V f\~
L1\~ ~'
5.3.75266464:
541 746 5126
P.02
MAY-26-2004 04:41 PM
.
( ::ffJwe don't believe an LDAP is necessarylbr the quarry reclamation. Rock placement for
c==:=:j/ streets is regulated under the Public Improvement Permit (PIP) required for construction
'. of public improvements, Fill for lot development (grading outside public light of ways)
is regulated by an independent LDAP permit, These permits regulate material
specifications, locations of processed materials etc. If there are additional issues that
need to be addressed we prefer that they be made conditions of this Discretionary lJSjl
Permit, flA.J.... oJC ~ .-J,Ii./r_ Li:VfP -IvDA<- ';pIA. ~ jlkl';W $/'r""nt,QIJ-':
t This condition implies that DSL and lJSACOE permits are required, These permits have
of been issued for the wetland mitigation site shown on the plans submitted for the quarry
reclamation, : .
c,
r.~~y
j
dY
5 - page 9
We request this condition be eliminated, The amount of rock to be removed has been
estimated in the application and is shown on the plan submitted. It will vary slightly
based upon final detention pond and park design, The rock will not be removed from the
propeny and will be relocated to City standards under either an LDAP or PIP permit. An
a~counting of rock remov!jl and placement appears to be redundant and~onprodLlctjVe, I m \
rlV- IUtfJ/ Ai/IoU-; kj "'ffrv~"j,/'Iy .. -ft-uf/ i:>W~ ti/4#l#"r(f "'~ ~,nr)
10 - page 10 foot ~ ",e,gr ~
ettP,fs
Normal cOl\structiOllllCtivity for subdivision development may begin at 7 a,m. We're
concerned that neighbors may confuse this activity with that of the reclamation activity
(blasting and crushing). We request that this condition be revised to prohibitfdrilling,
blasting, crushing or loading at the quarry reclamation site prior to II a,m. and after 6p,m.
((~f ~.J''':;I s~ t?I11il-1 pl,,,;ff ~e. ~~ qtv~ I'n.IJ-.?<.<.4-....."
11-pagelO '5/1<.. .-v.1 8',A-v-. wllJ.k......-/l)~~. ,oe- >P4lt~~.
For clarity we request a rewording from ", , , crushing' at the 'ti.mk site shall be limited , ,
." to ", ,. ." crushing at the Q!Jl!!:.~ site shall be limited. "L r..
,....'0/
'MlSf rU f 8-P4.
Based upon puhlic input received and the experience and recommendations of the
blasting consultant we propose notice and preblast surveys as tbllows:
Notice of our blasting schedule will be expanded from 500 feet to ISOO feet to the
West so that it includes residences along 57tl. Street located approximately J 300
feet North of Mount Vernon R.oad and those residences between 571h Street and
the quafly. (please refer to slide 13 of staft's power point for map reference), One
time written notice will be mailed to these addresses at least two days prior to the
beginning ofthe hlasting activity, The notice will specify the days and times that
blasting may occur, A phone number will be provided where residents may call
in advance to learn the next days plans for blasting, The notice will also ellplain
that blasting signals will be used just prior to blasting to inli)rm residents, A
).
(.
MAY-26-2004 04:42 PM
5.3.75266464
541 746 5126
.
P.103
<-
o~
possible example would be "an air horn warning signal of 5 long blasts will s,)und
5 minutes prior to the blast. Immediately prior to the blast a rapid air horn signal
will be heard. After the blast, an all-clear air horn signal will be sounded."
We concur with conditioll 12 for residents that are to be otTered preblast surveys,
For clarity we request better identification of those located within 250 feet of the
quarry property. The applicant submitted a "proposed preblast survey locations"
map at the public hearing, Staff showed their intended 2SD-foot survey boundary
on slidel) \)fthe power point p~esentation, We propose expansion of applicant's
.f . original proposed boundary to be more consistent with stair s intended boundary,
OV The boundary proposed on applicant's submittal would move West to include an
additional lot North of Jessica l.ane; an additional)ot On each side of Kalmia; and,
an additional lot on eacb side of Lilac (A total of I g residences are identified
immediately South of the quarry)
IS-Page 117 '
As requested at the hearing, we request that this condition be modified to allow
placement ofrock from the quarry for maintenance and .c.onstmction of the section of
MountainGate Drive located South and West of/he quarry (to 57th Place,) .
Justification (Conc1usi!.m)
(a) scaj~ desiglL- page 13
To be consistent with the intended detention pond and neighborhood park designs we
suggest a rewording as follows: '
Currently, the quarry site is not of a scale and design that is consistent Wilh the residential
character of the adjacent properties to 'the west and south, It currently has) 0 to 90-foot
vertical walls along the majority of its north and east perimeter, The purpose of this
application is to shape the quarry thrOl!gh blasting to make it into a neighborhood park
that will be safe to use and also functi\?nal in the respect that it (the retention pond) will
treat and manage stormwater that will be generated by the development of the
MountainGate Subdivision. The concept that the quarry site will become a park has been
integrated into the MountainGate Master Plan and the proposal is consistent with this
adopted plan. The actual design of the quarry will occur during the blasting and rock
removal but several operating guidelines ensure that the resulting product will be
attractive and useable by the public'-' 1I,!;;'i',,' ,-,", "<,,, i"',, ;"/,, i.. "ii' ";.),, '" '" ""i,'/
;"I,!/'/lIg Slmw; banks will be sloped no steeper than one foot vertical to two feet
horizontal to II water depth of three feet below the low water mark and to three feet above
the high water mark; grading will be done so as to establish safe access to and egress
from the water for persons and wildlife:, "ii, I vertical wall spillway will be created; the
contours of the quarry walls ""';' ,," /:" /:',,:11 that el<ceed 45 degrees will be benched
with a ratio not to el(ceed one and one-half feet vertical to one foot horizontal with
benches being lit least I-tHIc '!if' feet in ~idth; and some form of trail system will be
incorp\Jrated. In conclusion. the scale;lInd design of the rehabilitated quarry site will be
'J
M~Y-26-2004 04:42 PM
5..75266464,
541 746'5126
.
such that it will be suitable for a neighborhood park to serve the existing residential
development to the west and south and the proposed MountainGate development.
Qperatin~ Characteri still. - page 15
In the second full paragraph we reqllest,that the discussion be modified to reflect the
notice procedures proposed previously in this document.
Thank you for your consideration.
P.04
~
MAY-26-2004 04:43 PM
5..75266464
541 746 5126
P.05
.
Page 1 of I
GBri Betz
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:
"Greg Hyde" c:gregh@willamalane.org>
"Mike Evans (E-mail)" c:landplancon@comcasl.nat>
Wednesday, May 26, 2004 2:41 PM
MG Quarry "Benches"
Mike,
This is to confirm that I support and concur with your suggestion that it
would be best if the Hearing's Official's decision could leave mallimum
flexibility regarding the minimum width of future "benches" in the reshaped
quarry walls. Pending further review of more specific plans and of various
design and regulatory issues, I would not, at this point, rule out the
possibility that benches as narrow as 4' might be the best solution.
I
OS/26/20(14