HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotice PLANNER 4/22/2004
~ .
e
I
e.
{)orr.Jv yU
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
I
-.
51 A 1E OF OREGON }
}ss. .
County of Lane }'o ,
. . I
I, Brenda Jones, being first duly sworn, do hereby depose and say as follows:
1.
I state that I am a Secreta1 for the Planning Division of.the Development
Services Department, City of Springfield, Oregon. '
2.
I st~te that .in my ~a8'ci~cretaryJ p=and caused to be
mailed copies of 21)~ 711M-OOO~fuo,...-h.,. &li:tl. ,(See
. attachment "A") on 4/ t.Z-1 , 2004 addressed to (see Attachment "B"),
by causing said letters to bJ placed in a U.S. mail box with postage fully
prepaid thereon.
.. . L[-~2-0J .
Data RaGewert_. dv '
Planne~~
S1ATE~F OREGON, CountyofLane l I 6-f L/-/ ~
~/.... c5?~ , 2004 Personally appeared the above named Brenda Jones,
S retary, who acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary act. Before
me:
Brenda Jones
Planning Secretary
. OFFICIAL SEAL
SANDRA MARX
, : NOTARY PUBLIC. OREGON
\" ,J COMMISSION NO. 34024B
'.. ,-- MY COMMISSIOM EXPINES MOV. 12. 2004
~)n~ .
~y Commission Expires: /I ).z.../04-
.
'.
~,.;-
",1.
.........
"
"
.
. ~~: )~\~
l.~ ' ,l.j" t :.."
'l'.'l',\
"
'....~i :.\ ;,1
.....,:...,.
.
, 1..~' ~1 .
P. '"
~ ;'
'I,
\
# .1.,'
"
\
.
.
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
DATE:
April 21, 2004
HEARINGS OFFFICIAL
TRANSMITTAL
,
MEMORANDUM
I
SUBJECT:
Gary Damielle, Springfield HeariAgs Of~.fi . I .
. ~17V' .
Jim Donovan, DSD Planner II .: !,~;:;e "
Planning File ZON2004-0 I
(MountainGate Master Plan 1998j02-0039)
TO:
FROM:
ISSUE
The applicant is requesting approval to blast and crush rock during reclamation of a former quarry site in
the Urban Fringe Overlay District. The use requites Discretionary Use approval by the Hearings Official
because the construction practices proposed are n6t normally anticipated in the residential areas of
Springfield... ... I.. . . ..
.DISCUSSION . ... . I . .. .
The reclamation must occur so that a park use ca~ 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 ahd 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 existihg residences.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval with conditions designed to mitigate negative affects on adjacent property
owners and residents. The recommended conditions are summarized in Attachment B to the Staff Report.
I . .
. ATTACHMENTS
1) Staff Report with Attaclunents
2) Applicant's Submittals
3) Background Information and Oversized Exhirts
.
.
.
.
DISCRETIONARY USE STAFF
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION
I
TO THE HEARINGS OFFICIAL
I
Case Number: ZON2004-0006
Date of Report: April 21, 2004
Project Name: MountainGate Master Plan -IQuany Reclamation
Property Owners: Norman and Melvin McDougal, PO Box 518, Creswell OR 97426
Nature of Application: The' applicants are tquesting discretionary use approval in accordance
with SDC Article 10 to proceed with reclanJation of a former private quarry site, preparing the
site for planning and development as a pUblic park as required by Conditions of MountainGate
Master Plan (MPI995-02-0039). The proposJd use includes blasting and crushing of rock for use
during on site construction of associated residential development. .
Project Location: The 7 acr~ project site is I~cated along the south westerly border of the 330
acre site just north ofWeyerhaeuser Road and the Golden Terrace Subdivision at 58th and 59th
Streets, within Springfield's Urban Transitiori Zone. The site is otherwise identified as a portion
of Tax Lot 300 on LC Assessor's Map 18-02104-11. .
.
Public Hearing Date & Location:
April 28, 2004,9 a.m., City of
Springfield Council Chambers, 225 5th
Street, Springfield, OR 97477
(Testimony and written comments will
. be accepted until the close of the public
hearing).
Zoning: Low Density Residential-UGB
. (LDR/UF-IO)
. Metropolitan Area Comprehensive
Plan Designation: LDR
Master Plan Approval: #1995-02-0039
Date Application Submitted: March 8, 2004
. I .
Development Review Committee Meeting Date: April 6, 2004
Staff Recommendation: . Approval with CoAditions for compliance with the Mounta;~gate
. . '
Master Plan and the Spnngfield Development Code.
. I
Appeal Deadline Date: 21 Days After Receiving Hearing Official Decision
Associated Applications: MountainGate Mlter Plan # 1995-02-0039
.
Adopted Master Plan-1998
.
,;-,:
Quarry Site (center) from Mt Vernon/57th St: .
East End of Quarry Site.
,piland eventual pond
ion 81 center of bench looking
htohomes appmxlmalely 100
rds away.
Golden Terrace Subdivision South of Center
MountainGate QuarrylPark
Discretionary Use ZON2004..Q006
Golden Terrace Subdivision South of West End
2
\
I
r
. I . .
)/~ret/orJfi;e.l dse ZO;.(2ooy-ObCJDb
SCAl!: ,. = 200'
Ii
THE FAVREAV'GROUP .POTENTIAL RoCK CRUSHEJU.OCA'T1ONS
CIVIL ENGINEERING . .
MOUNTAlNGATE PHASE 4
~
~.
---
_llIl._lM'l__
-'-
~,,-
em or $PRIHonno
--~
- "
-
"""""'""
_.
.
,- .-
... T
.
~. I
-
.... J
II ' I,
n
'" / eMF' RAR \ .5i ,; I
/ \ ./ rT1 I
/ ::c
.. ..,.r. ~
J ..
'-
/ ,I '. " "It) POR RY G
-v"""'"7 "
'-~: 1-... "- M" ,n
- ---
r- -' '-EX SllN GRe mo
...
.-
...
. .,
~ . ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ; ;; i i i . i i - ii ! ~.
.
OUNO
aA1tN [t~
4lO.W
....
""
U~
It'" 2tOil 2tXl )tCCl .J+X1
SECTION A-A
....
u>>
.".-:,
'.
EXiS ING ROUND -
=I. - -0_- -"
, ..- \ 7 I
. \ II ,/
I "
I "- -FL ruRE G
L/ ,-or I,un
/
-
, i il
iJ 1 iJ ~ i ~ i ~ i i
OUND
~
....
~>>
..~
,.>>
. '''''
""
SECTION B-B
-
POTENTIAL ROCK CRUSHER SECTIONS
MOUI'lTAINGATE PHASE 4
---
THE FAVREAU GROUP
CIVIL ENGINEERING
--
"
a
51
..,"""".......
~O'U1_p"1'us,nICII_
."
crTY or SPRINGntLD
MUC '/I'OltX! 1l[~"mVfT
~
"". "
~-
REV1SIONS
_.
._~ ..11
;1-1%-04.
~
.
.
',\'
or""1
Mls:u
,,_ ~l
j!lil&
.~1l1
'Uh
l.',
all,!!: II
ilDI!
.1
"
d
,-
0'
OOOO<ID(j)@@1
I f I ~ ~ ~
~l ~~ ;ilil ;a
'1 I~ I'!" ='
~'~si hU
;,~ iii~ 0
I 'I<
, ~:J I I
~ ;:. I I
! ~ I I
I"
!
~~
.
"
i! "
" ;
.
---
~QlI,IJI''''IM'J_
--
~..........., -
1II<1'f. IY
~~I-
..
0 -.-- ~ v I
./
I
7
II
t
II
.- "---" I
t
m __".n_ t I
X1SnN GRQU 0
u.
,.-
...
. I
7 7 t\. PROP SED I
. .. J
PROPOS[ ~ ND J \
MITICATl I .-.
~~,lb(Y . .. S
:. ~ . ~ . . ~
- . . - - . ~.
.
.
o.
.. .-
-
.. I
.. .. /
-
o. j
/ .1
o.
EXlsn GCR NO
./ 7
.. I....... II
r7 / I"- ~WSi ~ ,n
'" ll^" Ir
PROP SED "-
MIHG /.
'" .--.--
DATlNElEY
~s.oo " ~ i ; ! ~ ~
. - - . , . -
..
".
".
n.
".
~.
'~1II .
".
SECTION 81
".
".
n.
n.
".
~.
n.
SECTION 82
~.
.
~~
U1
rrJ
n
---j
.0
Z
)>
~
. '" , . ~ . "
. . -
'" ....,
so f~l,D // /
.
..... /' :..---
-: 8"'1 /V (
. ---
lit.!
': 61'0 I ,
.
. .
,
~ fl"O
. ,
fl'.! i"
,
8T'.! I
" il
.'.' - :1
II U1
. '" I, rrJ
. n
i ---j
." 0
~ ~ I z
~ x I,
!c 1110 0 "l
. ~ CO
1<\ z (.,.J
0
IlU 0 >l I,
~
z II
: flU 0
. I
111,0 I
.
: 11M I
. i
lI.. I
. 114.' 'I
. I
,
_u ( II
I
. ." II
!
~1~,! 'I
i
t~,' , I
I
.". I
m. \.. II
............. I
,.. I
... I
.
.
.
~
.
.
~~
~ 8la:~ ~
.
.
. -. . ~ . e
110.9
:..--- ~
. r 514.1
~ .-
\ ~
IlU 51
- '''1 [;:J~ ....... 1\
0
. . I~ ~
I~
140.' ~
--
:: ~l'
. -
.1:.6.J
....... t--.i--
"'-'
..... 1---.....
."
m.. ......1---
.~1J_ ;-...,
." \1
.
"
.
.
DEVELOPMENT PREPARATION AND REVIEW TEAM CONTACT INFORMATION
APPLICANT & DEVELOPMENT TEAM
POSITION DUTIES NAME PHONE
Applicants & Project Planners Planning and Project Mike Evans & Gem 541-726-
Management Betz, Land Planning 8523
Consultants
Explosive Technical Blasting Plans Dick Daniel, 503/644-
Consultant ETS, Inc. 7544 .
Blasting Contractor Blasting and Crushing Kris Jeremiah, 541/747-
Ooerations BJ Eauioment LLC 6261
Geotechnical Engineer Hillside Development Todd Boire, PE . 541-753-
Design Boire Associates, Inc. 5344
Civil Engineer Public and Private Tony Favreau, PE, The 541-683-
Imorovement Design Favreau Grouo 7048
Wetland Consultant Wetland Fill & Pat Thompson, 541-933-
Mitigation Thomnson Consultinl! 3318
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM
POSITION REVIEW OF NAME PHONE
Project Planner Master Plan & Development Jim Donovan 726-3660
Aoolications ,
Transportation Planning Transportation Gary McKenney 726-4585
Engineer P.E.
Public Works Streets and Utilities Eric Walter P.E. -736-1036
Civil Enlrineer
Public Works EIT Sanitary & Storm Sewer Matt Stouder 736-1035
Deputv Fire Marshall Fire and Life Safetv Gilbert Gordon 726-2293
Community Services Manager Building Issues . Dave Puent 726.3668
(Buildinl! Official)
Willamalane Parks and Future Park Design . Greg Hyde 736-4050
Recreation District Planning
MountainGate Quarry/Park
Discretionary Use ZON2004-OOO6
3
.
.
I. Executive Summary
The blasting and crushing activities proposed are construction practices necessary to start the
process of reclaiming a former quarry site to al state suitable for park devel,opment and
constructing storm water detention facilities required by Conditions 28 and 53b. of the
. 1 '
MountainGate Master Plan.
The quarry reclamation and park development. mandated by the Master Plan involves a four-step
process of 1) rough grading by the applicant cbnsistent 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 LDR site to Park and Open
Space, and, 4) discretionary use/site plan apprbval for the design ofthe neighborhood park.
Incorporating rough grade of the req~ired storin water detention facilities in the first step of
quarry reclamation is consistent with the curr~nt Phase 4 tentative subdivision approval and
,
recent submittal of public improvement plans for that phase of development.
The initial recl~mation activities ~ill be a site limProvement consistent with Master Plan approval,
bui one that entails quarry mining activities n6t normally found in residential or park
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 are
applied in order to provide the affected neighbors an opportunity to comment and recommend
conditions to reduce conflicts. The ultimate d~sign of the park and stonn water facilities must be
considered in blasting plans, however, given Steps 2-4 above, only the potential affects of the
proposed blasting and crushing activities on tlie 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 thc Disc;etionarv Use criteria.
. '. I.'
This former quarry site has never been a permitted commercial quarry and is technically not
subject to Oregon Department of Geology and Mining Industry regulations. That fact
notwithstanding, the standards of the Quarry r).1:ining Overlay District and input from the
neighborhood have been considered with discretionary use criteria to evaluate the proposal. Staff
has developed conditions of approval for mitigation 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 quaJy site. .
. I
Director's Recommendation to the Hearing Official: .
Based on the staff findings and conditions forlmitigation of effects 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 pr?posal is the necessary first step to complying with
Master Plan conditions for planning and development of the park site. The proposal, as
conditioned, is consistent with the intent of th~ Master Plan decision to allow development while
balancing effects on residents and natural resdurces. The construction practices of blasting and
crushing should be allowed with a conseivati~e technical approach and liberal amounts Of
safeguards for surrounding neighbors.
1 The Master Plan comprises the complete'set Of:documents and attachments contained in the Hearings
Official's decision on the MountainGate' Master P/~n as approved on May 13, 1998. Hearafter, this
complete set of documents will simply be referred to as the Master Plan.
I
MountainGate QuarrylPark
Discretionary Use ZON2004..o006
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 Code (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 accordance 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 property, allowing for comments on the proposal prior to
and during the public hearing. The Director must prepare a recommendation on the application and
make staff's 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 b?sed upon applicable criteria of
approval as specified in the SDC, the Master Plan, the Director's recommenciation, 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.
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 Hearings 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 Development Code on March 19, 2004.
2) , The City of Springfield Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed plan on
April 6, 2004.
3) In accordance with SDC Article 14, a Notice of Public Hearing on the application was
mailed to residents and owners within] 00 feet of the subject property and published in a
newspaper in common circulation, The City of Springfield received 3 letters during
notice procedures citing concerns for structural damage to private property, safety and
noise:
Letter I: "We would only request that the City make good on its promise to treat existing'
state standards for explosives use as 'minimum guidelines' .....we would prefer an
approach that does nof allow .for trial and error!"
Our own preference would be to see the park project relocated to an area less in need of
such extensive preparation work or else abandoned altogether. Are we not correct in
assuming that permission, to proceed with the blasting would never be granted were it not
for the city's own future claim to this site as park space?"
Thomas Heath, 855 S. 57'h Street, Springfield, OR 97478, with cosigner:
Prudence Heath, 827 S. 57th Street, Springfield, OR 97478
Staff Response J: The applicant has submitted and Staff has applied the standards of
Springfield Development Code Article 24 in addition to all applicable state andfederal
MountainGate Quany/Park
Discretionary Use ZON2004.0006
5
..
.
standards. Staff has also considered public concerns before approval. (See Operations
and Blasting Plan Conditionsfor exterlsion ofpre~blast survey area and ground
monitoring equipment in Attachments J4 and B of this report). OnlX enough explosives to
ji-acture rock in place and contain phykical impacts on site will be !used. .
The eventual park use was approved J 1998 after extensive publi~ involvement during
the MountainGate Master Plan revie~process. The seven. acre sit~ would likely be
subject to the same request and standards for reclamation under public or private
development scenarios given its size ahd unique physical conditions. (See Findings,
page 10 of this report. )
Letter 2: "As homeowners in the area of the proposed MountainGate park site
reclamation we wish to be listed with those opposed to this request.
I . .
It appears to us that the proposaLfor blasting, rock crushing and a stockpile area all
within 500 feet of our home presents ri safety hazard, as well as being an invasion of our
right to a reasonable noise level in a rJsidential neighborhood.
. I
We. believe this to be a strictly commJrcial venture on the part of the applicant that has no
regard for our neighborhood."
Gerald and Darlene Spencer 59961 LiJac Lane, Springfield, OR 97478
Staff Response 2: The proposed use iSla temporary in nature dnd is limited only to the
operations necessmy for reclamation'of the quarry site. The applicant has proposed
I
methods of mitigation for noise and other impacts. Staff has endeavored to reduce the
affects on neighbors and recommends: additional and! or expanded mitigations to reduce
potential affects of the proposed use to those of other uses allowed by code on the same
property. For example, pre-blast noti~e and surveying procedures will be implemented
and expanded, blasting will be controfled to contain physical impaCts on site, the
schedule for blasting and crushing is limited, and no rock will leave the site fqr
commercial purposes. (See Criterion la. at page 10 of this report and Attachment A-
Blasting and Operations Plans or AttAchmeniB-Recommended Conditions of Approval).
Le . 3 "T' bll . . h d" d . h'
tter; wenty or so years ago, astmg m t at quarry cause extensIve amage to t e
,
plaster ceilings in my home. The insurance 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 of the house <<,as twisted andJ'oited.. .
. I . . . .
J am concerned that the underlying strata of rock at the quarry may run under my house
also. Needless to say I am very much opposed to the any more blasting in this quarry."
Vonda Brooks, 812 S. 57'h Street, Springfield, OR 97478
Staff Response 3: In accordance withlthe proposed blasting and operations plans, as
conditioned herein, seismic and sounii monitors will be placed at or near the property
lines of the quarry site to evaluate grbund response to bldsting and minimize impacts to
. abutting properties. There will be no ~hysical impacts whatsoever to properties along S.
57th Street. (For more infol7nation refer to Attachment A of this report.)
I
MountainGate QuanylPark
Discretionary Use ZON2004-OO06
6
.
.
The full text of the letters is part of the public file which is available for free review at the
City of Springfield Planning Division, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield OR 97477. The issues
of property damage, noise and applicable criteria of approval or other code provisions are
addressed in this report at Criterion la. on page and in Attachments A- Operations and
Blasting Plans and Attachment B- Recommended Conditions of Approval.
.Additional public information was provided to the adjacerit neighborhood during a
meeting with Neighborhood Watch captains on April 7, 2004 in the Golden Terrace
Subdivision. The meeting was attended by 6 representatives, information and handouts
were provided by City, the applicant and the blasting consultant. No written comments
were collected at the meeting, however the discussion could be characterized as generally
positive. The group supported the future park development and mitigation techniques
. discussed. Staff believes that all mitigation techniques discussed are included in the
submittals and conditions offered to the Hearings Official.
4) A public hearing before the Hearing Official is scheduled to open April 28, 2004. Staffs
recommendation, written comments from the public, and all testimony addressing the
criteria of approval for the reclamation impacts will be heard. All comments received
after this staff report but prior to the hearing will be forwarded to the Hearing Official.
and entered into the record of the proceedings at the hearing.
5) Unless extended by the Hearing Official 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.
6) Notice ofthe Hearing Official's decision will be sent within five days to the applicants,
all parties participating in the hearings process and all parties who submitted written
comments.
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 mai~d to participating parties. . .
m. Materials Reviewed
It is the applicant's responsibility to prove their proposal complies with the Master Plan and
Decision of Approval, Springfield Development Code in effect at the time of Master Plan
Approval and other applicable State and Federal regulations:
On March 8-19 2004 the applicant submitted a package of information containing the
following elements and components:
. 18 sets of plan drawings by Favreau: 1) Detention PondlReclamation Plan with
Current Conditions and Proposed Cross Sections, 2) Potential Rock Crusher
Locations, MountainGate Phase 4, with Cross Sections, March 19,2003.
. Conceptual Park Designs(2) with Current Conditions, by Cameron McCarthy, Gilbert
& Schiebe, March 19,2003
. Project narrative and response to Discretionary Use Criteria by Land Planning
Consultants, March 8, 2003
. Blasting Plans by Dick Daniel, Explosive Consultant & Kris Jeremiah, Explosive
Contractor
. MountainGate QualT)'/Park
Discretionary Use ZON2004...ooo6
7
.
.
. Proposed Operations Plan by Land Plarming Consultants, March 8, 2003.
. Memo from Acoustical Engineer, Arthur Noxon, PE, March 19,2004
,
. Executed City of Springfield application form with attachments (legal description,
title report) I ' !
. Application fees in accordance with adopted City fee schedule.
'I '
IV. APPLICABLE CRITERIA OF APPROVAL I
Master Plan, Decision and Conditions of Ad pro val: In accordance with SDC Article
37, a Master Plan is a comprehensive developrrlent plan that allows phased development
over several years and shall be the basis for the levaluation of all phases of development
on any issues which it addresses. Approval of ~eve1opment phases shall be granted
subject to the terms and conditions of the MastJr Plan, but subject to the applicable
Development Code proVisions and City ordinarlces on issues which the Master Plan does
not address. Changes to City ordinances, policies and standards adopted after May 13,
I
1998 (the date of approval) shall not apply to ,e development. ' ,
The Springfield Hearing Official's May 13,1998 Master Plan Decision (including Findings,
Conclusion and Conditions of Approval) Planking Journal'# I 995-02-0039, as attached to the
property's deed LC Filing # 99035359) is incdrporated here by reference and is implemented in
the body ofthis decision where it is specific arid applicable to the proposed use:
, MP COA# 28: Prior to or concurrent Jith development of any phase south of,
Line A, the applicant shall provide deuliled plans for detention ponds proposed at '
the Park site.. 'I .
MPCOA#53b: An agreement between Ithe applicant and the Willamalane Park
and Recreation District for the transferlof the Quarry Park site into public
ownership shall be executed prior to the platting of the subject property south of
the intersection ofMo~ntainGate Driv~ and (S. Park Drive). Also, and within this
timeline, the applicant shall submit to V'e district a reclamation plan that will
demonstrate that the proposed rehabilitation of the quarry will result in a site
suitable for its intended purpose; i.e. a jeighborhood park. . ~
10.030 DISCRETIONARY USE CRITERIA. The following standards and criteria of
the Springfield Development Code shall be applied to all requests for Discretionary Use
approval: I .
(1) Discretionary Use may only be allowed if the (Hearing Official) fmds that the
proposal conforms with the following triteria:
(a) The proposed use shall conform Jith other permitted uses in terms of scale,
lot coverage, design, intensity of Jse and operating characteristics.
I
(b) The proposed use shall not generate more traffic on local streets or more
demand for public facilities than <<-ould permitted uses in the same zoning
district.
MountainGate Quarry/Park
Discretional)' Use ZON2004..o006
8
.
.
(c) The proposed use conforms 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
conformance with Metro Plan land use designation descriptions.
NOTE; As discussed at Criteria la. and Operations Plan (Attachment A), the discretionary proposal is for
quarry practices used during a one time reclamation project at an un-permitted former private quarry site
not subject to SDC Article 24-Quarry Mining Operations regulations or state statutes for commercial
mining.
V. APPLICANT RESPONSE TO CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
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 proposal conforms with the following criteria:
(a) The proposed nse shall conform with other permitted nses in terms of scale, lot coverage,
design, intensity of nse and operating characteristics.
Applicant Submittal: The use requested is a temporarY use of the site that is necessary to reclaim the
quarry as required by Condition No. 53b. of the 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 designation and use as required by the ESEE analysis
for MountainGate'(May 29, 1995).
The site is currently zoned UF-I 0 and is designated as Low Density Residential on the Metro
Plan. The Metro Plan specifies that neighborhood parks are allowed uses within the residential
land use designation. (lI-E-2, Feb. 2002).
The ultimate use of ihis site as a neighborhood park has been predetermined by the Masterplan
approval and was found to be consistent with adopted plans. Reclamation of the quarry to
accommodate this intended use is also required 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 thatthe reclamation process proposed will result in a site suitable as a neighborhood park.
Temporary use ofthe site as necessary to reclaim the quarry therefore conforms with other
permitted uses.
Staff Response:
The proposed use is temporary blasting and crushing of rock for construction of land uses
permitted in or adjacent to a residential district. In order to conform to the above criterion of
approval, the potential impacts of blasting and crushing activities must be mitigated to an impact
level as close as reasonably possible to other construction practices normally associated with
construction of residential subdivsions. .
Combining quarry reclamation and construction activities is logically accomplished in one of two
general approaches: I) blasting, crushing and hauling of rock for construction materials to the
northerly construction areas, or 2) drilling, hammering and stock piling ofrock for hauling off
site and importing construction materials processed elsewhere onto the site for construction. The
former entails an acute or "front loaded" schedule of activities in descending hierarchy including
I) blasting, 2) crushing and 3) hauling of materials away from the site and adjacent residences;
. MountainGate QuanylPark
Discretionary Use ZON2004-o006
9
.
.
the latter requires;' more latent or drawn out impact scenario of simultaneous drilling, hammering
and hauling of waste materials to ~md fromthelquarry site along the road next to the adjacent
residences. In discussions with neighborhood group representatives during public involvement
and neighborhood meetings, verbal input was received in support of the first approach, the shorter
blasting scenario with mitigation techniques ad opposed to the longer drillihg and hammering
approach. Three letters in opposition to thepr6posal were received during formal notice
procedures based upon prior blasting experien6es and potential effects on the neighborhood.
Staff Findinl!s:
Finding I: The 7 acre site is currently zoned and designated Low Density Residential (LDR) with
an urban fringe overlay (UF-IO). The site is reHuired to be re-designated POS and re-zoned Public
Land and Open Space (PLO) prior to developrhent as a neighborhood park (ref.: Master Plan
Approval #1995-02-0039). '. . 1 '.
/ Finding 2: In accordance with the Springfield Development Code, neighborhood parks are
permitted uses in the LDR and the PLO distri~ts, subject to site plan review and discretionary
approval. (Ref.: SDC Articles 16 and 23) Co~mercial quarry use is not permitted at the site.
F;nding 3: The site is surro~nded by propertiJ zoned and designat~d Low Density Residential
. ,
according to the Springfield Zoning Map and the Metro Plan. Residential subdivision
development is permitted in the LDR and is lifuited in scope only by hillside development
. standards or other overlay districts. (Ref: SDC Articles 16 & 23).
Finding 4: Con~truction of any permitted use lnder 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
mF.ovding'5 Th . I' h b' dbl .1 d . I' d '1' th f
m mg: e app lcant as su mltte astmg an operatiOns pans etal mg e process 0
. blasting, crushing and hauling of rock necessary to begin the process of converting the quarry site
t9 a site suitable for permitted uses (i.e. neighborhood park). .
Finding 6: Staff reviewed the submitted opeJtion and blasting plans and ~ecommends additional
,
conditions of approval for mitigation of potential impacts. The potential effects of noise,
vibration, dust and fly rock are addressed und~r Attachment A- Operations and Blasting Plans, .
and Attachment B- Recommended Condition~ of Approval. Traffic concerns are addressed under
Criterion lb., below.. I. .
Conclusion Criterion I: Staff finds that the submitted blasting and operations plans, with the
. conditions recommended to the Hearings Offibal, 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: Onsite processing and usl of the aggregate material existing at the quarry will
eliminate the need to import the same amount 6rmaterial from other locations. Engineer's
estimates for material needed for the constructi~n 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 approxirrlately 100,000 yards or half of the needed material.
MountainGate Quany/Park
Discretional)' Use ZON2004-0006
10
.
.
60,000 yards of the quarry rock material would be crushed for use as street subgrade and trench
backfill. .
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.
The closest sources for construction rock material are South of Main Street approximately 5
miles West (Morris/Springfield Quarry) or North 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 OA miles South of Main Street then along a private access road
into the site or east along Main Street to a new street intersection along the site frontage. The
greatest traffic impact to residences would be from the 58th Street route which parallels a
residential development located along the West side of the Weyerhaeuser Road.
The use proposed will not generate more demand 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 existmg local streets
assuming that no rock is hauled along MoimtainGate Drive west of the quarry. One additional
condition is requested to clarify and memorialize this part ofthe submittal.
Staff Findings:
Finding 1: No commercial quarry activity is permitted at the site; therefore no rock should leave
the site using either the 57th Street or Aster Street accesses.
Finding 2: After stock piling, the processed rock will be used during construction of Phase 1 and
2 street improvements on the north side of the site. Improvement of MountainGate Drive from
Phase 1 improvements to 57th Street may occur during the life of the proposed blasting and .
crushing.
Finding 3: Circulating rock trucks onto existing or proposed local streets above Golden Terrace
Subdivision to reach Phase I construction areas increases dust and noise impacts on adjacent
residents.
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
proposed and conditioned below, the submittal meets this criterion of approval:
Condition I: Under normal operations and unless authorized by the City, all rock will be moved
from the quarry/park site to the construction 'areas north of the quarry using the proposed
MountainGate Drive east and north ofthe quarry.
MountainGate QuarrylPark
Discretionary Use ZON2004-0006
11
.
.
(c) The proposed use conforms with applicable Metro Plan policies and applicable
descriptions of Land Use Designations sIio~n on the Metro Plan Diagram. Expansion of an
existing Discretionary Use shall be exempt from conformance with Metro Plan land use
designation descriptions. .
Applicant Submittal:
Parks and Recreational Facilities Element - Policy 3
I
Accelerate the acquisition of park land in pro~ected 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 thJir developments.
A major component oftbe Mou~tainGate MatI' 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 had specific conditions for the timing of agreements
between Willamalane and the developer and [or changing the plan designation and zoning of
approximately 90 acres to park and open spac~. 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 Resnonse: The primary intent of the abJve policy is to provide park lands adjacent to or
within developing residential areas. The adde~ 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 tbe protection of natural res6urces and the provision of park space by the
. approval of tbe proposed park lands during M'aster Plan approval.
Finding: The proposed construction practi~es land preliminary reclamation plan are a logical step
to achieving the Master Plan's requirement tol transfer land to Willamalane for parks and open
space and create storm water facilities (Ref. MP Conditions 28 & 53b.). . . :
Finding: Discretionary use approval Ofth~ pJposed activities does not constitute a detel111ination
of full compliance with the applicable Master: Plan conditions and Metro policies, as imbedded
and incorporated in Master PJan approval. (Also see Willamalane Parks and Recreation District
Comment #3, Hyde, April J5, 2004). That'pr6cess, as discussed in the Executive Summary of this
report is a multi-step process that involves subsequent steps in accordance the Master Plan.
. I
Conclusion: The policy intent to provide park space in residential developments was directly
satisfied during Master Plan approval. The p~licy is only indirectly applicable at tbis point, except
to say that it requires the conclusion of the cOhversion process. The adopted process for
conversion of the quarry site is initiated, but riot satisfied, by tbe current proposal.
. I .
Environmental Resources Element - Policy 11 .
Local go~ernme1lts shall continue, through Jnd use planning and special regulations, to control
sand and gravel extraction and production inl order to:
MountainGate Quarry/Park
Discretionary Use ZON2004:o-0006
12
.
.
a. Minimize negative effects on surrounding land uses, on air and water quality, and on
other natural resources.
b. Require reclamation plans for extraction and processing areas which encourage reuse
of such lands in a manner compatible with adjacent land uses, adopted plans, and in
accordance with state law.
c. Allow other appropriate uses, such as agricultural production, timber production,
parks and other open space uses.
This Policy may not be directly applicable to this application for a one time mining operation to
reclaim the existing quany. None-the-Iess, it provides guidance for how the operation should be
treated.
The only area directly impacted by the reclamation will be the quany site itself. Adjacent land
will not be mined. A blasting plan and a'mining operations plan have been developed to control
activity such that it mininlizes potential negative impacts upon nearby residential development as
much as possible. One purpose of the mining is to create detention facilities within a storm water
system qesigned to maintain volume and the quality of water flowing from the adjacent future
residential development.
The reclamation proposed will result in a site that will be used as open space under the ownership
and control ofthe Willamalane Park District. This 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.
Staff Response: The proposal is to utilize construction practices similar to quany operations to
"reclaim" an un-permitted former private quarry site not subject to' SDC Article 23-Quarry
Mining Operations regulations or state statutes for commercial mining.
Findin& The intent of the above policy is imbedded and implemented by the application of
standards contained in Article 23 of the Springfield Development Code- Quany 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 correctly acknowledges the utility ofthe standards for
protection of the adjacent neighbors and property.
Finding:. SDC Article 23 and state statutes for commercial qnarry use do not apply to the
proposed activities because the site is not proposed for commercial use and has never been issued
a permit by the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries.
Finding: As conditioned in the Operations and Blasting Plans, and incorporated at Criterion la, .
. the policy guidance for mining activities incorporated in the Springfield Development Code has
. been reasonably applied to protect surrounding property and residents.
Conclusion: The available policy guidance for mining activities incorporated in the QMO Article
has been implemented in principle by the submittal of QMO standards in the attached Operations
Plan.
Environmental Design Element - Policy 8
Site planning standards developed by local jurisdictio-"s shall allow for flexibility in design that
will acftieve site planning objectives while allowing for creative solutions to design problems.
MountainGate QuanylPark
Discretionary Use ZON2004-DOO6
13
.
.
This Policy has been implemented within the approved design and conditions of approval for the
MountainGate Masterplan. This request to. allbw quarry reclamation for open space use and
storm water detention is consistent with the pl~n and conditions of approval. Once reclamation of
the quarry is complete and final approvals for'storm drainage and wetland mitigation are gained
from the City of Springfield, the Oregon Dep~rtment of State Lands and the Army Corps of
Engineers, a site plan will be developed by Willamalane to address specific design details for the
park development. Use of the abandoned quahy as park and open space within a residential .
development is a creative solution that evolved from the master-planning process to meet site
. planning objectives.
Staff Response: Staff unequivocally agrees t~at the master planning and implementation process
for development of the former quarry site has been flexible and creative in nature. This
discretionary use process provides a vehicle f6r public discourse on construction methods and an
opportunity for flexibility in response to neighborhood concerns identified before approvai of the
reclamation activities. The ongoing multi-ste~ 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 responsi~ilities are each subject to separate checks and .
balances in the multi-step process of Master ~lan 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 approval.
. Transportation Element - Policy F.J3
Support transportation strategies that enlllfnce neighborhood livability.
Through the lengthy process of constructing Jtreet, infrastructure and homes within the
MountainGate project traffic impacts within the 581h Street/Mt. Vernon neighborhood c~ be
lessened by reclamation of the quarry to allo~ on-site use ofthe aggregate resource. Onsite use
ofthe 100,000 cubic yards of material produc~d through the reclamation process could eliminate
up to 25,000 truck trips that would otherwise !ravel 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 eviderce 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 cbmplies with Residential and Public Land and Open
Space District descriptions and Metro Plan p6licies applicable to temporary impacts of
reclamation and construction practices necesdary to initiate the conversion of a quarry on
residential property to a public park..
MountainGate QuarrylPark
Discretionary Use ZON2004-o006
14
.
.
VI. DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION
.. Based on the staff findings and conditions contained 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 Springfield Development Code and the proposal is the
necessary first step to complying with Master Plan 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 balancing impacts on residents and resources. The
construction practices of blasting and crushing should be allowed with a conservative technical
approach and liberal amounts of communication with surrounding neighbors.
MountainGate QuanylPark
Discr~tionary Use ZON2004-0006
15
.
.
Attachment "A"
I
MountainGate Quarry/Park Reclamation ZON2004-0006 .
Operation ahd Blasting Plans '
(The ~OllOWing Staff Response to the APPlicaJs Blasting and Operation~ Plans are incorporated in
the determination of compliance with Discretiohary Use Criterion I a of this staff report, ,
Recommended Conditions are also incorporat\x! in Attachment B- MountainGate Quarry/Park
Reclamation - Discretionary Use ZON2004-0006- Recommended Conditions of Approva1.)
. I .. '
APPLICANT'S MINING OPERATIONS PLtN.. .
This plan is submitted to provide details forthe mining activities proposed to reclaim the quarry site
to produce aggregate material for onsite use in 1 manner that minimizes impacts upon nearby
residents.
The mining operation will be temporary, lasting only for the period of time 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 a,pd 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:cir6umstances of this application, which are to create a
reclaimed site to be used specifically for st~rm :water 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 storm 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 aggregate material would be removed from the quarry and
would be placed in other locations on the propbrty for street, utility and residential constrUction.
,
60,000 cubic yards is to be crushed and 40,000 yards of pit run material is to be placed as fill.
'I .
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 perform the blasting nece~sary to fragment all the rock to be removed from the
. quarry within a single condensed tinle peri9d. iThe blasting will be conducted by an experienced
blasting expert according to the recommendations of a blasting consultant. " . .
Most if not all of the crushing is proposed witl the quarry site itself. The site plan shows two '
additionailocations where the crusher might operate to spread stock piles and/or during excavation
of the quarry to create a pit for the crusher. The 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 fmal location. Where this is not Possible the material must be left in place or will be
temporarily stockpiled. The crushing operittioh 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 west and maintain a rock wall between the crusher and dwellings. It
will also allow adequate area to maintain a ro~k 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 the west side as a sound barrier.
Staff Response: The applicant has submitted a blasting plan (Daniel, Explosive Technical Service,
April 20,2004) and noise attenuation opinion (Noxon, PE, March 3, 2004) supporting the general
information presented above and more specifically in Article 24 standards below. The Director, the
Fire Marshall and the City Engineer's representatives 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 quarry and crushing activities.
I
General Finding: As proposed above and in the attached blasting plan, the operations shall
comply with applicable state and federal statutes for the use of explosives, including but not limited
to: CFR29, Part 1926, Subpart U, Oregon OSHA Chapter 17,1910.109 and 1926.900 and OAR
Chapter 437, subdivision U, OAR 480-10 and the NFP A Explosive Code.
" General Finding: As noted above, the proposal is for quarry practices used during a one time
reclamation project at an un-permitted former private quarry site not subject to SDC Article 24-
Quarry Mining Operations regulations or state 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 where relevant for the mitigation of affects on the
site and surrounding property and residents.
General Finding: The total amount of rock to be excavated is determined by: I) final detention
pond design approved by the City, 2) the wetland mitigation plan design approved by OR
DSUUSACOE and 3) the conceptual park designs reviewed by Willamalane Parks and
Recreation"District. The applicant's engineer estimates 100,000 cubic yards offill will be
removed to meet the above design perameters.
General Finding: Pursuant to SDC Articles 27 and 32 and the Engineering Design Standards
Manual, it is the City's policy and intent to track the amount and quality of fill on public and
private properties to provide safe public improvements and future private building sites.
General Finding: Discretionary Use Section 10.040 allows the Hearing Official to attach
reasonable conditions necessary to minimize negative affects on surrounding property and
residents and fully meet criteria of approval contained in Section 10.030.
Conclusion: The above general findings lead to the "conclusion that all certifications, licenses,
bonding, insurance and permits required by applicable state, federal and local requirements for
safe blasting and crushing operations have been or will be acquir~d by the owner/applicants and
all contractors and sub-contractors. The amount of materials to be removed has been generally
quantified and can be tracked on site during the project. The following conditions are applied for
ongoing compliance: "
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. "
Attachment "A"
MountainGate Quarry/Park Reclamation
lON2004-0006
2
.'
.
Condition 2: All consultant, contractor and sub-contractor licenses, certifications, insurance and
bonding infonnation normally required by stat~ and federal requirements for safe quany and
blasting operations must be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the
commencement of the proposed work.. 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 Arti~les 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 Permit (WAP) may be required 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 prbcessed materials, truck routes on site and offsite,
electrical and water source locations, dewateririg and temporary drainage locations and erosion
control measures for operations and stockpile sites. The applicant must also submit required DEQ,
I
DSL and USACOE permits for City review. with the PIP plans and/or the required LDAP permit.
Condition 5: The estimated total amount of Jck extracted during the life of the quarry .
reclamation shall be tracked in industry standfu-d status reports to the City of Springfield under
the LDAP and Discretionary Use files. The q~arried and/or crushed rock's ultimate destination on
site shall be identified to the extent practical.
Condition 6: The applicant shall submit a proposed testing and inspection program of materials
generated by this project along with the inspeciing 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. I.. . ..
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 quany/park site.
SDC 24.050 OPERATION AND RECLAMA:rION STANDARDS.
(Applicant Submittals in italics, Staff FindinJs and Recommended Conditions in Bold.)
.1
(1) Information submitted as part oftpe Reclamation Permit process required in
Section 24.040 of this Article shall be evaluated against the following
standards by the Director:
(a) ill lieu of uniform setbacks for all quarry, and mine extraction
operations:
Attachment "A"
MountainGate Quarry/Park Reclamation
ZON2004-0006
3
.
.
1. Setbacks from adjacent properties shall be sufficient to protect
the normal activities of residences, businesses, industries
recreation and other uses permitted under this Code.
2. Setbacks from adjacent properties shall be a distance sufficierit
to minimize hazards to persons and property resulting from
blasting, slides, slippage, subsidence, ground and surface water
contamination and depletion and other hazards. .
The setbacks from adjacent properties is predetermined by the existing location of the quarry. The
mining proposed will be a temporOlY one-time operation that will not expand the impact
. area. Blasting will be conducted according to methods designed to provide maximum
protection for adjacent properties. Once the rock is removed the quany floor will be
sealed with a clayey soil and vegetated to limit subsurface 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 nearest 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 portion of the detention pond area is
. approximately 120 yards from the nearest house. The future wetland area where stock
piles for screening are proposed is approximately 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 PondlReclamation Plan with
Current Conditions and Proposed Cross Sections.) .
Finding: Sustained noise levels will be higher during crushing than drilling and blasting.
Conclusion: The noise mitigating capability of the setback can be enhanced by
implementing the acoustical engineer's recommendations for screening with stockpiles
(mass). The following condition is recommended toreduce 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 be arranged and controlled so as not to
illuminate adjacent properties and uses permitted under this code.
No night lighting will be needed for the reclamation proposed.
Staff Finding: Concurrence with the submittal.
(c) The hours of operation shall be determined by what is necessary to
protect the surrounding activities from disturbance caused by quarry
and mining extraction operations.
Attachment "A"
MountainGate Quarry/Park Reclamation
ZON2004-0006
4
.
.
Surrounding activities that would be disturbed by the mining operatiollS are the
residential uses occurring within a developmen~ located across Weyerhaeuser Road to the
south and west. In order to reduce the impact upon most residential activities the hours of
operation are proposed to be 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. for crushing and 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. for other
activities. Days of operation for crushing are p~oposed as Monday through Friday,
excluding holidays.
Staff Findings:
Finding: Chapter 5 of the Municipal Code precludes construction noise between 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, truck dump boxes and gates, moving
stockpiled materials, back up signals, air brake~ or compressors and air tools.
. I .
F'd' ThM 'GD' . d' k' d
. In mg: e ountam ate nve constructIOn roa , eqUIpment par mg area an quarry
site are located 40-100 yards away from residerices in Golden Terrace Subdivision and
will be affected by noise generated by "other a6tivities" before the hour of 8 am as
proposed.
Finding: Neighbors have submitted comments citing concerns about noise. To theexteni
practical, operational noise of crushers and other heavy equipment have been mitigated in
this operation plan. The hour between 7 and 810 is a sensitive time period for residential
districts and "other activities" have the potentdl to generate more complaints than
operational noise. No proposal to mitigate this hoise source has been submitted.
. . I . '.
Conclusion: The Hearings Official has the authority under Section 10.040 to adopt
conditions necessary to reduce negative affects: on adjacent property and residents. The
early morning hour of 7-8 is not covered by otlier regulations. Staff recommends the
following condition to mitigate affects of noisel on the adjacent neighbors in accordance
. with SDC 1O.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 operation fJr crushing shall be Monday through
Friday, excluding holidays.
(d) Fencing around the quarry and mining operation shall be required
when it has been determined that the location, type and nature of the
operation poses hazards td the safety of the sUrrounding residents
and public and private prdperty. .
. .. I .
The mining activity will be conducted on private property behind locked gates. No
additional fencing is proposed but pedestrian Jccesses into the site will be blocked.
.Attachment "A"
MountainGate Quany/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 accordance with the blasting plan implemented as a
condition of this approval.
(e) When expansion of an existing operation is in close proximity to
existing or planned uses potentially incompatible with QMO District
uses, or where there is a conflict with any other resource that appears
on an adopted environmental resource inventory, the application of
the QMO District or the expansion of an existing operation may be
limited to a specific portion of a property in order to encourage the
compatibility and proper management of land uses.
This application does not propose the expansion of all existing operation site. There are
no adopted environmental resources that will be impacted by the reclamation of the
quarry.
Staff Finding: Concurrence with the submittal.
(f) All mining spoils shall be disposed of in such a manner that they will
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 conservation district.
" (g) Overburden and topsoil not remove<J from the property shall be
placed and stabilized in a manner that does not create safety hazards
" or nuisances for adjacent properties.
The minor amount of overburden (soil) that may 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 authority at Condition of this report to require
an LOAF for the purposes of tracking materials and reviewing environn1ental affects of
the operation.
(h) Screening shall be required where it is detem1ined necessary to
minimize the"visual impact of the quarry and mining extraction
op.eration on neighboring properties, residences, commercial,
industrial, park and recreational or other land use activities.
.Weyerhaeuser Road is elevated above the residences located to the west and south that
provides a buffer for 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 of the upper ridge crushing site. (See
attached cross sections map.)
Staff Response: As noted at Condition above, the temporary stockpile (earthen berm)
will provide screening for the life of the quarry and crushing activity.
Attachment "A"
MountainGate QuarrylPark Reclamation
ZON2004-0006
6
."
.
.
. (i) Wherever possible, existing trees, shrubs, and other types of
vegetation along road frontages shall be preserved, maintained and.
supplemented. "I .
" I
No vegetation "will be removed along road fi"ontages Jor the mining operation. Once the
quarry is reclaimed new vegetation will be established along the ji'ontage oj theJuture
MountainGate Drive right-of-way as part oJthJ approved wetland mitigation plan.
Staff Finding: Concurrence with the sUbmittalJ
(j) When the quarry and miJ operation includes the use of open shafts
J
or tunnels, the entrance to all shafts and tunnels shall be covered, "
closed off or otherwise pr6tected against entry during non-working
hours.
No open shajis or tunnels will be created"or usqd in the operation proposed.
Staff Finding: C~ncurrence withthe SUbmittal! " .
(2) Reclamation ofland subjected to larry and mining extraction operations is
an ongoing process, which shall occur as phases of the quarry and mine
extraction operation are completed. The application for the Reclamation
Permit specified in Section 24.040,' of this Article shall comply with the
following standards:
(a) General Provisions and Timing. "
. " "" I .' " "
1.' A schedule for reclamation shall defme areas covered by each
phase and the probabl'e timing. .
The phasingJor this reclamation operation is lnticipated as Jollowing:
1) A single phase o/blasting is proposedlthilt. if approval timelines are met, would
occur in late spring or early summer 6J 2004. Site preparation and blilsting
would be completed within a period o~ approximately 4-6 weeks.
2) Phase 2 will be reshaping oj quarry walls and removal oJrockJrom the detention
pond. Depending upon construction approval timelines. this material would be
extracted and be compacted in place J;ithin the subdivisi~n beginning in early
summer 2004. The material may othe7vise be stockpiled to ailow creation' oj the
detention basin as early as possible, preJerably in 2004. .
3) Phase 3 will involve the removal oj rohk and shaping oj the wetland mitigation
site and will basically be a continuati6n oj Phase 2. The site will then be covered"
,
with soil and vegetated. (The DSUUSACOE permits require the wetland site to
be developed by Fall oj 2006). I .
4) The rock crushing operation will occur concun'ent with Phases 2 and 3. 1t is
anticipated that the crushing will be cbmpleted by the end oj 2005 but is desired
Jor completion by the end oj 2004.
.Attachment "A"
MountainGate QuarrylPark Reclamation
ZON2004-0006
7
.
.
.5) Placement and use of the majority of rock is expected to be completed by the end
of2005 (depending upon city approvals and progress of construction.).
Stockpiled materials however will remain on site indefinitely until used in the
subdivision development project. r .
Staff Findings:
Finding: As noted in Discretionary Use findings, the complete reclamation of the 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 grading by the applicant consistent with conceptual park'designs,
. 2) a transfer agreement and final reclamation plan approved by Willamalane
Parks and Recreation Department as suitable for park development,
3) rezoning and re-designation of the LDR site to Public Land and Open Space,
4) discretionary use/site plan approval for the design ofthe neighborhood park.
Finding: The current application and submitted 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 subject 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.
Finding: The applicant's submittal states that the 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 Infonnation 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 factor of error should be used to limit the
affects of the operation and provide a fixed amount 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 fmal grades and park designs after the
initial blasting period subject to the approved plan.
Conclusion: The Hearings Official has the authority under Section 10.040 to adopt
conditions necessary to reduce negative affects on adjacent property and residents. The
broad nature ofthe timelines proposed provide necessary flexibility to coordinate with
Attachment "A"
MountainGate QuarrylPark Reclamation
ZON2004-0006
8
.
.
construction schedules but do not limit overall operations during the 2 years period. Staff
recommends the following condition to limit thb total amount of noise, dust, vibration and
other affects on the adjacent neighbors in accordance with SDC 10.030(1)(a) and 10.040:
Condition 11: Blasting at the quarry site shall Je limited to 35 work ~ys a~d crushing at
the work site shall be limited to 75 work days o~er the 2 year life of the project.
Additional crushing may occur at the two alterriate crushing locations shown on the plan
submitted by the applicant. The City may, at itJ discretion, extend the limitations if
unanticipated are encountered. '
2. Reclanlation operations shall be consistent with the Metro Plan.
010
The reclamation is consistent with the Metro Plan as discussed under the DiscretionQ1Y
Use application.
Staff Finding: Concurrence with the submittal.
3. All structures and buildiTIgs used in conjunction with the
extraction and storing 6f minerals shall be removed following
completion of the ope&tion, unless such strUctures or buildings
are suitable for other p1ermitted uses or as determined by the
Director.
The reclamation proposed does Ilot require the use of structures or buildings.
Staff Finding: Concurrence with the sUbmittal.I'. .
(b) Topsoil and Fill Material.
1. Material used in refilling holes, pits and excavations shall be of a
quality that will not dJ:ompose, contaminate or pollute the .
groundwater or surfacb, or cause subsidence either during the
. operation of the excavhtion or upon termination of the quimy
. ' and mine operations. I .' ....
Any holes. pits or excavatiolls requiringfilling will be filled with qua17Y rock.
. Staff Finding: Concurrence with the sUbmittal.1 '. -
. \
2. All graded or back-filled areas, or banks shall be covered with
topsoil to a depth suffibent to support vegetation and/or other
approved cover adequkte to control soil erosion.
- . . . I .
Both the wetland mitigatioll site and the detellfion basin will have at least Olle foot of
soil placed in the bottom to limit seepage and }upport vegetatioll. Erosion and rull off
is controlled by the storm water collfrol systenl to be installed for the site.
Attachment "A"
MountainGate Quarry/Park Reclamation
lON2004-0006
9
.
.
Staff Findings:
Finding: The storm water detention facilities on the quarry/park site are subject to public
improvement plan approval by the City Engineer in accordance with the SDC and
Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual for design, planting and bio-
filtration functions.
. Finding: Fill and erosion control will be subject to a Land Alteration and Fill Permit at
the discretion of the City Engineer.
Finding: The wetland mitigation areas are subject to the applicant's DSLlUSACOE
permits and plans for supportrng vegetation and must be constructed within 2 years and
maintained for 5 years.
Finding: The proposed grading does not appear to preclude conceptual park designs
reviewed by the applicant and the park district. .
Finding: Subsequent park designs and planting 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 LDR
site to public land and open space, and discretionary .use/site plan approval for the
design of the neighborhood park.
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;
where and by who is subject to the remaining steps of the Master Plan process.
(c) Slopes and Grading. Excavations made to any setback lines shall
meet the following requirements:
1. Where excavations have not been made to water-producing
depth;
a. Slopes that are steeper than that of the immediately'
surrounding area shall be acceptable if they are designed
by an engineer with expertise in the field of rock and
soils mechanics and acceptable to the State Department
of Geology and Mineral Industries. If the slopes are
steeper than I vertical to I 1/2 horizontal, provisions
should be made so that people and wildlife can find safe
egress from the excavation area.
,
With one possible exception maximum slopes have been designed by the project engineer
as J foot vertical to J Yz foot horizontal. Actual designing of the reshaped quarry wall will
occur during the blasting and rock removal process by the developer; the project .
landscape archiiect and Willamalane representatives. The object is to create a variation
in features as allowed by the integrity and type of rock formation encountered in the
removal process. Desirable features include a vertical wall spillway and possible
Attachment "A"
MountainGate QuarrylPark Reclamation
ZON2004-0006
10
.
.
climbing wall that would be fenced from above for safety and benching with variable
heights and widths. Some form of trail system i} also anticipated. The specific design
must be submitted for public input and City app~'oval through a required site plan review
application. J:
Staff Finding: Staff concurs with the submittalis addressing.ofthe slope issue adjacent to
property lines. Staff has offered a condition for a geo-tech certification of the site's .
stability after the proposed work. The final desikn is subject to further Willamalane
involvement consistent with the Master Plan. I
b. The bottom of any excavation shall be graded so that
drainage flow~ into one low area of the-excavation. If
. . drainage fromlthis site is practical, the site shall be
graded to discharge water to existing natural channels.
. The bottom of the detention pond basin is desiJed to meet the City of Springfield
stondardsfol' the storm water system to be co.Jtructedfor the MountainGate
development and is ultimately subject to City approval. The design submitted directs
water to a low flow channel and controlled outlet into the City storm water system and a
natural channel.
Staff Finding: Concurrence with the submittal. The discussed design is shown on Phase
4 public improvement plans under review by the City Engineer. '
. . . 2. Where excavations hat been made to water-bearing strata;
E . I d d'. d'th .
a. . xcaval10ns ma e to a water-pro ucmg ep creatmg
lakes and ponds shall be deep enough to prevent
stagnation and development of an insect-breeding area
or back-fIlled With material that will not impair the
groundwater ~uality.
I
b. All banks shall be sloped at a ratio no steeper than 1
vertical to 2 h6rizontal to a water depth of 3 feet, .
I .
measured from the low water mark, and to 3 feet above
the high watei mark. .'
c. All grading shall be done to establish safe access to and
egress from wkter for persons and wildlife. .
3. Except as providedablve, upon completion of operations, the
condition of the land shall allow sufficient drainage to prevent
water pockets or significant erosion. Natural drainage should be
maintained so as to prJvent hannful effects on neighboring
'property. The rate of lIrainage shall not be increased over what
. it would have been if the site had remained in its original use. .'
Drainage of the reclaimed site is subject to appLval by the City oj Springfield as part of
the storm water system to be constructedfor thi MountainGate development.
Attachment" A"
MountainGate Quany/Park Reclamation
ZON2004-0006
11
.
.
Staff Finding: Concurrence with the submittal.
4. All quany faces, which exceed 45 degrees should be benched.
The bench face ratio shall not exceed I 1/2 vertical to I
horizontal. Benches shall be at least JO- feet wide.
The standard, which otherwise applies to QMO zoned properties, does not apply to this
application. This reclamation is a one time project for the purpose of creating storm
water detention and a usable park/open space feature. As such, the qua,.,)" walls will be
designed to function for use by the public with appropriate safety features, utility and
aesthetic features.
Staff Finding: Concurrence with the submittal.
SDC 24.060 BLASTING STANDARDS.
Operators using explosives for quany 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 property.
(1) When blasting is to be done within 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 not more than six hours nor less than 30
minutes prior to detonation and shall include the approximate time of the
blast. .
(2) Each operator shall maintain a record of each blast for at least two years.
These records shall be available to 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) Name of quany or mine.
(b) Date, time and location of blast.
(c) Description of type of explosives and accessories used.
(d) Time interval of delay in milliseconds.
(e) .' Number of different delays.
(t). Number of holes per delay.
(g) Nominal explosive weight per hole.
Attachment."A"
MountainGate QuanylPark Reclamation
ZON2004-0006
12
.
.
Total explosive weight per delay.
. I .
Total weight of explosives per blast.
Blast hole diameter, deptJ spacing and stemming height.
I
The applicant proposes to submit a blasting plfln prepared by a blasting consultant that
includes the above standards as well as procedures and methods to maintain maximum
safety for this site specific project. Once appr~ved. the blasting plan should be adopted .
as a condition of approval to be met through the reclamation process.
(h)
(i)
G)
Staff Findings:
Finding: The applicant has submitted a blasting plan prepared by a consultant with
decades of experience in the field, Mr. Dick Damel of Explosive Technical Service.
. I .
Finding: Mr. Kris Jeremiah of the fum BJ Equipment is the licensed and bonded blasting
contractor that will implement the blasting plan! in accordance with this decision and all
applicable state and federal regulations as conditioned herein under General Findings and
Conditions., , . I '
Finding: The notification and blasting information required by Section 24.060 is
included in industry standard documenting and reporting and must be forwarded to the
City of Springfield at the end of any week that blasting activity occurs as conditioned
h~rein 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 ,and 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 nrimediate monitoring results.
Finding: The Blasting Plan provides for writteb 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 ,of the blasting area. Hbwever, under the latter standard, it is
, possible that no residences will be located within t.he pre-survey area dependmg on the
location of charges. ,I, ' '
Finding: Due to the direct line of sight, variable 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 ioeated around thJ adjacent cul-de-sac bulbs).
.j
Finding: Springfield Utility Board submitted DRC comments expressing concerns about the
affects of blasting on two million gallon wate~ 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). .
Conclusion: The Hearings Official has the authority under Section 10.040 to adopt
conditions necessary to reduce negative affects on adjacent property and residents. Staff
Attachment "A"
MountainGate QuanylPark Reclamation
ZON2004-0006
13
.
.
recommends that the physical and legal protections of the blasting plans be fully
implemented by extending the pre-blast notice and surveying to nearest affected
neighbors. Staff recommends the following conditions in accordance with SDC
10.030(1 )(a) and 10.040.: '
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 equipment must be immediate read-out
models for monitoring reports.
Condition 14: The City of Springfield will be included in all pre-blast notice procedures.
Condition 15: Upon request, the Springfield Utility Board will be provided a pre-blast
survey and ground monitoring equipment during blasting.
Additional Findings and Conditions
Staff Findings:
Finding: The applicant's blasting contractor has submitted a preliminary Spill Prevention,
. Control and Countermeasure Plan. The plan contains materials to be used on site, protections,
notification and emergency response provisions. (Jeremiah, BJ Equipment, April 15, 2004).
Condition 16: A site specific Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan shall be
submitted for City review and approvaf prior to the commencement of work on site. The
approved plan must be kept on site andbe available for review by City staff upon request.
. Finding: During previous blasting and other on 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 increased activity on the mountain.
. Finding: Rattlesnakes are not an end;mgered species and were not surveyed or included in
. previous inventories of wildlife at the site.
Finding: The applicant has responded to the concerns by employing a wildlife specialist, Mr.
John Applegarth, to survey rattlesnake populations, provide habitat and behavior information 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 historical and anecdotal snake reports a legitimate concern. Staff
finds the applicant's response to the neighbor's 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 accordance with SDC 1O.030(1)(a) and 10.040:
Condition 17: The applicant shall contract with a wildlife expert for ongoing survey and
monitoring of rattlesnake populations and relocation of snakes found on the neighbor's property
during blasting and crushing activities.
Attachment "A"'
MountainGate Quarry/Park. Reclamation
ZON2004-0006
14
.
'[
.
Attachment "B"
. MountainG~te Quarry/Park RecIam~tion - Discretionary Use ZON2004-0006
. Recommended Conditions of Approval
The following is a compilation of the recolmended conditions of approval to the
Hearings Official arising from the review df 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 quany/park site to the construction arbs north of the quarry using the proposed
MountainGate Drive east and north' of the quarly.
Blasting and Operations Plans:
. Condition 1: The submitted Blasting and Ope'iltions 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 thkt activity occurs for review and inclusion in the
City's Discretionary Use file.
Condition 2: All consultant, contractor and subicontractor 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' .
Condition 3: The Cityof Springfield shall be added as an insured party to the owner/applicant or
blasting contractor insurance policy in a mm;met and amount acceptable to the City Attorney.
Condition 4: Pursuant to'SDC Articles 27, 321d the City's intent to track fill on public and
private properties to provide safe public improvbments and private building sites, a Land and
Drainage Alteration Permit (LDAP) may be req~ired at the discretion of the City Engineer to track
public and private flIls in coordination with public inlprovement projects. The permit must include
material specifications and final locations of pr6cessed materials, truck routes 'on site and offsite,
electrical and water source locations, dewatering and temporary drainage locations and erosion
control measures for operations and stockpile sifes. The applicant must also submit required DEQ,
DSL and USACOE permits for City review with the PIP plans and/or the required LDAP permit
Condition 5: The estimated total amount ofroL extracted during the life of the quany
reclamation shall be tracked in industry standatd status reports to the City of Springfield under .
the LDAP and Discretionary Use files. The qu~rried 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 inspecting firm's resume and qualifications for review and
approval by the City Engineer. Inspecting for q\13lity 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.
.
.
Condition 7: The applicant must document the fact that materials used in public improvements
meet and/or exceed the minimum requirements for embankment and fill material in public rights-of-
way in compliance with the City of Springfield Standard Specifications Sections 302, 303, and 305.
Condition 8: The appiicant must submit a geotechnical report for the stability ofthe 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 be 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. for crushing and 8 a.m. to
7 p.m. for other activities. Days of operation for crushing shall be Monday through
Friday, excluding holidays.
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 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 limitations if unanticipated are encountered.
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 equipment must be immediate read-out
models for monitoring reports.
" Condition 14: The City of Springfield will be included in all pre-blast notice procedures.
Condition 15: Upon request, the Springfield Utility Board will be provided a pre-blast
survey and ground monitoring equipment during blasting.
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 equipment must be immediate read-out
models for monitoring reports.
Condition 14: The City of Springfield "will be included in all pre-blast notice procedures.
Condition 15: Upon request, the Springfield Utility Board will be provided a pre-blast'
survey and ground monitoring equipment during blasting.
Condition 16: A site specific Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure 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 available for review by City staff uponrequest.
Condition 17: The applicant shall contract with a wi1dlife expert for ongoing survey and
monitoring of rattlesnake populations and relocation of snakes found on the neighbor's property
during blasting and crushing activities.
. .
.
.
. Attachment "8"
Mo~ntainGate Quarry/Park ReclaJation - Discretionary Use ZON2004-0006
. Recommended C~nditions of Approval .
The following is a compilation of the recoLended 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 Opebtions Plans are adopted as conditioned by the
I
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 statJ 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 mannJr and amount acceptable to the City Attorney.
Condition 4: Pursuant to SDC Articles 27, 32 Ld the City's intent to track fill on p~blic and
private properties to provide safe public impro~ements and private building sites, a Land and
Drainage Alteration Permit (LDAP) may be required at the discretion of the City Engilleer to track
public and private fills in coordination with public improvement projects. The permit must include
material specifications and final locations of pfocessed materials, truck routes on site and offsite,
electrical and water source locations, dewateruig imd temporary drainage locations and erosion
control measures for operations and stockpile dites. The applicant must also submit required DEQ,
I
DSL and USACOE permits for City review with the PIP plans andlor the required LDAP permit.
Condition 5: The estimated total amount ofrLk extracted during the life of the quarry
reclamation shall be tracked in industry standkd status reports to the City of Springfield under .
the LDAP and Discretionary Use files. The q~arried andlor crushed rock's ultimate destination on
site shall be identified to the extent practical.
Condition 6: The applicant shall submit a proposed testing and inspection program of materials
generated by this project along with the inspecting finn's resume and qualifications for review and
approval by the City Engineer. Inspecting for guality 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 requirenlents for embankment and fill material in public rights-of-
way in compliance with the City of Springfield Standard Specifications Sections 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 shall be placed prior to crushing operations in
accordance with the Noxon, PE, March 3, 2004 Memo.
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 operation for crushing shall be Monday through
Friday, excluding holidays. .
Condition l1: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 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 limitations if unanticipated are encountered.
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: Seisntic and noise monitoring equipment must be immediate read-out
~odels for monitoring reports.
Condition 14: The City of Springfield will be included in all pre-blast notice procedures.
Condition 15: Upon request, the Springfield Utility Board will be provided a pre-blast
survey and ground monitoring equipment during blasting.
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 equipment must be immediate read-out
models for monitoring reports.
Condition 14: The City of Springfield will be included in all pre-blast notice procedures.
Condition 15: Upon request, the Springfield Utility Board will be provided a pre-blast
survey and ground monitoring equipment during blasting.
Condition 16: A site specific Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure 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 available for review by City staff upon request.
Condition 17: The applicant shall contract with a wildlife expert for ongoing survey and
monitoring of rattlesnake populations and relocation of snakes found on the neighbor's property
during blasting and crushing activities.
. """"'"........."'.....
.
~....="'""-
-~,.~#
.. r,_.~
-''''''''='''''''''''-
... ~
d
CIJ Q:).....,..
'1:l "'::r
" '" 0
..... S
::l "'''
~. 'CI)
....."':I:
'" .....'"
........."
.~ :::r M'
. ",::r
0....
" "
'" '"
"" '"
g ....
'"
.....
.".
.....
0:>
o
m
i'ii
r-
cn DC')
jj ~-f
Z m-<'
Gl",~O
::!J",cn"TI
mtnmC/)
5~:O"
- ::T:S:O
ocneJ-
:o-im:z
<D cne;)
~ 0"
..... qjffi
..... ~r-
,:0 C
~
m
Z
-i
-~ .~::
.. ,
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
225 5th ST
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
TO:
Vonda Brooks
I
811 S. 57th Street
Springfieid, Oregon 97478
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
, " DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
225 5th ST
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
TO:
Gerald & Darlene Spencer
5996 Lilac Lane
Springfield. Oregon 97478
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD'
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
225 5th S1
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
, TO:
Prudence Heath
827 S. 57th Street
Springfield. Oregon 97478
'~',"
.
.
\ ..,
. .
", ""