HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence Miscellaneous 12/26/2003
l.'.;j,:-
.,
.. "
, .
'-.r
. .
. '. .
'd~L '?~~ C~uncil of Governments
.,
'.-""
)
125 Ensl Eigilil1 AVCIII/e Ellgcne, Orcgnl1 97401 (541) 682- 4283 Fnx: (541) 682- 4099 TDD:(541J 682- 4567
May 13, 1998
, Mr. Greg Mott, Planning Manager
Development Services
. City of Springfield,
. 225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Re: Journal No. 95~2":"39
Dear Mr. Mott:
.. '. ,
Please find the attached Springfield Heai-ings OffiCial decisi~n conditionally' ,
approving the request for Master Plan approval of the MountainGate development
" (lb. No.~95-02-39).
~"
, , Sincerely,
. ",~
~~"",.
Springfield Hearing Official,
"
{Df75p~
;n()7w(?lw ))a~(~/lJS
f!td.;{' d- /tIt ~/~ .
/ 2 -~(;-(!)3
.
.
::-. ~ '"
Jo. No. 95-'02-39
May 13 , 1998
Page 1 of 42
SPRINGFIELD HEARINGS OFFICIAL.
REQUEST FOR MASTER PLAN APPROVAL FOR 333 ACRE SUBDIVISION
(CONTESTED)
. Aoolication Summary
The applicant seeks Master Plan approval for seven years for Mountitii:tGate, a 333 acre residential
subdivision. Submitted with the Master Plan proposal were the following requests: a discretionary
. use to. allow a quarry and mining operation in the Low Density Residential District (Jo: No.
97-05-122); a discretionary use application for two cluster developments (Jo. No. 97-05-123); a
variance to allow reduction in street width for portions of certain streets (Jo. No. 97-05-124); a.
. variance to allow driveways and intersections to exceed grade standards on steep streets (10. No.
97-05-125); a variance to reduce the required street offset standard for one street intersection (Jo.
No. 97-05-126); and a variance to the frontage requirements of SDC 26.050, Table 26-1 (Jo. No.
97-05-127). Following the February4, 1998 hearing on this matter, the applicant withdrew its
. request for a discretionary use to allow aquarry and mining operation.. '. .
A Master Plan is a comprehensive development plan that allows phased development over several
years. Under the umbrella of the Master Plan, the applicant may seek related land use approvals
. such as variances, zone changes or site plan' reviews. The applicant has submitted several related
applications with the Master Plan. Each related discretionary use and variance have been given
separate journal fIles and while they will be treated as free-standing applications they must be
considered as components of this master plan.
. .
Section 37.010(1) provides that Master Plan approval may be effective for up to seven years. All
future phases must conform to. the Master Plan and the development standards in effect at the time
of approval. The Master Plan approved by the City must be specific enough to provide the baSis
for detailed planning and investment by the developer and, importantly, to provide the basis for
evaluation of all subsequent phases of the plan by the City. The Hearings Officer may attach .
. conditions to the approval that are necessary to minimize negative impacts, ensure compliancewith
the criteria of approval, and ensure the Master Plan will provide a sound basis for City evaluation
of future phases. This is' the first Master Plan application reviewed by the City.
A geographically separate portion of Tax Lot 303 abutting South 67th Street was platted as a 19 lot
subdivision called Easthaven (10. No. 94-02-35) in May, 1995. MountainGate Phase 1 (10. No.
94-02-36), a 44 lot subdivision proposal, was submitted concurrently with this Master Plan
application but was withdrawn pending approval of the master plan. .
A preapplication meeting for development of the entire 333 acre site (Journal Number 93-03-48)
was conducted by the Development Review Committee (DRC) on April 13, 1993..The Master Plan.
. application without any variances was submitted to the City on February 22,1995. Two DRC
meetings were conducted and a preliminary report was issued to the applicant requiring revisions to
the applic~tion including any necessary variances prior to submittal to the Hearings Officer in a
public hearing. . . .
The re~ised Master Plan application with variances was submitted to the City on May 16th, 1997.
'. A DRc'meeting.was conducted on July 22nd and additional technical information for the variances
'was required fromth<e.applicant before a staff recommendation could be made to the Hearings
Officer. A public hearing on this request was scheduled for November 18, 1998 but was
,'. p,osmoned, at 'the req~e~t,of the applicant, until February 4, 1998. . .
.. '.~
.
.
Jo. No. 95---D2-39
May!3,1998
Page 2 of 42
Application History
Hearing Date:
February 4, 1998,
(Record Held Open Until March 4, 1998)
Decision Date:
"
May 13, 1998
Appeal Deadline:' June 3, 1998 Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals
Statement of Criteria and Standards
Section 2.020 Springfield Development Code
Section 10.030 Springfield Development Code
, Section l6.020(7)(b) Springfield Development Code'
Section 37.040 Springfield Development Code
Springfield City Council Resolutions 70-45 and 90-31
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan)
Procedural Issues
. '. .'
The applicant has objected to the City's requirements that (1) sewe~s and storm drainage lines must
be sized to accommodate flows anticipated from off-site development and (2) the sanitary sewer'
line, storm drainage line and street improvements be extended for three fifty-foot wide "
, right-of-ways in the southernmost portion of the development. The applicant suggests that the
principals exposed by the Supreme Court in Dolan v. City of Tigardt apply. The Hearing OffiCial,
, agrees and will address these two issues separately. '
. . '. .
, '
,- 0,
1 . ' Oversizin!! of sanitary sewer and storm draina~e lines.
, The need for sanitary sewers and storm drainage within the proposed MountainGate project
, is necessitated by the proposed residential development and attendant impacts from human
habitation and the creation of impervious surfaces. Since the conditions address the impacts
of the proposed development, the "essential nexus" requirement of Nolan2 has been
satisfied.' '
The second question is whether there is a "rough proportionality" between the oversizing of
the sanitary and storm sewer systems and the impacts of the proposed development. This
Hearing Official believes that the required "oversizing" of a public facility cannot, by ,
definition, be found to be roughly proportional to the impacts of the development being
burdened by the exaction. In other words, the term "oversizing" is an admission that a
facility must be designed to accommodate not just the impacts of the proposed development
but also the needs of future development in the area.' ,
1Dolan v. City ofTigard, 512 US 374 (1994)
2Nolan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825, 834 (1987)
, ,
.
.
Jo. No. 95-02-39
May.l3,1998
Page 3 of 42
, ' '
The City cites Clark v. City of Albany3 for the proposition that the rough'proportionality ,
analysis is not restricted to looking at the mitigation of external effects of the development
but also should factor in the benefits to and necessities of the conditions attached to the
development. The Hearings Official agrees but does not fiild this clarification to be helpful
, in the present case. First, theoversizing ofthe sanitary and storm sewer lines exceed the '
,impacts anticipated from the proposed development. Second, the oversizing does not
benefit the proposed development except in the remotest possible way. Rather, it benefits
future development in the area.' ' ,
" '
,Exactions that are not roughly proportional to development impacts are takings that require
"just compensation." In its supplemental materials, the City points to Springfield City
, Council Resolutions 70-45 and 90-31. The former requires the City to pay all excess costs
for sanitary sewers larger than that required to serve a development. The latter requires the'
City to pay for the costs of required stormsewers-that are in excess of the size and depth '
required to serve a subdivision. '
, ' '
, ,
. .. .
The Hearing Official believes that the City has established a legitimate governme~tal interest "
in requiring public facilities to be sized to accommodate likely future impacts. Further, the
constitutional prohibition against a taking without just compensation would not, be
applicable where a city, such as Springfield, integrates a "just compensation" component
, into its development process.
2; , Extension of sanitary sewer line. storm drainage line arid street improve'ments.
, The CitY has argued that certain streets that abut adjacent property be fully improved to City
'" standards fouanitary sewers, storm drainage and streets. The applicant disagrees and
claims that such a requirement represents an unconstitutional taking, pointing out thatthe
impacts from the proposed development do not require this extension. '
As a factual matter, this issue is restricted to the southeastern portion of the proposed'
development and concerns Streets "J"and "K,uwhich dead end on the southern boundary
of the subject property; and Street "L," which dead ends on the southeastern boundary of
the subject property. The applicant objects to the notion that these streets,should have to be
extended and improved with an urban-level of facilities beyond that point which is
necessary to provide access to adjacent lots. In each case, a distance of about 50 linear feet,
, is involved. '
Initially, the requirement of extending the above-listed streets, with a full range of public
'" facilities; represents an issue of whether there is an "essential nexus" between the exaction
and the impacts of the proposed development. While it makes imminent good public policy
sense to ensure that adjacent properties, and eventual development thereon, benefit from
access to an urban level of services, it is insufficient to merely show that these '
improvements will provide essential access to services that benefit adjacent properties.4
3Clark v. City of Albany, 137 Or App 239, 300 (1995)
4Luxembourg Group v. Snohomish County, 887 P.2d 446,448 (1995)
.
.
,
Jo. No. 95-02-39
May 13, 1998
Page 4 of 42
The Hearings Official believes that the City has provided an adequate factual analysis to
demonstrate an essential nexus between the required extension of the streets, improved to
'an urban-level of public facilities,. and the proposed development. Using the Clark case as
a touchstone, the City has correctly argued that an essential nexus may be shown by
identifying bendits toa proposed development as well as by showing the need for
mitigating requirements. The following are some examples as to how the proposed .
.' extension of urban-level facilities to the border of the subject property will provide benefits
to. and mitigation for the proposed development: .
. . The full extension of improved streets and sidewalks will allow residents of the
MountainGate.Subdivision to walklo neighboring developments and utilize '.
services in those areas, such as parks. Lots that are adjacent to t1ie .termination of .
these streets will share advantages such as additional off-site parking and bicycle-
riding areasand.other benefits of being adjacent to portions of improved streets. that .
are not necessary for vehicular access. . .
. . The street extensions will also provide easier access to the commercial and
employment areas in the Mount Vernon Road and the Jasper Road areas and will
. reduce traffic impacts on MountainGate Drive and on the proposed two main access
points at Main Street and .South 58th Street. .. .
These streets will provide necessary secondary access to the development for
police, fire and life safety services. They will also provide emergency egress for
. . residents when other internal accessways are blocked by emergency equipment or
for other reasons. . .
.
.
It is important, for safety reasons, that the water lines loop through adjacent
developments and then back into the MountainGate development. This design
provides redundancy in water pressure for the hydrants serving the development
'. and allows for the continuation of adequate water pressure even if another section
of the line within the 1.1ountainGate development. is damaged. .
The continuation of the storm sewer improvements is important for several reasons. .
First, despite careful design considerations, some storm runoff from impervious
surfaces created by the development will impact the areas impacted by the extension
of the streets. Improved streets, constructed in conjunction with storm sewers, is
the prescribed method to hm;tdle this issue. Second, in the southeastern quadrant of
the proposed development, drainage is generally from the southeast. The
development proposed by the applicant will therefore affect, and be affected by, the
natural drainage on the subject property from adjacent properties. The continuation
of the storm sewer system to the borders of the property will allow the maximum
flexibility in handling theseimpacts.
Full extension of sanitary sewer lines gives those properties adjacent to that
extension provides more flexibility to property owners in determining how homes
will hook up to the system and provides more freedom in the design and placement
of a structure on the affected lots. This factor, in turn, allows for more flexibility in
preserving trees on the affected lots. Also, at least one of the affected lots is a
. .
.
.
.
Jo. No. 95-02-39
. . May 13, 1998
Page 5 of 42
corner 10t.5 The SDC allows residentially zoned corner lots to be occupied with
duplexes and the potential for duplex development increases the importance of
having options for the placement of structures on that lot.
In summary, the extension of sanitary sewer lines, storm drainage lines and street
improvements will provide necessary benefits to the proposed development and, iri some
cases, address impacts from that development. City policy thereafter requires that the City
shall pay for the portion of those improvement costs associated with the required sizing of
these improvements which exceeds that which is roughly proportional to the needs and '.
impacts of the proposed development. .
Facts Relied Unon(Findings)
.1. . The property subject to this application, hereinafter referred to'as the "subject property," is
located west of South 67th Street, south of Main Street, and east of South 58th Street. It
can also be described as Tax Lot 303 on Lane County Assessor's Map #18-02-03..
The land area to be developed is 333 acres within the unincorporated area of the City's
urban growth boundary. The subject property is located adjacent to but outside of the
Springfield City Limits. The Metro Plan designation of the property is Low Density
'Residential and the zoning is Low Density Residentia1lUrban Fringe 10 Overlay District. .
_ (LDRlUFIO) within the Hillside Development Overlay District (lID). The surrounding
zoning is LDR and the land uses are single farnilyresidentialon the east, west and north
and undeveloped low density residential land on the south. The parcel is relatively steep
. where more that 40% of the land area has slopes in excess of 15%.'11\e site is mostly. .
. wooded with a mixture of firs, hardwoods, shrubs, and a dense understory. herbaceous
layer of wildflowers andgroundcovers with grasses in the open meadows. There are no .
. current agricultural, housing or recreational uses on the subject property. The subjeci .
property contains an abandoned rock quariy forwhich there is no land use approval for
.. operation. .
The proposal, termed "Mountain Gate" by the applicant, can be described as a multiphase,
low density residential subdivision containing approximately 804. dwelling units. The .
developed land would consume 240 acres of the 333 acre site. About 214 acres of the
developable land would be devoted to single farnilylots that would range in size from'
7,000 square feet to over ont; acre. The remainder, about 24.6 acres,would be divided into
two residential clusters that would have a maximum density of 10 dwelling units per acre
although an actual average density of seven dwelling units per acre is anticipated.
The remaining 93 acres would be dedicated to the public for school, park and open space
use and'wetland preservation. Most of the mature conifer forest of the site would be
included in a 62 acre park and a 22 acre park. The surface waterways flowing off the hill
would be retained as open space corridors conneCting the upper "Mountain Park" with the
lower "West Park". Detention ponds would be created to control the rate of stormwater run
off. These waterway corridors and ponds would be open space features maintained for
stormwater detention and conveyance. .
2.
<UM,"
5The lot located at the southeastern quadrant of the intersection of Street "K" and Street
.
.
Io. No. 95--02-39
May 13, 1998
Page 6 of 42
The small wetland at the toe of the hill near South 63rd Street and Main Street is proposed
for some filling to create the main entrance'road to the site. Compensatory mitigation
through wetland enhancement and creation is proposed to offset the loss of wetlands due to
the fill. A tree protection plan for individual residential lots would become part of the
conditions, convents and restrictions (CC&R' s) that would be recorded with each
,subdivision phase.
The initial proposal proposed that the quarry site would be mined to extract and crush rock
, for construction ofroads on site. The mining was to follow a plan to convert the quarry to a
,public open space and soil excavated for street construction was to be used to cover the
quarry slopes to provide a planting medium for trees and grasses; The applicant, in a
February 18, 1998 submission, withdrew this aspect of the Master Plan. The applicant
now intends to perform all reshaping and earth work on the former quarry site by
conventional grading methods.
, 3. The applicani intends to phase development of the proposed subdivision and has developed
a phasing plan (Progression of Development Plan) that graphically displays the intended
direction of development. The first phase will consist of 48 lots and is identified on the
Conceptual Master Plan. It will be the first area accessed when traveling south on
" ,MountainGate Drive. Subsequent phases will consist of about 50 to 75 lots each, their size
being dictated by market demand and finanCial considerations. The two residential clusters
will probably constitute separate phases but may include other lots as well.
J . .
, Each phase will be contiguous to an existing phase or will be the first phase adjacent to' an
" entrance 'to MouritainGate. In general, the phases will be done in a such a way as to provide
an orderly build oufofthe roadway system, following MountainGate, Drive around the
west side of the Mountain Park to ultimately provide a connection to South 58th Street,
Developmentwill then progress eastwardly to connect with South 67th Street. The area in
the southeast portion of the site will probably be the last developed.
No lots will be platted south of Line "A" on the phasing plan unless a written commitment
and financial assurance has been given to the City by the applicant that MountainGate Drive
will be constructed to South 58th Street prior to platting any lots beyond Line "B," or
within five years. Open space areas, will be included within one of the earliest phases which
provide reasonable access to ,the area, adequate parking and other necessary facilities.
4. Water will be supplied toMountainGate by the Springfield Utility Board (SUB). The
connecting source location will be near the intersection of South 67th Street and Olacier
Street where an existing 16",diameter main line extends norih from existing reservoirs near
the southeast corner of MountainGate. Most of the proposed MountainGate lots will have
an elevation between 670 and 870 mean sea level (MSL) and can be served with water
without special facilities. Lots in the southwest and along the north edge are below
elevations of 670 MSL and will need pressure reduction. Some lots in the southeast are
higher than 870 MSL and will require the installation of a pump station at the Southeast
reservoir to provide adequate supply and pressures for each of these higher lots until a
future reservoir is constructed,
The fully developed mainline distribution system will be installed along the principal street
system looping the mountain. Smaller lines will be branched or looped from the mainline
.
.
Jo. No. 95--02-39
May 13, 1998
Page 7 of 42
and will generally be constructed in the new street right-of-way or abutting utility
easements. .
5. The MountainGate sanitary system will provide for at least three future connections to the
undeveloped properties to the east and south of the project. All service for the project will
be by gravity flow with possible exception of about eight lots located uphill of the future
. Dogwood connector street. A private pump station will be constructed at the east end of the
. private drive off Dogwood Street if there is no gravity service available to these lots at the
time they are developed. An evaluation of the City's sanitary sewer system verified that the
Main Street trunk line and the larger system downstream has orwiJI have adequate capacity
. as MountainGate develops over the next 20 years. .
With the exception of infiltration/inflowquantity, the proposed.development has been .
. evaluated on the basis of the flow rate base data utilized by the 1980 Sanitary Sewer Master.
Plan for the City of Springfield. On the recommendation ofthe City staff, the '..
infiltration/inflow quantity was assumed to be 1,000 GI'AD. The Sanitary Sewer Master
. .. Plan contained a recommendation that the Main Street Trunk Sewer be replaced and
. extended and recently a 12" diameter stub was extended southward at the proposed ..
. MountainGate Drive entrance. .
:--:....
. Whenever feasible, sanitary mains will be placed within streets, but due to steep slopes
away from some streets, some back lot service is anticipated. In these cases, manholes will
be plac~deither within flag lot driveways and/or have access easements leading to them.
from the public street right-of-way. These easements will have restrictions on structures
and fences so that access can be maintained. .
Concrete pipe anchors will be provided to protect against pipe movement in steep slope
areas. Horizontal and vertical curves in pipe alignment will be utilized to provide for
. gradual changes in direction of high velocity flow as well as to lessen necessary trench
depths. Other special construction methods and materials will be considered as specific
construction plans dictate to alleviate possible problems with flow velocity, energy.
dissipation, turbulence and pipe movement.
The master plan for sanitary service to MountainGateincludes connecting to the City's.
existing system at South 67th Street (three connection points), the MountainGate Drive
. stub at Main Street, and the South 58th Street stub to site. .
a. .Most of the existing sewer sys.tem in the south hills area from South 67th Street
east is on relatively steep grades resulting in no capacity problems in the hillside
area: At the base of the south hills, just north of Aster Street, and wet of South 67th
Street, an 8" diameter sanitary sewer line runs east-west and that carries all of the
sewagefrom both South 67th Street and South 68th Place. It is adequate to serve
the existing and undeveloped areas in the service area. The pipe will be at 51
percent capacity at full development of the South 67th Street and South 68th Place
service area. The impact of MountainGate and the abutting 18 lot subdivision will
increase the flow to about 65 percent capacity. .
b. There are currently no connections to the recently installed 12" diameter stub at
Main Street and MountainGate Drive. At full development of the portion of the
'.
.
.
Jo. No. 95-02-39.
May 13, 1998
PageS of 42
. MountainGate serviced by the MountainGate Drive stub effhient from 274 dwelling
units will be routedto this stub.
c. . There is an 8" stub to MountainGate at South 58th Street. The system travels
through various lengths and',diameters of pipe as it travels to the. Main Street sewer
. main. The controlling section of the. pipe was found to a 10" line that runs along
54th Street. This section of the pipe is on a relatively flat slope and the service area
is about 140 acres. At full development of this service area, the pipe is calculated to .
flow at 45 percent of capacity. The impact of MountainGate (414 dwelling units)
and the undeveloped area to the south.(30 acres/I 50 dwelling units) would increase'
the flow in the 10" pipe to 81 pe~centof capacity.
. .
Appendix F of the MasterPlan depicts sewers located along back lot lines. Back lot line
sewers are highly discouraged by the City because they are largely inaccessible to City
maintenance crews, their installation causes removal of many trees as well as damage to
remaining'vegetation;and sewer line cover requirements (5 feet of soil over the line) often
cause changes to grades that affect surface drainage. The City has recommended that sewer .
lines be relocated to streets in all phases, particularly along Streets "A", "C", "L", and Ivy.
. The relocation of these lines can be accommodated during development and review of
'. construction plans for the various phases of the development construction. In the rare imd
. unique circumstance where the sewer must be located outside of the street right-of-way,
then restrictions will need to be placed on the construction of fences, installation of
landscaping, and other private improvements to make sure that adequate access is
maintained for maintenance. Sewers located on back lot lines will require certain
restrictions within the CC&R's for fences and landscaping to allow maintenance. acceSs.
6.. . The Springfield Utility Board will supply electric service to MountainGate. The utility has
. overhead electrical primary facilities that border the site along the southwest, south and
north. Underground electrical primary facilities are located along South 67th Street.
. On-site electrical lines will be installed underground within street-right-of-way or public
utility easements. . .
. .
- '. .' . - . ,
. .
7. The applicant conducted a soils and geology report which was used to develop the storm
drainage plan, The report concluded that the surface watercourses on the north side of the
. ". site were obscure and Jollowed small drainageways and gullies without incised channels.
. . Drainageways on the south side of the hill were channeled into natural gullies and old
.Iogging roads. The report states that stormwater runoff is seasonal and the soils relatively
impermeable. Several springs were identified. The use of retention and detention methods
. shall be effective in maintaining pre~development stormwater runoff rates in the
post-development period. The storm drainage system will provide for future connections to
. adjoining properties. All stormwater outfalls will be into the City's drainage system except
for drainage in the southwest portion of the site which flows into an existing stream. The
plan depicts detention! sedimentation basins at all major outfalls. Wherever feasible the
storm drain lines will be placed in the street right-<Jf-way but back lot line storm lines will
also be provided. Special construction methods will be employed to protect the storm lines
on steep slopes.
The Conceptual Storm Water Plan for the MountainGate project (Appendix G to the Master
Plan for MountainGate, Revised Spring 1997) states an intention to employ Best
.
.
. Jo. No. 95-02-39
May 13, 199&
Page 9 of 42
. . .
. .' .
Management Practices (BMP) "given the conditions encountered on the site and the specific' .
goals of the project (water quality, wildlife habitat, open space and recreational use)." The. .
Plan states that the recommendations resulting from the evaluation of the project by the City
. via Journal Number 93-03-4& (preapplication review) have been incorporated in the storm .
drainage plan to the greatest extent practicable. Some of these BMPs include thefollowing:
a. All natural surface watercourses shall be retained as open conveyance channels to
the largest extent practicable. . .
b. The post..:..aevelopment rate of drainage flow from the site into the City's
conveyance system should be the same as pre-ilevelopment flows.
c. Sediment basins and detention basins may be requiredal'key locations.
d. There shall be no.net impact on the hydrology of the wetland system at the base of
the north slope property.
e. The use of natural systems shall be required for storm water conveyance and . .
infIltration to minimize loading and to maintain the existing hydrology of the City's
storm water system.
f. . Cut-off drains on the downside of all lots and ~phill sideof all streets shall be .
required throughout the development. .
The applicant intends to incorporate open-channel systems of conveyance for stormwater
management. These will occur mostly in lower elevation areas of the project, at or near the
locations of existing drainageways resulting from previous logging activities. All.surface
watercourses will have shallow rock fill and will be re-vegetated with appropriate plant
. . materials to reduce erosion and dissipate energy. Small check dams and weirs will be
incorporated into the design and construction of larger channels which will enhance the '.
control. of the site' srunoff flows and water quality. Retention. and detention structures and
conveyance systems will be incorporated into the construction 'of the project as deemed
practicable. All storm drainage will outfall directly into the City. of Springfield's drainage
system with the exception of the southern drainage way that outfalls to an existing stream
channel. This.outfall will have a detention basin system prior to discharge to maintain
existing peak flow after development of the project. There are also four lots at the end of
the private drive, off Dogwood Street, that do no.! drain to an existing outfall and these lots
will not be developed until a public storm drain system is extended to them or a drainage
easement has been acquired from the downstream property owners.
. The northern drainage area of MountainGate will also drain to a detention basin prior to .
discharge to the.City's existing 36:-inch storm sewer in Aster Street. The detention will be
located at the bottom of the hillside adjacent to the MountainGate Drive/Aster Street
intersection. An adjustable flow splitter will divert vety low flows into the adjacent wetland
in order to maintain the hydrology of the system.
The applicant intends to place the MountainGate storm drain system within the public
right-of-way but some back lot and through lot routing is anticipated due to steep slopes
away from some streets. In these cases, manholes will be placed either within flag lot. .
.
.
Jo. No. 95-02-39
May13,1998
Page 10 of 42
driveways and/or have access easements leading to them from the public street
right-of-way. '
There is inadequate capacity in the existing storm sewer system io accommodate the storm
, drainage flows from the MountainGate development unless post-development rates of
runoff are detained/retained to equal pre-development rates of flow. The on-site storm
sewer improvements are inadequate, unless conditioned, to accommodate the proposed
, "development. The conditions below must be integrated into the conceptual storm sewer
" plan to meet this criterion of approval. '
Storm water quality concerns as required by Section 32.J10(4}ofthe Development Code
must be addressed, either through the design of the proposed detention ponds or through
other best management practices. In Springfield, the maintenance of water quality or
,detention ponds which serve a single development has been made the responsibility oithe
'developer or.property owners of the development. Adequate agreements for maintenance
of the ponds must be developed as part ,of the phased development.
8. ' Drainage on the north slope of the MountainGate project occurs in "poorly developed
, drainageways or gullies with no established channels". On the south side of the site are two
'drainageways that have developed and maintained channels flowing from the main and east
saddles through the draw in the southwest portion of the site. The downslope of water is
controlled by the location of dozer roads that were the result of past logging practices. The
sites surface watercourses were largely formed by cultural practices and not through natural
processes.
. , ,
. .'
There.appears to be little infiltration of stormwater into the soil due to its low permeability
(high runoff coefficient). There are several very low flow springs that occur at the margins
of the hill at the head of shallow draws. These springs are dry during summer months.
Erosion potential of the subject property is low to moderate due to the relatively high
, densities and stiff consistencies of the plastic soil materials. Erosion potential is heightened
, in areas of soils that are of a silty sand structure with inherent low cohesion characteristics
when exposed during excavation. Sitespecific'erosidncontrol plans'will be developed for
each project phase. At a minimum, sedimentation fencing and other containment facilities
will be used during construction, and exposed areas of soil will bere-seeded after
earthwork processes are completed. Long term control of sediment loading of stormwater
will be incorporated into the project's system dfopen conveyance channels and structures
through small-scale sedimentation facilities. '
9.
The applicant proposes that all streets within MountainGate have a fifty (50) foot wide
right-of-way (60 foot is preferred for local streets but 50 feet is the required minimum)
with the exception of all Dogwood Street and MountainGate Drive from Main Street south
to the.west edge of the school/park site. Dogwood Street andMountainGate Drive, where
noted, are considered to be collector streets and will have a 60 foot wide right-of-way (70
foot is standard for a collector). This request is subject to a variance request - Jo. No.
97-05-124.
, The applicant also requests reductions in the standards for paving widths along
, MountainGate Drive, between Aster and Dogwood Streets, due to the extremely steep
.
.
Jo. No. 95~02-39
May J3, 1998
Page 11 of42
. natural slope 'of these areas and'the lack of homes along these segments. The reduction is
from the required 36 feet width for collector streets to a 28 foot width~ This request is
'subject t6 a variance request - Jo. No. 97--05-124.
. '. .
, ,
The remainder-of. the local streets will be built to a 28 foot width with'parking restricted on
one side, with the exception of a portion of Street 'C' in the Northeast quadrant of the site
that is proposed to be' 20 feet wide with no parking oh the street. All homes in the area
where a 20 foot street width is proposed will have a two car garage with space for parking
of two additional cars in the drive. " ,
A third deviation from the street standards of theSDC is to allow streets with grades of
greater than fifteen percent for distances,longer than 200 feet and to allow a maximum street
grade of20percent. This variance (lo. No. 97-05-125) is only being requested for certain
streets within the Southeast quadrant of the project site and is intended to prevent excessive
cuts. Homes constructed on lots accessed by these streets will, unless waived by the City;
required by CC&Rs to install interior residential fire sprinkler systems.
, , Finally, the'applicant proposes to allow driveway intersectlons.onsireets with grades over
"12 percent and to allow offset intersections between streets A ilnd B and streets D and F
along Mou'ntainGate Drive. The latter request is subject to a variance request ~ Jo. No.
97-05-126.
The project's pedestrian system consists of curb-side sidewalk located on one side only of
all streets. Generally, this sidewalk will be located on the downhill side of the street which
will increase the ability to maintain the travel way of the road on cut with the parking and
sidewalk over flll. Ten foot wide walkway connections between lots will be provided at
, key areas such as.between 'C' and 'K' streets, between 'K' and 'N' and'short cutting' the
hairpin tuin in Street 'D'
10. , The applicant has submitted a Transportation ImpactStudy, which was supplemented after
. discussions between the applicant's traffic consultant, City staff and Oregon Department of
Transportation (ODOY) staff. Supplemental information provided by the applicant included
a signal progression analysis along Main Street, from 58th Street to 69th Street. The
alternative selected as most likely to satisfy all parties, known as Alternative lIlB, calls for
., ", the applicant to provide future traffic signals on Main Street'at'MountainGate Drive. This
alternative, which provides for the connection of Dogwood Street between MountainGate
Drive and South 67th Street, would comply with ODOT's lI2-mile signal spacing"
requirements and would adequately plan for the long term future growth in the areas of '
Springfield to the east within the UGB. It would provide good access to the MountainGate
project without requiring out-of-direction travel and provides the most pedestrian
protection by furnishing two crossing of Main Street (at MountainGate Drive and at 69th
Street). Finally, this alternative is the least costly to the City as the applicilnt owns all of the
land necessary to create MountainGate Drive and is willing to pay all of the cost to signalize
MountainGate Drive.
11. An archaeological reconnaissance was conducted on the subject property in 1985, This.
reconnaissance generally located the likely boundaries of a Historical Resource Site known
as 35LA657. This study, which utilized surface and subsurface reconnaissance, identified
two concentrations of cultural material that appear to meet the criterion for archaeological'
.
.
Jo. No. 95-02-39
May 13, 1998
. Page 12 of 42
. significance. The locations of this material were mapped in relation to the proposed layout
of the project.
12. The City's wetland inventory6 has identifiedtwo wetland areas on the subject property..
These sites are annotated as Plot C-56, which is located in the extreme northwest comer of
the property, and a portion of Plot M-35, located on the south side of Main Street and east
. of Aster Street. The applicant commissioned a wetland delineation report for the latter site.?
Thirty-three soils test pits were established to determine the boundary of the wetland. It
. was determined that the wetland was about .07 acres in size. The study concluded that the
wetland had alow value for wildlife and critical'habitat, and filtration but some value for
stormwater retention.
, The access to the proposed development will require fill that will remove most of wetland
M-35. It is likely thala nation-'wide filllremoval permit couId be obtained for the site
because it was less thiml acre in size, although compensatory mitigation might be
required. The applicant has proposed that the remaining wetland be enhanced and enlarged
. ,to .2 acres. The hydrology of the wetland will be maintained by an adjustable flow splitter
device installed in the outfall from the' proposed stormwater management facility,located
, just to the south of the wetland, The Oregon Division of State Lands and the Army Corps
of Engineers have jurisdiction over the wetlands. '
13. , Persistent groundwater flows in hillside areas of Springfield are significant cause of
degradation and'instability of street structures. Collection of groundwater floy,s and
discharge to curb weep holes results in persistent flow on the street surface with
unpredictable flow rates. The City, anticipates that there will be persistent flows throughout
the development. " ,
Surface water flows which originate or flow through one private'lot and flow onto another
private lot are a significant source of complaints and problems in hillside areas. These
problems can be minimized if each lot has a discharge point to the public drainage system.
, "
The City commissioned a hillside pavement study in 1994.8 ThiST~port, conducted by
, Dames & Moore of Portland, Oregon, examined two study areas in southeast Springfield
for distress to residential pavement. Study Area 1 addressed all paved municipal streets
bounded by Main Street, South 67th Street, South 79th Street, and the southern terminus
of South 68th Place. Having studied the report, the Hearings Official concludes the
following: '
BCity of Springfield Comprehensive Wetland Inventory (July 1992)
lWetland Study of the Mountain Gate Subdivision. McKenzie Hwy. Springfield, Lane
, County, Wetland Specialties, Inc. (October 10, 1995)
. sPhase 1 - Existing Distress Features. HillsidePavement Distress Study. Springfield.
'Oregon for City of Spi-ingfield, Dames & Moore (September 12, 1994) .
.
.
Jo. No. 95-02-39
May 13, 1998
Page 13 of 42
a. Complex groundwater conditions exist in the area of the subject property and are"
caused by the fractured nature of rock deposits and the presence of '
lower-permeable soil layers. Rainfall infiltrating the ground surface encounters
rock fractures that act as large channels for water flow. Since soil layers retard
vertical flow down to the regional water table, a significant amount of water flows
parallel:to the slope face in relatively large channels; Abrupt changes in topography,
including development cuts" may allow the flowing channel to form a spring.
b. Pavemynt distress is a hazard in areas of complex groundwater conditions and steep
slopes. Symptomatic of pavement distress is pavement surface erosion, surface
ravelling, linear, cracks, arching cracks, random cracking, curb separations 'and
poor drainage. The most common cause for pavement distress are uncontrolled
'surface water flow but fill settlement from slope instability and/or soft subgfade
soils, insufficient maintenance and deficient design can also lead to thisconditiori. '
" ,
c. Springs can be created through the excavation into a natural slope with near-surface
groundwater, lowering the ground surface below the normal groundwater surface.
Minor excavations 'such as the leveling of building pads or road beds can create
spring conditions.
d. The complex geologic structure of the subject property makes prediCting spring
locations' and sources very difficult. Within developed areas, the control of spring
water from one or a few well-Defined sources can be accomplished on a '
site-specific basis. However, spring flow withiri developing hillside areas is '
, ,difficult and may not be' effective if treated on a: site-specific basis because of the
transient and unpredictable nature of groundwater movement in the area.
e. Surface water can be controlled by:
, '
. .' - . "" . '.
(1) , Curb outlets in areas with persistent or problematic flow be prohibited 'and
drain outlet pipes be connected directly to a storm sewer.
(2) French dralns be used to intercept near-surface seepage along a line or
curve, such as the edge of pavement. The drain should connect with a
, ,suitable dispo~al facility such as a storm sewer or surface stream.
(3) Area drains be used to dispose of surface water that has collected or that has
been directed through surface grading to a localized area. Spring water may
,have to be collected in a combination drain, which incorporates elements of
both a French and area drain.
(4) Seepage collection blankets may be installed over springs and persistently
wet areas. '
f. Fill settlement problems often are the result of insufficient fill composition and/or
compaction.
.
.
Jo. No. 95-02-39
May 13, 1998
Pagel40f42
. .' .
14. Consistent with Oregon Administrative Rule 660-16-005(2), the City conducted an ESEE
(Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy) analysis of the subject property.9 Quoting
the City's 1980 Natural Resource Study with favor, the ESEE analysis found that the
:MountainGate development was located within a an area (Thurston Hills) that serves both
as a visual focal point and a scenic attraction. Particularly, the proposed development lies .
within the western-most part of the Thurston South Hills, which is one of the niost .
prominent visual attractions in Springfield. The ESEE analysis noted that "The forested .
. ridgelines can be seen from most points on the valley floor particularly from Main Street, .
. north Thurston area, Jasper Road area and from Kelly Butte." The most significant scenic
features of the proposed development area are represented by 1) the upper-most ridge
extending in a northwest to southeast line and 2) the top of the fIrst terrace above the valley
floor (generally the northern boundary of the site). The scenic values of the "Potato Hill"
. portion of the subject property were recognized in Springfield City Council Resolution
" 84-15.'
The document stated that the scenic resource represented by the large stand of Douglas fir
trees on the butte and on the western slope of the site would be protected through
dedication for park use but noted that the development should specify scenic protection of
the treeline along the lower ridge paralleling Main Street to preserve the scenic view from
that traveled roadway. . , , .
. . '. .
The ESEE analysis also recommended that resource areas outside of the development area
(as shown on the MountainGate MaSter Plan Executive Summary) be designated by the
. City of Springfield as Park and Open Space on the Metro Plan Diagram and be rezoned by
. . . the applicant to PublicLandand Open Space. The. areas outside of the development area
include Mountain Park, West Park, Quarry Park, the identified wetlands (that are not
, impacted by the access road), waterways and archeological site ~5AL657.
". . . . . .
The Executive Summary Map of the ESEE analysis shows archeological Site 35LA657 as
open space and indicates a pedestrian pathway connecting Mountain Park and West Park.
The ESEE analysis concludes that development should avoid Site 35LA657 altogether and
recommends that designating the area as park and open space as.one,method of protecting
the site. (See pages 22 and 25 of the ESEE analysis.) The Recommended Actions section
of the ESEE analysis states that developmentdescribed in the MountainGate Master Plan
should be allowed .....exceptasdepicted on the Executive Summary Map:.."
15. As addressed.in the "Procedural Issues" section of this decision, the extension of an .
urban-level of public facilities, including streets, water, sanitary sewer and storni sewer, to
the southeastern borders of the subject property benefits the proposed development in the
following manner: .'
. a. The full extension of improved streets and sidewalks will allow residents of the
MountainGate Subdivision to walk to neighboring developments and utilize
services in those areas, such as parks. The street extensions will also provide easier
pedestrian and future vehicular access to the commercial and employment areas in
9Goal 5 ESEE Analysis for Mountaingate, City of Springfield (May 29; 1995)
.
.
Jo. No. 95-02-39
May 13,1998.
Pagel5 of 42
the Mount Vernon Road and the Jasper Road areas and will reduce traffic impacts'
on MountainGate Drive and on the proposed two main access points at Main Street
and South 58th Street. .
. ....
b. . Lots that are adjacent to the termination of exiended streets will share advantages .
such as"additional off-site parking and bicycle riding areas and other benefits of
being adjacent to portions of improved streets that are notnecessary for vehicular
. access.
. ....
. . . - - . ~.
. c. . The extended streets will provide necessary secondary. access to the development .
for police, fire and life safety services. They will also provide emergency egress for
residents when other internal accessways are blocked by emergency equipment or
for other reasons~
d . The extension of water lines to the border of the subject property is important for
reasons of public safety. The design of water lines that loop through adjacent
developments and then back into the MountainGate development provides
redundancy: in water pressure for the hydrants serving the development and allows
for the continuation of adequate water pressure even if another section of the line
within the MountainGate developmentis damaged,
e. . The continuation of the storm sewer system to the boundaries of the subject
. property is necessary to handle storm runoff from impervious surfaces created by
. . the development that will impact the areas adjacent to the extended streets and to'
. address the situation where development proposed by the applicant will affect,and
. be affected by, natural drainage on the subject property fromadjac~nt properties
. .'-.
. .
. . .
f. The full extension of sanitary sewer lines gives to property owners with lots
adjacent to that extension more flexibility in determining how homes will hook up
to the system and provides for more freedom in the design and placement of a .
structure on the' affected lots..This factor, in turn, allows for more options for
preserving trees on the affected lots and in designing around the topographic
. constraints ofthe subject property. This flexibility is especially important to comer
'. lots which are allowed to contain duplex development. .
Decision
THE REQUEST (Jo. No. 95~02-39) FOR MASTER PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE
MOUNTAlNGATE SUBDMSION IS CONDITIONALLY APPROVED. PRIOR TO
SUBMITTING ANY DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS PURSUANT TO THE APPROVED
MASTER PLAN, THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE A REVISED CONCEPTUAL MASTER
. PLAN INCORPORATING THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OFTIDS DECISION:
Water
1 . . All new water system facilities and modifications to water system facilities both inside and
adjacent to the proposed development shall be placed in the street right-of-:-way at a location
and depth of bury that meets the standards of SUB. Where street right-of-way width is
inadequate to accorrimddate the facilities, then the applicant must provide public utility
.
.
Jo. No. 95-02-39
May 13, 1998
Page 16 of 42 .
easements abutting the right-<>f-way.. . .
Sanitary Sewer
. .
" .'
. ~ . .
2. Construction of sanitary and stom sewers must be done in a logical phasing sequence
that corresponds to the phasing of development. The sewers shall be planned and sized
. . and extended to the east and south boundaries of the development to serve future .
development areas in a logical and convenient manner..
". .
3 . Detailed plans for streets, sanitary, and storrnsysterns must be submitted with each.
phase of development which include existing.andproposed contours.of.the site to .
enable an adequate review of the location and routing of these systemS.
4. . The project construction engineering team shall include a geotechnical engineering fInn
. which will be required to have a representative on-site to observe all trenching,','
excavation, cut and fIll operations during the development of the project.
5 Sewer design shall comply with the SpringfIeld Development Code Section No. 32.100
and any other special provisions for hillside developmen.t that are approved and
required by the City Engineer. . . .'
6. . The Master Plan drawing shows sewers located along back lot lines. Unless otherwise
approved, on a case-by-case basis, and at the sole discretion of the City Engineer, all
publicly maintained sewer facilities must be located within street rights-of-way, or in
easements immediately adjacent to the right-of-way, or in paved driveway or private
street areas. The conceptual sanitary sewer plan may include provisions for connecting'
. up to 4 lots on private, shared, laterals in easements to eliminate the need for back yard
. 'sewers.These private sewers would require joint use, joint maintenance recorded .
agreements for the affected properties. In the event any public sanitary sewer manholes
or mains are approved to be located in side-yard or rear-yard easements to connect to a .
downhill street, restrictions must be placed on these properties to prevent the
construction of fences, landscaping, and otheiprivateimprovementsto ensure that
adequate access is maintained for syste~ maintenance.
7. . Sarutary sewers areto be extended to thebOlmdaries of the development area in order to. .
allow flexibility in determining how homes will hook up to the system and to provide
more freedom in tree preservation and other considerations affected by the design and
placement of structures on the affected lots. Sewers internal to the site must be sized to
accommodate any flows that may be anticipated in the future from off-site development
areas. The oversizing of the sanitary sewer system to provide for off-site development
shall be pursuant to the existing City reimbursement policy.
. 8.. Prior to or concurrent with the submittal of Phase 1, the developer must provide
mapping of the boundaries of internal and adjacent sewer basins, an analysis of the
sewer tributary areas, both on-site and off-site, and the site system capacity to ensure
that adequate capacity and appropriate connection points are provided. Construction of
sanitary sewers must be done in a logical sequence that corresponds to the phasing of
the development. .
.
.
Jo. No. 95-02-39
May 13, 1998
Page 17 of 42
9. Temporary public sewer pump stations will not be allowed since gravity sewer service
is available to this site. If the applicant antiCipates the use of temporary stations, then
. this issue must be addressed at the time of submittal of Phase 1 in the context of the
project phasing plan. The pump station at the east end of the Private Drive in the
. northeast quadrant of the development will not be accepted as a public facility. .
10. Sewer design for each phase shall address specific problems and special design .
considerations for steep hillside development such as flow velocity, energy dissipation,
turbulence in manholes and bends and restraints on pipe movement.
. 11. Trench drainage measures, or other approved methods of handling flow 'of. water in
trench backfill, must be incorporated into all trench sections with -slopes exceeding. I 0
percent and elsewhere when required by the City Engineer. .
12. Curved sewers may be considered on a case-by-casebasis, with approval at the sole
discretion of the City Engineer. Any curved sewers must be designed with a curve
radius of not less than 150 percent of the manufacturer's recommended minimum
radius for the given pipe size and material. Combination horizontal and vertical curves
between manholes will not be permitted. All curved sewers must include tracer wires
. . . wrapping the pipes and marking tape in the trench. . .
Storm Drainage
13.' . Storm drainage design shall comply with the Springfield Development Code Section
No. 32.110 and any other special provisions for hillside development that are approved
. and required by the City Engineer. . .
.14. : The storm sewer system shall be constructed in a manner that provides a storm sewer
lateral to every lot for conveyance of roof drains, building foundation drains, and
private property surface and underground drainage. These storm laterals shall not be
permitted to drain to the gutter. .
15. '. All publicly maintained drainage facilities must be located within street rights-of-way,
or in easements immediately adjacent to the right-of-way, or paved driveways or private
. streets unless otherwise appr()ved, on a case-by-case basis, and at the sole discretion of
the City Engineer. . . . . .
16. Drainage lines must be extended to the easterly and southerly project boundaries to
. handle storm runofffrom impervious surfaces created by the development and to
address proposed development on the subject property that would affect, and be
. affected by, the natural drainage on the subject property from adjacent properties.
Storm drains internal to the site must be sized to accommodate any flows that may be
. anticipated in the future from off-site development areas. The oversizing of the storm
sewer system to provide for off-site development shall be pursuant to the existing City
reimbursement policy.' .
17. For each phase of development the developer must provide an analysis of the drainage
tributary areas, both on-site and off-site, and the site system capacity to ensure that
.
.
10. No. 95-02-39
May 13, 1998
Page 18 of 42
adequate capacity is. provided.,
Storm drain design for each phase shall address potential problems and special design
considerations for steep hillside development such as flow velocity, energy dissipation,
turbulence in manholes and bends and restraints on pipe movement. .
Trench drainage measures, or acceptable alternatives to control water flow in trench
backfill, must be incorporated into all trench sections with slopes exceeding 10 percent
.or as required by the City Engineer. . .
20.. Curved storm drains must be considered on a phase basis,with.approval.at the sole
. discretion of the City Engineer. Any curved storm drains must be designed with a curve'
radius of notless than ISO percent of the manufacturer's recommendedntinirnum .
radius for the given pipesize;and.material. Combination horizontal and vertical curves .
between manholes will not be permitted. All storm drains must include tracer wires and .
"e. marking tape in the trench... . .... . .
21.... Design o~ the sto~ drainage,., system must be done so t~at no net.. ch~ge in volume or
. . . flow rate IS expenenced III aI1Y of the wetlands on or adjacent to the site. . .
. . - . ,
. . I ", . '" . '. . .
22. The project shall incorporate ,the standard drawings for development of hillside areas
.... recommended in Appendix A the Hillside Pavement Distress Study, 1994, by Dames &
Moore (please see Attachment I), deviations from these requirements may be
considered on a case-by-case:basis, at the sole discretion of the City Engineer, during
the development of each phase.
18.
19.
23. During the design of each phase of the project, the developer shall provide
. . catchbasin-sizing calculations to show that adequate inlet capacity is provided to capture
an of the water flowing in the street. Catchbasin design shall include the following
considerations: length of run on the street; velocity of flow in gutter bar; volume of.
flow in gutter bar; curb openjngs with depressed gutter bars up-slope of catchbasins;
. .. and the control of flow past c'atchbasins.
24. For each phase, the City Engineer shall review and approve drainage methods.
25. . Driveway curb cuts arid appr?aches shall be designed to preyent water flowingin the
gutter from entering private Iiroperties with emphasis on the outside of curves on steep
down slopes. .
26. The maintenance of water quality or detention ponds which serve a single development
are the responsibility of the developer or property owners of the development. Prior to
. approval of the first subdivision tentative plat forany phase of the development, the
developer and the City shall enter into an agreement specifYing responsibilities for the
long-term access and maintenance of the storm drainage detention and water quality
ponds. .'
27. All proposed or required detention ponds must include water quality measures or water
quality Best Management Practices must be incorporated into the overall design of the .
.
.
Jo. No. 95--02-39
May!3,1998
Page 19 of 42
master storrnwater system sufficiently to comply with Section 32.110(4) as determined
by the City Engineer. . '
28. Prior to or concurrent with development of any phase south of Line "A" on Exhibit 2"
Appendix E, the applicant shall provide detailed plans for the detention ponds
proposed at the, "School/Park" site.
29. ' , Prior to or concurrent with the development application for any phase north of Line "A"
on Exhibit 2, Appendix E, the applicant shall provide detailed plans for the detention
pond and wetland mitigation near Ast~r Street and MountainGate Drive.
30. For all publicly maintained ponds, maintenance' vehicle access must be provided around"
the entire perimeter of each pond. For publicly maintained ,open drainage channels,
,'access paths, a minimum of7 feet wide, must be provided along at least one,side of
. ,every channel. Access must also be provided and guaranteed for all storm drain'
, manholes located outside of a street right-of-way. '
31. 'Discharge of stormwater from public facilities onto private property is expressly' ,
prohibited and aU lots tributary to such storm drains will be restricted from development
until a connection to a public system is provided.
32. The design engineer shall incorporate drainage benches, private storm drain systems,'
and other features as may be recolJlll1ended by the project geotechnical engineer and '
, " approved by the City Engineer, at the top of all cut slopes, and along the exposed face
, of all cut and fill slopes to reduce the potential of erosion on these slopes., .
Transportation
33. The following design modifications shall be made:
, '.
, , '
, '
, a. A variance request must be submitted for K; M and I 'Streets and any other
location where the maximum length of a culcde-sac(deadend street), excluding
the bulb, exceeds 400 feet.
b. The length of a temporary dead end local street (due to phasing sequence)
cannot exceed 1000 'feet. Local dead end streets in excess of City standards
shall not be allowed without a financial guarantee (bond) that the street will be
completed through to another outlet point within three years. The temporary'
dead end street will always provide appropriate turnarounds for emergency
vehicles. .
c. Temporary dead end streets in excess of City standards will be providedwith a
temporary, secondary emergency vehicle access until the completion of the
street provides a permanent secondary access., .
d. Temporary dead end collector streets requirements are addressed in the "
evaluation of development phasing. '
.
.
Jo. No. 95-02-39
May13, 1998
Page 20 of 42
34. The vacation and Closure of the South 63rd Street access to Main Street shall be iriitiated
by the City when Aster Street is completed between South 58th Street and .
MountainGate Drive or when 'the traffic signal at the MountainGate Drive/Main Street is
installed. The physical closure of South 63rd shall be completed by the applicant as a
related improvement to the signal installation.
,.
. .
35. The'applicant must secure an access permit for access Of MouniainGate Drive to
Highway 126 (Main Street) fiom the Oregon Department of Transportation prior to the
Final Plat for Phase 1 of MountainGate. .
. .36. . Prior to the Finiu Plat for Phase 1, MountainGate Drive (South 64th Street) must be
connected to Aster Street to the west or a performance bond approved by the City must
. be filed with the Finance Department in sufficient amount to ensure the completion of
the improvement. . .
37. The applicant shall provide financial assurance satisfactory to the City for the design
and installation of a traffic signal at MountainGate Drive and Main Street prior to the .
. Final Plat for Phase 1 of MountainGate. The City will reserve the right to require a
Traffic Signal Warrant study at the MountainGate DrivelMain Street intersection prior to
the platting of each phase in traffic zone 1 of the Transportation impact Study, . .
excluding Phase 1; until the warrant is met. The traffic signal will be instalJed when the:"
warrant is met or when required by the ODOT access permit. The City will require the
signal to be designed and installed along with related improvements, including closure
of South 63rd Street. .... . ....
. 38. Fifty foot right-of-way dedications are required to allow future street connection to. .
. :abutting lands along the south boundary of the site. These connections are necessary to
provide efficient access to neighboring amenities, commercial and employment sites
and necessary secondary access to the development for police, fire and life safety
. services. These are depicted on the Master Plan as public right-of-way and must be
. constructed in conjunction with the development of the appropriate phase. The
oversizing of the street system to provide for off-site development shall be pursuant to
the existing City reimbursement policy. . .
39. The Dogwood Streetright-of-:way shall be 60~feet widdrom MountainGate Drive to
the east boundary of the site. The street shall be a standard 36- foot residential design.
40.. The rights-of-way ofIocal streets shall be according to Table SDC Section 32.020
Table 32-1.
41. . Additional off street parking to serve open space recreational areas shall be included site
design of the North Cluster. .
, .
42 Submittal of field measured cross sections showing the proposed street and the existing
. ground elevations is required with each set of the.construction plans.
43.. Details and Typical Cross Sections with slope control measures shall be submitted with
each phase of development. The development application shall also indicate the location
and under what conditions retbining walls will be constructed.
.
.
Jo. No. 95-02-39
,May 13, 1998
Page 21 of 42
, , '
'44. The following design standardslO shall be applied to street grades:
a. ' Maximu!l1 street grades allowed on local streets shall be 18 percent for a
distance not more than 200 feet. ' ," ,
b. Maximum street grades allowed on collector streets shall be 15 percent for a
distance not more than 200 feet. '
c. Maximum street grades through an intersection shall not exceed 15 percent for
local streets and 12 percent on collector 'streets for a distance of 100 feet for all'
approaches. " ' ,
d. Maxiniurri street grades allowed in MountainGate shall not exceed 18 percent., .
, ' '
e. Maximumstreet grades through a driveway shall not exceed 15 percent for local
streets and 12 percent for collector streets."
Groundwater Control
, ' ,
45. General Construction Practices will need to include statements restricting the
,construction of embankments on top of soils with a plastic index greater than 30 and,
, must show construction details for maintaining drainage to eliminate shrink swell
problems evident in adjacent developments. ' , '
46. All persistent flow,conditions, except for the identified open water component of the
stormwater master plan, shall be directed into the piped storm system.
. ,,' .
47. The develop~r shall include longitudinal drainage systems along the uphill side of all
streets constructed' on cut slopes for each phase of the development. These drains shall
discharge to a piped drainage facility, not the street gutter.
48. Each phase of the project shall be designed to intercept and remove. from the street
structural section and subgrade the flows from all known and unknown springs and
watercourses encountered for street construction and lot pad grading, if any performed,
by the developer. Saturation of the street subgrade and building pads must be '
prevented. "
Project Phasing
5.0.
Appendix E of the MountainGate Master Plan is revised to'show Line "A' extended to '
the east to a point extending across Street "C" 400 feet south of Street "K".
No lots shall be platted south of Line "A" along MountainGate Drive without a
financial guarantee that MountainGate Drive will be extended to South 58th Street
within three years;' or South of Line A along Street "C" without financial assurance that
, Street "C" will be completed either to South 58th Street or to the constructed terminus
49
10These standards are the subject of approved variance request Jo. No. 95-05-125
.
.
Io. No. 95-02-39
May 13, 1998
Page 22 of 42 ,
of MountainGate Drive within three years. ,
'I '
,51. ,Appendix E ()f the MountainGate Master Plan is revised to relocate Line "A" to a point
along Street "D" no more than 1;000 feet from the intersection with MountainGate
Drive provided a secondary emergency access is provided, otherwise, 400 feet from the
, intersection. ' .
. .....
. . ., .
52. Secondary accesses to each Rhase of the Master Plan for police and fIre resporise must'
be provided as development progresses along the directions indicated in Appendix E of
the MountainGate Master Plan. '
Protection of Resources
...-......
53. This decision is founded, in part, on the assumption that the provision of adequate park
, and recreation and other services will be adequate to serve the proposed development
, because the resources will be, transferred to public ownership and because they wilIbe
appropriately designated on the Metro Plan Diagram and rezoned accordingly. In regard
to the former expectation, the following shall apply:
a. An agreement between the applicant and the Willamalane Park and Recreation
District for the transfer of Mountain Park and West Park into public ownership ,
shall be executed prior to the p1attin!;\ of the subject property,south of Line ~'A."
b. An agreement between th" "pp1icant "nn th" Wilbm"bnp Pork "od Recreation
District for the transfer of SthoollPark (Quarry Park) into public ownership , ,
shall be executed prior to the pl"tting of the snhj""t property south of the
intersection of MountainGate Drive and Street "C," ..,lso and within this
tiE1c:.l~Ile,_tl1e app)icani ~hall submit to th" Distrirt9 r"cJ~n plan for tlw
'quarry that will demonstrate that e ro 0 habilitation of the quarry will-
resutrllfasite-sUifiiDle for its intended pose; i.e.; a nel 0 0 ar.,
c. ' An easement providing pedestrian and bicycle access between Mountain Park
and West Park shall, be executed prior to the platting, approval of Phase II of the
proposed development.'
54, Open space depicted on the Conceptual Master Plan, page I, Figure 1 of Exhibit 2,
, , including Mountain Park, West Park, park access easements, and archaeological Site
35AL657, excepting the School (quarry) Park, shall be designated Park and Open
Space on the Metro Plan Diagram and classified Public Land and Open Space on the
Springfield Zoning Map. The, Metro Plan amendment shall be initiated, with
concurrence by the applicant, by the City and the WilIamalane Park and Recreation ,
District prior to platting any lots south of Line "A" ,on Exhibit 2, Appendix E of the
" Master Plan. The zone change shall be initiated by the applicant prior to platting any lots
south of Line "A" on Exhibit2, Appendix E of the Master Plan.
, 55. The School Park depicted on:the Conceptual Master Plan, page I, Figure I, of Exhibit
2 shall be designated Park and Open Space' on the Metro Plan Diagram and classifIed
Public Land and Operi Space on the Springfield Zoning Map. The Metro Plan
amendment shall be initiated, with concurrence by the applicant, by the City and the
.
..
Jo. No: 95-02-39
May.B,1998
. Page.23 of 42
Willamalane Park and Recreation District, prior to platting any lots along MountainGate
Drive south of the intersection with Street "C," including the south c1uster.The zone .
change shall be initiated by the applicant prior to platting any lots along MountainGate
Drive south of the intersection with Street"C," including the south cluster.
. .
56. Except for vegetation control and removal necessary to address hazardo~s conditions,.
no trees or understory shall be removed in the planned open space areas depicted on the .
Conceptual Master Plan, page 1, Figure 1 of Exhibit 2, including Mountain Park, West
Park, park access easements, and archaeological Site 35AL657. .
. .57. The "Tree Preservation Plan" of Exhibit 2, MountainGate MasterPlan, shall specify
that remoyal of more than five trees greater than.five inches in diameter may require a.
tree felling permit from the City.
. 58. An urban forester shall be employed to analyze the street design and proposed cutting
plan for the rights of way of each phase and.determine what trees can be retained to
serve as required street trees. The trees shall be depicted on the tentative subdivision
plan and the final construction drawings for the public improvements. Appropriate
measures to protect the. trees during construction shall be specified on the construction
drawings. .
.. ",. . . . .' ,
. , .' .
59. The trees on lots smaller thari 15,000 square shall be considered in aggregate and
building envelopes adjusted accordingly to protect the largest number of trees.
practicable:. . ...
. . .
. . . . . - .
. . .
. .
60. The applicant shall employ a tree or forestry consultant who has had previous
experience with forested hillside construction of a similar scale. The consultant will .
prepare a vegetation/re-vegetation report for the area supporting the treeline along the .
. subject property's lower northern ridge paralleling Main Street.This area shall.include
adja~ent properties with tree species necessary for the preservation of the treeline. The.
report shall include: ... .
a. A description of plant material and condition, pathology (ifany), structural .
problems (if any), corrective measures and methods to improve .
health/condition. .
b: Identification of patches to be retained after assessment of vigor, species, size
and estimated size at maturity, ability to support some forms of disturbance. .
c. Notation of individual specimen trees and their suitability for preservation. .
d. Evaluation of the impacts of constructing the pubic improvements addressing
soil compaction, fill, paving, location of disturbance with respect to remaining
vegetation, excavation methods/trenching, and measures to mitigate the impacts.
e. Stipulate the health of trees intended to be removed and adjacent trees, and .
provide typical protection measures to preserve the adjacent trees arid
understory vegetation during removal.
.
.
Jo. No. 95-02-39'
May 13, 1998
'. Page 24 of 42
. f. Evaluate existing veg~tation conditions on each proposed Jot and assess the least
. impact for p]acementiof buildings, decking and outbuildings. Bui]ding'
envelopes shal] be created pursuant to this analysis.
g: The revegetation plan will identify areas within the report area that can be'
replanted to compensate for .trees that are removed. Rep]acement trees will be a
species'that is suitab]~ to the site and compatible with adjacent uses. '
Characteristics such as ]ongevity, hardiness and wind firmness shall be
considered. The revegetation plan must include a management section detailing
planting methods. .
h. ' ,The report shall identify significant understory .species thatshou]d be protected, :'.
to the greatest extent practicable, throughout the report'area. Invasive .
non-native p]antspecies such as blackberries, ivy and scotchbroom can be'
. removed; .
1. The report shall identify and provide for the retention of trees in sufficiently
. large areas and dense:stands to prevent windthrow. A stand of trees shal]
constitute an area notl]ess than 2,000 square feet. .
. '. .' . II '. '. .. .'" '. ' , '. .
61. To order to provide adequate ,protection of Site 35LA657 and a pedestrian pathway
, connecting Mountain Park with West Park consistent with the ESEE Analysis for
MountainGate, the ConceptuilI Master Plan for the MountainGate development shall be
made consistent with the Executive Summary Map of the ESEE Analysis. . .
. " .. . .
.justification for the D~cision (Conclusion)
Article 37 of the Springfield Deve]~pment Code (SDC) provides that phased development of a
. specific development area over several years can be accomplished through the use of a
comprehensive development plan termed a "Master P]an." Section 37.015 provides that the
Master Plan concept may apply when the development area is under one ownership or where
a1] owners of record have consented in writing to the Master Plan review process and the
: development is over five acres in size. In the present case, the subject property is in excess of
300 acres and all owners have cons\lnted in writing to the Master P]anieview process.
The approval criteria for a Master Plan are found in Section 37.040 of the SDC:
(1) The zoning of the propel'ty is con;istent with the Metro Plan Diagram
and/or applicab]e refinement plan diagram.
The subject property is zoned Low Density Residential (LDR), consistent with its'
designation by the Metro Plan Diagram as Low Density Residential. Proposed uses
. permitted in the LDR zone ar~ detached single family dwellings, duplexes on comer
Jots, attached dwellings within approved c1usterdeveJopments and neighborhood
parks, Cluster development i~ a1]owed subject to discretionary use approval. The
. applicant has requested (Jo. No. 97-05-]23) discretionary use approval for two
clusters of housing: south and north clusters. These clusters would not exceed the
permitted density of ten units per acre within the LDR zone. The Hearings Official has
conditionally approved this request.
.
.
Jo. No. 95-02-39
. May 13, 1998
Page 25 of 42
. The applicant also requested (10. No. 97:..05:"122) discretionary use approval for
reclamation of a rock quarry on the subject property. The request was withdrawn after
the public hearing on this matter.
(2) . The request as conditioned conforms to the applicable Springfield
Development: Code requirements, Metro Plan policies, functional or
refinement plan policies, applicable state statutes and administrative
rules.
. 2.
Conformity with Springfield Development Code Requirements
Conformity with requirements of the SDC will be addressed throughout this decision
where they are applicable to the Master Plan approval. .
Conformity with Metro Plan Policies
The following policy language is relevant to this proposal:
I . The definition of Low Density Residential, found in the Land Use Designations
section of the Plan Diagram Element of the Metro Plan (ll~E-2), is one through
ten units per gross acre. The proposed project, including the two cluster
developments,. is consistent with this definition.
Policy 1 of the Residential Land Use and Housinl! Element of the Metro Plan
(III'-A-4) requires the coordination of new residential developmenrwith the
provision of an adequate level of services and facilities, such as sewers, water,
transportation facilities, schools and parks. There is sufficient information in the' .
record to demonstrate that the applicant has adequately considered the capacity
of the public water and sewer systems in the development of the MountainGate
Master Plan and has coordinated with the respective providers (SUB and the
City of Springfield) of these services. (See Findings of Fact 3 and 4, above.)
While at odds over the particulars of the stomi drainage system at the "lot"
level, the applicant and the City have jointly'discussed a storm drainage .
management plan for the proposed development. Likewise,.theapplicant has . .
coordinated with the c::ity in regard to the. transportation system for the proposed.
project. Differences remain, in regard to certain street widths and slopes, but the
two parties have corresponded at length on this issue. .' .
The applicant has also coordinated closely with staff of the Willamalane Park &
Recreation District concerning the development of park and open space land
. within the proposed development. (See February 18, 1998 letter to the Hearings
Official from Greg Hyde, Willamalane Planning and Development Manager.)
Negotiations. continue in regard to the particulars of the land transfer of
MountainGate Park to the District. Finally, the applicant has coordinated the
. project with Springfield School District 19. The specifics of this coordination
mostly concerned the proposed elementary school site designated on the
MountainGate Master Plan but implicitly notified the District of the magnitude
of the proposed development. (See the January 17, 1998lelterfrom lamon
Kent, Superintendent of School Districtl9, to Mr. Melvyn Mason. This letter is
.
.
Jo. No. 95-02-39
.May 13, 1998
Page 26 of 42
contained in Appendix B of the Revised (Spring 1997) MountainGate Masier .
Plan.) . .'.
.......
Currently, the MountainGate Master Plan proposes that access from the
. southwestern portion of the proposed development be taken through a
. connection from MountainGate Drive, across South 58th, Street, and along 57th
Place to Daisy Street. Opposition has been voiced in regard to alleged adverse
. impacts from this proposal on South 57th Place, primarily from traffic taking a
short-<:ut down Daisy and 57th Place to access MountainGate Drive, on the
Good Neighbor Residential Care Facility and adjacent development. Initial
buildout of the MountainGate project (Year 2000) would have little affect on the
Daisy Street/South 58th Street intersection, primarily because initial
development is expected to occur on the northern border of the subject property.
. (Compare Figures 4 andS of the applicant's Transportation Impact Study.) Full
development of the MountaiilGate project is expected to reduce Eastbound
. traffic at the intersection of Daisy Street and South 58th Street from a level of
service (LOS) of A to C, during morning conditions, and from a LOS D to E
during afternoon conditions. Westbound traffic turning left at this intersection
'would have the afternoon LOS degrade from a C to a D. (Page 37 of the
MountairiGate Transportation Impact Study.) Complicating the issue is.that the
traffic patterns of the entire area are expected to be modified through the.
. construction of the Jasper Extension (58th Connector) of the Eugene-
Springfield Highway (I-IDS), the design of which is being fm~ized by ODOT,
Lane County and the City of Springfield. The objector admits that it is likely
that traffic from the MountainGate southwest access point will be.routed to the'
Jasper Exterision via a route which passes south and west of the Good.
Neighbor facility.
. . ,
The objector&sagrees with the applicant's and City staff's asse~sment'
regarding the amount of traffic likely to utilize the project's southwest access
point. The objector points to the convenience of the new connector and the
attractive "boulevard character" and gradual slope of Mountain Gate Drive as
factors that were not considered in the traffic impact analysis.
The Hearing Official believes that the applicant's proposal is consistent with
Policy 1 of the Residential Land Use and Housing- Element of the Metro Plan in
that the proposed development has been coordinated with the provision of an
. adequate level of transportation service. A traffic impact study has .been
developed and while, under some circumstances at full build-out of the
development, the level of transportation service at the Daisy Street/South 58th.
Street intersection may worsen, it still appears to be "adequate."
3. Policy 4 of the Environmental Resources Element of the Metro Plan (III-C-7)
requires that the local government "...shall require site:-specific soil surveys and
geologic studies where potential problems exist." The applicant has submitted a
geotechnical evaluation for the subject property 11 and the City commissioned a
11Geotechnical Evaluation for MountainGate, Douglas A. Williamson (August 1993)
.
.
Jo. No. 95-D2-39
May 13,1998
Page 27 of 42
study of the geotechnical, hydrogeologic and civil engineering conditions
associated with failed pavement areas between South 67th Street and South 79th
Street, and between South 2nd Street and Quarry Road. 12 The applicability of
these studies is discussed above where conformity with Springfield
Development Code requirements is addressed.
4. Policy 2 of the Environmental Design Element of the Metro Plan (IlI-E-3)
requires the protection of "natural vegetation, natural water features, and
drainagewaysand retained to the lI1axirnum extent practicable, considering the
economic, social, environmental, and energy consequences in the design and .
construction of urban developments..... This criteria is addressed in SDC
37.040(5), below.
, 5.
Policy 3 of the Parks and Recreation Facilities Element of the Metro Plan ' " .
, (III-H-5) mandates the acceleration of the acquisition of park land in projected
growth areas. The MountainGate Master Plan has designated civer 84 acres, '
primarily represented by two areas, Mountain Park and SchoollPark, as sites
for public parks. Negotiations are currently underway between the applicant and
the Willamalane Park and Recreational District and School District 19.
..........
Conformity with Functional or Refinement Plan Polices'
No functional or refinement plans are applicable to the proposed development.
Conformity with Applicable State Statutes and Administrative Rules
, ,
.' . -
. -. .
, '
The Oregon Division of State Lands has jurisdiction over wetlands and would have to
. approve a fill/removal permit for the wetlands located near the north entrance to the
MountainGate Subdivision. The applicant proposes to fIll most of the wetland to
accommodate the northern access to the subdivision. The remaining wetland is targeted
for enhancement and expansion' (to .2 acres).' Additionally, the stormwater retention
value of the wetland is proposed to be maintained thrbugh.the,useofan:adjustable flow
splitter device installed in the outfall of the planned stormwatermanagement facility.
,,(3). Proposed on-site and off-site public and private improvements are
sufficient, to accommodate the proposed phased development and any
'capacity requirements of public facilities plans; and pr'ovisions are ,made
to assure construction of off-site improvements in conjunction with a
schedule of the phasing.
Water - The Master Planindicates thafthe Springfield Utility Board (SJ]1l)will supply
water to the development. Most of the development is in the 3rd level of service
(elevation range 670-870 feet). Some lots in the southwest are below 670 feet and will
require pressure reduction. Some lots in the southeast comer are above 87.0 feet and
12Phase I - Existing Distress Features Hillside Pavement Distress Study, Springfield,
Oregon for City of Springfield, Dames & Moore (September 12, 1994)
.
.
Ja. No.. 95-02-39 .
May 13, 1998
. Page 28 af42
will require a pump statian to.. lift the water until a futUre 4th level af service is
established by SUB.
J
. .
The water suppiy and distributian system described in the Master Plan an page 7, as .
. canditianed, will be sufficient to. serve the develapment. As a.canditian af appraval, all
new water system facilities, and madificatians to. water system facilities bath inside and
adjacent to. the .propased develapment, shall be placed in the street right-of-way at a
lacatian and depth af bury that meets the standards afSUB.. Where street right-of-cway
width is inadequate to. accammadate the facilities, then the applicant must provide
public utility easements abutting the right-of-cway. .
Sanitao. Sewer~The Master Plan states that the flaw rate data used to. establish the
sewer system far the develapment was derived fram the Springfield Sanitary Sewer.
Master Plan, 1980. The MauntainGate sanitary sewer system will pravide far at least
three cannectians to. the undevelaped praperties to. the east and sauth af the
: develapmentarea. Special engineering techniques will be used to. canstruct sewers in
the steep slape areas including harizantal and vertical curves in pipes. The develapment
. will cannect to. the existing public system at Sauth 67th, Main Street and Sauth 58th
. Street. The applicant evaluated the flaw data far the existing pipes and the future flaws .
fram the develapmentand "faundthat there is adequate capacity. in the .public system to. .
. accammadate the. develapment. .
There is adequate capacity in the existing sanitary sewer system to. accammadate the .
sewer flaws from the MauntainGate develapment. The an-site sewer impravements are
sufficient, as.canditianed, to. accammadate.the prapased phase develapment. .
......
. ,. .
. .
. .
, .. .
Appendix F af the Master Plan depitts sewers lacated alang back lat lines~ hawever,
back lat line sewers are to. be. highly discauraged because they are largely inaccessible
. to. City maintenance crews, their installatian causes remaval af many trees as well as .
damage to. remaining vegetatian, and sewer line caver requirements (5 feet af sail aver
the line) aften cause changes to. grades that affect surface drainage. Sewer lines shall be
relacated to. streets in all phases, particularlyalang Streets "A," "C," "L," and Ivy
. Street..This shall be a canditian afMaster PlanapprovaJ.. The Jelocatian afthese lines
can be accammadated during develaprnent.andTeview afcanstructian plans far the.
variaus phases af the develapment canstructian. In the rare and unique circumstance
. where the sewer must be lacated autside af the street right-of-way, then restrictians
will need to. be placed an the canstructian af fences, installatian af landscaping, and
ather private impravements to. make sure that adequate access is maintained fo.r .
: maintenance. Sewers lacated an back lat lines will require certain restrictions within the
CC&R's for fences and landscaping to. allaw.maintenance access.
. Canstructian af sewers in hillside areas.will require special design cansideratians to.
deal with issues af flaw velocity, energy dissipatian, and graundwater which can
.. accumulate and run in trench rock, eroding pipe suppart and flawing to. the surface.
dawnhill sametimes up thraugh street surfaces. Trench drainage addresses this
prablem. .
Curved sewers may be an acceptable salutian to. same design problems ill hillside
areas, but they can alSo. cause problems such as being difficult to lacate .after
.
.
Jo. No. 95"'()2-39
May 13, 1998.
Page29 of 42
. installation. Use of curved sewers needs to be carefully controlled to ensur~ ease of
future maintenance and sewer location.
Electrical Service ..c Electrical service will be provide by the Springfield Utility Board.
Electrical service is available along the borders of the site and' there is adequate capacity
to serve the Mo.untainGate development area. ','," '
, Storm Sewers - The City (City Engineer) and the applicant are at odds regarding the
methodes) that will be utilized to control storm water runoff from development. The
applicant has acknowledged thal.theCity has experienced prior pavement distress in
developed hillside areas from (I) where water collected from drains waS discharged
',into gutters where!t sometimes flowed across the street and (2)where springs along the,
streets were not adequately drained and saturated the pavement'and subgrade. The
applicant argues that prior pavement diS\Iessexperienced in the City (the area around
67th Street, south of Main) was due to development within a basin occupied by
Hazelair soils. The basin collects water and Hazelair soils are unstable, causing ground
" slippage through expansion and contraction. '
, The City has proposed, through recommeJ.ldedconditions of approval, that all streets
on cut slopes be protected by a system of French drains and that concrete street gutters
not be used for the discharge of storm water runoff from development. The City .
Engineer has mandated that all flow from roof and foundation drains and subdrains be '
confined to a piped storm drain system. While there is acknowledgment on the'part of ,
the City Engineer that properly designed and constructed gutters could convey flow
,from drains, this engineering option is not supported by the City due to concerns about
,the accumulation of debris in',gutters and the formation of ice in the gutters during'
periods of freezing weather. The City Engineer also has expressed concerns that the
" complex geologic strUctUre of the subject property makes predicting spring locations
problematic during the course of development given the existing topographicand'soil,
constraints of the subject property.
, '
The applicant points to the soils map submitted by the City Engineer that shows that, '
only about 9 percent of the subject property is occupied by Hazelainoils: The applicant
also cites the April 12, 1995 letter from James Johnson and Douglas Schwarm, Dames
& Moore, to Al Peroutka, Springfield City Engineer, for the proposition that the
impacts of unidentified springs can be 'handled with proper planning and design during
construction. " , ,
The applicant proposes to discharge water from some roof and foundation drains and
subdrains through the curb and into a gutter. The gutter would be designed to capture
and convey the flow to the nearest catch basin so that the water would not flow across
the paved surface of the street.
The applicant has distinguished the proposed development from prior areas of localized
street failure in the following respects:
I. C,C & Rs would require that all homes built would have foundation drains and
the foundation drains would have "wings" that would extend on-site French
drains from side to side to points close to the property lines. Water from these
.
.
10. No. 95-02-39
May 13,1998
Page 30 of 42
drains would either enter directly into the underground storm drain system, if
the storm drain was contiguous to the lot and downhill from it, or, if not, then '
into 'a concrete gutter bar. '
2. All concrete street gutters on the uphili sides of all cross slope streets will be
oversized so as to have the capacity tocarry roof and foundation drain water. '
3. A spring 'Of persistent flow of any substantial volume would be contained, hard
piped and directed into the underground storm system. Water of lesser volume
would be contained, usually through a French drain system, and then hard
piped into the oversized concrete gutter. '
, ,
, "
4~ ,In,all areas where there was a "draw" or hollow uphill of a street consisting of
\' Hazelair soil, then a French 'drain system on the uphill side of the street would
;, be' constructed. All such would be hard piped directly into the underground
, storm system.
5. 'No embankinents will be constructed on top of soils with a plastic index greater
than 30.' "
6. All streets will be crowned so as ,to allow water falling on the street to flow
equally to both gutters, precluding cross street flow.
The City's position on this matter can be ,characterized as being "conservative." qiven
, ,the management practices proposed by the applicant it is likely that most problems from
undefined springs can be addressed during construction, It is also likely that the
concrete street gutters can be sized to accommodate virtually any circumstance. On the
other hand, the City Engineer is correct when he notes that complex geologic structure "
of the subject property could make the prediction of spring locations difficult during the
, course of development. The City will, of course, inherit most problems that present
themselves at a later date., And while the applicant is correct that the accumulation of
debris and the formation of iCe in the gutters.is not related to geotechnical issues, it is a
storm water system-relatedproblem that would become the responsibility of the City.
,De~pite any differences the Hearing Official may have with the flexibility of the City's
approach to storm water run-off, it is clear that the Sections 32.110(1) and 32.110(4)
of the:; SDC gives the benefit of the doubt to the City Engineer:
, "The Approval Authority shall grimt development approval only where
adequate provisions for storm and flood water run-off to the City storm
water drainage system have been inade as determined by the City Engineer. "
"A development shall be required to employ drainage managemeni practices '
approved by the CitY Engineer and consistent with Metro Plan policies that
minimize the amount and rate of sUlface water f1!n-off into receiving
streams. '.'
Outside of situations where a recommendation of the City Engineer has been shown to
be clearly wrong or where the City Engineer has identified more than one acceptable
.
.
Jo. No. 95--02-39
May13,1998
..Page310f42
drainage management practice, the Hearing Official has no discretion. This is as it
should be. .
TransDortation - The Master Plan addresses street design, transportation impact~, and
. off-site public improvements. The text states that the streets will be designed to
. minimize...impacts on natural resources and maintain the visual aesthetics. of the hillside. .
. In order to accomplish that goal the applicant is requesting several variances (reviewed
above under criterion 1). The transportation impact study (TIS) (Exhibit 2, Attachment
B) evaluated the operation and transportation impacts to the following street sections:
. Main Street between 58th and South 67th Streets; South 58th Street between Main
. Street and Dalsy Street; and South 57th Street betWeen Daisy Street and Mount Vernon
Road. The supplemental TIS evaluated.signal progression speeds along Main Street
(State Highway 126) from 58th to 69th Streets. The TIS and supplemental progression
analysis was used to justify a signalized intersection at a futUre 64th Street on the south'
side of Main Street at the entrance to MountainGaie. Dogwood will link MountamGate
Drive to South 67th Street to provide signal access to the existing development east of
MountainGate. The applicant will install a traffic signal at 64th and Main Street when
warranted by a signal analysis. The applicant proposes that a signal analysis shall be
performed when 100 dwelling unit in Zone 1 of the TIS have been occupied and for
. every additional. 1 00 units until the warrant is met. The applicant will design the signal
and relaied intersection improvements when warranted and will complete the signal .
improvements with the next phase that adds lots to Zone 1. Prior to recording any'
further plat in Zone of the TIS, the applicant will post financial assurance for the signal
. improvements.
According to the information provided by the applicailt's consultants the proposed.
'development will generate 6770 trips daily and 702 trips during PM peak hour. Most of
. these trips will use MountainGate.Drive as their access point. .
. TransPlan Project 798 identifies a signed bicycleroute to be included on MountainGate
Drive between Main street and south 58th Street.
.. In general all.the local streets shown on.the plan are proposed to be28 feet wide except
in the northeast quadrant of the proposed development. In the northeast quadrant the
developer.is proposing some streets in exceptionally steep areas to have a width of 20
feet. All of the local streets will be built within 50 foot wide rightcof-ways.The
Development Code allows local streets to be built within 50 ft. of right-of-way.
. .
Considering the topography that exists in this development, 28 feet wide local streets
can be allowed with the condition that parking will be allowed on one side only. The 20
foot wide curb to curb streets with. the sidewalk on one side can only be allowed if
parking bays are provided at a distance .of 200 feet (Maximum), 100 feet (Desirable)
from the comer of each lot. The size and number of bays installed shall be based on one
stall per dwelling unit. This condition is iri accordance with the June 22, 1995, decision'
package and the requirements of SDC Section 32.02 (3) Table 32-1, which requires
approved parking bays for 20 foot wide streets.
.
.
Jo. No. 95-02-39
. May 13, 1998
Page 32 of 42
The developer is proposing to build all the collector streets within 60 ft of ROW. The
SDC standards require 70 feet. Due to the topography that exists in this development,
.collector streets will be allowed to be built within 60 ft of ROW. The minimum width
. of collector streets required by the SDC is 36 feet SDC section 32.020 (3) Table 32-1.
The sections where the applicant is requesting narrow streets are located at the main
access points to this development. Narrowing the street at these locations will create.
safety and operational problems. However, due to the fact that there are some practical
.. difficulties with construction in these areas, the transportation section will allow 32 ft.
wide streets in these areas, with conditions.. .
The SDC Section 32.02(8), requires that maximum grades will.notexceed.lO percent
. on collector and 12 percenton,local streets. These standards are developed to make City
streets safe and accessible not only by residents; but alsomaintenance'and emergency .
vehicles' during all seasons and:weather conditions.
Article 26 of the SDC allows street grades greater than 12 percents for locai streets only
under certain conditions. SDC Section 26.060 is clear that tinder no circumstances shall
street grades exceed 18 percent. It is also clear that some areas of the proposed
subdivision will be verydiffkult to serve without some relaxation of the Development.
Code standards. Staff is supportive of some reduction of grade standards as specified
in the variance request for street grades but retains the ability to manage grades during
the phased development of the site as the ground contours and cross-sections of the
street become more known with detailed survey work. .
Problems with struCtural embankments and [ill slope stability in adjacent developments.
has been a source offailuresof public facilities. Strict control of these operations and
. the removal of flexible subase materials will be required for streets constructed under
these conditions: .
. . .
. . ...
. .
The applicant's phasing and street layout pians for the MountainGate Subdi~ision will
be creating dead end streets having distances longer than 400 feet. SDC section 32.020
. (5) specifies that the maximum length cul-de-sac (dead end streets), excluding the bulb, .
shall be 400 feet. The topography of specific areas of the proposeddevelopmeni may
make it difficult to totally comply with this requirement. Reduction of length of dead
end street's standards to allow. fuller development of the site may be approved in
. specific areas but not where the street can easily be extend through to another outlet
point. Where an identified problem existing during a specific phase of development and
the applicants satisfactorily demonstrate why they can not comply with the SDC, then a
modification or variance application shall accompany the phase development .
application. .
The requirements in the Letter of Understanding between ODOT and City of .
Springfield, dated December 21, 1994 state that South 63rd street and South 59th
Street at Main Street will be closed in exchange for granting access at 64th Street
.(MountainGate Drive). The timing of these closures are not addressed in this letter.
South 63rd street and MountainGate Drive will only be 350 feet apart. ODOT and the
City find that these two public streets are too close to each other and will create safety
and operational problems in the future with the increase in traffic volumes on
MountainGate Drive.
.
.
Jo. No. 95-:02-39
May 13, 1998
, Page 33 of 42
Groundwater Control-The Master Plan intends to integrate the control of groundwater
with future street maintenance and safety needs. A geotechnical report (Attachment C of
the Master Plan) was conducted by an Engineering Geologist, Douglas A. Williamson.
He concluded that the findings of the City's HillsidePavement Distress Study by ,
Dames and Mo()re was inapplicable to the MountainGate site because the soils
evaluated in the study are rarely present at the MountainGate site. The geotechnical
, report stated that there "is no evidence of significant past slope movements" on the
development site. Dwight J. Hardin, a geotechniCal engineer, found that the applicant's
'plan for groundwater control addresses the problems noted in the'Damesand Moore
study. He stated that the roof and foundation drains could be_connected to the gutter'
, ',via weepholes in the curb and uphill interceptor drains for allroadways regardless of '
, field conditions is unnecessary..
The City's Engineering Division's review of the groundwater control plan is based on:
I), the experience of Engineering and Maintenance Division staff in encountering
problems with groundwater in hillside areas in Springfield; 2) documentation of
distress of street structures caused by uncontrolled groundwater in hillside areas noted
, , in the Dames and Moore 1994 report to the City (Attachment I); 3)a review of the
, materials submitted by the applicant; and 4) a letter report by Dames and Moore dated
April 1995, which reviewed the applicant's August 1993 report by Douglas
Williamson. In particular, it has been the experience of Springfield Public Works staff
that groundwater flow patterns inhillside areas are unpredictable. Flow from springs '
, ': and locations of springs can change in response to development disturbance.
Persistent groundwater flows in hillside areas of Springfield are a significant cause of
degradation and instability of street structures. Collection of groundwater flows and
discharge to curb weep holes results in persistent flow on the street surface with
unpredictable flow rates. The City anticipates that there will be persistent flows
throughout the development. '
- . ..
, '
" '
The Daffies and Moore April 1995 letter report- provides the opinionthilt spring flow
within the MountainGate area will occur through near surface flow in fractured rock
material and that the potential for spring flows from cuts into fractured rock exists
," throughout the MountainGate area. The report states that it seems overly optimistic to
rely on a thin layer of clayey overburden soil to limit the amount of infiltration into the
ground when grading associated with development could remove or disturb a
significant portion of those soils. Significant spring discharges have been found in
areas of Dixonville soil in other hillside 'areas in Springfield. Dixonville soil covers a
significant portion of the MountainGate area. Dixonville andPhilomath soils are almost
, identical in all properties except in regard to perched water according to the City's '
Engineering Division.
The proposed Master Plan states that sub-drainage provisions will be provided on an
as-needed basis to control groundwater flow from known springs and watercourses.
The City has found that this approach is unacceptable. The City's concern with springs
under the pavement does not arise from open-jointed pipe but rather from where the
springs are caused by cuts into fractured rock structures that contain groundwater. As
such, the location of some springs cannot be determined until construction of the
.
.
. Jo. No. 95-02-39
May 13, 1998
. Page 34 of 42
project and sometimes not until after development is completed. The Hearing Official
has concluded earlier in this decision that the SPC vests the City Engineer with the
authority to determine which management practices are acceptable in the management of
storm water and other water-related conditions that might be affected by and affect
development. In response to this conclusion, the applicant points to SDC 37.040(3),
. which requires, in part, that public and private improvements: .....are sufficient to
accommodate ihe proposed phased development and any capacity requirements of
public facilities plans..." The applicant argues that proposed storm water drainage
. system is consistent with standard engineering specifications used by the City and that
the standard specifications do not specify a particular type of system. The applicant.
further argues that the City Engineer has not found.theapplicanC sproposed storm .
water drainage system to be an insufficient mechanism for the treatment of storm water
drainage. . .
. The City Engineer has determined,' and the Hearings Official has concurred, that the
geology and topography of the subject property creates complex groundwater
conditions. These conditions make, in some cases, the prediction of spring locations . .
very difficult. The City Engineer has recognized that the applicant's proposed storm
. '.. ,water. drainage system is'a method that is normally sufficient to handle storm water.
. The City Engineer has also recognized that a more rigorous drainage system may be .
employed on those site specific occasions where springs are located during' .
construction. What the City Engineer isconcemed about, however, are those cases'
where the springs are not identified and the subsequent movement of water through the
. ground may damage the structures on the property, the slope of the property and .
.' possibly the street and public utilities. The City Engineer therefore has recommended
. that a lateral storm. water drainage system be installed to address the unknown potential
for undetected springs. The City Engineer has identified the type of system that will
best address this issue and the Hearings Official believes that Sections 32.110(1) and
32.110(4) give the City Engineer that discretion. .
. .
. .
The applicant has also made an el~quent plea for the utilization of concrete gutters for
the transportation of contained water directed from roof. and foundation drains. The
'applicanthas concluded that denying the use .of gutter,bars would require, an, additional
14,000 feet of 10 inch diameter storm sewer mains andim additional 13,500 feet 0[6
inch diameter storm sewer laterals at a cost of $901 ,250. .The City has not contradicted
this estimate. It appears that the City Engineer's main concern about the gutter system
. 'is the potential for accumulation of ice and debris, which results in greater street
maintenance costs, a possible hazard to safety, and an accelerated degradation of the
street surface. Absent an City-generated estimate of how to quantify these financial
impacts of these factors, the applicant has "guesstimated" a decrease in anticipated
street life of 20 percent and has calculated that this would represent an increase of
$8,000 in the annual cost o[street resurfacing within the subdivision. The applicant has
offered to set up a street repair endowment fund to pay this incremental expense in lieu
. of spending the $900,000 for the extensive underground storm sewer system proposed
by the City.
It appears to the Hearings Official that there is a ieasonable opportunity for compromise
regarding the use of gutter bars as an alternative to the use of an underground storm
drainage system. The difficulty, of course, is that neither side knows the actual
.
.
Jo. No. 95-02-39
May13,1998
. Page 35 of 42'
negative impact on the .streets from the use of the gutter bars. The applicant believes
that there will be virtually no problems from a liberally-sized system of gutter bars but
has posited a "worst case scenario" for purposes of negotiation. The City believes that .
there will be negative impacts to the streets from the use of gutter bars but is hesitant to
guess the magnitude of these impacts because of the many unknowns involved in such
an equation. It therefore has not moved from its position nor has it been able to
quantify its concerns on this issue.
. In .a quasi-judicial decision-making process, the applicant carries the burden of proof.
. In the present instance, there is speculation but little information in the record regarding.
the impact of gutter bars, even prbperlysized ones, on the street erosion: Sections
32.110(1) and 32.110(4) of the SDC give the City. Engineer wide discretion in the
detennination of adequacy of systems designed to controI.storm. and flood water.
run'-Off. Despite the arguments of the applicant, the Hearings Official believes that he
must defer evidentiary judgment oil this technical issue to the City Engineer. ..
(4) The request provides adequate guidance for the design and coordination
of future phases.
The proposed phasing is described in detail on page 6 of the Master Plan. The applicant
states that phasing will begin at Main Street and 64th Street and, in general, the
remaining phases will follow MountainGate Drive around the west side of Mountain
. Park to ultimately provide a connection to South 58th Street. The development will then
progress eastward to connect with South 67th at Ivy Street. No lots are proposed to be
. platted south of Line "A" on the map in Appendix Runless financial assurance has.
been provide to the City for the construction of Mountain Gate Drive to South 58th .
Street prior to platting any lots beyond Line "E", or within five years. The proposed
platting south of Line "A" triggers a bond or letter of credit for completion of the street,
and platting south. of Line "E" can not occur unless the street is constructed. The
applicaj1t states that the dedication of the open space will occur within one of the earlier
phases which provides reasonable access to the park sites and adequate parking.
The applicant has not specifically defined the timing of development phasing and public
. improvements, particularly related to the proposed progression of development as it
. corresponds to the orderly build-out of the street; sanitary and storm systems
" . .
The. applicant is proposing to pl~t lots on the north side of line "A," as shown on the
plan titled "Progression of Development Plan for MountainGate Residential
Development" dated Sprmg 1997 (Appendix E of the Master Plan), without full
build-out of MountainGate Drive to South 58th. The plan proposes to. plat lots between
line "A" and Line "B:' with a written commitment and fmancial assurance to fully build
MountainGate Drive to South 58th before platting any lots beyond line "B" or within
five years. The proposal doesn't iriclude the plating of lots on the east side of the
. development along "C" Street south of the intersection with "K" Street.
. Safety dicta.tes that secondMy a~cesses to each phase of the Master Plan for police and
fire response must be provided as development progresses along the directions
indicated in Appendix E of the Master Plan. A gravel road access from South 58th is a
temporary solution to allow early develop)1lent without incurring the expense of
.
.
Jo. No. 95-02-39
May 13, 1998
Page 36 of 42
completing the primary street network. The primary street network must be completed
at the earliest phase practicable. "
The terminus of Street "D" at Line "A" on Appendix E of the MaSter Plan is
approximately 1,600 feet from the intersection with MountainGate Drive. This is an
unacceptable length for a dead end street when the standard is 400 feet (SDC Section
32.20(5)). .
(5) Inventoried natural resources, wetlands; open space areas, archaeologic
and" historic features are evaluated and considered consistent with the
Oregon Administrative Rule procedure for.8tatewide" Planning ,Goal 5.
The site had been inventoried in the Metro Natural Resources Speci"al Study: as an
important Goal 5 natural resource for upland habitatiwaterquality, aild scenic values
" (Site 08, Draft Natural Resource Functional Plan, 1992, Map 1). As required by Policy
36 of the Metro Plan (ill-C-ll), and Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660- I 2,
implementing Statewide Planning Goal 5, the City and applicant have conducted an
economic, social, environmental and energy analysis (ESEE) of the site. In summary,
the ESEE concluded that the development shall be allowed and that the natural
resources shall be protected. The City-Council made a "predetermination" of the level of
" protection for this site in Resolution 84- I 5 when they made a finding that:
" "implementation of the proposed plan (logging the site) would substantially reduce
development opportunities offered by the natural amenities of the site."[emphasis
added] "
Natural Resources
1. Tree Preservation:
Applicant's Proposal - The applicant has prepared a Tree Preservation Plan that
is to be included in Convents, Conditions and Restrictions (C,C&R's) recorded"
with the plat and will encumber each lot in the development. The Plan provides
that the cutting of significant trees within the development must be pursuant to
the "C,C &Rs." The developer anticipates clearing trees for the construction of
public improvements or as necessary to proceed with the development, facilitate
marketing and the removal of diseased or hazardous trees. Building envelopes,
required by SDC Section 26.070(5), will be recorded for' each lot as part of the
.
.
lo. No. 95-02-39
May 13, 1998
Page 37 of 42
"C,C&Rs." All trees, including significant trees, having a trunk diaineter of 14
inches dbh or larger, may be cut within the envelope to facilitate construction of'
buildings and improvements. Outside the envelope, restrictions apply and the
lot owner must seek the approval of the Architectural Review Board for
permission to remove a significant tree. Penalties are provided for violations.
Springfield Urban Forest Advisorv Committee (UFAC) Review - The UFAC
ha~ reviewed, the Master Plan provisions for tree protection and has provided
'comments. This committee reconirhends that lot sizes be larger, building,
footprints (envelopes)'be smaller to reduce excavation and tree removal or
, darmige, and other design principles be employed,toachievecontinuous tree
coverage and retention of groves and patches of trees. The UF AC finds that the '
provisions and definitions of the "Tree' Preservation Plan" in the MountainGate
C,C&R's do not provide an adequate level of protection and will ultimateiy
result in the removal of most of the trees outside of the planned open space
. areas. An urban forester should be required to evaluate the site conditions of the,
forest before construction begins on and public or private improvements. The
, forester would create a tree conservation plan based on significant tree stands,
individual specimen trees and health, vitality and ability to withstand
. development stress. Clearing underbrush and,thickets as proposed in the Master
Plan can damage the overstory trees and initiate an unhealthy forest condition.
The opinion of the Urban Forest Advisory Committee is that building ~n steep
wooded'slopes requires an increase in lot size. It is difficult to retain patches of
trees on lots smaller than 15,000 square feet. The trees on lots smaller than '
15,000 square should be considered in aggregate and building envelops '
, adjusted accordingly to protect the largest number of trees practiCable. "
. Springfield Staff Review - !tis the position of the City that the applicant's Tree
Preservation Plan only represents a generalized approach to the protection of
trees on the subject property and that the tree felling standards of Article 38 of
the SDC are applicable during the subdivisionapproval.oftheMountainGate
~~ ' , . . '
Heari~g- Official Analvsis -Iris tbeopinionof the Hearing Official that the key,
to resolving the difference in opinion between the applicant and the City lies in
the language of SDC 38.010(1) that states: "Significant tree removal is
permitted only when specific development plans have been approved by the .
City,..." (emphasis mine) Master plan approval does not, by itself, allow '
significant tree removal 'because it is a long range planing tool and not a specific
'development plan. Specific development plan approval provides that level of
consent necessary to secure a building permit. .
Thus, the applicant has the option, during each phase of the MountainGate
, Subdivision approval process, of obtaining approval from the City, pursuant to
Article 38.010(2), of a building envelope and a tree protection plan for each lot.
Areas and/or lots not subject to such approval will require a tree cutting permit
for the removal of more than 5 trees of 8" dbh or larger (annually). It is
important to note that the installation of streets 'and sewers are exempt from the
.
.
10. No. 95-02-39
May 13, 1998
. Page 38 of 42
provisions' of Article 38 only after the rights."of-ways or easements for these
improvements have been accepted by the City. Presumably, tree protection
. considerations may be incorporated into this approval process,
Back lot line sanitary sewers and storm water facilities cause the removal of
many significant trees on wooded lots. If allowed in combination with tree
removaJ for streets, driveways and dwellings, which impact the front lot line,
most of the trees on anyone lot are removed. This situation is contrary to Metro
Plan Policy 18 (III-C-9) and the provisions of the SDCSection 38.040.
Additionally, the ESEE Analysis stated "the development should specify scenic
protection' of the treeline along the lower ridge paralleling Main :Street to preserve
.' the scenic view from that very. traveledroadway,"-Back lot line sewers are
. . shown in this area. Back lot line sewers should be prohibited except where.
other alternatives arenot.practicable. . .
Existing tr~es ~ithinthe.publi~ right-of-way but outside oIthe.area of public
improvements, and trees within 10 feet of the right--of -way, can be retained.
and counted as required street trees. An urban forester should be employed to
. analyze the street design and proposed cutting plan for the rights of way of each
. . phase and to determine what trees can be retained to serve as required str~et
. trees. . .'
". . . '.
. .
The City and the applicant are ~t odds over the last minute addition of the City's'
proposed Conditions of Approval #7 - #10 associated with compliance with
Section 37.040(5) of the SDC. These conditions were a response to a belated,
but thoughtful, review of the applicant's Tree Preservation Plan by the City's
Urban Forest Advisory Committee (UFAC). .
At the heart of the issue is a fundamental disagreement about the appropriate
. approval criteria. The applicant states that Conditions of Approval #7 - #10 .
must be authorized by the Springfield Development Code. This statement is
correct, as far as it goes. Unfortunately, the applicant diverges from this correct
line of reasoning with the argument that theapplicable-.standard 'are constrained.
to the City's Tree Felling Standards of Chapter 39 oftheSDC. In regard to the
"approval of a master plan, however, the 'primarystandardthat is applicable to
tree preservation is.Section 37.040(5) of the SDC, a standard that incorporates
the Oregon Adminisli"ative Rule procedure for Statewide Planning Goal 5 as it'
applies to the evaluation and consideration of natural resources. This is a sword
that cuts both ways.
. The City's 1995 Goal 5 ESEE Analysis for Mountaingate is therefore the
touchstone for any determination as to whether the MountainGate Master Plan
complies with Section 37.040(5) of the SDC. The ESEE analysis stated that the
scenic resource represented by the large stand of Douglas fir trees on the butte
. and on the western slope of the site would be protected through dedication for
park use. The Hearirig Official largely agrees to this statement although this
decision will "nail down" the parameters of the property transfer that is intended
to accomplish this goal. More importantly, the ESEE analysis specified that the
treeline along the subject property's lower northern ridge paralleling Main Street
.
.
Jo. No. 95-02-39
May 13,1998
Page 39 of 42
was a resource subject to scenic protection. The applicant's reliance upon the
private enforcement of Section 28.040 of the SDC and the provisions of the
Tree Protection Plan is insufficient as these tools will not ensure thatthe scenic.
resource of this ridgeline will be protected. No comprehensive strategy to
achieve this goal has been identified since tree-cutting and tree-preservation
will occur on a case-'by-case, lot~by-Iot basis. Nor is there any standard that
wi!! be applied to ensure that a cumulative impact of the lot-by-Iot decisions.
wi!! protect thescenic view.
. . . . ' .
This "flip side" ofthisinterpretation isth~t tree protection onthereinmnder of
the subject property is largelyrestricted to the tree felling. standards of Article 38
. of the SDC. While not necessarily balanced by concerns: about impacts on the.
cost of development, the comments from UFAGwere a reasonable response to
'the primary goal of preserving the maximum number of trees on the site. These
. comments, however, do not represent current standards adopted by the City for
the protection of trees. '. . ........ .
The Hearings Official believes that the directive of the ESEE analysis can best
be achieved through the application of a modified version of disputed
.Conditions #7 - # I 0 to development that may affect the scenic quality of the
. northern ridgeline of the subject property. These conditions (See Condition of
Approval 59) will not be applicable to other areas of the proposed development.
2. Mineral Resources '- There are mineral reSources on the site at the quarry.
. However, the quarry is not protected by the Metro Plan or Springfield zoning.
. . map for quarry and mining use. The applicant wishes to reclaim the quarry for
use as open space or possibly as a future school site..
The quarry is not under the jurisdiction of the Oregon Department of Geology
and Mining Industries (DOGAMI) (phone conversation with John Grey of
cDOGAMI) because it was never considered a: commercial quarry operation by
DOGAMI and consequently the owner was neveuequired to obtain an .
operation and reclamation perrnitfrom the state. The quarry' is not on any state
or local inventory of mineral aggregate sites.andis .nota. significant-resource.
pursuant to Statewide Planning Goal.5,
. . .
As the.quirrry does not represent a resource thai is recomrriended for protection,
the applicant's intention to utilize the area for open space and/or school
purposes is consistent with Section 37.040(5) of the SDC.
3 . Wildlife -: The applicant employed a consulting zoologist to investigate the
likelihood of the presence of the sharp-tailed snake on the site; a threatened
.specie known.to be in habitat similar to that found on MountainGate. The.
zoologist found no evidence of the snake and stated that the logging and grazing
activity on the site had probably destroyed essential habitat. The Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife expressed concern over trees on the site which
serve as. perching sites for band tail pigeons known to water at the adjacent
pond on neighboring property. Further analysis by ODFW found that the
development activity on the site would not affect the pigeons. The Master PI.an,
.
.
Jo. No. 95-02-39
May 13, 1998
, Page 40 of 42
as it addresses wildlife on the subject property, is consistent with Section
37.040(5) of the SDC.'
Wetlands'
The Master Plan refers to Appendix M for the Wetland Delineation Report.The'
delineation area is .07 acres of relatively low value wetlands with moderate value for
stormwater retention. The fill for MountainGate Diivewill cover mos't of the wetland.
, The applicant proposes to enhance and enlarge the remaining wetland to approximately
.20 acres. The hydrology of the wetland will be maintained with stormwater outfall
from the nearby detention pond., '
Open Space.
, .
The Master Plan states that 92.7 acres of the site is planned to be transferred to the ,
public for park and open space use. The land is very steeply forested hill top and slope
'areas ,proposed for passive recreation use. The quarry is proposed to be reclaimed for
open space use and stormwater detention and treatment. Land slated for open space
protection by the ESEE analysis includes Mountain Park, West Park, Quarry Park, the
identified wetlands (that are not impacted by the access road),'waterways and
archeological site 35AL657. ' , ,..
The ESEE analysis recommendation is that the' City of Springfield initiate a change to
the Metro Plan Diagram to designate the non-developable portion of MountainGate
Subdivision as Park and Open Space and that the applicant initiate with the City the
rezoning of the same property to Public Land and Open Space~ This recoinmendation
appears reasonable although the Hearing Official believes that it is more appropriate that
, 'the proposed plan amendment be co-initiated by the City and the Willamalane Park and '
Recreation District., ' '
'Willamalane Park and Recreation District staff urg~ the Heariilgs Official to require th~t
park access pathways be included within theredesignationand rezoning. of the
undevelopable land. The Hearing Officialinitiallybelieved thatthisstep was overbill.
Upon reconsideration, however, the Hearings.official believes that..the,"graphic nature"
. of the Metro Plan Diagram would not prohibit the inclusion of this stripofland within
the amendment that encompasses the other lands t,o be designated as open space. The
, '. proposed plan amendment would include a detailed map that depicted the access
pathway at areadable scale and this map would become a part of the legislative history
"supporting that amendment: The Hearings Official further agrees with staff that this
decision should ensure that the pathway will be protected by easement and this
, requirement has been included within the conditions of approval.
District staff also urges the Hearings Official to require that the applicant provide a '
detailed reclamation plan for the conversion of the quarry into a neighborhood park.
Staff has correctly pointed out that ESEE analysis did include the Quarry Park as a site
that was to receive open space protection. The staff has correctly noted that the
applicant, through the MountainGate Master Plan, has agreed to the reclamation. In
order to ensure that this area serves the open space purpose for which it is to be
designated, it follows that a reclamation plan must be developed. This plan will enable
.
.
. Jo. No. 95-02-39
May 13, 1998
Page41 of 42
the District, the City and the public to deteITIline whether the reclamation, as proposed,
will make the quarry area suitable for a neighborhood park.' . .' '. .
Archaeologic and Historic Features
A state recognized archeological site, Site 35LA657, was investigated by Heritage
Research Associates. The results of the study are confidential in order to protect the
. location of the site. A total of 190 artifacts were collected during the test excavation by
. . the consultant including 189 pieces of flaked pieces of debitage and one flaked stone
. tooL Chert was the most common raw material but there were 40 obsidian flakes and
. nine basalt specimens. The site.was surficial.innature withmostiofthe:artifactScfound
near the sUlface. The consultant estimated the site to be between.2,000 and 4,000 year
old and was a short term campsite for native.Americans,Asa.result:ofthesurvey; .the
applicant relocated Street "D'~to the north and proposed open space over Site 35LA657
immediately south of Street "D" from MountainGate Drive to Street "E". '. ..... ....
'. The ESEE Analysis, Attachment 4, page 22, recommends placing the afchaeologic Site
. 35LA657 in the park and open space area of the Master Plan. The Master Plan, page 1,
Figure 1; of Exhibit 2,depicts the siteiI) the open space area. The ESEE recommended
. . . realigning Street "D" to be opposite Street "P'and placing land north of Street "D" in
open space as shown on page 4 of the ESEE. ApproXimately seven proposed lots
would be displaced for protection of the archaeologic site and the elimination of a .
. substandard street off set (See page 18 Of the ESEE Analysis): . .
. The ESEE analysis, adopted into .this report as findings in support of SDC Section
. 37.040(5), concludes in all categories of analysis. that protection of resources is
warranted,and development, as conditioned; will not adversely effect the resources.
. The conclusions of this analysis are as follows: 1) the identified resources of this site as
described herein shall be protected; 2) the development of the site shall be allowed
pursuant to the measures proposed in the pending master plan and as conditioned by
. this report and subsequent phase approvals; and 3) this report as adopted ina public
hearing by.the Hearings Officer will serve as thedetermination:ofsignificance,and:Goal
5 decision for this site, and all subsequent proposed development plans ;shall contain
. measures to protect the resources identified on this site by the ESEE. .
Based on the analysis of the ESEE consequences, Metro Plan policies and standards in
the SDC, the Hearing Official concludes that both the resources and the proposed
. . .' residential development are 'important relative to each other: The proposed. development
. . : shall be allowed but limited in any ways necessary to protect the resources to greatest
extend practicable. The Hearing Official, via this ESEE analysis, deteITIlines that the
conflicting land uses specified in Section 16.100 of the Springfield Development Code
and as proposed in the MountainGate development, are allowed within the areas for
development described in the MountainGate Master Plan pursuant to the provisions of
the Springfield Development Code, especially Article 26 HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT
and Article 38 TREE FELLING, and conditions of approval mandated by this decision.
.
.
10. No. 95-02-39
May 13, 1998
, Page 42 of 42
(6) Local public facilities plans and local street plans will not be adversely
impacted by the proposed development. '
The Master Plan, as conditioned by this decision, will not adversely impact local public
facilities plans. The Springfield Sanitary Sewer MasterPlan has identified sufficient
capacity to accommodate the proposed development and the Springfield Storm Sewer
Master, Plan will have sufficient capacity to accommodate the development with the
conditions imposed by this decision. The Springfield Local Street Plan is not
, applicable, as it was not adopted when the application for this Master Plan was .
accepted; and the transportation-related requirements of TransPlan will be IIlet through
" the conditions imposed by this decision.
Respectfully submitted,
~~:::~~~
. . Springfield Hearings Official
.
.
. .
~.. r@(Q)~
~ LJ] Lane Council of Governments
125 East Eighthiwenue, Eugene, Oregon 97401 (541) 6824283 Fax: (541) 682.4099 ITY: (541) 682-4567
May 15, 1998
. Mr. Greg Mott, Planning Manager
Development Services
City of Springfield.
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
. Re:. Journal Nos. 97--OS-123 through 97--05-127
. .. Dear Mr. Mott:
.,
PleaSe fmd the attached Springfield Hearings Official decisions regarding Journals
No. 97--D5-123 through 97--D5-127.
Sincerely,
.~a~~
. G#~elle ...
. Springfield Hearing Official
.
.
Jo. No. 97-05-123
May 15, 1998
Page I of 4
SPRINGFIELD HEARINGS OFFICIAL
REQUEST FOR DISCRETIONARY USE APPROVAL FOR TWO HOUSING
CLUSTERS .
(UNCONTESTED)
Apolication Summary
. .
The MountainGate Development Company has requested Master Plan approval for MountainGate,
a 333 acre residential subdivision. As a part of the development, the applicant proposes two
"clusters" of housing: south and north clusters. Cluster development within the Low Density
Residential zone requires discretionary use approval. .
. The application was accepted by the city of Springfield on June 16, 1997 and a hearing before the
Springfield Hearings Official was scheduled for November 18,1997. At the request of the
applicant that hear was rescheduled to February 4, 1998. .
Application History
Decision Date:
February 4, 1998
(Record Held Open Until March 4, 1998) .
May 15,1998
June 5, 19980regon Land Use Board of Appeals.
. Hearing Date:
Appeal Deadline:
. Statement of Criteria and Standards
Section 2.020 Springfield Development Code
Section 10.030 Springfield Development Code
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan)
Facts Relied Uoon (Findinl!s)
I: The property subject to this application, hereinafter referred to as the "subject property," is
located west of South 67th Street, south of Main Street, and east of South 58th Street. It
can also be described as Tax Lot303 on Lane County Assessor's Map #18-02-03.
The land area to be developed is 333 acres within the unincorporated. area of the City's
urban growth boundary. The subject property is located adjacent to but outside of the
Springfield City Limits. The Metro Plan designation of the property is Low Density
Residential and the zoning is Low Density ResidentiallUrban Fringe 10 Overlay District
(LDRlUFIO) within the Hillside Development Overlay District (HD). The surrounding
zoning is LDR and the land uses are single family residences on the east, west and north
and undeveloped low density iesidentialland on the south. The parcel is relatively steep
where more that 40% of the land area has slopes in excess of 15%. The site is mostly .
wooded with a mixture of firs, hardwoods, shrubs, and a dense understory herbaceous
layer of wildflowers and groundcovers with grasses in the open meadows. There are no
current agricultural, housing or recreational uses on the subject property.
.
.
Jo. No. 97--05-123
. May IS, 1998
Page 2 of 4
2. . The applicant proposes two "clusters" of housing: south and north clusters. These clusters
. are located on applicant's Conceptual Master Plan for the MountainGate Residential .
Development (Spring 1997). The North Cluster Development is 6.8 acres in size and is
. . proposed to be occupied with 68 dwelling units. This cluster is bounded on the north by
single family residential lots that front on Street 'C', on the east by Mountain Park, on the'
south by two sjngle family lots that take access off of Street 'F', on the west by Street 'F'
and on the northwest by MountainGate Drive. The property subject to this cluster slopes .
gently to the east, from 730 MSL to 800 MSL until it abuts Mountain Park, where it rises'
steeply. .
The: South Cluster Development is 17~8acres in size and is proposed to be occupied with
178 dwelling units. This cluster is bordered on the north, northwest and east by single .
family residential lots that .take access off of Street 'c." Private property located outside of
the proposed development border this cluster on the south. The Golden Terrace .
. Subdivision borders this cluster on the west. This subdivision is largely developed and is
occupied by manufactured dwellings. Dwellings in this subdivision are of recent vintage
and the development is neatly laid out and well-kept in appearance. The property subject to
this cluster slopes to the 'east, rising from an elevation of about 590 MSL to 760 MSL.
'.
:':-~'." ,
.,.,,~., .
Decision
." '.'
. .
THE REQUEST (10. No. 97-05- i23) FOR TWO CLUSTER DEvELOpMEms WITHlN THE
. MOUNTAINGATE SUBDMSION IS APPROVED subject to the following conditions: .
1." Prior to development,' the cluster developments shall be subject to site plan review. .
. 2.. The proposed cluster developments shall comply with Sections 16.l00(3)(b)-(d) of the.
. IDe. .
.Justification for the Decision (Conclusion)
. .
Section 16.100(3) of the SDC requires that cluster development within residential districts be
. subject to special use standards: Section 16.l00(3)(b) requires that a cluster development
subdivision consist of a minimum of 3 acres where the average slope is.1ess than IS percent. No
minimum acreage is specified where the average slope is more than 15percent. In the present case,
about 40 percent of the subject property has an average slope of 15 percent or greater but the record
. does not indicate the average slope of the property to be occupied by the two proposed clusters,
Nevertheless, the proposal conforms to this section as each the proposed clusters is in excess of
three acres in size. .
Section 16:100(3)(c) of the SDC requires that in cluster development, a 10 foot landscaped
perimeter setback be provided and, where zero lot line construction is used, spacing between
. buildings or clusters of buildings be at least 10 feet. This standard has been incorporated as a
condition of approval.
Sectio1l16.100(3)(d) of the SDC requires that in cluster development open space shall be equal or
greater than the total reduction in lot sizes and shall be secured for common use. This standard has
been incorporated as a condition of approval.
.
.
Jo. No. 97-05-123
May 15, 1998
Page 3 of 4
. Section 16.l00(3)(a) of the SDC provides that cluster development is permitted outright in the
. LDR District on lots or parcels abutting MDR, HDR, CC, MRC, GO, cr, LMr, or PLO zoning
districts. The cluster developments proposed by the applicant will not abut any of the above-listed
zoning districts. Section 16.IOO(3)(a) goes on to require that cluster development proposed for all
. other LDR lots comply with the discretionary use standardS of Article m030 of the SDC:
(1)
A Discretionary Use may only be allowed if the Planning Commission .or
He'arings Official finds that the proposal conforms. with the following
criteria: .
. ..
(a) The proposed use shall conform with other permitted uses in terms of,
'. scale, Jot coverage, design; intensity of use and operating,
characteristics. , '
Theappiicant proposes two clusters that would be developed ona village theme
with detached and attached dwellings surrounded by cO!TIIl1only owned and
maintained open space. The maximum intensity of the use would not exceed 10
dwellings per acre with an anticipated average density of 7 dwellings 'per acre.
Information about the operating characteristics and intensity of the clusters are
sufficient to predict their impact on traffic, sanitary sewers and water usage. These
impacts have been taken into account in the design of facilities necessary to serve
the development proposed by the MountainGate Master Plan~
Given this approval standard provided by SDC 10.030(1)(a), however, the lack of
, "the actual design and layout of a proposed development would normally be fatal to
,its approval. In the present case, however, there are generally no "existing uses"
against which to measure the proposed clusters. The north cluster will be
surrounded by future development of single-family residences on individual lots
and MountainGate Park, and the south cluster will be similarly situated except for
the Golden Terrace Subdivision to the northwest.
Even if the applicant had designs of the cluster development, it makes more sense to
defer the issue of rigorously applying the 'conformity standard ,of SDC 1O.030(l)(a)
until there are existing pennitted uses against which to compare 'the cluster
development. At that time, the issues of "scale," "lot coverage," and "design" will
. have more meaning. The staff have proposed and the applicant has agreed to the
'application of site plan review for the cluster developments prior to constrUction of
these 'elements. The Hearings Official concurs and believes that the, since the cluster
developments will largely be surrounded'by development subject to the
MountainGate Master Plan, the isa high feasibilitY of compliance with the
standards of SDC 1O.030(l)(a). See Rhyne v. Multnomah County, 23 Or LUBA
442, 448 (1992). .
"
Therefore, as a condition of approval, the clusters will be subject to Site Plan
Review under Section 31.060 of the SDC. The opening sentence of SDC 31.050
'requires that "...the Site Plan shall contain all the elements necessary to demonstrate
that the requirements of the SDC are fulfilled..." and the Hearings Official takes that
to include SDC 1O.030(l)(a). Further, the holding in the Rhyne case suggests that
.
.
Jo. No. 97--05-123
. May IS, 1998
Page 4 of 4 .
the site plan review must be conducted with notice procedures comparable to those
applied during the discretionary use permit process (Type III) rather than those
normally associated with site plan review (Type II).
(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.
The proposed use will not increase traffic or demand for public faCilities beyond
. what would be demanded by other permitted uses in.the zone. The applicant has.
accounted for the maximum density:allowed in. the clusters (lOduJac)in.the vehicle
trip' calculations of the transportation impact study (TIS) for MountainGate Master
: . Plan. The traffic volumes do not exceed anticipated, volumes for the area and streets'
'and intersections will be designed according to the transportation demand indicated'
". . by: the TIS, the analysis of the City Traffic Engineer and the standards of theSDC.
(c) The proposed use conforms with applicable Metro Plan Policies and
applicable descriptions of land use designs shown on the Metro Plan
diagram. ".
. .
'. . .." .
. .
". Metro Plan Policy III-A-5 on page III-A-5 establishes the density range for the Low
Density Residential designation as "through ten dwelling units per gross acre [with] 30%
of the area is available for auxiliary uses (streets, parks, schools)". The proposed cluster
developments (10 duJac) comply with this policy. Policy III-A-l on page III-A-4
".requires the coordination of new residential development with the provision of adequate. "
, '.infrastructure. These two clusters.havebeeri considered by the applicant when planning.
. . all the infrastructuie of MountainGate ensuring that services levels will be adequate when
" . development occurs. Metro Plan Policy 34 on page III-A-7 requires that techniques such .
as planned developments be used in newly developing areas to achieve Metro Plan '
density. A cluster devdoprrient is considered to be a planned development.
Conclusion
;
. . The information furnished by the applicant regarding the proposed clustered development is
. '. ..sufficient for purposes of approving a conceptual Master Plan for the MountainGatedevelopment.
Because no actual design' of the clusters have. been submitted, however, a site review will be
, necessary prioTto actual development to. measure the scale, lot coverage; design of the cluster
development conforms with other permitted uses.
Respectfully. Submitted,
~nie;r?~
t::~~~ Hearings' Officilil
.
.
.
.
Jo. No. 97-05-124
May 15, 1998
Page I of 8
SPRINGFIELD HEARINGS OFFICIAL
REQUEST FOR VARIANCE APPROVAL TO ALLOW A PAVED WIDTH OF 28
. FEET FOR PORTIONS OF MOUNTAINGATE DRIVE AND TO ALLOW A
60-FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH FOR MOUNTAINGATE DRIVE AND
DOGWOOD STREET
. Application Summary
. The MountainGateDevelopment Company has requested Master Plan approval for MountainGate,
. a 333 acre residential subdivision. As a part of the development, the applicant has proposed that in
. areas where the site topography is extremely steep (35 percent or greatet) that MountainGate Drive,
,a collector, be paved to a 28 foot width. The two areas ProP9sed for this variance, generally.
described as being located at the northern and western access ways to the project, are graphically
displayed on Exhibit 'A' of Appendix L1 of the applicant's Master Plan. The applicant also has
proposed a 60-foot right-of-way width for MountianGate Drive and Dogwood Street. In its March
4, 1998 final response, the portion Of this variance that considered the western access to the project
. was withdrawn. .., .
he application was accepted by the City of Spri;gfield on June 16, 1997 and a hearing before the
Springfield Hearings Official was scheduled for November 18, 1997. At the request of the .
. applicant that hear was rescheduled to February 4, 1998.
'Application Historv
Hearing Date:
February 4, 1998
(Record Held Open Until March 4, 1998)
May 15, 1998
June 5, 1998 Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals
Decision Date:
Appeal Deadline:
Statement of Criteria and Standards
. Section' 2.020 Springfield Development Code
Section 11.030 Springfield Development Code
. . Section 26.080(2) Springfield Development Code
Section 32.020(1) Springfield Development Code
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan)
Facts Relied Upon (Findine:s)
I. The property subject to this application, hereinafter referred to as the "subject property," is
located west of South 67th Street, south of Main Street, and east of South 58th Street. It
can also be described as Tax Lot 303 on Lane County Assessor's Map #18-02-03.
The land area to be developed is 333 acres within the unincorporated area of the City's
urban growth boundary, The subject property is located adjacent to but outside of the
Springfield City Limits. The Metro Plan designation of the property is Low Density
Residential and the zoning is Low Density Residentia1JUrban Fringe 10 Overlay District
.
.
Jo. No. 97-05-124
May 15, 1998
Page 2 of8
(LDR/UFIO) within the Hillside Development Overlay District (HD).The sUrrounding
zoning is LDR and the land uses are single family residential on the east, west and north
and undeveloped low density residential.land on the south. The parcel is relatively. steep ,
where more that 40% of the land area has slopes in excess of 15%. The site is mostly
wooded with a mixture of firs, hardwoods, shrubs, and 'a dense understory herbaceous
layer of wildflowers and groundcovers with grasses in the open meadows. There are no'
current agricultural, housing or recreational uses on the subject property,
. . , . .
2: The applicant originally proposed that in areas where the site topography is extremely steep
, (35 percent or greater) that MountainGate Drive, a collector, be paved to a 28 foot width.
The standard width for a collector street is 36 feet. The two areas proposed fof this
variance, generally described as being located at the northern and-western accessways to
the project, are graphically displayed, on Exhibit 'A'ofAppendix Ll of the applicant's'
Master Plan. The western accessway was subsequently removed from this variance'
proposal.' " " '
The applicant also requests that MountainGate Drive and Dogwood Street have 60-foot
right-of-ways. The City does not contest this request because the purpose of these
, facilities is to serve traffic internal to the development and the future development of
adjacent vacant land will not result in a significant increase in traffic.
3. Section 32.020(1)(a) of the SDC provides that the "...Iocation, width and grade of streets,
shall be considered in their relation to the existing and planned streets, to topographical
conditions, and to the planned use of land to be served by the streets. ... Grades, tangents,
,curves and intersection angles shall be appropriate for the traffic to be carried, considering
the terrain." Table 32-1 of the SDC provides that collectoLStreets have a 70-foot
right-of-way and 36 feet of curb to curb pavement.
4., ,The subject property is contiguous with Main Street (Highway 126) through a short '
panhandle that is about 450 feet in width, It is logical that the primary northern access to the
MountainGateproject be taken through this panhandle as it is owned by the applicant and is
wide enough to allow the access road the, most reasonable angleJorthe ascension of steep
slopes. Betweeri four hundred and five hundred feet into the panhandle is a slope in excess
'of 30 percen!. This slope, cannot be avoided in providing a northern access to the proposed
project.
, "The applicantproposes to construct MountainGate Drive, between Aspen Street and the
'intersection of Dogwood, to a width of 28 feet. Staff has agreed that a reduction of street
, width'to 32 feet would be permissible. The applicant argues that the narrower street width
'in this area is necessary to avoid large cuts and fills and to minimize construction through
,hard rock (Eugene Formation). The applicant has calculated that 3,572 squaiefeet (9
percent) of cut/fill in this area will be saved by paving MountainGate Drive at this location
to width of 28 feet rather than 32 feet. (See Attachments 4 and 5 to the applicant's January
5, 1998 submission.) Staff calculates this additional disturbance would be about .33
percent increase in the total site disturbance by the proposed street system.
, ,
..' . .
Besides costs savings, the applicant has argued that the smaller paving width would reduce
topographic and vegetative disturbance. The applicant argues that no parking would be
allowed on MountainGate Drive in this area and that the proposed width would
.
.
Jo. No. 97-05-124
May 15, 1998
Page 3 of 8
accommodate either two IO-foot wide travel lanes and two 4-foot wide bike lanes or two
12-foot wide travel lanes and one bi-directional4-foot wide bike lane. Or this section
could be designed as a shared roadway for cyclists and pedestrians. The applicant argues
that the reconstruction of "B" Street, between Mill and 14 Street is precedent for this type
of request as "B" is designated as a collector street but the reconstruction did not include
bike lanes.
The applicant proposes that MountainGate Drive's width will remain 36-feet wide for
about 100 feet from its intersections with Aster arid Dogwood Streets and maintains that
this is adequate storage capacityfor left-handturnsJrom MountainGate.Drive onto either
. street. Appendix E of the MountainGate MasterPlan showed six lots (four of which were
. panhandle lots) taking access of Mountain Gate Drive north of Dogwood Street from three .
access points. The number of lots taking access onto this portion of Mountain Gate Drive
.' has been reduced to three, albsharing the same access point. (See Revised Access Plan
(2/4/98) attached to a February 4, 1998 letter from Jim Branch to the City of Springfield.)
MouniainGate Drive's width will remain at least at32 feet to and beyond the point of
. intersection of these three lots. The access point for these lots have the minimum separation
. .between.a standard driveway and the nearest intersection and for street grades (12 percent).
. Site distance calculations indicate that the street grades and curves on this portion of
'MountainGateDrive will not compromise safety. (See unsigned, undated letter and attached
calculations from Chris Clemow to Masood Mirza, referencing: "Access to MountainGate
Drive between Aster and Dogwood Streets".) No on-street parking will be allowed in this
area and the dwelling units in this area will be provided with two-car garages and will have
off-street space for an additional two cars.
.
. '. The City argues that the conteste~ portion of MountaihGate Drive will carry 7,000 vehicle .
trips per day. This figure is derived from the applicant's analysis of trip generation at full .
buildout (720 dwelling units and an expected 6876 vehicle trips per weekday)l
5. Consistent with Oregon Administrative Rule 660-16-005(2), the City conducted an ESEE
(Economic, Social, Environinental and Energy) analysis of the subject property) Quoting'
the City's 1980 Natural Resource Study with favor, the ESEE analysis fOUlid that the
MountainGate:development was located within a an area (Thurston Hills) that serves both
as a visual focal point and a scenic attraction. Particularly; the proposed development lies
. within the western-most part of the Thurston South Hills, which is one of the most
prominent visual attractions in Springfield. The ESEE analysis noted that "The forested'
. . ridgelines can be seen from most points on the valley floor particularly from Main Street,
north Thurston area, Jasper Road area and from Kelly Butte." The most significant scenic
features of the proposed development area are represented by I) the upper-,-most ridge
extending in a northwest to southeast line and 2) the top of the first terrace above the valley
floor (generally the northern boundary of the site). The scenic values of the "Potato Hill"
1 See Table 2, Transportation Impact Study for MountainGate Subdivision. Springfield.
. Oregon, Branch Engineering (December 27,1993) Page 31.
2Goal5 ESEE Analysis for Mountaingate, City of Springfield (May 29, 1995)
.
.
Jo. No. 97-05-124
May 15, 1998
Page 4 of 8
portion of the subject property were recognized in Springfield City Council Resolution
84-15. .
The document stated that tlie scenic resource represented by the large stand of Douglas fir
trees on the butte and on the western slope of the site would be protected through
dedication for park use but rioted that the development should specify scenic protection of
the treeline along the lower ridge paralleling Main Street to preserve the scenic view from
that traveled roadway.
DeCision
THE REQUEST.(Jo. No; 97-05.-124) FOR A VARIANCE TO THE PA VEDWIDTH
STANDARDS OF SECTION 32.20 OF THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR A . . ....
PORTION OF MOUNT AlNGATEDRNE IS APPROVED subject to the following conditions: :,; ... '.
. ,'. . -.
1. MountainGate Drive, in the area of the requested variance (the northern access point of the..
subject property as depicted the Revised Access Plan dated 2/4/98), shall be 32 feet in.
width in the area for which the variance is requested.
2. .No on-street parking will be allowed on MountainGate Drive where pennitted paved
widths are 32 feet or less. No-parking areas shall be designed by curb markings and by
signs. .
3. MountainGate Drive's width will remain 36-feet wide for about 100 feet from its -
intersections with Aster and Dogwood Streets.
4. The detached dwelling units that will front MountainGate Drive and Dogwood Street where
reduced rights-of-way are requested will be provided with two-car garages and off~street .
space for an additional two cars.
THE REQUEST (Jo. No. 97-05-124) FOR A VARIANCE TO THERJGHT-OF-WAY .
STANDARDS OF SECTION 32.20 OF THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR
MOUNTAlNGATE DRNEAND DOGWOOD STREET IS APPROVED.
Justification for the Decision (Conclusion)
. Section 32.020(1)(a) of the SDC provides that the "...location, width and grade of streets shall be
considered in their relation to the existing and planned streets, to topographical conditions, and to
the planned use ofland to.beserved by the streets. ... Grades, tangents, curves and intersection
angles shall be appropriate for the traffic to be carried, considering the terrain." Table 32-1 of the
. . SDCprovides that collector streets have a 70-foot right-of-way and 36 feet of curb to curb
pavement. .
Section 1 1.030(2) of the SDC provides that the following criteria must be met prior to the granting
of a variance:
(a) There are unusual conditions, associated with the property or structure
which make it impractical to use the development area for its intended
.
.
Jo. No. 97-05-124
.May 15, 1998
Page 5 of 8
purpose under .the Springfield Development Code. .
The 'unusual conditions identified by the applicant are the steep slopes that present an
obstacle to accessing the proposed development from the north. In this area, slopes
. approach 3S percent in this area and construction will encounter rock near the surface. Cut.
and fill requirements, and attendant destruction to vegetation and topography, increases
'. with pavement width. City staff have conceded the existence of the difficult topographic
conditions in their concession of 32-foot street widths in this area.
(b)
Granting or the Variance would not be inconsistent with both the Metro
Plan and the Springfield Development Code. ."
.... The following Metro Plan policies are applicable:
, ~,
I. .PolicyA of the Environmental Design Element of the Metro Plan (II...,E-3) states that
"Public and private facilities shall be designed and located in a manner that
preserves and enhances desirable features of local neighborhood areas and
promotes their sense of identity." The desirable feature to be preserved is the .
northern slope of the proposed development. The less intrusive the construction
. cuts the less theidentify (visual quality)ofthis area will be impaired. The impact to
. the valued visual quality in this location, represented by uniformity of vegetation
coverage, will correspond to the amount of slope disturbance created by the .
proposed road, The proposed street width and right--<lf-.-way variance would be
consistent with this policy.
2. . Policy'S of the Environmental Desi~ Element of the Metro Plan (II-E-3) states that
"CarefUlly develop sites that provide visual diversity to the urban area and optimize.
their visual and personal accessibility to residents. " Again, the reduction in
construction 'cuts will optimize the retention of the visual resource represented by a
vegetated hill. The proposed street width and right--<lf-way variance would be
consistent with this policy. '. . " '.'
. .
. , .
3. " Policy 8 of the Environmental Desi~ Element of the Metro Plan (II-E-3) states that
"Site planning standards developed by localjurisdictions shall allow for flexibility
., in design that will achieve site planning .objectives while allowing for creative
solutions to design problems. " The granting of the requested variance would be
. consistent with this policy.
. 4. Policy 1 of the Transportation Element of the Metro Plan (III-F'-5) states that "The
goals, .objectives, policies, facilities, and services contained in the adopted
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (TransPlan) will serve
. as the basis for guiding surface transportation improvements in the metropolitan
area: TransPlan is adopted as public policy by reference in this Plan... ,,'
. The following TransPlan policies are applicable:
. Policy 17. "Include on-street bike lanes in construction or reconstruction of
arterial and collector streets, unless bike facilities are determined to be .
unnecessary.:' ,
.
.
Jo. No. 97-05-124
May 15, 1998
Page 6 of 8
The Hearings Official has not been presented with any persuasi~~ argument.
that bike lanes are not necessary. Therefore, the section of MountainGate
Drive proposed for this variance must be wide enough to accommodate at
. least one bike lane. . . .
";,.
The applicant h,!s offered various alternative scenarios of how the proposed
28-foot street width would be designed. Alternatives suggested included .
two 100foot wide travel lanes in conjunction with two 4-foot wide bike
. lanes or two l2-foot wide travel lanes in conjunction with one . .
bi-directional 4-foot wide bike lane. Segregated ,bike lanes seem preferable
but even if no parking was allowed on either side of MountainGate Drive in
these sections the proposal would result in two 100foot wide travel lanes.
The applicant's pledge to provide additional off-street parking for the three
lots that access MountainGate Drive in the area subject to the variance is
consistent with this detennination. .
. The proposed 28-foot width, in conjunction with one or more bike lanes,
. would seem to result in travel lane widths that are too narrow for a collector
. street, especially on a steep one with vertical and horizontal curves. In
winter conditions it is safe to sunnise that the narrow widths of the travel
lanes wouldleave little margin of error for drivers navigating this steep and
narrow section of the road. .
. Policy 18. "Include sidewalks in construction or reconstruction of all
. collector and arterial streets, except freeways or expressways, unless
. determined to be unnecessary." . .
The requested variance did not include sidewalks..
. .
. .
. .
. Policy no. "In;lude cent~r turn lanes in construction or reconstruction of all .'
. two-way arterial and collector streets where direct access is provided to
. residential or commercialland.uses; unlesssuchlaries.are determined to be
" .
unnecessary.
The issue under this criterion is whether a center turn lane, in the area of the
variance to the required street width, is necessary. Turn lanes would
support traffic traveling north on MountainGate Drive and turning left on
'. Aster Street and traffic traveling south on MountainGate Drive and turning
left onto Dogwood Street. .
MountainGate Drive's width will remain 36--feet wide for about 100 feet
from its intersections with Aster and Dogwood Streets and that this width
provides adequate storage capacity for left-hand turns from MountainGate
Drive onto either street. The City did not specifically respond to this
contention. The applicant argues that a center turn lane would not be
necessary at these locations and the Hearing Official believes that this
position is supported by a preponderance of the evidence. .
.
.
Io. No. 97--05-124
May IS, 1998
Page 7 of 8
The following provisions of the Springfield Developmen( Code are applicable:
. .
1. Section 32.020(1)(a) of the SDC allows that topographical conditions c~ be
considered in the determination of street widths and grades. This provision also
suggests that the design of a street must be appropriate for the amount of traffic that
. it carries. The proposed variance request is consistent with this provision in that it
proposes a street width design which, at least on its face, addresses both.
topographic features and traffic considerations.
. .
. ..
. .
2. Section 28.080(2) of the SDC allows for the reduction in street right-of-way,
paving width, and installation of sidewalks if additional off-street p!lfking is
. . provided. The detached dwelling units .that front Mountaingate Drive and. Dogwood
Street where reduced rights-of-way are requested will be provided with two-car .
garages and off-street space for an additional two cars.
3. Section 37.040 of the SDC reqtiiresthat in Master Plan approval, natural resources
be evaluated and considered consistent with the Oregon Administrative Rule
procedure for Statewide Planning GoalS. .The Hearings Official has applied this .
. standard in Io. No: 95--02-39 and has found that scenic view of the treeline along
. the lower ridge paralleling Main Street is a resource that must be preserved. The
minimization of road cuts will promote this mandate. .
. The proposed variance, as proposed to be implemented by the applicant, meets this
approval criterion. .
. (c) ... Granting of the Variance would. have no significant adverse affects on the
public welfare or neighboring properties, and there are provisions to .
mitigate those adverse affects which will be .acondition of use.
The City has agreed that a 32-foot paved street width in the area proposed waS reasonable
. .. but has opposed the 28~foot width requested by the applicant. The City argiles that the
amount of cut/fill saved by the applicant's proposal is minimal and that high levels of traffic
carried by a 28-foot collector street, especially in a sloped area, would be dangerous.. The .
City also suggests that the proposed changes in pavement width, in conjunction with the
horizontal and vertical curvature of the street, would not be nafe design.
The difference in the two designs is that the applicant's proposal would.restrict on-':street
parking and sidewalks to one side of the contested segment of MountainGate Drive. Curb
painting and signs would be used to alert the public to the restriction on parking.
.In terms of this criterion, the City's major concerns regarding the extent of this variance
seem to be based upon stopping distance associated with line of sight issues and traffic
maneuverability. The applicant's line-of-sight analysis seems to be, on its face, persuasive
although it seems to assume no obstructing vegetation in excess of three feet in height. This
condition would seem to be inconsistent with the need to preserve and restore trees along
. the street corridor. While the affected portion of MountainGate Drive is relatively short
(475 feet), this area is affected by steepness (slopes near 35 percent) and horizontal and
vertical curves. The width of the travel lanes would be no wider than 10 or 12 feet,
depending upon whether there are bike lanes on both sides of the street. Neither of these
.
.
10. No. 97--D5~124
May IS, 1998
Page 8 of 8
widths would seem to provide much margin of error during wet or icy conditions. This
situation would be compounded by the high volume of traffic that will be expected to utilize
MountainGate Drive at complete buildout of the development. The applicant's proposal to .
reduce access points onto MountainGate Drive in this 'area and to .prohibit on-street parking
'donot seem to completely mitigate the safetyconcerns caused by the narrow travel lanes.
In conclusion,'the Hearings Official does not believe that the applicai1.t has shown, by a.
preponderance of the evidence,..that the proposed 28-foot width would have no significant
adverse affects on the public welfare or neighboring properties. The compromise position
. . of a 32-foot street width offered by the City would at leastallow for one bike lane, as
required by TransPlan, and two I~foot wide.travel)anes. Orsome:other.configuration
. determined to be adequate by the City and the applicant. .
(d) The need for a variance has not arisen solely from a previous Code
.violation and the hardship is not self-imposed.
The need for the proposed variance is based upon topographical (slope) and geological
(hard rock) considerations. No previous code violation is involved. It is uncontested that
. the proposed project must take access from Main Street and that this access should be
. . "Iocated in the area where the subject property abuts that facility. An examination of the
topographic and soils information provided by the applicant shows that any access
configuration from the north would be impacted by the same slope and geology
considerations. Therefore, the Hearings Official conCludes that the need forthe variance
has not arisen solely from a previous Code violation and the hardship is not self-imposed.
(e) There are no other practical aItern~tivesavailablethat better meet the
provisions of the Springfield Development Code and the Metro Plan.:
. .
. . .
. ..
Given the presumption that the proposed project must have a northern access, then' that
access musfbe designed to best accommodate the steep slopes and hard rock geology in
.this area. The minimum street width that will also adequately address traffic safety
. considerations is preferred and no other practical alternative has been identified that would
. better meet fhe provisions of the Springfield Development Code andthe.MetroPlan.
Conclusion
,
The Hearing Official has found that the treeline along the lower ridge paralleling Main Street
represents a scenic resource that must be preserved. The minimization of road cuts on this ridge is
. a significant step towards achieving this goal. The City has expressed valid safety .concerns
. regarding this variance and the Hearing Official has taken these concerns seriously. On the balance, .
. the Hearing Official believes that the.mitigating.measures proposed.by.the applicant, in conjunction
with the compromise position offered by the City, reduce the potential for safety hazards to an.
acceptable level. .
Respectfully Submitted,
.~C:?~. .'.
Gar DarnielIe
Sp ingfield Hearing Official
.
.
.
.
Jo. No. 97-05-125
May 15, 1998
Page I of 6
SPRINGFIELD HEARINGS OFFICIAL'
REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION
26.060(2)(a-c) OF THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE CONCERNING
MAXIMUM STREET AND DRIVEWAY GRADES.
Application Summary
The MountainGate Development Company has requested Master Plan approval for MountainGate,
a 333 acre residential subdivision. As a part of the development, the applicant has proposed street
grades in excess of that allowed in Sections 32.020(8) and 26.060(2)(a-c) of the Springfield
Development Code. This request concerns a variance to those standards. .
The application was accepted by the City of Springfield on June 16, .1997 and. a hearing before the
Springfield Hearings Official was scheduled for November 18, 1997. At the request of the
. applicant that hearing was rescheduled to February 4, 1998. . .
Application History
Hearing Date: '. February 4, 1998
(Record Held Open Until March 4, 1998)
Decision Date: May 15,1998
Appeal Deadline: . JuneS, 1998 Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals.
Statement of Criteria and Standards
Section 2.020 Springfield Development Code
Section 11.030 Springfield Development Code
Section 26.060 Springfield Development Code
. Section 32.020(1) Springfield Development Code
.Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan)
Facts Relied Upon (Findings)
1. .' The property subject to this application, hereinafter referred to as the "subject property," is
located west of South 67th Street, south of Main Street, and east of South 58th Street. It
can also be described as Tax Lot 303 on Lane County Assessor's Map #18-02-03. .
The land area to be developed is 333 acres within the unincorporated area of the City's
utban growth boundary. The subject property is located adjacent to but outside of the
Springfield City Limits. The Metro Plan designation of the property is Low Density
Residential and the zoning is Low Density ResidentiallUrban Fringe 10 Overlay District
(LDRlUFlO) within the Hillside Development Overlay District (HD). The sutrounding
zoning is LDR and the land uses are single family residential on the east, west and north
and undeveloped low density residential land on the south. The parcel is relatively steep'
with more than 40% of the land area having slopes in excess of 15%. The site is mostly
wooded with a mixture of firs, hardwoods, shrubs, and a dense understory herbaceous
.
.
Jo. No. 97~5-125
May IS, 1998
Page 2 of 6
layer of wildflowers and groundcovers with grasses in the open meadows. There are no
current agricultural, housing or recreational uses on the subject property.
2. The applicant has requested the following exceptions to the street grade standards of
Section 26.060(2)( a-c) of the Springfield Development Code: .
a. Allow driveways and intersections on streets greater than 12 percent grades for the .
entire project.
. b. Allow streets with grades greater than 15 percent for a distance longer than 200
. feet. .
c. Ailow a maximum street grade of 20 percent for certain local and collector streets.
. 3. While the City and the applicant have agreed upon the following street grade standards,
some of these standards (3c & 3e) still are in excess of that permitted by Section
26.060(2)(a-c) of the Springfield Development Code: .
a. Maximum street grades allowed on local streets shall be 18 percent for a distance
not more than. 200 feet. .
. .
..". .
. .
b. Maximum street grades allowed on collector streets shall be 15 percent for a .
distance not more than 200 feet.
c. Maximum street grades through an intersection shall not exceed IS percent for local
streets and 12 percent on collector streets for a distance of 100 feet for all
approaches. ..
d. . Maximum street grades allowed in MountainGate shall not exceed 18 percent.
e. Maximum street grades through a driveway shall not exceed 15 percent for local
streets and 12 percent for collector streets. .
Decision
THE REQUEST (Jo. No, 97-05-125) FOR A VARIANCE TO THE STREET GRADE
STANDARDS OF SECTION 26.060(2) OF THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR
THE MOUNTAINGATE SUBDIVISION IS APPROVED subjectto the following conditions:
1. . The following grade standards shall be allowed:
a. Maximum street grades allowed on local streets shall be 18 percent for a distance .
not more than 200 feet. .
b. Maximum street grades allowed on collector streets shall be .15 percent for a
distance not more than 200 feet.
. c. Maximum street grades through an intersection shall not exceed 15 percent for local
streets and I~ percent on collector streets for a distance of 100 feet for all
.'
.
10. No. 97-05-125
May 15, 1998
Page 3 of 6
approaches.
d. Maximum street grades allowed in MountainGate shall not exceed 18 percent.
e. Maximum street grades through a driveway shall not exceed 15 percent for local
streets imd 12 percent for collector streets.
2.' . The application of the above-list grade standards shall be justified through a site plan'
review process. At a minimum, lots affected by the application of these standards that are .
. proposed for development shall have wildland fire defense plans. mandated by CC&Rs
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Justification for the Decision (Conclusion). '
.' Section 32.020(8) of the SDC states that street grade may not exceed 8 percent on arterials, 10 ,
'percent on collector streets and 12 percent on local streets, except as specified in Article 26 of the
Code. .'
'Section 26,060(2)(a) of the SDC.provides that "Street grades may exceed the 12 percent local street
,standard except that no driveways or intersections shall be permitted where street grades exceed 12 .
percent, no street grade of 15 percent of greater shall be permitted for a distance of more than 200
feet, and no street grade shall exceed 18 percent for any distance'~
The applicant has requested street grades in excess of that which is permitted by the SDC(See
, Finding of Fact #2, above) but has indicated that a compromise standard is acceptable. The .
, compromise proposal exceeds the standards of Sections 32.020(8)and 26.060(2}(a-c) ofthe
Springfield Development Code in the following particulars: .
, '
1. . Maximum street grades allowed on local streets are proposed to allow up to 18 percent for a'
distance not more, than 200 feet
2. . Maximum street grades through an intersection are proposed to' allow up io 15 percent for.
local streets for a distance of 100 feet for. all approaches. .
3.. ,. Maximum street grades through a driveway are proposed to allow up to 15 percent for local
'street.
Section 11.030(2) of the SDC provides that the following criteria must be met prior to the granting
of a variance:
(a), There are unusual conditions, associated with the property or structure
which make it impractical to use the development area for its intended
purpose' under the Springfield Development Code.
This variance request is predicated on the unusual topography and high percentage of steep
slopes on the subject property. The development is proposed on ground with an average
existing slope of 15% in development areas. The amount of cut and fill required to adhere
to the SDC would be excessive, will greatly increase the cost of street construction, and
may make many proposed lots undervelopable.
.
.
10. No. 97-05-125
. May 15, 1998
Page 4 of6
The City has argued that because the applicant's description of the site topography is based
on aerial contour maps, the level of analysis is not sufficient to jUstify the broad scope of
. the requested variance. The City also correctly argues that Article 26 of the Springfield .
Development Code is developed to address hillside developments like MountainGate where
development,slopes are 15%.or greater.. By the same token, Article 11.030 is developed to
. address situations where extreme local conditions exceed the otherwise reasonable
. parameters contained in the SDC. .
In the present case, the proposed compromise standards appear to be .specific enough to
address areas of concern without being t06 broad in .scope. These .standards appear to be
rationally related to allowing an efficient use of the subject property by compensating for .
the extreme constraints of the ,topography. The Hearing Official finds.that this criterion has
been met.
(b) Granting of the V~riani:e would not be inconsistent with both the Metro
Plan and' the Springfield Development Code.
. The applicant cites the following Residential Land Use and Housing policies of the Metro Plan:
1. Policy 1 (III-A-4) requires the coordination of new residential development with the
provision of adequate levels of service. The variance would allow for the adequate .
provision of transportation facilities for the proposed residential development.
2. Policy 10 (ill-A-S) refers to ensuring that local development standards do not'
unnecessarily add to housing costs.
. ,'. .
3. poiicy'S (ill-E-3)' requires local standards to be flexible to allow for creative designs to
complex. development problems.
. . Taken together these policies do support a flexible application of land use standards to modenite
extraordinary costs caused by complex development problems.
,
The City responds that the Buildable Lands Study of the Metro. Plan accounted for the physical
. constraints and additional expense of building in the hillsides .by projecting 3 dwelling units per
acre rather than 6 dwelling units per acre for the non-hillside residential land. The lower density.
. . . projection in the hillside was predicated on the need for larger lots to protectthe natural resources
and to adjust development design to the slope constraints. .
The City also notes that it has established larger lot sizes in the HD Overlay District in
'conjunction with more relaxed standards for certain infrastructUre to facilitate development and
protect the environment. The City's development code has build-in flexibility in street design
standards for hillside developments. It allows steeper and longer grades than would otherwise be
permitted elsewhere in the City.
The Metro Plan provides for a large degree of flexibility at the local level in balancing housing
density with environmental concerns. The proposed deviations from 26.060(2)(a-<::) of the
Springfield Development Code would not seem to be an inconsistent balancing of interests given
the constraints of the subject property.
.
.
10. No. 97--D5-l25 '
May 15, 1998
Page 5 of 6
The proposed variance, as implemented on a case-by-case basis by the applicant, meets this
, approval criterion.' "
(c) Granting of the Variance ,would have no significant adverse affects on the
public welfare or neighboring properties, and there are provisions to mitigate
those adverse affects which will, be a condition' of use.' , "
" ,
. . , . .'
, ,
' ,
, , '
The applicant states the only adverse impact that may result in,the loss of fIre truck access to the
southeasternmost area of the project during adverse weather.Lots in this area will have wildland "
, fIre defense pl~s and possibly building sprinklers as per thel:C&R's.
~ "
The City argues effectively that the variance request, as originally proposed, would
signifIcantly impact the welfare, safety and operation of the public street system. The
steep grades signifIcantly reduce truck speeds on uphill slopes and control ability on
down hill slopes. It also results in undesirable reductions in speed, and operational
problems at intersections and driveways, ,particularly during adverse weather
conditions. More importantly, the steep street 'grades'signifIcantly impact the operations
, " of emergency and maintenance vehicles. Occasionally, especially in bad weather, these
vehicles will not have enough power and momentum to climb the proposed grades.
They may also have problems in controlling the vehicles on down hill slopes. The same
is true for heavy construction vehicles like concrete and lumber trucks. Ice and snow
, ,conditions will create safety and access problems for all vehicles in the steep slope'
areas.
",
, The proposed compromise standards are intended to be applied on a case-by-case
basis. Design considerations can moderate some of the potential adverse impacts, as
can the provision of restrictions on some residential development mitigate the increase
in fIre danger. The Hearing OffIcial concludes ,that this criterion has been met when
conditioned on the requirement that they be reviewed through site review on a
, case-by-case basis and that lots affected by this variance be required to have fIre '
defense plans and building 'sprinkler systems. "
(d) The need for a variance has not arisen solely from a previous Code' violation
and the hardship is not' self-imposed~
, 'While it is true that the applicant is starting from a blank slate, the public infrastructure
constraints must be balanced with an effIcient use of the land. In the present case, the slope
" constraints on the subject property are so prevalent that in certain instances it maybe necessary
and prudent to vary from requirements that normally would reasonable in most cases.
(e) There are no' other practical alternatives available that better meet the provisions
, of the Springfield Development Code and the Metro Plan.
The compromise' variance conditions represent an cognizance on the part of both the applicant
and the City that the extensive slope intrusions of the subject property may warrant, on a
case-by-case basis, aJelaxation of the standards of Section 26.060(2)(a-c) of the SpringfIeld
Development Code where mitigating conditions are applied when necessary.
.
.
Jo. No. 97-05-125
. . May 15, 1998
Page 6 of6
Conclusion
The proposed variance to street grades, as modified, conforms to Section 1 i .030(2) of the SDC.'
Respectfully Submitted,
u~
Gar arnielle . .
S mgfieldHearing Official
.
.
"
..
.
.
Jo. No. 97-05-126
May 15, 1998
Page 1 of4
SPRINGFIELD HEARINGS OFFICIAL
REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION
32.080(4)(c) OF THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE CONCERNING
MINIMUM OFFSET BETWEEN LOCAL STREETS
.Application Summary
. .
The MountainGate Development Company has requested Master Plan approval for M6untainGate,
a 333 acre residential subdivision. As a part of the development; the applicant initially proposed
two offset intersections that do not meet the requirements for the Springfield Development Code in
regard to separation between local streets. This request-therefore concemsa variance to the .
staridards of Section 32.080( 4)(C), Table 32-5 of the SDC.
. . . The application was accepted by the City of Springfield ort June 16, 1997 and a hearing before the
. Springfield Hearings Official was scheduled for November 18, 1997. At the request of the .
applicant that hearing was rescheduled to February 4, 1998. "
Application History
Hearin"g Date:
February 4, 1998 .
(Record Held Open Until March 4, 1998)
. . .
. . '.
Decision Date:
. May 15, 1998
June 5, 1998 Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals
Appeal Deadline:
. Statement of Criteria and Standards
Section 2.020 Springfield Development Code
Section 11.030 Sprlpgfield Development Code
Section 32.080(4) Springfield Development Code
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan)
Facts Relied Upon !Findinl!:s)
1. The property subject.to this application, hereinafter referred to as the "subject property," is
located west of South 67th Street, south of Main Street, and east of South 58th Street. It
can also be described as Tax Lot 303 on Lane County Assessor's Map #18-02-03.
The land area to be developed is 333 acres within the unincorporated area of the City's .
urban growth boundary. The subject property is located adjacent to but outside of the
Springfield City Limits. The Metro Plan designation of the property is Low Density
Residential and the zoning is Low Density Residential!Urban Fringe 10 Overlay District
. (LDRlUFlO) within the Hillside Development Overlay District (HD). The surrounding
. zoning is LDR and the land uses are single family residential on the east, west and north
and undeveloped low de!lsity residential land on the south. The parcel is relatively steep
where more that 40% of the land area has slopes in excess of 15%. The site is mostly
wooded with a mixture of firs, hardwoods, shrubs, and a dense understory herbaceous
-c
.
.
Jo. No. 97--D5-126
May 15, 1998
Page 2 of4 '
, , ,
' ,
, ,
. layer of wildflowers and groundcovers with grasses in the open meadows. There are no
current agricultural, housing, or recreational uses on the subject property. .
.2. ", The applicant originally proposed two offset intersections on MountainGate Drive that
provide less than the minimum (260 feet) separation required by the Springfield'
Development Code. These intersections can be described as follows:
a.
, The intersection of Streets 'A' and 'B' and MountainGate Drive where the proposed,
off set is 150 feet. ,The applicant anticipates that the volume of traffic on Streets' A'
and 'B'will be low, as,both are local streets. In addition, Street 'B' is a cul-de-sac
from which only Blots will take access and.lhere are few left-hand turn ' '
movements are anticip'ated onto MountainGate Drive. Street 'A' is-a loop road, with
access on its southern lfOC! to"MountainGate Drive at a four-way intersection with
Street 'C.' " ' ,
b.
0-
The intersection of Streets 'D' and 'F' with MountainGate Drive where the
, proposed offset was' 180 feet. Subsequent to this request the applicant has
redesigned this intersection to eliminate this off-set and the need for a variance.
Decision
THE REQUEST (10. No. 97-05-126) FOR A VARIANCE 1:0 THE REQUIREMENTS OF
SECTION 32.080(4)(c) OF THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE CONCERNING
, MINIMUM OFFSET BETWEEN STREETS 'A' AND 'B' AND MOUNTAlNGATE DRIVE IS
DENlED.
,Justification for the Decision (Conclusion)
Section 32.080(4)(C), Table 32-5 of the SDC provides that the minimum offset between two local'
streets that do not have left turn storage needs shall be 150 feet. '
Section 11.030(2) of the SDC provides that the following criteria must be met prior to the granting
of a variance:
(a)
There are ,unusual conditions, associated with the property or structure-
which make it impractical to use the development area for its intended '
,purpose under the Springfield Development, Code.
. . ..
. , -
" .
'No unusual conditions have'been identified which require an exception to the offset criteria
,of SDC 32.080(4). Staff has suggested two alternative configurations at this intersection:
, the realignment of Streets 'A' and'B'across from one another, creating a four-way
intersection, and moving Street 'B' to the south. The applicant has identified why either of
, these two options would not eliminate the need for this variance.
(b) Granting of the Variance would not be inconsistent with both the Metro
Plan and the Springfield Development Code. '
The applicant states that granting the variance would allow the property to be developed _'
consistent with theLDR density prescribed in the Metro Plan and consistent with Statewide
.
.
10. No. 97-05-126
May 15, 1998
Page 3 of 4
Planning Goals 10 and 14. The applicant cites Metro Plan Policy 6 on page ill-A-5 encouraging
a variety of housing densities and types. As staff points out, the net density of the conceptual lot
. pattern of MountainGate Master Plan is 4.25 to 4.50 dwelling units per acres, depending on
. . whether 20%.or25% of the net developable area.is consumed by public right of way. The Metro'
, 'Plan Buildable Lands Inventory projected 3 dwelling units per acre for hillside development.
This density was based on physical constraints and other policies to protect natural resources in
difficult development areas. Sfaff has argued that there has been no showing that the denial of '
this variance request would in any way be inconsistent with the LDR density prescribed by the
Metro Plan. This is a misstatement of the approval criterion, however.
, ,
" The approval standard is that the granting of the requested variance would not be inconsistent
with the Metro Plan. On the contrary, the granting of the requested variance would not seem to '
be inconsistent with; the residential densities permitted in the Metro Plan's LDR designation.;,
(c)
Granting of the Variance would have no significaIit adverse affects on the', i; ,
. .' public welfare or neighboring properties, and there' are provisions to mitigate
those adverse affects which will be a condition, of use.-
,Staff argues that while the traffic volumes on the local streets in question will be relatively low,
, the adverse effects of the short offsets will be magnified by affecting the traffic on MountainGate
Drive, the higher volume collector. The Hearing Official has not been pointed to facts by the
applicant that would quantify this impact. The applicant carries this burden and has not met it in
this circumstance.
(d)
The need fora variance has ,not arisen solely, from a previous Code violation'
and the hardship is not self-imposed. '
The Hearing Official agrees with the staff position regarding this criterion. The land is vacant
and can be developed to the SDC standards specific to hillside conditions on the subject
property. The'offset issue regarding Streets 'A' and 'B' is a creature of the design chosen by the
,applicant. While, the chosen design may develop the subject property in the most efficient -manner
in this location, there has not been a showing. that other designs could not accomplish the same'
result and comply with SDC 32.080(4). The need for the variance must arise out of unusual
conditions associated with the property and cannot be justified out of maximizing fmancial
return. '
(e) There are no other practical alternatives available that better meet the provisions
of the Springfield Deyelopment Code and the Metro Plan.
The applicant has argued that the alignment of the intersection of Streets 'A' and 'B'
, "and MountainGate Drive would cause a net decrease in lot yield; It may also create a
greater number of panhandle lots and oversized, irregular lots. .
Financial considerations cannot be used as the sole justification for a variance. In the
present case, the Hearing Official has not been presented with compelling evidence why
there are not other alternatives that could better meet the provisions of the Springfield
Development Code and the Metro Plan.
.
.
. Jo. No. 97--05-126
May 15, 1998
Page 4 of 4
Conclusion
The Hearing Official has concluded that the applicant has not shown, by a preponderance of the
. : evidence, that in regard to the offset between Streets 'N 'and 'B' and MountainGateDrive,
there are unusual conditions, associated with the property or structure which make it
impractical to meet cOde requirements; that the approval of the variance would not have
. significant adverse affects on MountainGate Drive, and therefore on the public welfare or
. neighboring properties; that the hardship requiring the variance was not self-imposed; or that
. there are no other practical alternatives available to meet the offset requirements oftheSDC.
Respectfully Submitted,
~~
Gary ~nielle::.. -
Springfield Hearing Official.
. . ',~ : 'I :
.
.
."
.
.
Jo. No. 97"'{)5-127
May 15, 1998
. Page 1 of 5
SPRINGFIELD HEARINGS OFFICIAL
REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 26.050
LOT FRONTAGE ON .THE OUTSIDE OF CURVED ROADWAYS
Application Summarv
The MountainGate Development Company has requested Master Plan approval for MountainGate,
a 333 acre residential subdivision. As a part of the development, the applicant initially proposed a
variance to the lot size provisions of SDC 16.030(1) &(2) and to the frontage requirements of SDC.
26.050, Table 26--1. The applicant has withdrawn the requested variance to, the lot size provisions:
..The application was accepted by the City of Springfield on June 16, 1997 and a hearing before the
Springfield Hearings Official was scheduled for November 18, 1997. Attherequ.est of the
applicant that hearing was rescheduled to February 4, 1998. . '. .... .,' ! . j
AnnlicationHistorv
Hearing Date:
February 4, 1998
(Record Held Open Until March 4, 1998)
May 15, 1998
June 5, 1998 Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals
. Decision Date:
Appeal Deadline:
Statement of Criteria and Standards
Section 2.020 Springfield Development Code
Section .11.030 Springfield Development Code
Section 26.050 Springfield Development Code
. Eugene-SpringfieJd Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro, Plan)
Facts Relied Upon (Findinl!s)
1. The property subject to this application,. hereinafter referred to as the "subject property," is
located west of South 67th Street, south of Main.Street, and east of South 58th Street. It
can also. be described as Tax Lot 3030n Lane County Assessor's Map #18-02-03. .
. The land area to be developed is 333 acres within the unincorporated area of.the City's
urban growth boundary. The subject property is located adjacent to but outside of the .
. Springfield City Limits: The Metro Plan designation of the property is Low Density
Residential and the zoning is Low Density ResidentiaJ/Urban Fringe 10 OverJ'ay District
(LDR/UFlO) within the Hillside Development Overlay District (HD). The surrounding
. zoning is LDR and the hind uses are single family residential90 on the east, west and north .
and undeveloped low density residential land on the south. The parcel is relatively steep
where more that 40% of the land area has slopes in excess of 15%. The site is mostly
wooded with a.mixture of firs, hardwoods, shrubs, and a dense understory herbaceous
layer of wildflowers and groundcovers with grasses in the open meadows. There are no
current agricultural; housing or recreational uses on the subject property. J
.
.
Jo. No. 97-05-127
May 15, 1998
Page 2 of 5
2. The applicant is seeking a variance to the frontage provisions of SDC 26.050, Table 26-1,
which requires a minimum lot size of 90 feet where the average slope frontage is between
15 and 25 percent. The applicant proposes that (a) a minimum 60-:-foot wide frontages be
allow for lots .on the outside of curved roadways where the terrain is sloped between 15
- and 25 percent; (b) nolto apply to more than 10 percent of the lots in any given phase of
- the subdivision; and (c) and that the minimum width at the middle of the applicable lots
would be 90 feel. (See page 3 of the January 5, 1998 letter to Me1 Oberst from Philip -
Farrington.) - . -
Tight curvatures in the roadway system are needed to traverse the steep slopes of the -
hillsides. Similar to lots fronting on a cu1-<ie-sac bulb,the lots on the outside of the curves
have a "pie" shape. Strict adherence to minimum frontage requirements would make the
. rear lot lines extremely wide. -
- 3. Residential Land Use'and Housing Element Policy 5 specifies the residential density ranges
(LDR 0 to 10 du/ac) and Policy 34 requires that the City ensure that the SDC achieve the
prescribed densities of the Metro Plan. The net density of the conceptual lot pattern of
MountainGate Master Plan is 4.25 to 4.50 dwelling units per acres, depending on whether
20% or 25% of the net developable area is consumed by public right of way. The Metro
Plan Buildable Lands Inventory projected 3 dwelling_units per acre for hillside .
development. This density was based on physical constraints and other policies to protect
natural resources in difficult development areas. The City recently increased the minimum
lot size in the HD Overlay District to 10,000 square feet to protect trees and reduce
excavation and erosion resulting from too dense of developments. The proposed project
, ' density falls in the middle of the density range prescribed by the Metro Plan and is
comparable to flat land development densities.
-, Decision
. THE REQUEST (Jo. No. 97-05-127) FOR A V ARIANCETO THE REQUIREMENTS OF
SECTION 26.050 REGARDING LOT FRONT AGE ON THE OUTSIDE OFCURVED .
ROADWAYS IS DENIED.
Justification for the Decision (Conclusion)
The frontage provisions of SDC26.050, Table 26-1 require a minimum lot size of 90 feet where
-the average slope frontage is between 15 and 25 percent. As stated above, the applicant proposes
- -. that (a) a minimum 60-:-foot wide frontages be allow for lots' on the outside of curved roadways
where the terrain is sloped between 15 and 25 percent; (b) not to apply to more than 10 percent of
the lots in any given phase of the subdivision; and (c) and that the minimum width at the middle of
- the applicable lots would be 90 feet. -
.section 11.030(2) of the SDC provides that the following criteria must be met prior to the granting
of a variance:
(a) There are unusual conditions, associated with the property or structure
which make it impractical to -use the development area for its intended
.
.
- .
Jo. No. 97--D5-127
May IS, 1998
. Page 3 of5
purpose under the Springfield Development. Code.
, The City states thai street systems in hillside developments must adhere to the topography
(Section 26.060(1)) and consequently do have many curves. The City also logically
suggests that t!Ie lot dimension standards of Article 26 were developed to account for that,
and in fact, specifically require sufficient lot frontage on curved streets to allow adequate.
width for driveway approaches and to minimize grade conflicts with streets.
. While it is true that design of the street system will create some undersized lots and lots
with small frontages, the applicant nasnot made the case that, in regard to log frontage
widths, the topography of the subject property creates an unusual condition that makes a
. reasonably effiCient development impractical. The City suggests that the problem can be
remedied by combining some of these lots and meeting the standards of the SDC. The
applicant admits that there wilI be "a small and limited number of affected lots..." This
admission does not raise the problem to w~ereit is impractical to .use the development area
. for its intended purpose as required by this criterion. - .
(b) Granting of the Variance would not be inconsistent with both the Metro .
Plan and. the Springfield Development Code. .
Metro Plan Consistencv
. . .". ."
. The applicant cites Residential Land Use and Housin~ Element Policy 10 of the Metro Plan
. (III-A-5), which states: "Evaluate local development standards and regulations fot their effect
on housing costs. Modify development regulations that are found to unnecessarily add to
housing costs." While this policy does express a sensitivity to the impact on housing costs-from
- land use regulations, it focuses on a legislative solution to the issue. Having said that, the
. applicant's proposed variance to the frontage requirements of the SDC is not inconsistent with
this policy. -
. Also cited is Environmental Desil?n Element Policy 8 of the.Metro Plan (III-E-3) which states
"Site planning standards developed by local jurisdictions shall allow for flexibility in design that
will achieve site planning objectives while.allowing for creative solutions to design problems. "
While the proposed variance is not inconsistent with the intent of this policy, it cannot be said
that the policy mandates the approval of this particular variance request.
. . The Citycites Residential Land Use' and Housinl? Element Policy 5 and 34 of the Metro Plan in
support of the proposition thatresidential ranges are complied with and concludes that the
" applicant has not shown that the denial of the variance would be inconsistent with the LDR
-density range (0 to 10 density units per acre). The City also points out that assumptions
. underlying the Metro Plan included the calculation for an average density of 3 units per acre for
hillside development. . '. .
The approval standard is that the granting of the requested variance would not be inconSIstent
, with applicable policies of the Metro Plan. The applicant's proposed request has not been shown
to be inconsistent with any policy of the Metro Plan
.
)
.
- .
Jo. No. 97-05-127
May 15, 1998
Page 4 of 5
Springfield Development Code Consistency
. .
The City points out that the minimum lot size in theHD Overlay District was rec~ntly increased
to 10,000 square feet to protect trees and reduce excavation and erosion resulting from too dense
of developments. The wholesale reduction of lot size and frontage requirements will violate the
intent of hillside development criteria for larger lots. However, the purpose of a variance process
_ is to deteimine whether a derivation from existing standards is warranted. A variance may not be:
granted if it would have a significant adverse affect on the public welfare or neighboring
properties, values incorporated in the minimum lot size revision cited by\he City.
(c), Granting of the Variance would have no significant adverse affects-.on the
public welfare or neighboring properties, and. there are provisions to. mitigate
those adverse affects which will'be.a condition of use. . . ,
The City quotes Environmental Resources Element Policy J 8 of the Metro Plan (III-C~9) for the
proposition that larger lots are required in hillside development for retention of natural
vegetation, natural features and drainage ways, scenic quality and open space and cites Policy
LU2 of TransPlan (Page 4) in support oflarger lot sizes minimizing curb cuts and traffic
. . volumes and points of conflict. The applicant's claim that "if the code for lot and frontage were
maintained, the roadway alignment would be forced into areas of steeper grades, creating the
need for additional variances" is not supported by any technical analysis. On the contrary, when
, the lots are large with an adequate frontage, it is much easier to design streets and locate
. driveways in hillside areas. - .
(d) The. need for a variance has not arisen solely from a previous Code violation
. and the hardship is not self-imposed.
There are no previous code violations. The staff argues that the need for the variance is
self-imposed as it does not arise out of a situation where regulations do not adequately address
. the constraints to development. The burden is on the applicant to demonstrate that the
- -' topography of the subject property would substantially-and adversely impact all reasonable
. developrnent plans to the type of condition for which the variancds requested.
(e) There are no other practical alternatives available Jhat better meet the provisions
of the Springfield Development Code and the Metro Plan. '
TheSDC Section 11.010 states that "financial limitations or self-imposed hardships
shall not be used to justify a variance," The available alternative is to meet the standards
of the SDC by alternative street design and/or lot layout or by increasing the lot size to
. meet the standard. The applicant has not furnished persuasive argument or data that
would suggest that alternative designs would not alleviate a substantial need for the
requested variance. As the City suggests, additional variances would be reviewed on a
case-by--case basis and on the merits of the proposal and specifics of the problem.
Conclusion
The Hearing Official has concluded that the applicant has not shown, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that in regard to the requested lot frontage variance for the outside of curved
"I
.~
",
Jo. No. 97-05-127
. May 15, 1998
Page 5 of 5
roadways, there are unusual conditions, associated with the property or structure which make' it
impractical to meet code requirements; that the approval of the variance would not have
significant adverse affects on MountainGate Drive, and therefore on the public welfare or
neighboring properties; that the hardship requiring the variance was not self-imposed; or that
.there are no other practical alternatives available to meet the offset requirements of the.SDC.
The request is respectfully denied. . . .
Respectfully Submitted,
. .'
. . .
~~~
Gary Darmelle .'. .
Springfield Hearing Official
.,.., .
.'