HomeMy WebLinkAboutApplication APPLICANT 9/6/2013 • •
•
•
;City of Springfield SPRINGFIELD
Development Services Department
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Site Plan Review
• Application Type • (Applicant: check one)
Site Plan Review Pre-Submittal: 1 Major Site Plan Modification Pre-Submittal: ❑
Site Plan Review Submittal: ❑ Major Site Plan Modification Submittal: ❑
Required Project Information (Applicant: complete this section)
Applicant Name: k Of. £,Rf 19a 4te-iNp-iv Phone: fen - Sal-tI27
Company: F f;11 ,g-N put tcr1 ES1 tLc Email: RF'£cA ea-fr.-tea-97;NEr
Address: 3 U 2-3 S ity Ul f w LN OA q 7(1-d S
Applicant's Rep.: (ZtQ-N IR.Lcic -a-i Phone: c/f- 6$l " x"30-6-
Company: £6. t A-Ssot t s / .LN c. Email:
Address:
Property Owner: /ad ,g f R.T- Moral Phone:
Company: CS4--ni K}S /3 Ofttc9)(10 Email:
Address:
ASSESSOR'S MAP NO: 1 ? -03—.2_ S-23 ITAX LOT NO(S): trOZ .J- I Q ,2
Property Address:
Size of Property: 0,9 Acres Square Feet ❑ Proposed Density: MD C
Proposed Name of Project: �T-
Description of If you are filling in this form by hand, please attach your proposal description to this application.
Proposal: NA24_fitus 11--rn9GjcA
Existing Use: E 4114 LRNp
New Impervious Surface Coverage (Including Bldg. Gross Floor Area): sf
Si. natures: Please si•n and •rint our name and date in the a••ro•riate box on the next •a•e.
Required Project Information (City:Intake Staffs complete this section`)
Associated Applications: Signs:
Pre-Sub Case No.: ere /3 - (552)06 Date: 9/6 /ZcnS Reviewed by:
Case No.: 2 Date: Reviewed by:
Application Fee: $ 91-10 3` o ) Technical Fee: $ Postage Fee: $—
TOTAL FEES: $ PRE-SUBMITfA.1 6 CT NUMBER: PRJ (3 b0°°
Revised 5/21/13 KL SEP 6 2013 i of 12
•
• • 4..1.
Revised 2/17/11
• •
Owner Signatures
This application form is used for both the required pre-submittal meeting and subsequent
complete application submittal. Owner signatures are required at both stages in the application
process.
An application without the Owner's original signature will not be accepted.
Pre-Submittal
The undersigned acknowledges that the information in this application is correct and
accurate for scheduling of the Pre- Submittal Meeting. If the applicant is not the
owner, the owner hereby grants permission for the applicant to act in his/her behalf.
I/we do hereby acknowledge that I/we are legally responsible for all statutory
timelines, information, requests and requirements conveyed to my representative.
Owner:
zilaen,.,_ Date: 9 — 7— L 3
Signature
KO
Print
Submittal
I represent this application to be complete for submittal to the City. Consistent with the completeness check
performed on this application at the Pre-Submittal Meeting, I affirm the information identified by the City as
necessary for processing the application is provided herein or the information will not be provided if not otherwise
contained within the submittal, and the City may begin processing the application with the information as
submitted. This statement serves as written notice pursuant to the requirements of ORS 227.178 pertaining to a
complete application.
Owner:
Date:
Signature -
Print •
•
PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
SEP 6 2013
Revised 5/21/13 KL 3 of 12
• •
Site Plan Review Application Process
1. Applicant Submits a Site Plan Review Application for Pre-Submittal
• The application must conform to the Site Plan Review Submittal Requirements
Checklist on pages 4-7 of this application packet.
• A pre-submittal meeting to discuss completeness is mandatory, and pre-submittal
meetings are conducted every Tuesday and Friday, from 10:00 am - noon.
• Planning Division staff strives to conduct pre-submittal meetings within five to seven
working days of receiving an application.
2. Applicant and the City Conduct the Pre-Submittal Meeting
• The applicant, owner, and design team are strongly encouraged to attend the pre-
submittal meeting.
• The meeting is held with representatives from Public Works Engineering and
Transportation, Community Services (Building), Fire Marshall's office, and the Planning
Division and is scheduled for 30 to 60 minutes.
• The Planner provides the applicant with a Pre-Submittal Checklist specifying the items
required to make the application complete if it is not already complete, and the
applicant has 180 days submit a complete application to the City.
3. Applicant Submits a Complete Application, City Staff Review the Application and
Issue a Decision
• A complete application must conform to the Site Plan Review Submittal Requirements
Checklist on pages 4-7 of this application packet.
• A Type II decision, made after public notice, but without a public hearing, unless
appealed, is issued within 120 days of submittal of a complete application.
• • Mailed notice is provided to property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the
property being reviewed and to any applicable neighborhood association. In addition, .
the applicant must post one sign, provided by the City, on the subject property.
• There is a 14-day public comment period, starting on the date notice is mailed.
• Applications are distributed to the Development Review Committee, and their
comments are incorporated into a decision that addresses all applicable approval
criteria and/or development standards, as well as any written comments from those
given notice.
• Applications may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied.
• At the applicant's request, the Planner can provide a copy of the draft land use decision
prior to issuing the final land use decision.
• The City mails the applicant and any party of standing a copy of the decision, which is
effective on the day it is.mailed.
•
• The decision issued is the final decision of the City but may be appealed within 15
calendar days to the Planning Commission or Hearings Official.
Revised 5/21/13 KL 4,of 12
rF, — �)=.,,,.00..we ..,,en.A..w„•,.W.y._ •
.I 1 4,
I I 1 0 S
gP
-I 1,1 S
't,, L 6 I
l m
T`
it
F
% I— a w% e _ = e
I' �4 I - r T: ; ;
7 I 41 s ?
m L n''
29 SOLAR
�� �'� rwe— :--�__—,I - ..i I I I. r SETBACK
1 _ L
1 v
i `0 8n- ,. I-r EXIST rrue i. - — E
; 6
g.,. i T m.r .ur I
ii ma
1I'4
7* @ a a 6
' 1 4 d4 V - M Aq' 'P' - ' g` pl'
i -4 y -.I I -1VJIdAl I 4e>
d
".I @ ILA yyi-- °.° --e-�-- — nv _.ri
e �.�
I
sP
i a
} _ gip .
— --
o
F
DTI n
rn
iw co ex, I 4
T C_ 1 .Y-1 .1
41 -0 v
121. .. lie Z
o 1 aram F :.
gA y
1
a H
ii Ci
$fig€d� x-03. o - g
moony P
1 ;* $ p `e 3N�1 1 PhB; Pj1Ji!i;Ht rs: m 1
w o ho 2 osr ,02629:
1"_ Ogg 6
R to
g WO; N
" ... EwsvN,.e Ni.n.�n..[0SSrer 2 SU uvfv v.4�w: ^ •
1 = •
—
N
1 �1En 1 rl°• z ?r
1 i _� ;
v I
E _
1 . i a■
1• qr o 4I
J iv $ 1 f: i
.L1 II F
it
I 3 g 1 x r 4 z r r m £ x'
' 1`0� l * ?I *nDU Y _
r
�.] Iy0 +r „bk._ r I�E� 3S SOwF
46 �1. O I._ —_ a SMACK tIpa
• aE V E—EXIST.TNE a - —� \..) CC
1 _I� 1 T a
Itt' Y ! 4 AIIGI— a 2 '°' Lm, "" s ' 9i '�■
.a i 1 --sl_. 4 4 4 S r 124_1q x M" § e f
E Al
10.0'
E0.0' — 1)0'
I
0.
I ' t.., 1 evws.n
L• i 1 1.1 I
1 9 114
4 I
r 9 o
E 1 i-= °._
1 1 1 a-1 'br
I I ''. ii–i
Ioi ''' J
. I '_as.c—J I 'bb
II ! 1 :I
1 i 1 eI
.. q mAav - ' d.
I I k 1 @
P I 1 3 ' 1
I° i E® C 9 l u • 1
p
A �~ ^
p� g9§o _6;o>8,- _cRo8 m b Km 8o _m
1 R20 U a
"I"'" 2 1N gla a�, 8a�;p;Wig 2233O 2r6
9 Ea T >o.
<„ is a -F
{{ ; .im
I
1=.. 8 \'\ A �o 0 PM' R
O s �o ° Bch^ . 8
W 0 o "$ 'n o€ K
c f E'7
0 n a sa
Freeman, Robert
Subject: Narrative/ Description of the Proposal
Purpose of the Development:
Is to build very nice Duplexes, on these two vacant lots, for raising families and maximizing the MDR space.
I designed this Site Plan to model what Greg Larkin, of Valley River Builders, did on South 42nd Street. We have talked
many times, and I bought the plans from him, so the Duplexes will be the same. The lots are a different shape but the
square footage is the same. It is much easier to know what the final result will look like when the whole project is done,
and not reinvent the wheel. My approach is to have 6 duplexes on individual lots so I can finance them conventionally,
and the two on the North side of both lots would need to be out of my own pocket or financed a different way. I plan on
building these duplexes in a phased approach as they are numbered on the Site Plan layout. Build the first duplex on the
South side of the West lot, and refinance it to build the next duplex on the South side of the East lot, as phase 2. Before
building the third duplex, I will partition the West lot into 3 lots(see the future division lines on the Site Plan), and
continue on with the phase 3 duplex. At phase four, I may do the remaining duplexes on the West lot. Then partition
the East lot into 3 lots and finish building the rest of the duplexes, one to two at a time, and refinancing them. The
timing of the phases depends on the economy and the rental market.
Other comments:
I don't know of any State or Federal permits that are required.
For the On-Site Lighting Plan, there will be a front porch light, a back door light, and two garage lights per unit, with 40-
75watt bulbs and 6'-8' above grade; no additional exterior lights or light poles.
I don't think any of the additional materials apply for this Site Plan Review.
PRE-SUBMI1TAL REC'D
SEP 6 2013
S •
mt. 6/4�i i// \ V/1/7111(GYir/, ^
w.g /%/if�i art- \ ,r,vl6/✓r x/7111171'110/4 ' x� .L
+t�'d, le- gam. //////%LfI L(/.g,. / �u'it
R ,.,, 4"‘‘‘r s- N.... �1 4---1Pr *ASS r` (�
ty r
.$73/4%/136;7: Y/OQOhI� /uvu." ate KS= ®�pt '. � iii�rii/% ■® VI, I'M
b--c i ffs I ZIN =� amr 1{011we f 4r
y w ._ nn rs0 R1® s r Snvrrvi IRK it anm� I �,I -' v/Z 1 -l"
�� Im Ailn �'�':� I:iviunw•' I �I WIZ I � /' �t rtS�,
kJ���,$7,.�r J B h rFS o �� riiur� C+r al rncr k
y 4N —cam_ ®-- Ir44rl/� S 'T• / / 1 -C�
„ f
rrn rnr mnnrnmrrmnmmurrrrrrrnmimn ( '�� Clifil Iit
1 l r -: "—=7 olismunm�v i ik r l rr n r n u / \ / jnunnrui� n l Y{{"'
�\0�Il r((�1'';ii hwmrnmmu/ nn°� rd 'S�� n%J %%mviii//r/4i inn S,
\\, 1 unmaviila mmn re/� �' //ouunmu. /rn. j
\� I unmmnnn%%/ ��g at a___
t+s s ill r.0,.
v m , i5,.._--, r /1 / /
et" R,fy 7il</• S + tt hi•`i r` gm, !';N,.•0 % r�//�/////4a �rniorr,• .
40,
P I
■
GREAT RM BR BR
GREAT RM 19/0 x 12/6
t9/o x 12/6 NIC 01N RM BR BR 9/4 X 13/a 9/4 X 12/6
NIC DIN RM 9/4X 12/6 9/4X 13/0
r"----1
DIN RM IIMIIIMI
I III Dio x eM a PO fea KIT. AVG
I Mi-lrnin
MIMS AVG KIT i t-lsasraa
BATH
'SRS Ma • PDR V Y 0
10111411.-_ ■_a
®• • o • El
• �� ��I • 'BA H� G
!�
m. II��E� '1� �BA H�
-- GARAGE - !/o GARAGE
0/6 '�" MOM f�1 VAULTED
mi= 11/0 x 20/6 FOYER MBR Illa
VAULTED 11/0 x la/s
FOYER wl MBR
COVERED CLO 11/0 X 14/6
COVERED PORCH --
PORCH _. .. ,
,tS l r£ . F R ver Valle S r, 9nc.
Premium Quality Homes - -
` .�> , Greg Larkin
---`. - President
RiverValleyBuilders.com .PRE-SUBMITTAL RECD
Phone: (541) 726-0330 • -
CC6 A 134566 Fax: (541) 367-1638 SEP 6 2013
Homesbyrvb @comcas[.net Mobile : (541) 760-7881
1 •
Drainage Study
For
Proposed Development on
Assessors Parcels 17-03-25-23-01800 and 1902
R Street
Springfield, Oregon
August 2013
\S�39 G PROFSf�i
6
I Its ■
n GO
C49,44/Y30,45Q�
ON 1. 8€
RENEWS: 01/01/14
Prepared for:
Robert Freeman
3023 Skyview Lane
Eugene,Oregon 97405
Prepared by:
EGR& Associates, Inc.
25356 Prairie Road
Eugene, Oregon 97402
(541)688-8322
PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
SEP 6 2013
• •
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/Engineering Division Phone:(541)726.3753 Fax:(541)736-1021
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM SCOPE OF WORK
----------------------(Area below this line filled out by Applicant)------- ---------
(Please return to Matt Stouder()City of Springfield Public Works Engineering;Fax#736-1021;Phone#736-1035),
email:mstouder(ti�cLspringfreld or.us
Project Name: R Street Duplexes Applicant: Robert Freeman co Clint Beecroft
Assessors Parcel 17-03-25-23-01800 and 01902 Date: July 29, 2013
LandUse(s): MD - currently vacant Phone#: 1541-688-8322 I
Project Size(Acres): 0.84 acre Fax#: 541-688-8087
Approx.Impervious Area: 0. 53 acre Email: clintbeecroftoegrassoc.com
Project Description(Include a copy of Assessor's map):
Development of 14 residential units (6 duplexes and 2 singles) with
associated access and parking, including a half-street improvement of
R Street adjacent to the site.
Drainage Proposal(Public connection(s),discharge location(s),etc. Attach additional sheet(s)if necessary:
Collect and route runoff from impervious surfaces through private on-site
pretreatment and flow control facilities. Runoff from new street surface
and final destination of on-site runoff will be directed into nearby
existing catch basins 402 and 403 in R Street.
Proposed Stormwater Best Management Practices:
Combination of infiltration stormwater planters, vegetated/grassy swales,
and impervious area reduction techniques as applicable. Roof runoff may
bypass pretreatment facilities as applicable.
-- (Area below this line filled out by the Oty and Returned to the Applicant) ---
(At a minimum,all boxes checked by the City on the front and back of this sheet shall be submitted
for an application to be complete for submittal,although other requireiients may be necessary)
Drainage Study Type(EDSPM Section 4.03.2): (Note,UH may be substituted for Rational Method)
❑ Small Site Study-(use Rational Method for calculations)
Mid-Level Development Study—(use Unit Hydrograph Method for calculations)
Full Drainage Development Study—(use Unit Hydrograph Method for calculations)
Environmental Considerations:
® Wellhead Zone: _ r32 y r ❑ Hillside Development:
n Wetland/Riparian: / ❑ Floodway/Floodplain:
❑ Soil Type: 5.2. - Co buy, ()rim) Cora n Other Jurisdictions
Downstream Analysis:
❑C N/A •
❑ Flow line for starting water surface elevation:
❑ Design HGL to use for starting water surface elevation:
❑ Manhole/Junction to take analysis to:
Return to Matt Stouder @ City of Springfield, email:pstoudet actsndncifield.oruh( XJ CQp [. i®
SEP 6 2013
•
COMPLETE STUDY ITEMS For Official Use Only.
*Based upon the information provided on the front of this sheet, the following represents a minimum ofwhat is needed for an
application to be complete for submittal with respect to drainage;however, this list should not be used in lieu of the Springfield
Development Code(SDC)or the City's Engineering Design Manual. Compliance with these requirements does not constitute site
approval;Additional site specific information may be required Note: Upon scoping sheet submittal, ensure completed form has been
signed in the space provided below:
Interim Design Standards/Water Quality(EDSPM Chapter 3)
Req'd N/A I .
® I I All non-building rooftop(NBR)impervious surfaces shall be pre-treated(e.g.multi-chambered catchbasin w/oil filtration
media)for stormwater quality. Additionally,a minimum of 50%of the NBR impervious surface shall be treated by
vegetated methods.
M ❑ Where required,vegetative stormwater design shall be consistent with interim design standards(EDSPM Section 3.02),set
forth by the Bureau of Environmental Services(BES)or Clean Water Services(CWS).
Vi ❑For new NBR impervious area less than 15;000 square feet,a simplified design approach may be followed as specified by
the BES for vegetative treatment.
M ❑If a stormwater treatment swale is proposed,submit calculations/specifications for sizing,velocity,flow,side slopes,bottom
t�slope,and seed mix consistent with either BES or CWS requirements.
® ' I Water Quality calculations as required in Section 3.03.1 of the EDSPM
M ❑All building rooftop mounted equipment,or other fluid containing equipment located outside of the building,shall
be provided with secondary containment or weather resistant enclosure.
General Study Requirements(EDSPM Section 4.03)
r y ❑Drainage study prepared by a Professional Civil Engineer licensed in the state of Oregon.
n A complete drainage study,as required in EDSPM Section 4.03.1,including a hydrological study map.
❑Calculations showing system capacity for a 2-year storm event and overflow effects of a 25-year storm event.
❑The time of Concentration(Tc)shall be determined using a 10 minute start time for developed basins.
Review of Downstream System(EDSPM Section 4.03.4.C)
❑ ®A downstream drainage analysis as described in EDSPM Section 4.03.4.C. On-site drainage shall be'governed by the
Oregon Plumbing Specialty Code(OPSC).
❑ M Elevations of the HGL and flow lines for both city and private systems where applicable.
Design of Storm Systems(EDSPM Section 4.04) .
® ❑Flow lines,slopes,rim elevations,pipe type and sizes clearly indicated on the plan set.
IIn Minimum pipe cover shall be 18 inches for reinforced pipe and 36 inches for plain concrete and plastic pipe materials,or
proper engineering calculations shall be provided when less. The cover shall he sufficient to support an 80,000 lb load
without failure of the pipe structure.
17 ❑Manning's"n"values for pipes shall be consistent with Table 4-1 of the EDSP. All storm pipes shall be designed to
achieve a minimum velocity of three(3)feet per second at 0.5 pipe full based on Table 4-1 as well.
OtherMisc
V1 ❑Existing and proposed contours,located at one foot interval. Include spot elevations and site grades showing how site
drains
M ❑Private stormwater easements shall be clearly depicted on plans when private stormwater flows from one property to
�Iq�'t another
171 n Drywells shall not receive runoff from any surface w/o being treated by one or more BMPs,with the exception of residential
building roofs(EDSP Section 3.03.4.A). Additional provisions apply to this as required by the DEQ. Refer to the website:
www.deq.state.or.us/wq/groundwa/uichome.hem for more information.
0 ElDetention ponds shall be designed to limit runoff to pm-development rates for the 2 through 25-year storm events
*This form shall be included as an attachment,inside the front cover,of the stormwater study
D[ I *IMPORTANT:ENGINEER'PLEASE READ BELOW AND SIGN!
PI\LOCI I MIT eccit oord,I hereby cerb fy the above required items are
•
R V�J dn�(neldded with the submitted stormwater study and plan set Signet uro Date 5
SE 6 2013 Form Version 2: March2004
•
NARRATIVE
Project Description
The project consists of constructing attached single-family units (duplexes) on Assessor's parcel
17-03-25-23-01800 and parcel 17-03-25-23-01902. The area of both parcels is 0.89 acre. The site
is located in the Springfield city limits, is zoned medium density residential and is currently
vacant. The current proposal is for seven duplex units and one single-family unit for a total I5-
unit development that will create approximately 0.58 acre of new impervious surfaces.
Impervious surfaces will consist of approximately 13,697 square feet of building rooftop and
11,794 square feet of non-building rooftop (drives). A reduced copy of the site plan is included
herein as Attachment 1.
Stormwater Management System Scope of Work
A Stormwater Management System Scope of Work (scoping sheet) was downloaded from the
city's web site, completed, and submitted to the Springfield Public 'Works Department (copy
included inside the front cover of this report). The following is a brief discussion of the scoping
sheet requirements as returned from the city. A mid-level development study is required and a
downstream analysis is not required.
Interim Design Standards
I. All non building rooftop (NBR) impervious surfaces shall be pre-treated for
stormwater quality and a minimum of 50 percent of the NBR impervious surface shall
be treated by vegetated methods. Stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces on this
site will be managed with the use of infiltration stormwater planters as detailed in
Eugene's Stormwater Management Manual. A copy of applicable stormwater planter
details is included herein as Attachment 2. The scoping sheet notes that the site is
within a 2-year wellhead zone, thus the depth of planting medium in the planters will
be 24-inches. All NBR impervious surfaces will be routed into on-site stormwater
planters.
2. Vegetative stormwater design shall be consistent with interim design standards set
forth by the Bureau of Environmental Services (BES) or Clean Water Services (CWS).
Springfield design standards (Section 3.01) adopted December 3, 2012 require that
applicable portions of Eugene's Stormwater Management Manual be followed with
respect to stormwater quality design standards. Water quality BMP's for this site have
been selected and sized based on the Eugene manual.
3. For new NBR impervious area less than 15,000 square feet, a .simplified design
approach may be followed as specified by the BES for vegetative treatment. The NBR
impervious area for this site is approximately 11,794 square feet, thus a simplified
approach was followed as specified in the Eugene manual.
Pagel PRE-SUBMITTALREC'D.
SEP 6 2013
4. If a stormwater treatment swale is proposed, submit calculations/specifications for
sizing, velocity,flow, side slopes, bottom slope, and seed mix consistent with either
BES or CWS requirements. A treatment swale is not proposed for this site.
5. Water quality calculations as required in Section 3.03.1 of the EDSPM. The Eugene
manual was followed for stormwater quality design per section 3.01 of the current
adopted Springfield design standards.
6. All building rooftop mounted equipment, or other fluid containing equipment located
outside of the building, shall be provided with secondary containment or weather
resistant enclosures. This requirement is not applicable due to the proposed nature of
development for this site.
General Study Requirements
I. Drainage study prepared by a Professional Civil Engineer licensed in the State of
Oregon. This drainage study was prepared by a Professional Civil Engineer with
current standing in the State of Oregon.
2. A complete drainage study including a hydrological study map. A drainage map for
the site is included herein as Attachment 3.
3. Calculations showing system capacity for a 2-year storm event and overflow effects of
a 25-year storm event. Runoff from on-site NBR impervious surfaces and portions of
the roof runoff will be routed into on-site infiltration stormwater planters. The final
destination from these planters is infiltration. The remaining portions of roof runoff
will be routed into an existing piped stormwater system located in R Street in a
manner that mimics pre-development peak runoff from the site to the extent
practicable. Overflow pipes from the planters have been provided in accordance with
the stormwater planter detail (Attachment 2) and the pipe capacity has been checked
for a 25-year recurrence interval.
4. The time of concentration (Tc) shall be determined using a 10 minute start time for
developed basins. A minimum 10 minute start time was used to develop runoff
hydrographs for the various drainage sub-basins.
Design of Storm Systems
I. Flow lines, slopes, rim elevations, pipe type and sizes clearly indicated on the plan
set. Applicable information is shown on the Proposed Grading, Paving and Utilities
Plan. A reduced copy of this plan is included herein as Attachment 4.
2. Minimum pipe cover shall be 18 inches for reinforced pipe and 36 inches for plain
concrete and plastic pipe materials, or proper engineering calculations shall be
provided when less. A minimum 18 inches of cover is provided within common drive
areas.No greater cover can be achieved due to the shallow depth of the existing piped
stormwater system in R Street.
Page 2 PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
SEP 6 2013
3. Manning's "n" values for pipes shall be consistent with Table 4-1 of the EDSP. All
storm pipes shall be designed to achieve a minimum velocity of three feet per second
at 0.5 pipe full based on Table 4-1 as well. On-site pipes consist of roof drains and
overflow pipes for planters. Roof drains will be provided consistent with Building
Department requirements. Overflow pipes have been checked for capacity based on a
Manning's"n" value of 0.013. Calculations are included in Attachment 5.
Other/Misc.
1. Existing and proposed contours, located at one foot interval. Include spot elevations
and site grades showing how site drains. Applicable information is shown on the
Proposed Grading, Paving and Utilities Plan (Attachment 4).
2. Private stormwater easements shall be clearly depicted on plans when private
stormwater flows from one property to another. This requirement is not applicable for
this site.
3. Drywells shall not receive runoff from any surface w/o being treated by one or more
BMP's, with the exception of residential building roofs. Drywells are not proposed for
this site.
4. Detention ponds shall be designed to limit runoff to pre-development rates for the 2
through 25 year storm events. Detention ponds are not proposed for this site.
Site Variables
The on-site soil is listed by the NRCS Web Soil Survey as Coburg urban land complex. The soil
survey lists the soil texture as silty clay loam from 0- to 18-inches in depth (unified soil
classification CL), silty clay/silty clay loam from 18- to 53-inches in depth (unified soil
classification CL), and fine sandy loam/loam/clay loam from 53- to 65-inches in depth (unified
soil classification ML/SM). Coburg soil is a hydrologic soil group C.
Three test holes were hand dug for the purpose of testing infiltration rates of the underlying soil,
herein referred to as Test Holes West, South and East. Test Hole West was located adjacent to
the westerly site boundary, Test Hole South was located adjacent to the southerly site boundary,
and Test Hole East was located adjacent to the easterly site boundary. The soil texture of the soil
removed from infiltration test holes is consistent with the soil survey. A hand auger was utilized
to auger to a greater depth than the hand-dug test holes to determine underlying soil texture and
depth to seasonal high groundwater. The soil texture of the soil removed from infiltration test
holes is consistent with the soil survey. A bar run layer was encountered at depths greater than
four feet at the Test Hole West and South locations and hand augering to a greater depth was not
practicable due to large rock. A sandy loam layer was encountered at a depth of 58 to 72 inches
(bottom of hole) at the Test Hole East location. No evidence of seasonal high groundwater was
present to depths of the hand augered holes.
Page 3 PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
SEP 6 2013
• •
Infiltration Testing
An infiltration test was performed at each test hole location following the procedures of Section
2.4 of Eugene's Stormwater Management Manual, 2008 (Eugene Manual) for falling head
infiltration test. This test procedure is generally consistent with the EPA falling head percolation
test procedure that is outlined in EPA Design Manual — Onsite Wastewater Treatment and
Disposal Systems, EPA, 1980.
Test Hole West was excavated to a depth of approximately four feet. The bottom of the test hole
was in the silty clay loam soil. The bar run layer at this location was encountered approximately
five inches below the bottom of the test hole, thus the bar run was not included in the infiltration
test at this location. The measured infiltration rate of the silty clay loam averaged 0.4 inches per
hour.
Test Hole South was excavated to a depth of approximately four feet. The bottom of the test hole
was in the bar run layer. The lowest measured infiltration rate of the bar run was 24 inches per
hour.
Test Hole East was excavated to a depth of approximately 4.4 feet. The bottom of the test hole
was in the sandy loam soil. The lowest measured infiltration rate of the sandy loam soil was 37
inches per hour.
The proposed infiltration planter facilities provide for pre-treatment and final destination of non-
building roof and roof runoff. In accordance with the Eugene Manual design parameters for
infiltration systems that incorporate pre-treatment (i.e. stormwater planters), the design
infiltration rate of the planting medium shall be 2.5-inches per hour. In order for infiltration to be
effective the infiltration rate of the underlying soil should be at least 2.5 inches per hour. This
will require that within the areas of the proposed stormwater planters the on-site soil will be
excavated down to the more permeable bar run or sandy loam soil and replaced with a minimum
24-inches of select planting medium meeting the requirements of the Eugene Manual.
Infiltration Stormwater Planter Sizing
Stormwater planters are located at eight locations that provide for minimum setbacks to
buildings and the site boundary while being adjacent to proposed drives and roofs. Locations are
shown on the attached Drainage Map (Attachment 3) and utility plan (Attachment 4). Roof
drains will discharge into the planter and surface runoff from adjacent drives will enter at curb
openings. Drive and roof areas tributary to each planter was balanced to achieve the minimum
design ratio, or sizing factor of 0.07 for infiltration stormwater planters, following the simplified
approach for stormwater quality design. The curb opening location of the planters as shown on
the utility plan (Attachment 4) are strategically located to create the required tributary runoff area
from the drives so that the sizing ratio of each planter meets the minimum requirement. The
Page 4 PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
SEP 6 2013
E..
• •
following table summarizes the available treatment area of each planter and the associated
impervious surface area under management.
BMP I.D. Treatment Area Management Area Ratio
ISP-1 147 s.f. 2,048 s.f. 0.072
ISP-2 186 s.f. 2,656 s.f. 0.070
ISP-3 186 s.f. 2,342 s.f. 0.079
ISP-4 149 s.f. 1,698 s.f. 0.088
ISP-5 118 s.f. 1,678 s.f. 0.070
ISP-6 186 s.f 2,265 s.f. 0.082
ISP-7 186 s.f 2,265 s.f 0.082
ISP-8 126 s.f 1,543 s.f. 0.082
A high-flow overflow pipe will interconnect the planters and discharge to existing catch basins in
R Street. The capacity of the proposed overflow pipes have been checked for a peak 25-year
recurrence interval discharge. Calculations are included in Attachment 5.
Undetained Discharges
There is insufficient infiltration stormwater planter surface area to accommodate all impervious
surface runoff from the site. A portion of the roof runoff will discharge directly into the overflow
pipe and then to R Street. Roof runoff does not require pre-treatment prior to discharge. Runoff
from pervious open (grassed) areas will sheet flow southerly toward R Street. Patios located on
the back-side of the units will surface flow onto adjacent grass areas. Runoff hydrographs were
developed for the various sub-basins to calculate peak runoff for standard recurrence intervals of
2-year, 5-year, 10-year, and 25-year returns to insure that post-development peak discharges
from these undetained portions of the site mimic pre-development peak runoff from the site.
Hydrographs were developed using the Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD
following the TR55 SCS hydrograph methodology. Printouts of the various hydrographs are
included in Attachment 5. The following table summarizes the calculated pre- and post-
development peak runoff.
Recurrence Interval Pre-Development Peak Post-Development Peak
Runoff Runoff
2-year 0.16 cfs 0.19 cfs
5-year 0.24 cfs 0.24 cfs
10-year 0.31 cfs 0.29 cfs
25-year 0.40 cfs 0.34 cfs
PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
Pages SEP 6 2013
• •
Attachment 1
Reduced Site Plan
PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
SEP 6 2013
U
W to
fY o
J tV
CI-
VIU Oa. . W _ `''mow', 0
LL N
co .. NN z oo 3 z �yl 1'E
U N2 /f1 Nf2 J OJJ `Q� Nn
d U'.Yy UQ NF a a m �� '. �Y �
U' ^ZI�NeQ.n LLOW "NNd_ u p.0 rv,
N �o o �_ N Z wooer ¢4 ¢a \ F L
Y>> U o a W W -3 QZ 0 u
Z OZa1CUNEttia., KY �ba�JZ —`� WN N O U
Wu,gF.Dd? �:. FN L u u-rwa
ZQ+rv� ��,�'..t�i1pJ Y�'UOWS � •� -ag � � � � CL, "'..� 0 ` � tl
ooD 2 N-LL7aU mU' NF 3 -
Nzz oa omQEzt,a w<ow2-�WU to N z p.
.JcamWreyt_6W�. ~<zyHF taW ''�' L! $ "<
Qi3w.e2aza Na_o UNdZU1' `�. °a
U) aw aS9°wo<lo w.'w' wmo W w
W °acsi n4_ice s aOOwui O``wwnz . . -' . . . 1:4 t
o.�QQQmwm.oaOdOZO H Sao '
O LL°W'U' v0 OZJZm' N Q . . 1 .
I 1 6 I,
. I I moa.os p
I °I II II I
L
I III ` li 18
L N
.yam.
I
w� E I . -14
— dr I
a I .
-.:. _
SETBACKI — -- } - - — _ — y ' I
erefr
TYPICAL,e c - I:'I s'
ti = z LL & o 9 11 1 1 ,t,
a 2 '0 d .0 0- . I,o u I I
8 „ II I
LLo e
I1 au
o•u� .. Boz
d
— } _ —I — — 3necislx3—{ , ic Il ID.i i1
r __� _ ena.� I I y I a p4�
NOtlB135 I I I .i I , I (:, '. g�g .- I `'
*noes.oz az+' TYPI AI.:: .I
mu . •
LL
V
A II
I _ I C
0� .
'4. _1> I I E . x& F i
o I .I 0 ...
8 16 II I.•I
I,
Wd 211SgalIGAV1&64)12WS MweId IISZ Kel\,9WSae000ILWEueud eLtcol+MW:s 0d 090
avuwud wIZZ 3'.
� t-EtoL'Sods- qpp tqd`-
• •
Attachment 2
Stormwater Planter Details
From Eugene's Stormwater Management Manual
PRE-SUBMITTAL RECD
SEP 6 2013
• • •
Stormwater Planters
Infiltration Stormwater Planter (Formerly Named Infiltration Planter)
Overflow set 3"below
9'"minimum top of planter wall
12"maximum Plantings Gravel
splash pad
) gth Downspout or
other conveyance
. .
hi ip r system
11
.▪v.:::
✓v.::::
r{{i: : I
ilimmiusidmi
314"open graded i' f•r•;•}•} Structural
r•r.r•J{! planter walls
drain rock,or other :f~f f,f.r
approved material, `{ w x
.•• H3a•a . - rr.
min.12"thickness 'aa0 a'�as .!~,�- {}
aaaa agar r•r•r•r- .
r:r.::r v ad'X').14.► -• r ` - a.i a ti- }'ti..'K•+'
Ik•,,.1-.. a a,���.� r-� •- a= �a 'r•r•r.r•r 18"Growing medium
J•nr•: it a a 3 o r ~•�•`. ++
r
.h J
•
r
::::45,:.-5.L.:."--.;:.-3•":"... -1:;".:::.•%, f~r tir.r .7:::•,..:::::: _I.-:.:•: •:.-'.'•.' . '{: •{. l 1•r••!••K.~Y~ JK• A•-+ J~."~f~} •i4,:r.ti i.r AI•J• r
• - .%"&r:r .W.e.:• •4. :•-t•-M.._ } • f t+ ~ . itio~
o rn n �{{, {•.4.0.stf-t {s,A:YY{{{{d:.mi{{{!cols {f{!d{{!+!
Filter fabric r fn
ti tin ..!{:r J{I{{J N{r.Jyr•r.!•J.r.r•r•:•fi tAS:1{!r.t.t rti: ti imA{i! o
Overflows t {•J•~J~r -.J~J~~•r4r•r~▪r~~ Existing SOLI hrn !:4:45r Kr~r {r~{ 1 ~-r aggregate interlaye
r to
approved �~rtiJ r~{F~.tlfi~w1! .ti•-.....t.rti•s•..•+-tin ! {{{ni! ti.�y .~K• prevent soil migration
destination point .:n•tir� •r:~ ti}.: {rtiti F•,Z4r{{!{wirnf{!!~r!ir:r{.J:ni."~r }n.{{ n•'
(per Section f4), + .}y.r.r.r}:.}}▪t}}:.}�r}r{t�rr�'Zr{r{r{`{{3{r•}{ti} ;.1}; ?,1{ r{!
!i ~ . ! L{{f
unless"infiltration
destination"sizing 741
is used 30"minimum width
Planter width x length=square footage from Form SIM
Not to Scale
Filtration Stormwater Planter (Formerly Named Flow-Through Planter)
9"minimum,
12"maximum
Overflow set 3" pond ing depth Downspout or
below top of other conveyance
planter wall • system
Plantings
Gravel splash pad
1
18"growing
medium 1 I Filter fabric or fine aggregate
I rib, 1 1 interlayer to prevent soil
yrKµ~
��i , migration
3/4"open +^., ---7-__ •••.•,•: sail
graded : t!i ' - . :.,
r
drain rock,tom•. Structural walls w/
or other «rte waterproof membrane
approved ;535{
f r„
: Perforated under drain
Pit.; system wrapped in
thickne :r•r �
' ' ' � � '' ' ' geotextile sack
thickness +_!! _..,.+.,.�..�� r...,.,«
~{�{:.. .~:~.~KK ~:~•{- -w.�1.s. --atiz�Z~1~•M~•~.ti.~:~•~•\
�r:r:r•r:r:r•r:J•r: 1r1.`.` e•e-r-e....r.{r•r." Waterproof
y. Existing Soil f r'�~r{f:fYJ.r �= 1 building as
~K~.4~~•~.~KKK•~.~K ~.~.~.~.~.~•L
-1•.:11 r. ... •r. • • • • .r.r.r....J•r•.�r'•r•r•r. needed
%r' NIy r J J•r•r•rY•rY•rYK•r•J•r•
:}:te`�t}t?erch}rt:~},}i�x`?e!t�'rt:?r ?'rh�i�t�e.r
Pipe to approved 18"minimum planter width
destination point(see Planter width x length=square footage from Form SIM
Section 14), Not to Scale
bottom or side-out options
Stormwater Management Manual PRE-SUBMITTAL RECD Page 2-55
Eugene 2008 SE p g 2013
•
Stormwater Planters
Stormwater Management Goals Achieved Acceptable Sizing Methodologies
Pollution Reduction SIM', PRES
Flow Control SIM
Destination PRES2
This facility is not classified as an Underground Injection Control structure (UIC).
SIM=Simplified Approach, PRES= Presumptive Approach, PERF=Performance
Approach
Notes:Stormwater planters may be designed to manage runoff from rooftops, and, if
submerged into the ground, parking lots and streets in many cases.
1) Projects greater than 15,000 square-feet of impervious surface area to manage
must use the Presumptive Approach to size the Stormwater Planter for pollution
reduction.
2) Residential applications with NRCS soil types A or B may size infiltration
facilities for destination using the SIM sizing factor for Pollution Reduction with
Flow Control.
f
Description:Stormwater planters are structural landscaped reservoirs used to collect, filter,
and/or infiltrate stormwater runoff, allowing pollutants to settle and filter out as the water
percolates through the planter soil before infiltrating into the ground below or piped to its
downstream destination. In addition to providing pollution reduction, flow rates and
volumes can also be managed with stormwater planters. Stormwater planters can be used
to help fulfill a site's required landscaping area requirement and should be integrated into
the overall site design. Numerous design variations of shape, wall treatment, and planting
scheme can be used to fit the character of a site. Stormwater planters may provide either
"infiltration treatment" or "filtration treatment". An overflow to an approved destination
per Section 1.4 will be required, unless the facility is an Infiltration Storrnwater Planter sized
per Surface Infiltration Facility guidelines presented in this chapter.
Infiltration Stormwater Planters:
Design Considerations: The infiltration rate of the native soil is a key element in
determining size and viability. Infiltration Stormwater Planters shall not be used on sites
with infiltration rates less than 0.5 in/hr.
PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
Stormwater Management Manual SEP 6 2013 Page 2-56
Eugene 2008
0
U
W re)
C! O
J N
CD 1
cc_ ;
C
a'
a❑_oOn�OfV pNp mNm O Cr, 0,•
Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . - Z .'
OK 00000000 0 O '.F V' •�;( •
�• Z a a W K J a _ O� 0 q.to Q&W \
-, Ito U W ILL W W W LL LL W W • - z• Z a' (Dl WW -. 2 W p,- O m ❑ J oar:-
O ❑ 60Wrp0000lnm fca � - c, .❑ I- Op' .. fM0 Iw
f Ua'0NNV$mm b my ZW m W • a QZ QZ 5 ; biA•48� •hh",1T O2 y vl. �/
w gaQa$,n("m_ qjN. 5 K (a •0J' o ‘Cr QJ
I J {V CI IV•-�NIV� �Q Z = O y LL ❑ ❑ Z Z LL ❑ J L�� - +Y 1,2
a z w o G U m J w o o $ a c� a z 0 •
LL
n] ;, ZW<LLIi IiLLLLLLLLIL O Z rW 2 > W ? a' O O p W tp� p O O •`O ' WWy� uY} � `
' 0 ,lymyf/lmmy4J f/1'...'- -.-Z w F 'F ❑ H' :S U ..Z a' U a 6 S S .: n n � � N ...� �.�
W 0>66.a. a-.-- 1i� . i O w uz O r:.9m 1 - x w _..5a fc •o m �. f Ail' .: Z O z❑ z❑..... a S a°, .n g z ,❑ .m a °5
Q* yq
Q WF Fa' W I N Q.. rZ - V .�
n-,,, 9�,� JW } 3 ® O H - • 'A
O diaaaad a Ern IL 4 (J 3 U �'z�L• W
co . _c4 IL `
•
c w !w ;
I r,411 4 1,
•
N p I : I
I ;I Moa.oe •
•
& 6 V • 1 1 . .
I .I B .
I I I G-- •• se=I �:+'i
PII R: h ; i+ l'•
•
' * I0�� I ; I. 1• •
•
II "I
?r .—_ te '
b�
K p ' I 'I
• o . o g .
I --r T`-!- I•
II
as9 1 ;NI
•
w L {f
• 1. Z❑ NI IN `N YI I t4 1
`%I 9 A3llbnAl — ::.v.3.1.::.714� I { G'I , 1 I ,,
I�t"R 1 :A31lbn %L Ad-7.A
.I N1'. '1 N .-.•1 NI : ,"i N :N �� IN ::..I— II . 1 4 i II I 1
t
• x \ ; k ; l 1
ea. b N .t _ \ 1 4\ G ptlp '� I .I
•a LL d� 7 LL \�I 4 1 III d
U. x j li ' I . I -e• a 4I I �I
14 ' I I•• /�\ / - I . ' I, I I. I .
•• 4 rI / 1 , tl 4 Ipp,L.'I
u 4
419 •
<
\ •\ i I I 1 , I .I
W � � � LL� � r,l• I -
�1 �.� � MM 9 ,',�gr� A1,M 9 swam -'� V /
�A3rnn .�I �
s I 9 ' I, I .
F' 9 �, -n p A I I Se
1 , I .1
4. / • 1'• I1'11,4 “ _„. '•
- I •
•
I L1I . P I `I
• ub.... 4 OUlred&400+0 OwOtN.L1OAn I*O1S IS!Meld ORS 1 ItallIeWIS U Oflq CIWE eoy OLC940O401/411'S GO wet'rL•JII
• IL ZI'CIOZ'SO deS p % 3111
CZ
• i
Attachment 5
Calculations
PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
SEP 6 2013
. •
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 3D®2013 by Autodesk,Inc.v10 Thursday.09/5/2013
Hyd. No. 1
Pre-Development Entire Site
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 0.164 cfs
Storm frequency = 2 yrs Time to peak = 8.20 hrs
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 3,540 cult
Drainage area = 0.890 ac Curve number = 74
Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft
Tc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 27.90 min
Total precip. = 3.30 in Distribution = Type IA
Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484
Pre-Development Entire Site
(cfs) Hyd. No. 1 --2 Year C (cfs)
0.50 -- 0.50
0.45 --- - — 0.45
— r-- --
0.40 0.40
0.35 — - - - 0.35
0.30 0.30
0.25 - - —- - 0.25
0.20 - 0.20
0.15 --- — 1 - -- - 0.15
0.10 0.10
0.05 - 0.05
0.00 I ____ 0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Hyd No. 1 PRE-SUBMITTAL RECD Time(hrs)
RECD
SEP 6 2013
•
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 3D4)2013 by Autodesk,Inc.v10 Thursday,09!5/2013
Hyd. No. 1
Pre-Development Entire Site
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 0.236 cfs
Storm frequency = 5 yrs Time to peak = 8.18 hrs
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 4,654 cult
Drainage area = 0.890 ac Curve number = 74
Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft
Tc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 27.90 min
Total precip. = 3.80 in Distribution = Type IA
Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484
Pre-Development Entire Site
Q (cfs) Hyd. No 1 -- 5 Year Q (cfs)
0,50 - --- 0.50
0.45 — -- -- - -•- - - _ ----- - -- 0.45
0.40 _ - --- - - - -- - - 0.40
–
0.35 0.35
0.30 0.30
0.25 0.25
0.20 - 0.20
0.15 --- 0.15
0.10 --`-- � � 0.10
• —
0.05 --- —- ---- - . 0.05
0.00 — 0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Hyd No. 1 PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D Time(hrs)
SEP 6 2013
0
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil MO 2013 by Autodesk,Inc.v10 Thursday,09/5/2013
Hyd. No. 1
Pre-Development Entire Site
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 0.314 cfs
Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time to peak = 8.17 hrs
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 5,836 cuft
Drainage area = 0.890 ac Curve number = 74
Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft
Tc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 27.90 min
Total precip. = 4.30 in Distribution = Type IA
Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484
Pre-Development Entire Site
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 1 -- 10 Year Q (cfs)
0.50 0.50
0.45 0.45
0.40 r — 0.40
0.35 0.35
—.--
0.30 - 0.30
0.25 ,- - --- - — --- - - 0.25
:0.20 - - 0.20
0.15 0.15
0.10 0.10
0.05 --- --- _.------ - - 0.05
0.00 0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 18 18 20 22 24 26
Time(hrs)
Hyd No. 1 PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
SEP 6 2013
0 i . .
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 3D®2013 by Autodesk,Inc.v10 Thursday,09 1 5 1 2013
Hyd. No. 1
Pre-Development Entire Site
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 0.397 cfs
Storm frequency = 25 yrs Time to peak = 8.17 hrs
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 7,074 cuft
Drainage area = 0.890 ac Curve number = 74
Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft
Tc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 27.90 min
Total precip. = 4.80 in Distribution = Type IA
Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484
Pre-Development Entire Site
Q (cfs) Hyd. No 1 —25 Year 0 (cfs)
0.50 - i 0.50
L - -
0.45 , 0.45
- - ---t-
0.40 — - 0.40
0.35 0.35
0.30 _ — - - 0.30
0.25 - 0.25
0.20 0.20
0.15 0.15
- -
0.10 0.10
0.05 -- _-- - - -- 0.05
0.00 - - 0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Time(hrs)
Hyd No. 1 PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
SEP 6 2013
• • •
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 3D®2013 by Autodesk,Inc.v10 Thursday,09/512013
Hyd. No. 1
Sub-Basin Al
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 0.035 cfs
Storm frequency = 2 yrs Time to peak = 8.18 hrs
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 705 cuft
Drainage area = 0.160 ac Curve number = 76*
Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft
Tc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 27.90 min
Total precip. = 3.30 in Distribution = Type IA
Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484
'Composite(Area/CN)=((0.145 x 74)+(0.015 x 98)]/0.160
Sub-Basin Al
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 1 --2 Year Q (cfs)
0.10 - - . 0.10
0.09 0.09
_
0.08 — 0.08
- - -- —
0.07 -. 0.07
0.06 I ' 0.06
0.05 0.05
0.04 _ T 0.04
0.03 0.03
0.02 0.02
0.01 – 0.01
o.ao - 0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Time(hrs)
Hyd No. 1
PRE-SUBMITTAL RECD
SEP 6 2013
•
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 3D®2013 by Autodesk,Inc.v10 Thursday,09/5/2013
Hyd. No. 1
Sub-Basin Al
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 0.049 cfs
Storm frequency = 5 yrs Time to peak = 8.17 hrs
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 915 cuft
Drainage area = 0.160 ac Curve number = 76*
Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft
Tc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 27.90 min
Total precip. = 3.80 in Distribution = Type IA
Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484
•Composite(Area/CN)=[(0.145 x 74)+(0.015 x 98)[/0.160
Sub-Basin Al
o
(cfs) Hyd. No. 1 --5 Year Q(cfs)
0.10 - 0.10
0.09 __---._. 0.09
0.08 0.08
0.07 0.07
0.06 0.06
0.05 0.05
0.04 0.04
0.03 0.03
0.02 0-02
0,01 _ — - 0.01
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Hyd No. 1 Time(hrs)
PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
SEP 6 2013
0 •
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 30®2013 by Autodesk,Inc.v10 Thursday,09/5 1 2013
Hyd. No. 1
Sub-Basin Al
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 0.064 cfs
Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time to peak = 8.17 hrs
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 1,137 cuft
Drainage area = 0.160 ac Curve number = 76*
Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft
Tc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 27.90 min
Total precip. = 4.30 in Distribution = Type IA
Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484
'Composite(Area/CN)=[(0.145 x 74);(0.015 x 98)J 10.160
Sub-Basin Al
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 1 -10 Year Q (cfs)
0.10 0.10
0.09 0.09
0.08 0.08
0.07 — 0.07
0.06 • . 0.06
0.05 ___ 0.05
0.04 - I 0.04
0.03 J 0.03
0.02 -- — -- 0.02
0.01 0.01
0.00 - — - - 0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Hyd Na_ 1
PRE-SUBMITTAL RECD Time(hrs)
SEP 6 2013
•
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 3D®2013 by Autodesk,Inc.v10 Thursday,09 1 5 1 2013
Hyd. No. 1
Sub-Basin Al
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 0.079 cfs
Storm frequency = 25 yrs Time to peak = 8.15 hrs
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 1,367 cuft
Drainage area = 0.160 ac Curve number = 76*
Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft
Tc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 27.90 min
Total precip. = 4.80 in Distribution = Type IA
Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484
'Composite(Area/CN)=1(0.145 x 74)+(0.015 x 98))/0.160
Sub-Basin Al
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 1 --25 Year Q (cfs)
0.10 - - - 0.10
0.09 0.09
0.08 0.08
0.07 - 0.07
0.06 0.06
0.05 0.05
0.04 - -- 0.04
0.03 .-------- - 0.03
-4
-
0.02 0.02
0.01 0.01
0.00 - --- - 0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Hyd No. 1 Time(hrs)
PRE-SUBMITTAL REC l D
SEP 6 2013
r •
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 3D®2013 by Autodesk,Inc.v10 Thursday,09/5 1 2013
Hyd. No. 2
Sub-Basin A7
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 0.034 cfs
Storm frequency = 2 yrs Time to peak = 7.92 hrs
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 487 cuft
Drainage area = 0.043 ac Curve number = 98
Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft
Tc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 10.10 min
Total precip. = 3.30 in Distribution = Type IA
Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484
Sub-Basin A7
0 (cfs) Hyd. No. 2 --2 Year Q (cfs)
0.10 0.10
0.09 0.09
0.08 0.08
0.07 0.07
0.06 0.06
0.05 0.05
0.04 0.04
0.03 0.03
0.02 0.02
0.01 0.01
0.00 - ___ _ - 0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Time(hrs)
Hyd No. 2 PRE-SUBMITTAL. RECD
SEP 6 2013
M
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 3D®2013 by Autodesk,Inc.v10 Thursday,09 1 5/2013
Hyd. No. 2
Sub-Basin A7
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 0.039 cfs
Storm frequency = 5 yrs Time to peak = 7.92 hrs
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 566 cuft
Drainage area = 0.043 ac Curve number = 98
Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft
Tc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 10.10 min
Total precip. = 3.80 in Distribution = Type IA
Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484
Sub-Basin A7
Q (cfs) Q (cfs)
Hyd. No 2 -- 5 Year
0.10 - - - 0.10
0.09 - - — - — 0.09
0.08 - — 0.08
-
0.07 • - 0.07
0.06 0.06
0.05 0.05
0.04 0.04
0.03 0.03
0.02 — - . 0.02
0.01 — - 0.01
0.00 - — _ 0-00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Hyd No. 2
PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'Q Time(hrs)
SEP 6 2013
0 0
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 3D®2013 by Autodesk,Inc.v10 Thursday,09 1 5 1 2013
Hyd. No. 2
Sub-Basin A7
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 0.045 cfs
Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time to peak = 7.92 hrs
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 646 cuft
Drainage area = 0.043 ac Curve number = 98
Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft
To method = TR55 Time of conc. (To) = 10.10 min
Total precip. = 4.30 in Distribution = Type IA
Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484
Sub-Basin A7
Q (cfs) Hyd- No. 2 -- 10 Year Q (cfs)
0.10 ------ — I -- — 0.10
0.09 0.09
I— - —
0.08 - 0.08
0.07 0.07
0.06 0.06
0.05 — I 0.05
0.04 - -- — - -- --• 0.04
0.03 L 0.03
0.02 - --- � 0.02
0.01 - - 0.01
0.00 - - - 0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
—_— Hyd No. 2 PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D Time(hrs)
SEP 6 2013
S
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 3D®2013 by Autodesk, Inc.v10 Thursday,091 5/2013
Hyd. No. 2
Sub-Basin A7
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 0.050 cfs
Storm frequency = 25 yrs Time to peak = 7.92 hrs
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 725 cult
Drainage area = 0.043 ac Curve number = 98
Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft
Tc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 10.10 min
Total precip. = 4.80 in Distribution = Type IA
Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484
Sub-Basin A7
Q (cfs) Q (cfs)
Hyd. No. 2 --25 Year
0.10 0.10
0.09 - - 0.09
0.08 — - 0.08
0.07 0.07
0.06 - - 0.06
0.05 -- - -- _ 0.05
0.04 - j — -- -- -- - 0.04
0.03 0.03
0.02
0.01 __- 0.01
0.00 � 0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Time(hrs)
Hyd No. 2 PRE-SUBM11TAL REC'D
SEP 6 2013
• 0
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 3D1D 2013 by Autodesk,Inc.v10 Thursday,0915/2013
Hyd. No. 4
Sub-Basin A6
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 0.034 cfs
Storm frequency = 2 yrs Time to peak = 7.92 hrs
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 487 cuft
Drainage area = 0.043 ac Curve number = 98
Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft
Tc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 10.10 min
Total precip. = 3.30 in Distribution = Type IA
Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484
Sub-Basin A6
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 4--2 Year Q (cfs)
0.10 - - 0.10
0.09 - 0.09
0.08 0.08
0.07 - -- 0.07
0.06 0.06
0.05 0.05
0.04 — 0,04
0.03 0.03
0.02 0.02
0.01 0.01
0.00 0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Hyd No. 4 PRE-SUBMI1TAL RECD Time (hrs)
SEP 6 2013
• !
•
Hydrograph Report
Hydraf low Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 3D®2013 by Autodesk,Inc.v10 Thursday,09 1 5 1 2013
Hyd. No. 4
Sub-Basin A6
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 0.039 cfs
Storm frequency = 5 yrs Time to peak = 7.92 hrs
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 566 cuft
Drainage area = 0.043 ac Curve number = 98
Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft
Tc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 10.10 min
Total precip. = 3.80 in Distribution = Type IA
Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484
Sub-Basin A6
Q (cfs) Hyd. No 4 -- 5 Year Q (cfs)
0.10 0.10
0.09 _ - 0.09
0.08 0.08
0.07 - 0.07
0.06 0.06
-
0.05 _ - - 0.05
0.04 _ 0.04
A _
0.03 - - 0.03
r
r -- - - -
- M
0.02 �- 0.02
0.01 - — _ -- 0.01
0.00 -- - - - - o.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Time (hrs)
Hyd No. 4 PRE-SUBMlnAL REC'D
SEP 6 2013
•
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 3D®2013 by Autodesk, Inc.v10 Thursday,091 5/2013
Hyd. No. 4
Sub-Basin A6
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 0.045 cfs
Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time to peak = 7.92 hrs
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 646 cuft
Drainage area = 0.043 ac Curve number = 98
Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft
Tc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 10.10 min
Total precip. = 4.30 in Distribution = Type IA
Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484
Sub-Basin A6
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 4-- 10 Year Q (cfs)
0.10 0.10
0.09 0.09
0.08 - - . — 0.08
0.07 ; — 0.07
0.06 - 0.06
0.05 0.05
0.04 _ 0.04
0.03 0.03
-
0.02 - 0.02
0.01 - - - _ - - - --- -------- —, _'_ 0.01
0.00 --- 0.00
0 2 4 8 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Hyd No. 4 PRE-SUBMITTAL RECD Time (hrs)
SEP 6 2013
0
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 309 2013 by Autodesk,Inc.v10 Thursday,09/5/2013
Hyd. No. 4
Sub-Basin A6
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 0.050 cfs
Storm frequency = 25 yrs Time to peak = 7.92 hrs
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 725 cuft
Drainage area = 0.043 ac Curve number = 98
Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft
Tc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 10.10 min
Total precip. = 4.80 in Distribution = Type IA
Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484
Sub-Basin A6
0 (cfs) Hyd. No. 4 --25 Year 0 (cfs)
0.10 - - 0.10
0.09 -- — — 0.09
0.08 — 0.08
0.07 - - 0.07
0.06 - - 0.06
0.05 - — - 0.05 A 0.04 0.04
0.03 0.03
_i 0 of sl \0.02 `— 0.02
0.01 -- 0.01
0.00 - -- A 0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Time(hrs)
Hyd No. 4
PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
SEP 6 2013
• 0
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 3D®2013 by Autodesk, Inc.v10 Thursday.09/5 1 2013
Hyd. No. 12
Sub-Basin B1
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 0.034 cfs
Storm frequency = 2 yrs Time to peak = 8.18 hrs
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 678 cuft
Drainage area = 0.154 ac Curve number = 76*
Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft
Tc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 27.90 min
Total precip. = 3.30 in Distribution = Type IA
Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484
Composite(AreaICN)=((0.141 x 74)+(0.013 x 98)]10.154
Sub-Basin B1
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 12 --2 Year Q(cfs)
0.10 - - 0.10
0-09 0.09
0.08 0.08
0.07 0.07
0.06 0.06
0.05 0.05
0.04 0.04
0.03 - 0.03
0.02 � - --- - - - � 0.02
0.01
0.00 - - 0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Hyd No. 12 Time(hrs)
PRE-SUBMITTAL RECD
SEP 6 2013
• • . .
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AuIoCAD®Civil 3D®2013 by Autodesk, Inc.v10 Thursday,09/5/2013
Hyd. No. 12
Sub-Basin B1
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 0.047 cfs
Storm frequency = 5 yrs Time to peak = 8.17 hrs
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 881 cuft
Drainage area = 0.154 ac Curve number = 76*
Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft
Tc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 27.90 min
Total precip. = 3.80 in Distribution = Type IA
Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484
Composite(Area/CN)•((0.141 x 74)+(0.013 x 98)]/0.154
Sub-Basin B1
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 12—5 Year Q (cfs)
0.10 - 0.10
—
0.09 - -- 0.09
0.08 1 0.08
0.07 — —_ - - 0.07
0.06 • ' - 0.06
0.05 0.05
\ ...,.........%,.., --
0.04 ._ - 0.04
0.03 0.03
0,02 —-- - 0.02
0.01 0.01
0.00 - 0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Hyd No. 12 Time(hrs)
PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
SEP 6 2013
• •
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 3D®2013 by Autodesk,Inc.v10 Thursday,09/5/2013
Hyd. No. 12
Sub-Basin B1
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 0-061 cfs
Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time to peak = 8.17 hrs
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 1,094 cuft
Drainage area = 0154 ac Curve number = 76*
Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft
Tc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 27.90 min
Total precip. = 4.30 in Distribution = Type IA
Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484
*Composite(Area/CN)_((0.141 x 74)+(0.013 x 98)]/0.154
Sub-Basin B1
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 12 -- 10 Year Q (cfs)
0.10 0.10
0.09 0.09
.
0.08 - 0.08
0.07 — 0.07
0.06 - -- a — 0.06
0.05 — — — 0.05
0.04 0.04
0.03 - — 0.03
__ ,_ ,
0.02 - 0.02
0.01 0.01
0.00 - — - ---- -- — 0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Hyd No. 12 PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D Time (firs)
SEP 6 2013
• •
Y T4F.q
°., Lane County Clerk 2013-010517
Lane County Deeds & Records
02/25/2013 09:18:26 AM
-g RPR-DEED Cnt=1 Stn=9 CASHIER 02 3pages
$15.00$11.00$10.00$20.00$16.00 $72.00
After recording return to:
Robert). Freeman
3023 Skyview Lane
Eugene, OR 97405 _
Until a change is requested all ax
statements shall be sent to th=
following address:
Robert J. Freeman
3023 Skyview Lane
Eugene, OR 97405
File No.: 7191-2029913 (cr)
Date: January 28, 2013
STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED
Central Penn Capital Man. •ement LLC, Grantor, conveys and warrants to Robert J. Freeman ,
Grantee,the following descrl.-• real property free of liens and encumbrances,except as specifically set
forth herein:
• LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Rea property In the County of Lane, State of Oregon, described as follows:
PARCEL 1:
Beginning at a point whlc is 2383.5 feet West and 436.12 feet North 0°04'west from the
Southeast corner of the illiam Spencer Donation Land Claim No. 50, in Township 17 South,
Range 3 West of the Willa ette Meridian; run thence North 0° 04'West 435.6 feet to the
center of a 40.0 foot road thence North 89° 59' East 100.0 feet;thence South 0° 04' East
435.6 feet; thence South .,9°59' West 100.0 feet to the Point of Beginning,In Lane County,
Oregon.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM /2 of all oil,gas,hydrocarbons and minerals,as excepted and
reserved by the Union Ce tral Life Insurance Company in the Deed to R. B. Mayberry,et ux,
Recorded June 27, 1944, -ook 269, Page 651,Lane County Oregon Records.
ALSO EXCEPTING THERE OM the South 30 feet thereof conveyed to the City of Springfield
for street purposes by De:d Recorded September 29, 1982, Reel 1212R, Reception No. 82-
29286, Lane County Oreg n Records.
ALSO EXCEPTING THERE-i OM the North 30 feet thereof conveyed to the City of Springfield •
for street purposes by De d Recorded September 29, 1982, Reception No.82-29285, Lane
County Oregon Records.
Page 1 of 3 PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
SEP 6 2013
•
•
• • •
APN:0205375 Statutory Warranty Deed Fle No.:7191-2029913(a)
-continued
FURTHER EXCEPTING THE•EFROM that portion conveyed to Cynthia L Coffelt by
Memorandum of Contract •ecorded October 12, 1982,Reel 1214R, Reception No.82-30498,
Lane County Oregon Reco ds,described as follows: Beginning at a point being West 2383.5
feet and North 0° 04'Wes 841.72 feet of the Southeast corner of the William Spencer
Donation Land Claim No. -0,Township 17 South, Range 3 West of the Willamette Meridian,
in Lane County,Oregon, Id point also being on the Southerly margin of"S"Street;thence
along said Southerly marg n North 89° 59'00"East 100.00 feet;thence leaving said
Southerly margin South 0''04'00"East 175.00 feet;thence South 89° 59'00"West 100.00
Met;thence North 0° 04' 10" West 175.00 feet to the Point of Beginning,in Lane County,
Oregon.
PARCEL 2: •
Parcel 2, Land Partition PI-t No. 2004-P1782, as platted and recorded on May 14, 2004,as
Reception No.2004-0361 6,In-Lane County Oregon Deeds and Records,in Lane County,
Oregon.
NOTE: This legal descripti'n was created prior to January 1, 2008.
Subject to:
1. Covenants, candido - restrictions and/or easements, if any, affecting title, which may appear in
the public record, incl ding those shown on any recorded plat or survey.
The true consideration for thi conveyance is $100,000.00. (Here comply with requirements of ORS 93.030)
•
•
Page 2 of 3 PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
SEP 6 2013
•
• •
APN:0205375 Statutory Warranty Deed - Ale No.:7191-2029913(R)
-continued
•
BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCE• NG THIS INSTRUMENT,THE PERSON TRANSFERRING FEE TITLE SHOULD
INQUIRE ABOUT THE PE' "N'S RIGHTS, IF ANY, UNDER ORS 195.300, 195.301 AND 195.305 TO
195.336 AND SECTIONS 5 a 11, CHAPTER 424, OREGON LAWS 2007, SECTIONS 2 TO 9 AND 17,
CHAPTER 855, OREGON LA 2009, AND SECTIONS 2 TO 7, CHAPTER 8, OREGON LAWS 2010. THIS
INSTRUMENT DOES NOT A LOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN
VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE i •ND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING
THIS INSTRUMENT,THE PER•ON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE
APPROPRIATE CITY OR COU PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY THAT THE UNIT OF LAND BEING
TRANSFERRED IS A LAWFUL ESTABLISHED LOT OR PARCEL, AS DEFINED IN ORS 92.010 OR 215.010,
TO VERIFY THE APPROVED SES OF THE LOT OR PARCEL, TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS
AGAINST FARMING OR FORE• PRACTICES, AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930, AND TO INQUIRE ABOUT THE
RIGHTS OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS, IF ANY, UNDER ORS 195.300, 195.301 AND 195.305
TO 195.336 AND SECTIONS • TO 11, CHAPTER 424, OREGON LAWS 2007, SECTIONS 2 TO 9 AND 17,
CHAPTER 855,OREGON LAW. 2009,AN Df SECTIONS 2 TO 7, CHAPTER 8,OREGON LAWS 2010.
Dated this U I STday of " e h 20 ) �J.
Central Penn Capital Ma -gement, LLC, a
limit-d liability company -. •
Shelby Shepnl h rrized•
Representitive
STATE OF Pennsylvania
)ss•
County of Lancaster
This Instrument was acknowl=..ged before me on this IS4-day of lrU 20 /3
by Central Penn Capital M.nagement, LLC.
Notary Public for Lancaster
My commission expires;
NOTARIAL SEAL
TONYA L HAYNES
Notary Public
AKRON BOROUGH. LANCASTER COUNTY
My Commission Expires Jan 28,2016
Page 3 of 3
PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
SEP 6 2013