Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Packet, DRC PLANNER 2/28/2011 (2)
• CITY OF SPRINGFIELOPEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE •- MQ " " "- DISTRIBUTION DATE February 28,2011 V o TO: }}F111��� *Current Planning Staff:G. Karp,J. Donovan, Liz Miller,M. Metzger, Lissa Davis, L. Pauly,Tara Jones, Andy Limbird,Dave Reesor,TSteve HopkinsjMolly Markarian FEB 2 8 2011 *Matt Stouder, Engineering-Public Works Department Brian Bamett,Traffic Engineer/PE,Public Works Department(agenda only 2/02) �� ��^ ^ *Michael Liebler,Transportation Planning Engineer, Public Works Department l.- Oak _ *Gilbert Gordon, Deputy Fire Marshall, Fire&Life Safety Department Melissa Fechtel, Fire Agenda only ,{^- 262. nnn,,,,,,far) inn *Ronni Price,Planner,Willamalane Park and Recreation District 1 �(CSC¢�Cl - *Ed Head,Springfield Utility Board(Electric) ( Q *Tamara Johnson,Springfield Utility Board(Water) *Bart McKee,Water Engineering Supervisor-Springfield Utility Board(Water) Jack Foster,Springfield Utility Board(Energy Conservation) Amy Chinitz,Springfield Utility Board(Drinking Water) *Jim Henry, Central Lane Communications 911 Leo Lambert, US Postal Service - *Billy Elder, Northwest Natural Gas (John Radosevich,alternate reviewer) *Phil Fields,Lane County Transportation(Celia Barry&Steve Smith) Thomas Jeffreys, Emerald People's Utility District(EPUD) George Ehlers, Lane County Sanitarian [Urban Transition Zone] (if applicable) _ Jamie Porter, Rainbow Water District(Dean Hill alternate reviewer)(*only if in the North Spfld area) Ralph Johnston, Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority (if applicable) Tom Henerty,Comcast.Cable Of applicable) Mark Oberte,EWEB(electric) (property) Dick Helgeson/Mel Damewood, EWEB(water)of in Glenwood) Bill Grile-Development Services Director(agenda) - John Tamulonis, Economic&Community Development Manager (agenda) - *Dave Puent, Building Official - *Lisa Hopper, Building Services Representative - "Greg Ferschweiler,Keith Miyata, Brian Conlon, PW Dept. *Craig Fitzgerald, Maintenance PW Dept George Walker, Environmental Works Dept., (agenda only) Deanna Buckem, Engineering Assistant, Public Works Dept. (agenda) Police Chief,Jerry Smith,Police Department (agenda) *Will Mueller, LTD Norm Palmer, Quest Corporation (agenda - *Scott Nelson,Planning&Development Manager, ODOT,State Highway Division - Jeff DeFranco, Springfield School District (agenda) William Lewis III, Financial Services,Springfield School District(agenda) Joe Leahy,City Attorney Chris Moorhead,City Surveyor A request for land use action, as described on the attached agenda, has been received by the Development Services Office. Specific concems of your division/department/agency should be addressed. If you have comments or requirements of this proposal, please send them in writing to the assigned planner Development Services Department, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, OR 97477. Your comments may also be sent via e-mail or if you are a DRC internal user attach as document within the Accela Automation. If your written comments are not received by Friday, March 11, 2011 specific concerns of your division/department/agency will not be addressed unless you attend the meeting on March 15,2011. The Development Review Committee holds staff review meetings on Tuesday @ 8:00-10:00 a.m. You should also plan to attend the staff meeting on Tuesday if you have specific concerns so that the Planning representative can discuss them prior to meeting with the applicant. If the Planner feels it is necessary for you to participate in the public meetings he/she will let you know on Tuesday. *full packet • AGENDA DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 225 FIFTH STREET Conference Room 615 Staff Review: March 15, 2011 @ 8:00— 10:00 a.m. 1. SITE PLAN TENTATIVE #TYP211-00002 (PRJ11-00005) BOYLES/OBO ENTERPRISES LLC Assessor's Map: 17-02-33-32 TL 6200, 6300 8:00 — 9:00 a.m. Address: 5175 & 5195 Main Street Existing Use: Residential rental Applicant submitted plans for the construction of a mixed use Commercial/Residential development to include 11 attached dwellings and up to 6,000 square feet of commercial space. Three designs are proposed for the commercial area (Options A, B & C). Options A and B propose two separate structures. Option C proposes a single commercial structure. The commercial uses will be an eating and drinking establishment with a drive-thru, retail sales, personal services, and/or small-scale offices. Planner: Steve Hopkins 2. TREE FELLING PERMIT#TYP211-00003 (PRJ11-00005) BOYLES/OBO ENTERPRISES LLC Assessor's Map: 17-02-33-32 TL 6200, 6300 9:00— 10:00 a.m. Address: 5175 & 5195 Main Street Existing Use: Residential rental Applicant submitted plans to remove approximately (9) nine trees on site for in order to create a Mixed- Use Development—Community Commercial office/personal service/retail/restaurant multi-tenant building development and a Medium Density Residential multiple-unit housing complex. Planner: Steve Hopkins The DRC informational packet for this meeting is available on-line for you to review or print out @ www.sprinqfield-or.qov/weblink7 1 i • City of Springfield SPRINGFIELD Development Services Department 225 Fifth Street Springfield, OR 97477 41110 Site Plan Review Application Type (Applicant: check one) Site Plan Review Pre-Submittal: ❑ Major Site Plan Modification Pre-Submittal: • Site Plan Review Submittal: ® Ma'or Site Plan Modification Submittal: ❑ Required Project Information (Applicant: complete this section) Applicant Name: Nick Boyles Phone: 54L 954.0217 Company: OBO Enterprises LLC Fax: Address: 1390 Grosbeak Court, Redmond, Orcton 97756 Applicant's Rep.: Kristen Taylor Phone: 541-687-1010 ex 15 Company: TBG Architects&Planners/Inc Fax: 541-687-0625 Address: 132 East Broadway, Suite 200, Eugene,Oregon 97401 Property Owner: Same as Applicant information above Phone: Company: Fax: Address: ASSESSOR'S MAP NO: 17-02-33-32 TAX LOT NO(S): 6300&6200 Property Address: 5175&5195 Main Street (Tax Lot 6300) 29,064&(Tax Lot 6200) 36,606 Size of Property: Total 65 670 SF Acres ❑ Square Feet ZI Proposed Name of Project: If you are filling in this form by hand, please attach your proposal description to this application. Description of Mixed-use development:Community Commercial office/personal service/retail/restaurant multi-tenant Proposal: building development and a Medium-Density multiple-unit housing complex. Existing Use: One single family rental home on Tax Lot 6300 New Impervious Surface Coverage (Including Bldg. Gross Floor Area): sf Si• natures: Please sign and •rint our name and date in the a•.ro•riate box on the next ease. Required Project Information (City Intake Staff: complete this section) 2 �'u i Associated Applications: 1 L Signs: Pre-Sub Case No.: () - c) Date: Reviewed by: Case No.: - 03o0-2._ Date: 7116//(l Reviewed by: Application Fee: $ TQC lni geo- 265-. 17- Postage Fee: $ t ‘c,Z TOTAL FEES: $ _6;7_ FEB 1 5 2fittOJECT NUMBER: PRSil-O0005 .- .. - .r d`.. x ., ".. _ ;.n'..?fie tee_;«#ra�re°�:=? �4 -`:F if;'--,.".:ti ste�vw;:m:F. E:,. c"- a + Revised 11/19/09 `original Submittal_�_�_ ____ 1 of 11 spr_map • • Page 1 of 1 TYP211-00002 Site F.an Review Tentative 17-Oc-33-32 TL 6200, 6300 OBO Enterprises _J ■ MAIN ST MAIN ST • yy TtR g '4. _ I IA d 'VI 141; It, in cn ii e J f i N A Date Received: FEB172011 Original Submittal■ http://spifs020/mapguide2009/mapviewerphp/printablepage.php?SESSION=14e63 7a0-0000-1000... 2/17/2011 • • Or V ix ; �� Yes 1 ?_ 4 lit I .Sj 'F'F souTH�s1 PLACE' it p I z ire; Vii{° ' �� Q� .1' E �•I" " !. cai ya88A I. a F`(( \.3 S ,� �A k ��i O. I 3 tk g @ig. 0 1 LI e---A di5 E 1 fa 1 O .E•"•"i , .f, a ?AE `a`F 7 ;&fiEg.A!o _ B6 R I' r .,SP As'�ni�.ES� —[-.. - �� 9I[ 4 w me a#/' "AIL ®1 :`u� :: ;€ �� - Si' g Iz� rY?Z < eft Rs/e— 1,—I � & ,1-i---y -i 0000 o o o OOOM OOO@ ~ I h—tJ 4 < ' ,-I✓�'P' ' aa`; 31 yy�i R 44 ggF SCE Cb 4i IE ?<`Gig Et �. F or I:Q� �" OR1i :9 Lr/ . r _� V sa a ug 6{e ° F $ R0 F s R i Iii 'iy O °:a ! O x410 ` F-.y -, / , 1\n . P g ti I!i Ie Y i a¢ Z H9$ 6 0,{., r+ I 6°��� r f E: e a yy ¢ e gg �a' �`' r'. .k t£ R & adi n3 8b i E a -Uri Oy ° ` I� e:41 atil , o 'k. t !1 ' 2 y n S y .��A s 5 �00 �q I a gg zr pi " —H 6 ! w g q }` 3 q Ca L-r'"lv a F . i»rk rdp' =t-A..je.. 1; p [{ G { 1`' FEE% O ��j'$F .. y.:,, ,,. E. YRyRF Ill! II! R S^ - L I 6 I F6' ,4V Y Rti•il;f! °_g@i. I! ke R°@i 1 4.q 1 tea O. t i 05° Ot' in SD 1%g#`f y 3! as 16 IX Iv iv vR y 3°S Q3 6 "gk $ - �I rim % SOUTH Slrvo STREET RP C merry 33 1 c co ~ �ra 1siRa x2:3` 38w . 3+ A r 3 e7' — xvll; p§ ss li R a _ 1 C� n �+ n 3_ T e, I Nig§ vvig(. iirg E¢ vg 6316 ' Q pp 3 NJ ED O - - _ -�_� :'i'b Y�i: R . . 3 .111116 n e i iiad ci Ai C R R3 e., 8g 5 # � b¢&al- c 6 E f _?' ° E x e 4 CD 2 — _ _ 4_LJ ,I I .P a i._ $ € I : : a q oI ¢ F 9 PC 5 y ag 6 ,"., q gi GF.o .iii zipi-s S as Orna9 € Si DA a3 & VYYY% YRRR R RRpR RRtt _VVRYVYV_V ' A 7,A Z6.Y 4 i1h < ii 7f hi � C fZ h i i F sR s: a'R � a9 a � " Ssz 7777 5E� ¢q .. m l/0 R ; " a 8 ! 9S i� i °gt pR 8 ' 4 1 i a4R . iR"!_ big iR RRa 5 I.' Ili/o _¢ gg i 8 5 n is a F e a£6 � " � �> i s@ gpa dp i z 5tl1� :a iR € 5a$ Y.„; Yy'�ro € as ` 111 Ai1 - Rg 0R, I� iifn 44i§ ij EE"i� ei16 '161i3la S RY [ R n 9d 3 O ° a" J B9 p 5 3 9 o 3 - pli� ..i i Rai ff -iii nil : ! I " 1 i i 31 gil '"6 11 )#'8 -;C :@ 6- g E4 Wig a / 6 a E Rg a B r e R. 6 Z 1�- a I§� 41 �3 a k9 3 I' R pg yq gY / 1 r 6- n 1;1 '4$ 3t ¢. !Pill ip ! i5 5 -, 1 :b ip S _ A d C $3 ; ¢� �3 C 9g /4 it �a]g�€iea' pFF " F "i v+ rm. • p. �5 '� 'q �a y- a 'v a� X-' of E'a' 3E Afi' v . tit : $$ -' R_ I-, R Ri, y F a9R,[ G i � � Ii " F �S' y I YvV RRS R �g h ie 6 O �� Y 0 i6 9p a e{ F elk d , j 1 l�a� sn� � RRRRtfi3 3S i9, g e;g. ` 51st-52nd & MAIN STREET REDEVELOPMENT 3t m OBO ENTERPRISES LLC iD z SITE PLAN REVIEW - OPTION A A $5 [ W I...1 s#f! 5175&5195 MAIN STREET �4y NNE Ra 9S ^ SPRINGFIELD,OR 97478 paa' L / F SOU TH 51 PLACEi 1' ; i-° I Elj ilk\‘\7T.'9 . : ' -:' 1—-- IT :i-1" P e ion l ��v5 t P 1,, 0, 2Y _°s. �i5!" 1 1 l -sy e `JL} Fa o0i5 W.d?�.r'^" a 4_ 1 . z. u s p--, /A Pi.,�, R ,.I4 . �I_. Atl i 4''10 •oi 3a TJ/I '"'' I a :j e In-1 i, s II ill t�t ethi j � a mesa 1 }:� 1;. `r '.----t---`j € I,°. sb sx'Yy r eMy a ° { > e R 111 000 ® 000000x000g . ,ell' , i '3,', g_ L '_ AA AA Y ' , 9 a 'y A k # A A A A A # A8 A A A.i z \ aA 3 0 5Yz~ - - - z E i. m OII �, a_ fiF f S$ Y�$ 5 [ $a r� aE 3 u ka S9SYS9 O 5 i sett 9 wyn e 1'51, I F F c.as & @ ii i ti 9e ��rI�'^t J ;\ 53 g1 ;' 5 h 4g h fS 1 qE J BAI! $ E1 11 F 0 € " O O F� r(� -€k pA f A K C R ii4pi �i-a e m �� Wi §1 11 e 6 O 'w ;i s � 1f "aF eFp 95°$ t ! 9 3 :a. i = "' .'s2 IA i "@Sli pi'4f $! i t g5¢ 1, ". Oil.-.., , 1 1 1 I 1 } '/Ai Pinlh II pt Avs k a YgY SOUTH S3xn STREET 74i'.F Fa i a be 1 I $*F ,Y.o !ill ,a....,a., • 3D f 1 "'ia - '( zc Af 5109 9 3 x ' m-Aire dH-1 j RlFl €@ ei¢g€ A 11 o A c n E L_ - 1 I Jgi h 1�:S b.. ➢ s� a F g E �a � �y s € g.m Fwx=_!; T F z 4 f� A AYE F3E"sE a--,;5 ". :�2' Mpgp "5 8-AA., z H �BF3 A; , r V F A3 bd iYYYV VYVI' YYYYY( YV VVYYYYY Y j t' - - -' z Sl Ae 7 E i hi FT $e ei > i F 8 ■r FJ g a R { g ! a a2 I of la ;2 g E • - 1 L p1< A RH ¢A .A. i�z�€:� ? €4i 1911'S= if y v^-g :°.°- Yy A s e Z € t HI A °_ F;- f ,�! 0 tvgg°e^ R-I Aida 'i.$� $$9 1 1 5 6 _ 11 ; $ @ id I .s i$ CI . 35 -3A i$40I+ ; �saO = 3 5 y55 'n 0 C F g p v[o�g55yc $A$ x 94'�"F'! a x Pyad § q ' gq Y aiS 1 la ': n 1a poll S RY_. Aebv:Ai : Aa!WI; ; A 1q § 3 B� S �g gg sg " a FEj E 114 i1' 1 Aah 13$°' 8 5 $� S@ 5 R 8 s" cn aB t F, � "Y Y 9 a 1 a s 8 a m 4 �1`.`Y Ed =s 1 $.$ 53 3:g4Y e A= c 3 s�; , 4z - F� �� S l i $ E 14 S 14i t'at- e: £ gIa_, WI tasg3s: al 8 p (p a� � a ! L &[la £` I fill! !tgF.F# !gig! g?1 (.}f C) 9 _ S : ' ,I .'" ^ g O [ � R A^ AgAV o Ci E§ gsF B ^ N \\V �VV^l^' ^l''- Y YY V Y v Y V Y Z S 5_ - 11 /-AA S o m 14Ma # s it ;1 � = a � F at =? 41e t 1111 m 51st-52nd & MAIN STREET REDEVELOPMENT r OBO ENTERPRISES LLC E , €n—.1 i y a z SITE PLAN REVIEW - OPTION B e 1 r =Jo 5175&5195 MAIN STREET \'' hi Al nPn SPRINGFIELD,OR 97478 Go°BY ` ' 0>= „. 00= , 4 3 n.. E as A� 1 SOUTH S'I�T, PLACE rp Ry Z i �l ; i Z 1— — �— on o t ii il R,n - ` F 2-11€ t'.9 rl 9`� Yy-3iz 1 i_ - C ,. i I jai ,_ g� f is , f ±; a .k 1 „ � p •99 rrr ( [0:1, A€f 8f c 5 I ¢ y 8 `E, .U. :trs4Yike .: aa \�-,x 4s _ 1,I 1 111 1% II � � �J EP 11 11 y a I ¢ o . a `€ Ill ✓� $z C700 © 0 0 0 0 0 OA O O O ap r 2�eR t 1 R ,`" /=. €a e' 1\ # # q /1 71 K k 1 % A s ! ! ! / z .Q top a ' K. � , %a ga Rg � § f € 5L �§ o pp F F Sn ] O St1 ii! O . A 9 4w-s YYF — I 'Y-'-3' a � �¢ � �{ a9 g k 4Le 34e1 e a = ! i g@ ff F 5 V b V 473 L ; + rt t , j , _ 104::l Ili: I i 5 gp; a I{ O 7 a " ` '9 •t , '% a F ;I O333d E5 g 3 33 I� yo I }r- R S¢a4° F .¢ aq ¢ Ili 4 ' 4 'aQIl,e 01 to — 0 - Q - Q[, &Ed-¢:• 45 R3 %3 prp ; Ei mMU — :I RR SOUTH S-3mo STREET 1 • R a �a 3 �F I ,,.. 438 ..=, flF 3 77 a 6 _ r_. ppFg gg' P a(5`@ ;@¢: ` §€l,sy:'5 ° !Ail-s^ 1 z \ .. ,� I I 77:iii v co r 1 ' nig& gill 1h Aholoo° F €i Age n 1 el Lo;i; `o ! $ 11 1 I 0 d 53 C m ; - t a ea .F£ 0 '1128 9!II 6 i� va I;o ee2CE-p a .°-. 4�ekiE A¢ 6 371 YCRYR eY<Y RRRVRI9 KYV aaeY< Y g a 71 : L. L!_1 i r11 / 21511 11 Z 3= � / p n n ��� R 3 F �� ¢ a n@ ;@5 1 a s a 7 / 14 4 Fl A 78 ei A ¢9'{x i €€¢g'S Fig z ¢y p- � � .p_ �� [gd �� P p l 0 1- 0 q 11 11 ! L; 2 `aa Hi 11E 10!;11 bill d1/11 11 y€1+ r, 3 1-1 i 5d1 .. -1 R IS fpf d -1 ii Eg 5 _l$ it R 1- � Ll� R 118 81 !Ill 41Rd� Y lS � ! \S:%_.- _`;i! lF��d'eFF ! � $@c a sA a eB �,R � Si X40 € og Cl 3 �� .a4i �� R�e !Ill 7S� � 'L r AAi e RR- a pF Elk;gt41 i, R$ ii§ii 1 § -s� 11 t° r e=i� :2 ?� a Al§ r a €i�` !R $a p z ' use ' ;bo 9j �F @E ¢= i s i 1 ;11 ., $, d ¢1 n ri E `1 F /3°Pg a ;r $ Ig57//@ a de 12 Ron I?3 � !�. .gym .p{)o � g{ _8 ]S 5 9 d C I8 EA : €-`- 8 € v] :� h m /I6F/1'.—.:.v ;°: y �0 0 ; 1' ; ti' C C` FRIAT ilE ills i "2 CF`s @ `y t § F ! 3 gIfff § gSp P'a4AE F- ' - 5,. F O 3f )¢) G; Y. SC3�. p pp[[ $g6g ¢�n�Ea C r ' rcl R.e% a 5 � YR 5" R x lam' o y R Z a�3 R I SVP - %3Eg F p n��RRRR---- sags �� �= a a �s s `" , : P 111 sill z a ll/1 m 51st-52nd & MAIN STREET REDEVELOPMENT Fitals • r� OBO ENTERPRISES LLC 'PIA - g = 3>--I .: 44' •R > a� � z SITE PLAN REVIEW - OPTION C $�N �, 'I 1 35CCe SPRINGFIELD,OR 97478 11 .o:13F A a 1. February 15, 2011 ■ lc • TBG ,\ Mr. Steve Hopkins City of Springfield - Development Services ARCHITECTS& Planning Division - PLANNERS/INC - 225 5th Street 132 East Broadway . Springfield, Oregon 97477 Eugen ,Oregon e e Eu on 97401 541-687-1010 RE: 51st 52nd & Main Street Redevelopment 541-687-0625 Fax Site Plan Review Application (200913/1.3) Project Address: 5175 and 5195 Main Street Assessor's Map & Tax Lot: 17-02-33-32 Tax Lots 6200 and 6300 Applicant: OBO Enterprises, LLC Nick Boyles • Daytime Phone: 541-954-0217 Mailing Address: 1390 Grosbeak Court Redmond, Oregon 97756 E-mail Address: qualityapartments @q.com Applicant's Representative: TBG Architects & Planners/Inc Kristen Taylor Daytime Phone: 541-687-1010 Mailing Address: 132 East Broadway, Suite 200 Eugene, Oregon 97401 E-mail Address: ktaylor @tbg-arch.com NARRATIVE In accordance with the Site Plan Review submittal requirements, this written statement describes the proposed development and demonstrates that the proposal complies with the criteria under SDC 5.17-100. The proposal is subject to the Type II application review process per SDC 5.17-110(B). I. Land Use Request The present request is for approval of three possible mixed-use development options (Site Plan Option A, B, and C). In each option, the proposed residential portion of the development remains unchanged. There are two multiple-family residential buildings proposed on the southern portion of the site adjacent to the neighboring Low-Density Residential (LDR) zoned properties. Building One is a two-story building with 11 units facing South 52nd Street. This larger Building One has three multiple-unit structures connected together with a covered outdoor stair and corridor John E.Lawless,AIA system. The two structures located along the internal drive aisle facing South 52"d Principal Street have ground floor garages for all of the residential units and second floor one- JPrincipal n III,AIA Albe zo bedroom residential flats. The third structure located adjacent to the LDR property to Darrell L Smith,NURB,FAR Principal • �) a • • City of Springfield Site Plan Review Application February 15, 2011 Page 2 of 37 the south and facing South 52nd Street has two floors of two-bedroom residential flats. Building Two is a two-story building with 4 townhouse units tucked in the back southwest corner of the site facing Building One. The commercial portion of the development, located on the northern portion of the site along Main Street, slightly varies in each option due to the pending Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Right-of-Way Approach Permit application decision for driveway access to Main Street. Option A is the preferred option with a shared driveway access to Main Street. Option B and C are site plan options without driveway access to Main Street in the case that ODOT denies the requested Approach Permit application. Site Plan Option A: The commercial portion of the development includes a 3,000- square-foot multi-tenant commercial building and a 2,500-square-foot drive-through restaurant building with a limited right-in and right-out driveway access from Main Street in the general location of the existing driveway as well as associated site infrastructure, parking and landscaping. • Site Plan Option B: The commercial portion of the development includes a 3,000- square-foot multi-tenant commercial building and a 2,500-square-foot drive-through restaurant building with associated site infrastructure, parking and landscaping. Site Plan Option C: The commercial portion of the development includes a 6,000- ' square-foot commercial building with associated site infrastructure, parking and landscaping. Tenants and tenant uses have not yet been identified for the commercial buildings, therefore exterior building elevations and more accurate building footprints will be submitted once tenants have been identified. The applicant has presented conservative assumptions of possible tenant uses for each option for the purposes of the Site Plan Review process. It is likely that the commercial tenant uses will be eating and drinking establishments and similar use categories such as retail sales, personal services, and small scale offices (as noted on the site plan for each option). Per discussions with Steve Hopkins at the Presubmittal conference, if the tenant uses and building footprints (approximate building area and basic form) remain generally consistent with the proposed Site Plan Review plans, changes to the building articulation (recesses and projections, entryways, patios, awnings, etc.) for instance, will only require a Type I Site Plan Review Modification application: Additional details regarding this proposal are provided on the Site Plan Review drawings for each option, the remainder of this written statement, and other materials attached herein. • • City of Springfield Site Plan Review Application February 15, 2011 Page 3 of 37 Design Intent: The 51st-52nd & Main Street Redevelopment project represents an effort to raise the standard of typical commercial and medium-density residential development in the East Main Street area. • to enhance the quality of local commercial and medium-density residential development; • to reduce the blighted appearance of large expanses of parking along Main Street; and • to ensure compatibility between the Main Street commercial corridor and the surrounding low-density residential neighborhood. The proposed uses are consistent with the Springfield Development Code (SDC), the East Main Refinement Plan (1988) and the Eugene-Springfield Metro Plan (2004 Update). The subject properties are within the Community Commercial (CC) zoning district, and are designated as Commercial with a Mixed-Use Area Overlay on the Eugene-Springfield Metro Plan, Plan Diagram. The parcels are located on the Mixed- Use Area #3 in the East Main Refinement Plan, Plan Diagram. Per SDC 3.2-310, uses such as retail sales, personal services, small offices and eating and drinking establishments are allowed in the Community Commercial zoning district. Per the East Main Refinement Plan (Mixed-Use Element, Area #3, page 11) Medium- and High-Density Residential uses are allowed under the Community Commercial zoning district. Therefore, a mix of commercial and multiple-family residential uses are allowed on the parcels subject to Site Plan Review approval. Additionally, consistent with the applicability of the Site Plan Review process and the Springfield Development Code, the project addresses anticipated post-development changes in stormwater patterns to maintain the integrity of the City's watercourses by preserving water quality. Similarly, the site and building design and orientation minimize any possible adverse effects on surrounding property owners and the general public. This application also addresses traffic impacts in the supplemental Traffic Impact Study. The project was designed with the understanding that its long-term viability as an active mixed-use development depends on the economic and ecological health of the local community. To this end, the 51a-52nd & Main Street Redevelopment proposal attempts to balance economic concerns with careful attention to neighborhood compatibility and land stewardship. This request for Site Plan Review is proposed under the general approval criteria. As demonstrated in Section IV below, the subject request meets all applicable code criteria and should be approved as proposed. • • • City of Springfield Site Plan Review Application February 15, 2011 Page 4 of 37 Design Team: Owner and Applicant: Civil and Transportation Engineers and OBO Enterprises, LLC Surveyor: 1390 Grosbeak Court Branch Engineering, Inc. Redmond, Oregon 97756 310 North 5th Street (541) 954.0217 Springfield, Oregon 97477 Contact: Nick Boyles (541) 746.0637 • Fax (541) 746.0389 qualityapartments @q.com Engineer: Contact: Damien Gilbert, PE Applicant's Representative and damien @branchengineering.com Architect: Surveyor: TBG Architects & Planners/Inc Contact: Renee Cough, PE, PLS 132 East Broadway, Suite 200 renee @branchengineering.com Eugene, Oregon 97401 (541) 687.1010 • Fax (541) 687.0625 Landscape Architect: Contact: Kristen Taylor Schirmer + Associates, LLC ktaylor @tbg-arch.com 375 West 4th Street, Suite 201 Eugene, Oregon 97401 (541) 686.4540 • Fax (541) 686.4577 Contact: Carol Schirmer carol@schirmerassociates.com • City of Springfield Site Plan Review Application February 15, 2011 Page 5 of 37 II. Site Description A. Location and Site Context This Site Plan Review request applies to Tax Lots 6200 and 6300 of Lane County Assessor's Map 17-02-33-32. Tax Lot 6200 is about 0.84 acres (36,606 square feet). Tax Lot 6300 is about 0.67 acres (29,064 square feet). The total OBO Enterprises LLC development site is approximately 1.51 acres (65,670 square feet) in size. The development site as described will be referred to in this application as the subject site. The subject site is located within the Springfield City limits and Urban Growth Boundary on the south side of Main Street between South 51" Place and South 52nd Street. Main Street is classified as a principal arterial. South 51" Place and South 52"d Street are classified as local streets. The OBO Enterprises, LLC properties are zoned Community Commercial (CC). Currently, Tax Lot 6300 is developed with a single-family residence with access from South 52' Street. Tax Lot 6200 was developed with a single-family residence that burned down a couple of years ago with access from Main Street. The properties located on both sides of Main Street in the area of the subject site are zoned CC developed with a mix of commercial uses such as auto-oriented uses and eating and drinking establishment uses. The properties located to the south of the subject site are zoned Low-Density Residential (LDR) and developed with single-family residences. The properties located to the west of the subject site are zoned CC; the CC property located directly adjacent to Tax Lot 6200 is __ currently developed with a single family residence and the properties across South 51st Place are developed with an auto-oriented use. The properties located to the east of the subject site are zoned CC and developed with a single-family residences. The development site is serviced via Lane Transit District (LTD) Route 11 (Thurston). There is a bus stop within a half a block of the subject site on either side of Main Street for eastbound and westbound transit riders. The route is serviced every 10 to 15 minutes throughout the day. Reference the Traffic Impact Study, Appendix C, for the LTD route schedule. B. Existing Conditions and Site Access The subject parcels are relatively flat with street right-of-way frontage along Main Street, South 515` Place and South 52"d Street. Currently; South 51' Place is unimproved to the City's public street standards. Main Street and South 52"d Street are improved public streets with sidewalks. South 52"d Street only has a sidewalk on the east side of the street. • City of Springfield Site Plan Review Application February 15, 2011 Page 6 of 37 As stated above, Tax Lot 6300 is currently developed with a single-family residence with access from South 52nd Street. Tax Lot 6200 was developed with a single-family residence that burned down a couple of years ago with access from Main Street. All three site plan options relocate the existing South 52"d Street driveways and add a new full access driveway on South 51# Place. Site Plan Option A proposes to relocate the existing Main Street driveway. Site Plan Option B and C remove the Main Street driveway access. The proposed driveways provide safe access to and from the site and are consistent with the Springfield Development Code as outlined below. The applicant has filed a Right-of-Way Approach Permit with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) for the proposed limited right-in and right-out shared access from Main Street in the general location of the existing driveway as shown on Site Plan Option A. Please reference the attached copy of the pending ODOT Right-of- Way Approach Permit application. There are 10 existing trees on the site, of which 9 have a diameter breast height of 5" or greater. Except for one 4" cedar tree located at the southwest corner of the site, all existing trees on the site are proposed for removal to construct the new buildings, site infrastructure and required on-site stormwater infiltration and detention system. A Tree Felling Permit to remove these existing trees has been submitted concurrently with the Site Plan Review application consistent with the required criteria under SDC 5.19-125. Ill. Land Use History As stated above, the subject site is located within the Springfield City Limits and Urban Growth Boundary. The subject properties are zoned Community Commercial (CC) on the Springfield Zoning Map and designated as Commercial with a Mixed-Use Overlay on the Eugene-Springfield Metro Plan, Plan Diagram. The parcels are located in the Mixed-Use Area #3 on the East Main Refinement Plan, Plan Diagram. Per SDC 3.2-310, uses such as retail sales, personal services, small offices and eating and drinking establishments are allowed in the Community Commercial zoning district. Per the East Main Refinement Plan (Mixed-Use Element, Area #3, page 11) Medium- and High-Density Residential uses are allowed under the Community Commercial zoning district. Therefore, a mix of community commercial and multiple-family residential uses are allowed on the parcels subject to Site Plan Review approval. IV. Approval Criteria - Site Plan Review Supporting Fads and Findings This section is organized by the applicable approval criteria per Article X.II. Applicable Site Design Review approval criteria are outlined in bold below, followed by proposed findings in normal text. Additional applicable zoning code criteria needing to be addressed as part of the Site Design Review approval criteria are identified in bold italics. As noted above, the residential portion of the development remains the same in each site plan option. Therefore, all applicable criteria to the residential portion of the development are addressed only once for all three options. • • City of Springfield Site Plan Review Application February 15, 2011 Page 7 of 37 Where the three options vary, findings for each option are individually addressed under the approval criteria. SDC 5.17-115 Site Plan Review Phased Development A. A Phased Development Plan shall be submitted with the Site Plan Review application as specified in Section 5.17-120. - SDC 5.17-120(G): A Phased Development Plan, where applicable, that indicates any proposed phases for development, including the boundaries and sequencing of each phase as specified in Section 5.17-115. Phasing shall progress in a sequence that promotes street connectivity between the various phases and accommodates other required public improvements, including but not limited to, sanitary sewer, stormwater management, water and electricity. Finding: A phased development plan has been schematically submitted for each development option, including the boundaries and sequencing of each phase. In all three options, the entire residential portion of the development will be constructed during Phase I, which includes the residential buildings, storage, common open space, landscaping and fences, pedestrian circulation, required 23 parking spaces (minimum 8 surface spaces and 15 individual garage spaces), and the main drive aisle running east-west through the site from South 51' Place to South 52nd Street as well as the associated site infrastructure (consistent with the Multi-Unit Design Standards). The phasing boundaries for Phase I are slightly different in each option, which are outlined below and illustrated on the attached drawings, Sheet T1, for each option. The phasing, boundaries and sequencing for the commercial portion of the development site also vary in the three options as outlined below. Site Plan Option A: In addition to the scope of Phase I noted above, Phase I also includes the construction of the Main Street driveway and drive aisle. The commercial portion of the development will be constructed in two phases (Phases II and III). As noted above, the tenants for the commercial buildings have not yet been identified. Therefore, the phasing sequence for the commercial portion of the development will depend on the identification of tenants. Phase II and Phase III are proposed to be the following depending on the timing of tenant identification for the commercial buildings: Phase II will include the construction of the 3,000-square-foot commercial building on the corner of Main Street and South 52"d Street, 23 parking spaces and associated trash area, on-site pedestrian walkways, landscaping and site infrastructure. Phase III will include the construction of the 2,500-square-foot drive-through restaurant building on the corner of Main Street and South 51" Place, 12 parking spaces and associated on-site pedestrian walkways, landscaping and site infrastructure. • • City of Springfield . Site Plan Review Application February 15, 2011 Page 8 of 37 OR Phase II will include the construction of the 2,500-square-foot drive-through restaurant building on the corner of Main Street and South 51' Place, 31 parking spaces and associated on-site pedestrian walkways, landscaping and site ' infrastructure. Phase III will include the construction of the 3,000-square-foot commercial building on the corner of Main Street and South 52"d Street, trash area, 4 parking spaces and associated on-site pedestrian walkways, landscaping and site infrastructure. Site Plan Option B: Phase I is described above. The commercial portion of the development will be constructed in two phases (Phases II and III). As noted above; the tenants for the commercial buildings have not yet been identified. Therefore, the phasing sequence for the commercial portion of the development will depend on the identification of tenants. Phase II and Phase III are proposed to be the following depending on the timing of tenant identification for the commercial buildings: Phase II will include the construction of the 3,000-square-foot commercial building on the corner of Main Street and South 52"d Street, trash area, 31 parking spaces and associated on-site pedestrian walkways, landscaping and site infrastructure. Phase III will include the construction of the 2,500-square-foot drive-through restaurant building on the corner of Main Street and South 51' Place, 7 parking spaces and associated on-site pedestrian walkways, landscaping and site infrastructure. OR Phase II will include the construction of the 2,500-square-foot drive-through restaurant building on the corner of Main Street and South 51" Place, 34 parking spaces and associated on-site pedestrian walkways, landscaping and site infrastructure. Phase III will include the construction of the 3,000-square-foot commercial building on the corner of Main Street and South 52' Street, trash area, 4 parking spaces and associated on-site pedestrian walkways, landscaping and site infrastructure. • Site Plan Option C: In addition to the scope of Phase I noted above, Phase I also includes the construction of 6 parking spaces on the north side of the main drive aisle running east-west through the site from South 51" Place to South 52' Street. The commercial portion of the development will be constructed during Phase II. Phase II includes the construction of the 6,000-square-foot commercial restaurant building with attached trash area on the corner of Main Street and South 51' Place, 56 parking spaces and associated on-site pedestrian walkways, landscaping and site infrastructure. • • City of Springfield Site Plan Review Application February 15, 2011 Page 9 of 37 The proposed phasing for all three options progresses in a sequence that promotes street connectivity between the various phases and accommodates other required public improvements, including but not limited to sanitary sewer, stormwater management, water and electricity. Reference the attached drawings, Sheet T1, for each option. Therefore, the proposed phasing for the three options is consistent with this criterion. B. The Director shall approve a time schedule for developing a site in phases, but in no case shall the total time period for all phases be greater than 2 years, with a possible 1-time 1 year extension as specified in Section 5.17- 135. Finding: Due to the fact that tenants have not yet been identified, the applicant does not propose a specific time schedule for developing the site. The applicant requests flexibility to develop the site within the allowed 2 years, with a possible 1-time 1 year extension as specified in Section 5.17-135. C. Approval of a phased Site Plan Review application shall require satisfaction of the following approval criteria: 1. The public facilities required to serve each phase shall be constructed in conjunction with or prior to each phase, unless during the Site Plan Review process the Director finds that a public facility necessary for a subsequent phase is necessary as part of an earlier phase; and 2. The phased development shall not result in requiring the City or other property owners to construct public facilities that were required as part of the approved development proposal. Finding: The public facilities required to serve each phase in all three options will be constructed in conjunction with or prior to each phase, unless during the Site Plan Review process the Director finds that a public facility necessary for a subsequent phase is necessary as part of an earlier phase. In addition, the phased development in all three options does not result in requiring the City or other property owners to construct public facilities that were required as part of the. approved development proposal. Therefore, the three proposed development options are consistent with these criteria. City of Springfield Site Plan Review Application February 15, 2011 Page 10 of 37 SDC 5.17-125 Site Plan Review Criteria A. The zoning is consistent with the Metro Plan diagram, and/or the applicable Refinement Plan diagram, Plan District map, and Conceptual Development Plan. Findings: Per the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan, Plan Diagram, the subject property falls within the Urban Growth Boundary and the Metro Plan Boundary. The subject site is clearly designated Commercial with a Mixed-Use Area Overlay on the Metro Plan Diagram, which is consistent with site's current Community Commercial (CC) zoning.district. The subject site falls within the adopted East Main Refinement Plan area. The parcels are located in the Mixed-Use Area #3 on the East Main Refinement Plan, Plan Diagram. Per the East Main Refinement Plan (Mixed-Use Element, Area #3, page 11) Medium- and High-Density Residential uses are allowed under the CC zoning district. Therefore, the zoning is consistent with the refinement plan. The proposed uses are consistent with the Springfield Development Code (SDC), East Main Refinement Plan and the Eugene-Springfield Metro Plan. Per SDC 3.2- 310, uses such as retail sales, personal services, small offices and eating and drinking establishments are allowed in the Community Commercial zoning district. Per the East Main Refinement Plan (Mixed-Use Element, Area #3, page 11) Medium- and High-Density Residential uses are allowed under the Community Commercial zoning district. Therefore, a mix of community commercial and multiple-family residential uses are allowed on the parcels subject to Site Plan Review approval. Therefore, the zoning and proposed development options are consistent with this criterion. B. Capacity requirements of public and private facilities, including but not limited to, water and electricity; sanitary sewer and stormwater management facilities; and streets and traffic safety controls shall not be exceeded and the public improvements shall be available to serve the site at the time of development, unless otherwise provided for by this Code and other applicable regulations. The Public Works director or a utility provider shall determine capacity issues. Findings: In the three development options, the applicant is proposing to construct single-story commercial building(s) and two two-story multiple-family residential buildings on CC zoned land with adequate public and private facilities. Reference the attached civil engineering drawings for each option for details on existing and proposed facilities. Per SDC 4.3-125, all private utilities on the proposed development site will be placed underground whenever possible. • • City of Springfield Site Plan Review Application February 15,2011 Page 11 of 37 The public improvements proposed in all three development options include half- street improvements along the frontage of South 51' Place, including roughly 18'- 0" of new asphalt, curb and gutter, sidewalk, a streetlight, street trees and the proposed driveway approach. Additionally, the proposed driveway approaches on Main Street (Site Plan Option A only) and South 52"d Street will be replaced and will meet current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. All public improvements will be constructed per City standards under a Public Improvements Permit (PIP). A PIP application has been submitted at the time of this Site Plan Review application with the understanding that Tentative Site Plan Review Approval is required prior to the PIP application approval. All three proposals have adequate water service available from an existing 6" public water main located in South 51' Place adjacent to the subject site's western property line. An existing 6" public water main is also located in South 52"d Street with adequate water service. This main is located on the far side of the right of way. There is an existing fire hydrant located in the public right-of-way on Main Street to the north of the subject site at the intersection of South 52"d Street and Main Street. All of the proposed buildings (commercial, residential and trash enclosures) will be sprinklered. The existing fire hydrant and the addition of the required new public fire hydrant at the entrance to the property on South 52"d Street have an adequate flow rate to serve the site. Reference the attached civil drawings for the approximate location of the new fire hydrant. There are existing overhead electric lines running east-west adjacent to the site's northern property line, which provides adequate capacity to serve the three proposed development options. There are two existing public sanitary sewer stubs (4" stubs) located adjacent to the subject site's western and eastern property lines conveying sewage from the site to the 8" public sanitary sewer lines located in South 51' Place and South 52' Street. The existing public sanitary sewer system has adequate capacity to serve the three development options. There is an existing 4-1/2" gas line located in Main Street. There are existing 1" gas lines located in South 51' Place and South 52"d Street, which provide adequate capacity to serve the three proposed development options if gas is used. The existing homes were likely connected to gas. These existing services will be disconnected. There is an existing 48" storm pipe located along the south side of Main Street. An existing 12" storm main is located in South 52"d Street and an existing 12" storm line is located in South 5? Place. As part of the PIP, the South 51' Place existing roadside ditch will be removed and a new 12" storm line will be installed with a stub out to provide service to the subject property and to convey the • upstream flows. In all three Site Plan Options, a new storm lateral is proposed to connect into the existing 12" storm line in South 52"d Street as well. No • • City of Springfield Site Plan Review Application February 15, 2011 Page 12 of 37 connection is proposed to the 48" storm line located in Main Street at this time. In addition, as noted above, the owner proposes to make public sidewalk improvements along the property's frontage on South 51' Place as required. Due to City Staff identified storm system requirements, all three proposed development options include on-site retention to the fullest extent possible. Special emphasis is placed on infiltrating the stormwater and limiting the flow rate to the existing public storm system. See the attached Stormwater Management System Plan for more information. • The existing public street and traffic safety control systems will not be exceeded with the addition of any of the three proposed development options and are available to serve the site at the time of development. Reference the attached Traffic Impact Study (TIS) dated October 13, 2010 for details, which is adopted and incorporated herein. In addition, as noted above, the pending ODOT Right- of-Way Approach Permit for the limited access driveway on Main Street is attached for reference (Site Plan Option A only). A geotechnical analysis was prepared for building construction. Please reference the attached Geotechnical Investigation, dated July 19, 2010. As demonstrated above as well as in the drawings and referenced attachments, capacity requirements of public and private facilities, including but not limited to water and electricity; sanitary sewer and stormwater management facilities; and streets and traffic safety controls have not been exceeded and the public improvements are available to serve the site at the time of development. Therefore, the three .proposed development options are consistent with this criterion. C. The proposed development shall comply with all applicable public and private design and construction standards contained in this Code and other applicable regulations. Due to the subject parcels' Multi-Use Area designation in the East Main Refinement Plan, SDC 4.7-210 Residential Uses in Commercial Districts and per City Staff direction, the northern portion of the site complies with the applicable CC Base Zone Development Standards and the 'southern portion of the site complies with the applicable MDR Base Zone Development Standards and SDC 3.2-240 Multi-Unit Design Standards. Reference the attached Site Plans for the, CC and MDR area boundaries. There are standards within the MDR Base Zone Development Standards and Multi-Unit Design Standards that do not apply due to the fact that the proposal is for a mixed-use development on a CC zoned site. As required, this written statement addresses the provisions in the Springfield Development Code that are applicable to the proposed mixed-use development on CC zoned parcels as outlined below. Reference the attached Site Plans for details. • • City of-Springfield Site Plan Review Application February 15, 2011 Page 13 of 37 SDC 3.2-200 MDR Base Zone Development Standards: Findings: Per the East Main Refinement Plan (Mixed-Use Element, Area #3, page 11) Medium- and High-Density Residential uses are allowed under the CC zoning district. Therefore, a mix of community commercial and multiple-family dwelling uses are allowed on the CC zoned parcels within this area subject to Site Plan Review approval. SDC 3.2-205 Establishment of Residential Zoning Districts and SDC 3.2-215 Standard Lots/Parcels and Maximum Lot/Parcel Coverage are not applicable because the base zone of the subject parcels is CC. For all three development options, there are two multiple-family residential buildings proposed on the southern portion of the site. Building One is a two- story building with 11 units facing South 52"d Street. This larger Building One has three multiple-unit structures connected together with a covered outdoor stair and corridor system. The two structures located along the internal drive aisle facing South 52"d Street have ground floor garages and second floor one-bedroom residential flats. The third structure located adjacent to the LDR property to the south and facing South 52"d Street has two floors of two-bedroom residential flats. Building Two is a two-story building with four townhouse units tucked in the back southwest corner of the site facing Building One. The design intent of the residential portion of the site is to create a quiet residential community within the proposed mixed-use development located along the busy Main Street corridor by facing the main entrances to all of the units towards a shared internal outdoor stair and corridor system. This outdoor central area between the residential structures provides opportunity for landscaping, a shared common area and increased natural daylighting and ventilation into the units. The residential portion in the three development options complies with the applicable MDR Base Zone Development Standards as follows: • SDC 3.2-215: The minimum building front yard setback for the MDR portion of the proposed development options is 10'-0" minimum. Building One is set back about 12'-0" from the street frontage on South 52' Street, which exceeds the required front yard setback. The residential portion of the proposed developments does not have a street side yard. • SDC 3.2-215: The interior and rear yard building setbacks are 5'-0" and 10'-0" minimum respectively. Along the rear southern property line adjacent to the adjacent LDR zoned property, the multiple-unit buildings are set back about 12'-0", which exceeds the required 10'-0" rear yard setback. Along the interior western property line adjacent to the adjacent CC zoned property, the multiple-unit buildings are set back about 10'-0", which exceeds the required 5'-0" setback. • SDC .3.2-215: The front yard setback for garages is a minimum 18'-0" measured along the driveway from the property line fronting the street to the far wall of the garage where the face of structure is perpendicular to the street. The proposed garage entrances and driveways face the interior of the site with • • City of Springfield Site Plan Review Application February 15, 2011 Page 14 of 37 residential units located above the garages on the second level. Therefore, although the garages are perpendicular to South 52nd Street, the garages are incorporated into the design of the larger multiple-family residential building (Building One) and do not appear to be garages from the street-facing façade (South 52"d Street). However, the far wall of the garage, where the face of the structure is perpendicular to South 52' Street, is set back 18'-0" in compliance with the required minimum. Reference the Site Plans for details. • SDC 3.2-215: The height of the proposed multiple-unit residential buildings is no greater than about 26'-0" (at the ridge of the highest hip roof), which is less than the required 35'-0" maximum. Reference the attached Exterior Elevations drawings for details. • SDC 3.2-225 Base Solar Development Standards: These criteria are not applicable to the proposed development options because the subject parcels ' are zoned CC and located on the north side of the adjacent LDR zoned properties. SDC 3.2-240 Multi-Unit Design Standards: Findings: As noted above, there are standards within SDC 3.2-240 Multi-Unit Design Standards that do not apply to the proposed residential portion of the development options due to the mixed-use nature of the development proposal located on a CC zoned site. • The residential portion of the development complies with the Multi-Unit Design Standards as follows: SDC 3.2-240(B) Purpose: The two two-story multiple-unit residential buildings with private patios or balconies are compatible with the adjacent single-family residential development to the south and provide an appropriate transition between this single-family residential neighborhood and the commercial development along Main Street to the north. The MDR portion of the proposed mixed-use development options promotes higher residential density inside the urban growth boundary along the Main Street commercial corridor and adjacent to low-density residential neighborhoods. The proposed medium-density residential housing will use existing infrastructure and improve the efficiency of public services and facilities. SDC 3.2-240(C) Review: This written statement and other supplementary information describes the proposed multi-unit development options and demonstrates that the proposals comply with the Site Plan Review criteria under the Springfield Development Code (Section 5.17-100), which is subject to the Type II application review process. • • • City of Springfield Site Plan Review Application February 15, 2011 Page 15 of 37 SDC 3.2-240(D) Design Standards, the residential portion of the development options complies with the Design Standards as follows: • SDC 3.2-240(D)(1)(a) Building Orientation: The outdoor covered stair and corridor system is the primary entrance to Building One (the larger multiple- unit residential building), which faces South 52' Street. Building One's primary outdoor entrance directly connects to South 52" Street, to the • exterior front doors of all of the residential units in both Building One and Two as well as to the pedestrian walkway system throughout the site. The street-facing outdoor entrance for Building One will be enhanced by decorative signage and pedestrian amenities such as a masonry seating walls and a trellis archway. Therefore, this criterion is met. • SDC 3.2-240(D)(1)(b) Building Orientation: The front street-facing façade of Building One is located about 12'-0" (outdoor staircase) to 18'-0" (far wall of ground floor garage) from the front property line on South 52" Street, which is within the maximum 25 feet requirement. Therefore, this criterion is met. • SDC 3.2-240(D)(1)(c) Building Orientation: Off-street parking and vehicular circulation is not placed between the residential structures and the street- facing façade on South 52' Street. Therefore, this criterion is met. • SDC 3.2-240(D)(1)(d) Building Orientation: There are no wetlands identified on the subject properties and the properties are relatively flat, therefore, this criterion is not applicable. • SDC 3.2-240(D)(2)(a) Building Form: The proposed two-story residential structures have continuous horizontal distances between about 83'-0" to about 111-0", which are less than the maximum 160'-0" (measured from end wall to end wall) allowed. Therefore, this criterion is met. • SDC 3.2-240(D)(2)(b) Building Form: With the exception of a couple of minor building elements outlined below, the proposed two-story residential buildings (Building One and Two) have hip roofs with a roof pitch that is about 5 to 15 which meets the minimum 3 to 12 pitch requirement. Reference the attached Exterior Elevations for details. Adjustment: The front and back porch awnings on Building Two's townhouse units are shed roof forms and Building One's outdoor stair and corridor system are covered by a shed and flat roof form, respectively, in order to provide more appropriate and improved design and construction details for these building elements. The proposed adjustment to these building roof forms are discussed below under SDC 3.2-250 Multi-Unit Design Standards Variances. • SDC 3.2-240(D)(2)(c) Building Form: The front facades of both Building One (facing South 52" Street) and Building Two (facing Building One) contain the minimum required 15 percent windows and doors. All proposed windows and doors on Building One and Two have 4" trim to provide shadowing as required. Therefore, this criterion is met. • SDC 3.2-240(D)(2)(d) Building Form: The ground floor garages in Building One are attached to living units above on the second floor but the garages are not accessed from the street (front setback), so this criterion is not applicable. City of Springfield Site Plan Review Application February 15, 2011 Page 16 of 37 • SDC 3.2-240(D)(2)(e), (t), (g) and (h) Building Form: All of the exterior elevations of Buildings One and Two incorporate design features including offsets, projections, balconies, covered porches or similar elements to preclude large expansions of uninterrupted building surfaces. Along the • . vertical face of all of the residential structures, there are a minimum of two recesses (minimum depth of 3'-0"), extensions (minimum depth of 2'-0", with two exceptions, and minimum length of 4'-0") and/or offsets or breaks in roof elevation (2'-0" or greater in height), which occur at a minimum of every 30 feet, and on each floor. Reference the attached Exterior Elevations for details. Adjustment: Discussed below under SDC 3.2-250 Multi-Unit Design Standards Variances, the minimum depth of the proposed extensions on the east and west exterior elevations of Building Two (townhouse units) are proposed to be adjusted from the required minimum 2'-0" depth to 1'-8" depth (allowed maximum 20 percent adjustment of the requirement). • SDC 3.2-240(D)(3)(a) Transition and Compatibility between Multi-unit and LDR Development The adjacent single-family residence located on the same side of South 52"' Street and same block is located within 75'-0" south of Building One within the multi-unit residential portion of the subject development site. The front façade of this single-family residence is located about 16'-0" from the front property line. Building One is set back about 12'- 0" from the front. property line, which is within the permitted 5'-0" of the setback provided by this nearest single-family residence. Therefore, this criterion is met. Reference the attached Exterior Elevations for details. • SDC 3.2-240(D)(3)(b)(i) Transition and Compatibility between Multi-unit and LDR Development: There is no vehicular circulation (i.e., driveways, drive lanes, maneuvering areas and private streets) proposed within the buffer area between the multi-unit residential development and the LDR zoned - - property to the south. Therefore, this criterion is met. • SDC 3.2-240(D)(3)(b)(ii) Transition and Compatibility between Multi-unit and LDR Development: A site-obscuring 6'-0" high cedar fence and landscaping are proposed along the subject property lines that abut a LDR zoned property to the south. Therefore, this criterion is met. • SDC 3.2-240(D)(3)(b)(iii) Transition and Compatibility between Multi-unit and LDR Development: There are no primary entrances to the multi-unit residential buildings that face an abutting LDR zoned property. Except as described below under Adjustment, Buildings One and Two comply with all • other applicable setbacks and transition area standards, as discussed elsewhere in the narrative. Adjustment: The minimum 15'-0" buffer area (with the allowed 10'-0" building encroachment into the 25'-0" buffer area) between portions of the multi-unit residential buildings (ground floor porch roofs, second floor balconies and building extensions) and the abutting the LDR zoned property line is proposed to be adjusted to 12'-0" and 13'-0" (allowed maximum 20 percent adjustment of the requirement). In addition, the heights of the • • City of Springfield Site Plan Review Application February 15, 2011 Page 17of37 primary roof (per code definition) for Buildings One and Two are proposed to be adjusted from the maximum 21'-0" within the buffer area to 21'-8" height as discussed below under SDC 3.2-250 Multi-Unit Design Standards Variances. Reference the attached Site Plans and Exterior Elevations for details. • SDC 3.2-240(D)(3)(b)(iv) Transition and Compatibility between Multi-unit and LDR Development: The proposed active recreation area is located outside of the 25'-0" buffer area in the center of the multi-unit residential buildings. Therefore, this criterion is met. • SDC 3.2-240(D)(3)(b)(v) Transition and Compatibility between Multi-unit and LDR Development: There is no proposed parking lot lighting located within the residential portion of the development options. The exterior building and path lights will be proposed at the time of the building permit application submittal in compliance with the 12'-0" maximum height limitation and shielded so that light does not allow direct illumination onto adjacent LDR property or into dwelling units. Therefore, this criterion is met. • SDC 3.2-240(D)(3)(b)(vi) Transition and Compatibility between Multi-unit and LDR Development Mechanical equipment will be screened from view (i.e., as viewed from adjacent properties and street), and will be buffered so that noise does not typically exceed 45 to 50 decibels as measured at the LDR property line. The Mechanical equipment will be proposed at the time of the building permit application submittal in compliance with this and all other applicable standards. Therefore, this criterion is met. • SDC 3.2-240(D)(3)(b)(vii) Transition and Compatibility between Multi-unit and LDR Development The proposed residential.portion of the development options does not propose rooftop equipment. All mechanical and electrical equipment will be located within the residential building structures. • Mechanical and electrical equipment will be proposed at the time of the building permit application submittal in compliance with this and all other applicable standards. Therefore, this criterion is met. • SDC 3.2-240(D)(3)(c) Transition and Compatibility between Multi-unit and LDR Development The proposed buildings and portions of buildings abutting the. LDR zoned property lines outside of the buffer area do not exceed a building height greater than one foot for each foot distance from the LDR property line up to about 26'-0", which is less. than the required maximum 35'-0" building height. Reference the Exterior Elevations for details. Therefore, this criterion is met. • SDC 3.2-240(D)(4)(a) Storage: Adequate, accessible and secure storage space is proposed for each dwelling unit in private garages (each approximately 250 square feet). The garages are located on the ground floor of Building One, adjoining all dwelling units in Buildings One and Two via the outdoor covered stair and corridor system. Therefore, this criterion is met. Reference the Site Plans, Sheet Al, and Conceptual Floor Plans, Sheet A2, for details. • • City of Springfield • Site Plan Review Application February 15, 2011 • Page 18 of 37 • SDC 3.2-240(D)(4)(b) Storage: The proposed residential portion of the development options provides an enclosed trash area attached to the west end of Building One that is screened from view by placement of a masonry wall, about 6'-0" in height, and obscuring landscaping around all exposed sides of the wall except where breaks are provided for doors. Therefore, this criterion is met. • SDC 3.2-240(D)(4)(c) Storage: There are no trash receptacles proposed in any front yard setback, or within 25'-0" of property lines abutting LDR zoned properties. Therefore, this criterion is met. • SDC 3.2-240(D)(4)(d) Storage: Ground-mounted equipment, including exterior transformers, utility pads, cable television and telephone boxes and similar utility services, will be placed underground, where practicable. When placed above ground, the equipment will be placed to minimize visual impact; or screened with a wall or landscaping as required by code. Ground- mounted equipment will be proposed at the time of the building permit application submittal in compliance with this and all other applicable standards. Therefore, this criterion is met. • SDC 3.2-240(D)(5)(a) Open Space: The proposed medium-density residential portion of the mixed-use development options permanently reserves approximately 30 percent of the residential portion of the site area only (about 26,074 square feet) as open space, which exceeds the required minimum 15 percent or 3,912 square feet. The total required open space is the sum of setbacks, common open space, and private open space. Therefore, this criterion is met. • SDC 3.2-240(D)(5)(a)(i) Open Space: The proposed residential portion of the mixed-use development options is not proposed in mixed-use buildings, therefore, the exemption to these standards does not apply. • SDC 3.2-240(D)(5)(a)(ii) and (iii) Open Space: The proposed density for the multi-unit residential portion of the site is about 25 units per acre (the residential portion of the site area totals about 26,074 square feet or 0.60 acres), which is less than 30 units per gross acre so the development complies with the other applicable code sections specified below. • SDC 3.2-240(D)(5)(b)(i) and (ii) Common Open Space: The proposed common open space has no dimension less than 15'-0" in width. The proposed total residential floor area (excluding garages) is about 16,964 square feet. Therefore, the required minimum common open space is 4,241 square feet. Per SDC 3.2-240(D)(5)(c)aii), private open space may be deducted from the minimum common open space requirement. 0.25 x 16,964 square feet = 4,241 square feet 4,241 square feet - 1,320 square feet private open space (SDC 3.2- 240(D)(5)(c)(iii)) = 2,921 square feet The proposed common open space for the multi-unit portion of the development is 3,318 square feet, which exceeds this required 2,921-square- foot minimum. Therefore, these criteria are met. • • City of Springfield Site Plan Review Application February 15, 2011 Page 19 of 37 • SDC 3.2-240(D)(5)(b)(iv) and (v) Common Open Space: In all options, the proposed common open space has no dimension less than 15'-0" in width. A natural play area composed of basalt stepping and climbing stones and covered benches are proposed in the center of the residential buildings, which exceeds the required minimum 250 square feet area of active recreation area. The natural play area is not proposed in any required setback or transition area. Therefore, these criteria are met. • SDC 3.2-240(D)(5)(b)(vi) Common Open Space: A minimum of fifty percent of the required common open space area is landscaping, which is consistent with the requirement. Therefore, this criterion is met. • SDC 3.2-240(D)(5)(b)(vii) Common Open Space: The proposals do not include indoor or covered recreational space, therefore, this criterion is not applicable. • SDC 3.2-240(D)(5)(b)(viii) Common Open Space: The exception to the common open space standard does not apply to the proposed project because the development site is slightly outside the 1/4 mile distance (measured walking distance) to a public park. However, within only 0.4 miles, there are two public active recreation areas (Bluebell Park and Riverbend Elementary School) easily accessible by the tenants via a direct, improved, permanent, public, ADA-accessible, lighted, maintained pedestrian sidewalk between the site and the parks. • SDC 3.2-240(D)(5)(b)(ix) Common Open Space: The proposed common open space areas will be built at the time of the construction of the residential portion of the mixed-use development during Phase I for all three development options. Therefore, this criterion is met. • SDC 3.2-240(D)(5)(b)(x) Common Open Space: The common open space areas are proposed outside of the required yards or transition areas. Therefore, this criterion is met. • SDC 3.2-240(D)(5)(c)(i) Private Open Space: All of the proposed multi- family units have private open spaces, which are directly accessible from the dwelling unit through a doorway. The ground floor units have a covered front entry and a back patio. The second floor units have a covered front entry and balcony. Therefore, this criterion is met. • SDC 3.2-240(D)(5)(c)(i) Private Open Space: The seven proposed ground floor dwelling units (three flats and four townhouses) provide about 120 square feet of patio area, which exceeds the minimum of 96 square feet of • private open space. The proposed minimum dimension for all of the ground floor patios is about 10'-0", which is more than the required 6'-0". Therefore, this criterion is met. • SDC 3.2-240(D)(6)(a) Landscaping, Fences and Walls: About 30 percent of the residential portion of the site (26,074 square feet total) is landscaped with a mix of vegetative ground cover, shrubbery and trees per City standards, which is more than the required 15 percent minimum. Therefore, this criterion is met. • • City of Springfield Site Plan Review Application February 15, 2011 Page 20 of 37 • SDC 3.2-240(D)(6)(b) Landscaping, Fences and Walls: Although optional, the proposed development will provide a planter strip along South 52"d Street, a local street. • • SDC 3.2-240(D)(6)(c) Landscaping, Fences and Walls: As part of this development, street trees selected from the City Street Tree List are proposed to be planted in the public landscape strip along the property's frontage on South 51' Place and South 52"d Street as required per the City's Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual and Springfield Municipal Code. Therefore, this criterion is met. • SDC 3.2-240(D)(6)(d) Landscaping, Fences and Walls: The proposed development options do not propose fences in front yards and along any frontage used to comply with the building orientation standard. There are pedestrian amenities and signage proposed within the front yard setback in front of Building One in order to enhance the entrance to the residential buildings. The amenities include about two 20" high seating walls and a trellis archway approximately 7'-0" high. The fences proposed in other yards comply with the fence standards specified in Section 4.4-115 and the vision clearance standards specified in Section 4.2-130 as noted below. Therefore, this criterion is met. • SDC 3.2-240(D)(6)(e) Landscaping, Fences and Walls: All landscaping will be irrigated with a permanent irrigation system unless the project's licensed landscape architect submits written verification that the proposed plant materials do not require irrigation. The irrigation system will be provided at the time of building permit application submittal in compliance with code standards. The property owner will maintain all landscaping. Therefore, this criterion is met. • SDC 3.2-240(D)(7)(a), (c) and, (d) Pedestrian Circulation: The proposed development options provide continuous internal walkways throughout the site connecting the residential and commercial portions of the development and all tenant primary entrances to South 51' Place, South 52"d Street and Main Street public right-of-ways. The continuous on-site walkway system also connects all buildings and tenant primary entrances on the site to the parking areas, bicycle parking, garages, common areas, and existing (Main Street) and proposed (South 51' Place) abutting public sidewalks. Therefore, these criteria are met. • SDC .3.2-240(D)(7)(b) Pedestrian Circulation: With the exception of the second floor dwelling units in Building One, Structures B and C, the proposed residential portion of the on-site pedestrian walkways are separated by a minimum of 5'-0" from the dwelling units, measured from the sidewalk edge closest to any dwelling unit. Therefore, this criterion is met. Adjustment: The proposed second floor dwelling units in Building One, Structures B and C, are proposed to be adjusted from being separated by a minimum of 5'-0" to being located directly adjacent to the second floor on-site pedestrian walkway as discussed below under SDC 3.2-250 Multi-Unit Design Standards Variances. Reference the attached Site Plans for details. • City of Springfield Site Plan Review Application February 15, 2011 Page 21 of 37 • SDC 3.2-240(D)(7)(e) Pedestrian Circulation: The proposed on-site pedestrian walkways are proposed to be a combination of concrete, asphalt or masonry pavers, at least 5'-0" wide. Reference the Site Plans for details. The proposed asphalt emergency vehicle access (east-west drive aisle) is a minimum of about 23'-0" wide, which exceeds the required 20'-0" width. Therefore, this criterion is met. • SDC 3.2-240(D)(7)(f) and (g) Pedestrian Circulation: Where the proposed on-site pedestrian walkways cross a vehicular circulation area or parking aisle, they are clearly marked with elevation changes or striping. There are no proposed internal walkways that are parallel to a vehicular circulation area. Where the proposed on-site pedestrian walkways abut a vehicular circulation area the sidewalk is raised or separated from the vehicular circulation by a raised curb, landscaping or other physical barrier. In the locations that a raised sidewalk is proposed, the ends of the raised portions have curb ramps. The proposed on-site pedestrian walkways and ramps comply with ADA requirements. Therefore, these criteria are met. Reference the Site Plans for details. • SDC. 3.2-240(D)(7)(h) Pedestrian Circulation: The proposed on-site pedestrian walkways will be lighted to a minimum of 2 foot-candles. The exterior site and building lighting plan and details will be submitted at the time of building permit application submittal in compliance with the code standards. Therefore, this criterion is met. • SDC 3.2-240(D)(8)(a) Parking: The proposed residential vehicle parking is placed in individual unit garages and on the west side of Building One. There is no parking proposed along the South 52"d Street frontage in front of the multi-unit residential buildings. Therefore, this criterion is met. • SDC 3.2-240(D)(8)(b) Parking: Proposed parking lot lighting is provided for safety purposes, and focused/shielded to avoid glare on adjacent properties and dwelling units as specified in Section 4.5-100 below. Therefore, this criterion is met. • SDC 3.2-240(D)(8)(c) Parking: There are 23 vehicle parking spaces required for the proposed residential portion of the mixed-use development. Fifteen of those vehicle parking spaces are located in individual unit garages. As noted above, the remaining 8 vehicle parking spaces are located directly west of Building One. There is a planter island located on each side of the row of 8 spaces that is 6'-0" wide, exclusive of the curb, which meets this criterion. • SDC 3.2-240(D)(8)(d) Parking: The proposed residential buildings do not have any ground floor living area windows that front the parking area. Therefore, this criterion is not applicable. • SDC 3.2-240(D)(8)(e) Parking: The proposed residential parking aisle in all options is connected to all primary building entrances on the site by means of the continuous on-site pedestrian walkway system. Therefore, this criterion is met. • • City of Springfield Site Plan Review Application February 15, 2011 Page 22 of 37 • SDC 3.2-240(D)(8)(0 Parking: All proposed walkways or planters located adjacent to parking stalls on the site have been widened by 2'-0" beyond the minimum dimension required to allow for vehicle encroachment. The walkways and planters are protected by a curb not less than 6 inches in height per code standards. Therefore, this criterion is met. • SDC 3.2-240(D)(8)(g) Parking: The proposed residential portion of the mixed-use development options.is not located on the corner of the parcels. Therefore, this criterion is not applicable. • SDC 3.2-240(D)(8)(h) and (j) Parking: The proposed residential parking and maneuvering areas that abut South 51" Place and 52nd Street have perimeter landscaping. The proposed perimeter landscape islands range from a minimum of 5'-0" wide along the southern property line adjacent to Tax Lot 6203 to about 20'-0" wide along 52nd Street provide, therefore, the proposals either meet or exceed the required 5'-0" wide. The perimeter planting strips will be planted with shade trees, a minimum 2 inches (dbh) in caliper, and a low level (e.g., 30 to 40 inches) evergreen hedge. A detailed planting plan with exact sizes and species will be provided at the time of building permit application submittal in compliance with all applicable code standards. The parking area landscaping on the entire site is designed to reduce stormwater runoff (e.g., through infiltration swales and other measures), as practicable. Reference the attached civil engineering and landscape architecture drawings for details. Therefore, these criteria are met. • SDC 3.2-240(D)(8)(k) Parking: The proposed bicycle parking for the residential portion of the development is provided within the individual dwelling unit garages located on the first floor of Building One as allowed under SDC 4.6-150(6). Therefore, this criterion is met. • SDC 3.2-240(D)(9)(a) Vehicle Circulation: The on-site drive aisle and driveway system for the proposed mixed-use development options connect with Main Street, South 51' Place and 52"d Street. Therefore, this criterion is met. • SDC 3.2-240(D)(9)(6) Vehicle Circulation: The proposed mixed-use development options with commercial and residential uses on two parcels share either the three proposed driveways (Site Plan Option A) or two driveways (Site Plan Option B and C) which minimize cross turning movements on adjacent streets. • SDC 3.2-240(D)(9)(c) Vehicle Circulation: The proposed residential portion of the development site is about 0.59 acres (about 25,820 square feet), which is less than 8 acres. Therefore, this criterion is not applicable. • SDC 3.2-240(D)(9)(d) Vehicle Circulation: The proposed parcels do not abut an alley so this criterion is not applicable. • • City of Springfield Site Plan Review Application February 15, 2011 Page 23 of 37 SDC 3.2-250 Multi-Unit Design Standards Variances: SDC 3.2-250(A) Description: Adjustments of up to 20 percent to the Multi-Unit Design Standards listed in Section 3.2-240 under Building Form; Transition and Compatibility Between Multi-unit and LDR Development; and Parking are proposed below. Finding: Consistent with this criterion the following adjustments are proposed: • Building Form Adjustment: SDC 3.2-240(D)(2)(b): There are two alternate roof forms proposed on minor building elements: the front and back porch awnings on Building Two's townhouse units are shed roof forms and Building One's outdoor stair and the corridor system is covered, respectively, by a shed and flat roof form. Building Form Adjustment: SDC 3.2-240(D)(2)(g): The minimum depth of the proposed extensions on the east and west exterior elevations of Building Two (townhouse units) are proposed to be adjusted from the required minimum 2'-0" depth to 1-8" depth (allowed maximum 20 percent adjustment of the requirement). Transition and Compatibility between Multi-Unit and LDR Development Adjustment: SDC 3.2-240(D)(3)(b)(iii): The minimum 15'-0" buffer area (with the allowed 10'-0" building encroachment into the 25'-0" buffer area) between portions of the multi-unit residential buildings (ground floor porch roofs, second floor balconies and building extensions) and the abutting the LDR zoned property line is proposed to be adjusted to 12'-0" and 13'-0" (allowed maximum 20 percent adjustment of the requirement). In addition, the heights of the primary roof (per code definition) for Buildings One and Two are proposed to be adjusted from the maximum 21'-0" building height within the buffer to a maximum 21'-8" building height. ' • Pedestrian Circulation Adjustment: SDC 3.2-240(0)(7)(b): The proposed second floor dwelling units in Building One, Structures B and C, are proposed to be adjusted from being separated by a minimum of 5'-0" to being located directly adjacent to the second floor on-site pedestrian walkway. • SDC 3.2-250(8). General Criterion: The proposed adjustments are necessary due to requirement that the CC zoned subject parcels be developed as a mixed-use development per the East Main Refinement Plan without clear and objective development standards, which preclude full compliance of the Multi-Unit Design Standards. Therefore, this criterion is met. • • SDC 3.2-250(D)(1) and(2) Building Form: The adjustments to the roof forms proposed on the minor building elements and the adjustment to the proposed extensions on the east and west exterior elevations of Building Two (townhouse units) from the required minimum 2'-0" depth to 1'-8" provide • • • City of Springfield Site Plan Review Application February 15, 2011 Page 24 of 37 equivalent neighborhood compatibility by providing similar building mass and architecture while allowing for contrasting building form. The adjacent structures within 300 feet have shed and flat roofs on building elements like porches, storage structures, etc. similar to what is proposed. • SDC 3.2-250(F) Transition and Compatibility Between Multi-Unit and Low Density Residential Development: The proposed development requests adjustments to the buffer area between portions of the multi-unit residential buildings (ground floor porch roofs, second floor balconies and building extensions) and the abutting the LDR zoned property line from the required 15'-0" minimum (with the allowed 10'-0" building encroachment into the 25'- 0" buffer area) to 12'-0" and 13'-0" (allowed maximum 20 percent adjustment of the requirement); and the adjustment to the heights of the primary roof (per code definition) for Buildings One and Two from the maximum 21'-0" building height within the buffer to a 21'-8" height. These proposed adjustments result in minor changes that do not alter the intent of the code and continue to provide a compatible transition between multi-unit dwellings and the neighboring LDR properties by a reduction in noise and/or light that would otherwise impact adjacent LDR areas; stepping down building height; providing roof lines that compliment adjacent uses; and similar elements that effectively accomplish the intent of the standard. • SDC 3.2-250(1) Pedestrian Circulation: The adjustment to the pedestrian circulation system from the required minimum 5'-0" separation from dwellings to no separation from the second floor dwelling units in Building One, Structures B and C, provides an equivalent degree of pedestrian circulation, safety and comfort consistent with the pedestrian circulation standards. The pedestrian circulation system on the second floor of Building One, Structures B and C, is attached to Building One for structural reasons, therefore the second floor dwelling units located in these structures are located directly off the approximate 6'-0" wide pedestrian circulation system. The second floor circulation system will be used exclusively for the dwelling units located on the second floor, including 8 dwelling units (two units in Structure C and three units each in Structures A and B), which provides direct, safe and comfortable access to these upper units from two locations on the ground level. SDC 3.2-300 CC Base Zone Development Standards: Findings: The tenants for the proposed multi-tenant commercial buildings in all three options have not yet been identified. However, all uses will be consistent with the allowed use categories listed under the CC base zone per SDC 3.2-315 at the time of tenant infill building permit submittal. • • City of Springfield Site Plan Review Application February 15, 2011 Page 25 of 37 Specifically, the commercial portion of the development complies with the CC Base Zone Development Standards as follows: • SDC 3.2-315: The lot standards required under SDC 3.2-315 do not apply for three reasons. First, the subject site was created prior to 1982. Second, the minimum lot size and frontage standard of SDC 3.2-315 is a standard imposed for the creation of new lots or parcels. The proposed development options do not include partitioning or subdividing the subject property. Third, this standard is not a design or construction standard, and therefore not applicable. • SDC 3.2-315: There is no specific maximum lot coverage for CC zoned parcels. As noted above, the MDR base zone lot coverage is not applicable because the proposed development options are mixed-use projects proposed on CC zoned properties. There are no other standards or sections in the code that limit the lot coverage. • SDC 3.2-315: The minimum building front yard setback in the CC zone is 10'- 0 and parking and driveway front yard setbacks are 5'-0". The buildings, parking and driveways either meet or exceed the required front yard setbacks along Main Street, South 51st Place and South 52"d Street in all three options. Therefore, these criteria are met. Reference the Site Plans for details. • SDC 3.2-315: The residential portion of the mixed-use development options is located adjacent to the interior and rear yards of the subject parcels so buildings, parking, driveway and storage are set back in compliance with the applicable MDR and Multi-Unit standards as discussed above. • SDC 3.2-315: As noted above, the multi-unit residential buildings in the mixed-use development options meet the building heights per the applicable MDR and Multi-Unit standards. The commercial buildings do not have a building height requirement. SDC 4.2-100 through SDC 4.6-150 and 4.7-210 Development Standards: SDC 4.2-105 Public Streets: Findings: There are no public streets proposed with these development options. Therefore, the criteria under this section are not applicable. Main and South 52"d Streets are built to City standards with an adequate width for the designated street classification. The public improvements proposed as part of the three development options include half-street improvements along the frontage of South 51' Place, including roughly 18'-0" of new asphalt, curb and gutter, sidewalk, a streetlight, street trees and the proposed driveway approach. Additionally, the proposed driveway approaches on Main Street (Site Plan Option A only) and South 52"d Street will be replaced and will meet current ADA standards. All public improvements will be constructed per City standards under a PIP. • • City of Springfield Site Plan Review Application February 15, 2011 Page 26 of 37 SDC 4.2-110 Private Streets: Findings: There are no private internal streets proposed with the three development options. As outlined above and in the attached TIS, adequate . access is already provided through the adjacent street network and the proposed internal on-site circulation of the development. Therefore, the criteria under this section are not applicable. SDC 4.2-115 Block Length: Findings: There are no public or private internal streets proposed with the three development options. As outlined above and in the attached TIS, adequate access is already provided through the adjacent street network and the proposed internal on-site circulation of the development. Therefore, the criteria under this section are not applicable. In all three development options, the applicant proposes on-site drive aisles that connect to Main Street (Site Plan Option A only), South 51" Place and South 52"d Street. Site Plan Option A only proposes limited access to a right-in and right-out only driveway on Main Street, which allows safe ingress and egress to and from the development from this principal arterial. SDC 4.2-120 Site Access and Driveways: Findings: The subject sites have street right-of-way frontage along Main Street, South 51" Place and South 52"d Street. Currently, South 51" Place is unimproved to the City's public street standards. Main Street and South .52"d Street are improved public streets with sidewalks. South 52' Street has a sidewalk on the east side of the street. These sidewalks and the on-site pedestrian walkway system in each option provide pedestrian connectivity to the public right-of-ways and adjacent and nearby residential, commercial and industrial areas. As noted above, the public improvements proposed as part of the development options include half-street improvements along the frontage of South 51' Place, including roughly 18'-0" of new asphalt, curb and gutter, sidewalk, a streetlight, street trees and the proposed driveway approach. Additionally, the proposed driveway approaches on Main Street (Site Plan Option A only) and South 52"d Street will be replaced and will meet current ADA standards. The proposed shared driveway approach on South 52"d Street is located approximately 88'-0" from the Main Street intersection (measured to the start of the South 52"d Street . intersection radius curve). The proposed driveway approach on South 51" Place is located approximately 94'-0" from the Main Street intersection (measured to the start of the South 51" Place intersection radius curve). In Site Plan Option A only, the proposed driveway approach on Main Street is located approximately 132'-0" from the South 51" Place intersection and 118'-0" from the South 52"d Street intersection (both measured to the start of the Main Street intersection radius City of Springfield Site Plan Review Application February 15, 2011 Page 27 of 37 curve). All public improvements will be constructed per City standards under a PIP. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the criteria under this section. As outlined above and in the attached TIS, the existing public street and traffic safety control systems will not be exceeded with the addition of the proposed development options and are available to serve the site at the time of development. Reference the attached TIS dated October 13, 2010 for details, which is adopted and incorporated herein. In addition, as noted above, the pending ODOT Right-of-Way Approach Permit for the limited access driveway on Main Street is attached for reference. SDC 4.2-125 Intersections: Findings: As stated above there are no public or private streets proposed in the three development options, therefore, there are no street intersections proposed. All proposed on-site drive aisle and driveway intersections are at right angles to the intersecting streets, Main Street (Site Plan Option A only), South 51' Place and South 52nd Street. The offsets for the proposed access points to the nearest existing public street intersections comply with City requirements. Therefore, the criteria under this section are met. SDC 4.2-130 Vision Clearance: Findings: In accordance with the vision clearance standards, the two corners of the proposed development at the intersections of Main Street and South 51' Place, and Main Street and South 52nd Street provide adequate sight distance for the approach traffic in all three options. Reference the attached Site Plans for details. Considering these findings and the site plans submitted herewith, the proposed project options are consistent with the criteria under this section. SDC 4.2-135 Sidewalks: Findings: There is only one public sidewalk proposed as part of the development options, which will be constructed per the City's Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual, the Public Works Standard Construction Specifications and Springfield Municipal Code. The proposed public sidewalk and planter strip will be located wholly within the public right-of-way. The sidewalk is proposed to be 5'-6" wide with a curb and gutter. There is also an approximate 6'-5" landscape bed proposed between the public sidewalk and the subject western property line, which exceeds the minimum 4-6" width requirement per SDC 4.2- 135. Therefore, the criteria under this section are met. The existing public sidewalk and bike lanes on Main Street provide access to adjacent and nearby residential, commercial and industrial areas. The site plans for each option show on-site circulation for pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles as • • City of Springfield Site Plan Review Application February 15, 2011 Page 28 of 37 required by the Springfield Development Code. In the three development options, the proposed continuous on-site pedestrian walkway system connects the primary building entrances of each commercial and residential building to the existing public right-of-way on Main Street, South 51# Place and South 52"d • Street, and to the adjacent residential and commercial properties. On-site pedestrian and bicycle access is provided between the buildings and parking areas on the site by clearly marked, either striped or raised paved walkways. SDC 4.2-140 Street Trees: Findings: As part of the development options, street trees selected from the City Street Tree List are proposed to be planted in the public landscape strip along the property's frontage on South 51' Place and South 52nd Street as required per the City's Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual and Springfield Municipal Code. There are two existing street trees proposed for removal as part of this development. In all three development options, the existing 28" cedar street tree located at the intersection of 52nd Street and Main Street is proposed for removal because it is located within the vision clearance area. In addition, the commercial building proposed on this corner will significantly impact the existing tree's critical root zone (Site Plan Options A and B). In all three development options, the existing 3" cedar street tree located at the southwest corner of the Tax Lot 6200 on South 51" Place is proposed for removal because as noted above, a new public sidewalk is proposed in this location. New street trees will be planted to replace these existing trees per the Street Tree Replacement Standards. The new street tree replacing the existing street tree at the intersection of South 52"d Street and Main Street will be planted farther south on South 52"d Street outside of the vision clearance area. Therefore, the criteria under this section are met. SDC 4.2-145 Street Lighting: Findings: As noted above, there is one streetlight proposed as part of the public improvements on South 51' Place. Reference the attached civil drawings for details. All public improvements will be constructed per the City's Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual, the Public Works Standard Construction Specifications and Springfield Municipal Code under a PIP. Therefore, the criteria under this section are met. SDC 4.2-150 Bikeways, 4.2-155 Pedestrian Trails and 4.2-160 Accessways: Findings: There are no public bikeways, pedestrian trails or accessways proposed as part of the development options. Therefore, the criteria under these sections are not applicable. As noted above, Main Street is classified as a principal arterial and currently developed to City principal arterial standards including existing on- • • City of Springfield , Site Plan Review Application February 15, 2011 Page 29 of 37 street bike lanes. All three development options for the subject site include the provision of on-site pedestrian facilities that connect to Main Street, South 51' Place and South 52"d Street and the existing bike lanes. SDC 4.3-105 Sanitary Sewers: Findings: As noted above, there are two existing public sanitary sewer stubs (4" stubs) located adjacent to the subject site's western and eastern property lines conveying sewage from the site to the 8" public sanitary sewer lines located in South 51' Place and South 52"d Street. The existing public sanitary sewer has adequate capacity to serve all three development options' needs. Therefore, the criteria under this section are met. SDC 4.3-110 Stormwater Management: Findings: There is an existing 48" storm pipe located along the south side of Main Street. An existing 12" storm main is located in South 52"d Street and an existing 12" storm line is located South 51' Place. As part of the PIP, the South 51' Place existing roadside ditch will be removed and a new 12" storm line will be installed with a stub out to provide service to the subject property and to convey the upstream flows. In all development options a new storm lateral is proposed to • connect into the existing 12" storm line in South 52' Street as well. No connection is proposed to the 48" storm line located in Main Street at this time. In addition, as noted above, the owner proposes to make public sidewalk improvements along the property's frontage on South 51' Place as required. Due to City Staff identified storm system requirements, the proposed development options include on-site retention to the fullest extent possible. Special emphasis is placed on infiltrating the stormwater and limiting the flow rate to the existing public storm system. See the attached Stormwater Management System Plan for more information. Therefore, the criteria under this section are met. SDC 4.3-115 Water Quality Protection: Findings: The site is not identified on the Water Quality Limited Watercourses (WQLW) Map, therefore, there are no identified watercourses or riparian areas located on the site subject to specific water quality protection. As noted above, the proposed development options include on-site retention to the fullest extent possible. Special emphasis is placed on infiltrating the stormwater and limiting the flow rate to the existing public storm system. See the attached Stormwater Management System Plan for more information. Therefore, the criteria under this section are met. City of Springfield Site Plan Review Application February 15, 2011 Page 30 of 37 SDC 4.3-120 Utility Provider Coordination: Findings: All utility providers will be responsible for coordinating utility installations with the City as required. The applicant will be responsible for the design, installation and cost of the utility lines and facilities to the satisfaction of the utility provider consistent with the criteria under this section. SDC 4.3-125 Underground Placement of Utilities: Findings: All utilities are proposed to be constructed underground in accordance with policies of the City of Springfield, SUB, Qwest or other applicable utility providers. See civil engineering drawings for proposed utility layout. Considering these findings and the drawings submitted herewith, the criteria under this section' are met. SDC 4.3-130 Water Service and Fire Protection: Findings: The proposed development options have adequate water service available from an existing 6" public water main located in South 51' Place adjacent to the subject site's western property line. An existing 6" public water. main is also located in South 52" Street with adequate water service. This main is located on the far side of the right of way. There is an existing fire hydrant located in the public right-of-way on Main Street to the north of the subject site at the intersection of South 52' Street and Main Street. All of the proposed buildings (commercial, residential and trash enclosures) will be sprinklered. The existing fire hydrant and the addition of the required new public fire hydrant at the entrance to the property on South 52"' Street have an adequate flow rate to serve the site. Reference the attached civil drawings for the approximate location of the new fire hydrant. Therefore, the criteria under this section are met. SDC 4.3-135 Major Electrical Power Transmission Lines: • Findings: As noted above, there are existing overhead electric lines running east- west adjacent to the site's northern property line, which provide adequate capacity to serve the proposed development options. Major electrical power transmission lines are not proposed in this development. Therefore, the criteria under these sections are not applicable. SDC 4.3-140 Public Easements Findings: Public easements are not proposed in this development. Therefore, the criteria under these sections are not applicable. • • • City of Springfield Site Plan Review Application February 15, 2011 Page 31 of 37 SDC 4.3-145 Wireless Telecommunications Systems Facilities: Findings: There are no wireless telecommunication system facilities proposed in the development options. Therefore, the criteria under these sections are not applicable. SDC 4.4-105 Landscaping: Findings: The landscape architecture drawings for each option show landscaping which meets or exceeds the CC zone and parking lot landscape requirements for the commercial portion of the-development site per SDC 4.4-105. Per SDC 4.4- 105(F)(2), the proposed development options include a minimum of 5 percent landscaping in the interior of the parking lot because there are 24 parking spaces located between the street side of a building and Main Street, and they are visible from any street. Reference the attached Site Plans, Parking Calculations, for details. The MDR portion of the site either meets or exceeds the landscape requirements for the residential portion of the development options per SDC 4.3.2-240 and SDC 4.4-105. As noted on the landscape architecture drawings, landscaping will be provided in all required setback areas and installed per the applicable code standards. As noted above, all landscaping will be irrigated with a permanent irrigation system unless the project's licensed landscape architect submits written verification that the proposed plant materials do not require irrigation. The exact sizes, species and locations of plantings as well as the irrigation system will be provided at the time of building permit application submittal in compliance with code standards. These findings and the attached landscape architecture planting plan, schedules and details for the three development options demonstrate that the landscaping requirements have been met. SDC 4.4-110 Screening: Findings: Adjacent to the LDR properties to the south, cedar fence screening is provided in all three development options because a commercial district and multi-family buildings abut a residential district in accordance with SDC 4.4- 110(A)(1) and (6) and SDC 4.4-110(B)(3). The proposed outdoor trash receptacles are screened with 6-0" partial height masonry walls per SDC 4.4- 110(B)(3)(c). Reference the architecture and landscape architecture drawings for details. Therefore, the criteria under this section are met. SDC 4.4-115 Fences: Findings: As noted above, in all three development options, there is a screening fence proposed along the property lines that abuts the adjacent to the LDR zoned properties as well as the CC zoned property (Tax Lot 6203) to the south. Per Table 4.4-1, the base height of this proposed fence shall be 6'-0". The fence • • City of Springfield Site Plan Review Application February 15, 2011 Page 32 of 37 details shall be proposed at the time of building permit application submittal consistent with the requirements outlined under SDC 4.4-115. Therefore, the criteria under this section are met. SDC 4.5-100 On-Site Lighting Standards: Findings: Exact outdoor building lighting will be proposed at the time of building permit application submittal in accordance with the On-Site Lighting Standards. All proposed site lighting will be installed in compliance with the requirements of this code section and the applicable Multi-Unit Design Standards as outlined above. In all development options, the proposed site lighting is the minimum illumination necessary for the on-site parking and loading areas. All proposed exterior site and building light fixtures will be shielded so that direct glare and reflection are contained within the boundaries of the property, and directed downward and away from abutting properties and public rights-of-way. In all development options, parking lot light fixtures are proposed to be a maximum height of 20'-0", which is less than the required maximum 25'-0" per SDC 4.5- 110(6)(1). There are no parking lot light fixtures proposed within 50'-0" of the residential zoning district to the south. These findings, the Site Plans and attached proposed Parking Lot Light Fixture Specifications demonstrate that these criteria are met. SDC 4.6-105 through 4.6-125 Vehicle Parking: Findings: In each option, vehicle and bicycle parking calculations for the commercial buildings are based on assumptions of a possible tenant mix. Site Plan Option A: As required by the assumed commercial tenant uses (eating and drinking establishment and retail, personal service and/or small office uses) and the multi-family dwelling use, a minimum of 58 off-street parking spaces are required per Table 4.6-2 (see vehicle parking calculations on Sheet Al). The proposed development option provides 15 individual ,garages (one for each residential dwelling unit) and 43 surface parking spaces, totaling 58 parking spaces. The applicant proposes a parking lot design in compliance with SDC 4.6- 115; all standard stall widths are 9'-0" wide and 18'-0" in length including a 2'-0" bumper overhang over landscaping beds and walkways (reference drawings for specific locations). The compact spaces are 8'-0" wide and 18'-0" in length including a 2'-0" bumper overhang over landscaping beds and walkways. The dimensions and proposed striping of the parking spaces and drive aisles meet the parking area standards per SDC 4.6-115-120. In this development option, there are 24 compact spaces proposed (41 percent of the required parking spaces), which exceeds the maximum allowed 30 percent per SDC 4.6-120(G). The Metro Plan and East Main Street Refinement Plan both support mixed-use or nodal development to more efficiently use land. Consistent with this objective, the increased number of compact parking spaces proposed in • • • City of Springfield Site Plan Review Application February 15, 2011 Page 33 of 37 Site Plan Option A allows efficient use of the site by meeting the number of parking spaces required while at the same time accommodating the increased driveway throat depth requirements for the proposed Main Street driveway, reducing the impervious coverage of surface parking area and maintaining the higher density of development. Note that all of the compact spaces have a standard length dimension and only have a compact width dimension. Site Plan Option B: As required by the assumed commercial tenant uses (eating and drinking establishment and retail, personal service and/or small office uses) and the multi-family dwelling use, a minimum of 58 off-street parking spaces are required per Table 4.6-2 (see vehicle parking calculations on Sheet Al). The proposed development option provides 15 individual garages (one for each residential dwelling unit) and 46 surface parking spaces, totaling 61 parking spaces. There are 15 compact parking spaces provided or 25, percent of the required parking, which is less than the maximum 30 percent allowed per SDC 4.6-120(G). The applicant proposes a parking lot design in compliance with SDC 4.6-115; all standard stall widths are 9'-0" wide and 18'-0" in length including a 2'- 0 bumper overhang over landscaping beds and walkways (reference drawings for specific locations). The compact spaces are 8'-0" wide and 18'-0" in length including a 2'-0" bumper overhang over landscaping beds and walkways. The dimensions and proposed striping of the parking spaces and drive aisles meet the parking area standards per SDC 4.6-115-120. Site Plan Option C: As required by the assumed commercial tenant eating and drinking establishment use and the multi-family dwelling use, a minimum of 83 off-street parking spaces are required per Table 4.6-2 (see vehicle parking calculations on Sheet Al). The proposed development option provides 15 individual garages (one for each residential dwelling unit) and 68 surface parking spaces, totaling 83 parking spaces. There are 24 compact parking spaces provided or 29 percent of the required parking, which is less than the maximum - 30 percent allowed per SDC 4.6-120(G). The applicant proposes a parking lot design in compliance with SDC 4.6-115; all standard stall widths are 9'-0" wide and 18'-0" in length including a 2'LO" bumper overhang over landscaping beds and walkways (reference drawings for specific locations). The compact spaces are 8'- 0" wide and 18'-0" in length including a 2'-0" bumper overhang over landscaping beds and walkways. The dimensions and proposed striping of the parking spaces and drive aisles meet the parking area standards per SDC 4.6-115-120. These findings, together with the architecture and civil engineering drawings, demonstrate that these standards have been met. SDC 4.6-130 through 4.6-135 Loading Areas: Findings: In all three development options, in addition to the required parking spaces, there is one proposed delivery and loading area provided that is located on-site outside of the required setbacks. In all three options, the total proposed • • City of Springfield Site Plan Review Application February 15, 2011 Page 34 of 37 on-site loading area is 250 square feet square for the approximately 5,500 square feet (Site Plan Options A and B) and 6,000 square feet (Site Plan Option C) of total commercial building area, which meets the minimum loading area for the site per SDC 4.6-135(C). In all options, the loading area is a minimum 10'-0" wide and over 25'-0" long (excluding pedestrian walkway), which meets the required minimum dimensions (10'-0" wide by 25'-0" long). Therefore, these criteria are met. SDC 4.6-140 through 4.6-150 Bicycle Parking: Findings: The proposed bicycle parking spaces, location and facility design complies with SDC 4.4-145-150. As noted above, vehicle and bicycle parking calculations are based on assumptions of a possible commercial tenant mix. Site Plan Option A: As required by the assumed commercial tenant uses (eating and drinking establishment and retail, personal service and/or small office uses), the commercial short-term and long-term bicycle parking spaces provided exceed the number required (reference Sheet Al for bicycle parking calculations). The six unsheltered short-term bicycle parking spaces are located along the on-site pedestrian walkway system with ramps that connect to Main Street, South 51st Place and South 52' Street. The proposed racks are hitching posts or staple racks. The long-term bicycle parking spaces for the commercial buildings will be located inside building tenant spaces in a secure location, which will be proposed in compliance with SDC 4.4-145-150 at the time of individual tenant infill building permit application submittals. The long-term bicycle parking spaces for the 15 residential units will be located inside each individual unit's garage. Therefore, these criteria are met. Site Plan Option B: As required by the assumed commercial tenant uses (eating and drinking establishment and retail, personal service and/or small office uses), the commercial short-term and long-term bicycle parking spaces provided exceed the number required (reference Sheet Al for bicycle parking calculations). The six unsheltered short-term bicycle parking spaces are located along the on-site pedestrian walkway system with ramps that conned to Main Street, South 51" Place and South 52" Street. The proposed racks are hitching posts or staple racks. The long-term bicycle parking spaces for the commercial buildings will be located inside building tenant spaces in a secure location, which will be proposed in compliance with SDC 4.4-145-150 at the time of individual tenant infill building permit application submittals. The long-term bicycle parking spaces for the 15 residential units will be located inside each individual unit's garage. Therefore, these criteria are met. Site Plan Option C: As required by the assumed commercial tenant uses (eating and drinking establishment), the commercial short-term and long-term bicycle parking spaces provided exceed the number required (reference Sheet Al for bicycle parking calculations). The eight unsheltered short-term bicycle parking • City of Springfield Site Plan Review Application February 15, 2011 Page 35 of 37 spaces are located along the on-site pedestrian walkway system with ramps that. connect to Main Street, South 51" Place and South 52nd Street. The proposed racks are hitching posts or staple racks. The long-term bicycle parking spaces for the commercial building will be located inside building tenant space in a secure location, which will be proposed in compliance with SDC 4.4-145-150 at the time of individual tenant infill building permit application submittals. The long- term bicycle parking spaces for the 15 residential units will be located inside each individual units garage. Therefore, these criteria are met. SDC 4.7-210 Residential Uses in Commercial Districts: Findings: The proposed subject parcels are located in the Mixed-Use Area #3 on the East Main Refinement Plan, Plan Diagram. Per the East Main Refinement Plan (Mixed-Use Element, Area #3, page 11) Medium- and High-Density Residential uses are allowed under the Community Commercial zoning district. Consistent with this criterion, the proposed multiple-family residential portion of the mixed- use development options meets the applicable MDR Base Zone Development • Standards and Multi-Unit Design Standards contained in this code because the refinement plan does not specify development standards for this area. As demonstrated on the Site Plan Review drawings, the remainder of this written statement, and other materials attached herein, this criterion has been met. D. Parking areas and ingress-egress points have been designed to: facilitate vehicular traffic, bicycle and pedestrian safety to avoid congestion; provide connectivity within the development area and to adjacent residential areas, transit stops, neighborhood activity centers, and commercial, industrial and . public areas; minimize driveways on arterial and collector streets as specified in this Code or other applicable regulations and comply with the ODOT access management standards for State highways. . Findings: In all three development options the orientation of the buildings, parking and ingress-egress points serve to maximize efficiency for access, on-site circulation and function while minimizing impact to the adjacent properties. The site plans are organized so that the more intensive commercial uses and associated parking are located along Main Street and the residential portion of the site is located adjacent to the LDR zoned properties to the south of the subject properties. In development Option A, the driveway on Main Street is a limited right-in and right-out access point primarily serving the commercial buildings located along the principal arterial. In all three development options, the proposed residential buildings are located between the LDR properties to the south and the main east-west drive aisle running through the mixed-use development site with access from South 51' Place and South 52nd Street. In the development options, the proposed raised crosswalk located towards the center of the site that crosses this main drive aisle provides safe on-site pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular circulation between the residential and commercial portions of the development. • City of Springfield • Site Plan Review Application February 15, 2011 Page 36 of 37 As noted above, the development option site plans show on-site circulation for pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles as required by the Springfield Development Code. In all three development options, the proposed continuous on-site pedestrian walkway system connects the primary building entrances of all commercial and residential buildings to the existing public sidewalk on Main Street, South 51' Place and South 52nd Street, and to the adjacent residential and commercial properties. The existing public sidewalk and bike lanes on Main Street provide access to adjacent and nearby residential, commercial and industrial areas as well as Bluebell Park, Riverbend Elementary School and other neighborhood activity centers. Safe pedestrian and bicycle circulation is provided between the buildings and parking areas throughout the site by clearly marked striped or raised paved walkways. The subject parcels are serviced via Lane Transit District (LTD) Route 11 (Thurston). There is a bus stop within a half a block of the subject site on either side of Main Street for eastbound and westbound transit riders. The route is serviced every 10 to 15 minutes throughout the day. Reference the Traffic Impact Study, Appendix C, for the LTD route schedule. As noted above, the existing public street and traffic safety control systems will not be exceeded with the addition of the proposed development options and are available to serve the site at the time of development. Reference the attached TIS dated October 13, 2010 for details. In addition, only in development Option A, there is one driveway proposed on the principal arterial, Main Street, which is shared between the two subject properties. The pending ODOT Right-of-Way Approach Permit for the limited access driveway on Main Street is attached for reference. In all development options, parking areas and ingress-egress points have been designed to safely facilitate vehicular traffic, bicycle. and pedestrian circulation and avoid congestion as well as provide connectivity within the development area and to adjacent residential and commercial areas. Therefore, the criteria under this section are met. E. Physical features, including, but not limited to: steep slopes with unstable soil or geologic conditions; areas with susceptibility of flooding; significant clusters of-trees and shrubs; watercourses shown on the WQLW Map and their associated riparian areas; wetlands; rock outcroppings; open spaces; and areas of historic and/or archaeological significance, as may be specified in Section 3.3-900 or ORS 97.740-760, 358.905-955 and 390.235-240, shall be protected as specified in this Code or in State or Federal law. The subject site is flat. With the exception of 10 existing trees and the existing house on Tax Lot 6300, the site does not have any other notable landscaping like significant clusters of trees and shrubs. Additionally, the site does not have any watercourses and associated riparian areas, wetlands, rock outcroppings, open spaces or areas of historic and/or archaeological significance as specified in Section 3.3-900 or ORS 97.740-760, 358.905-955 and 390.235-240. City of Springfield . • Site Plan Review Application February 15, 2011 Page 37 of 37 Per the Soils Survey of Lane County Oregon, the site is (119) salem-urban land complex. This soil has a highwater table depth of >6'. Based on the results of the geotechnical investigation, no geologic or geographical hazards were identified on the site that would prohibit the construction of the proposed development. Reference the attached Geotechnical Investigation dated July 19, 2010, details. Furthermore, the site is located within a shaded FEMA Zone X flood hazard zone (an area determined to be outside of the 500-year flood plain). Reference the attached FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map Number 41039C1162 F. Therefore, the three proposed site development options will not be a significant risk to public health and safety in terms of stormwater control or flood hazard. As the site is flat and is located outside the 500-year flood zone, slope failure and soil erosion are not concerns associated with this site. The site does not have physical features as outlined above that require protection as specified in the Springfield Development Code or in State or Federal law, therefore, the criteria under this section are met. V. Conclusion Based on the information and findings contained in this written statement, associated attachments and drawings, the proposed Site Plan Review meets the criteria of approval contained in the Springfield Development Code. Therefore, the applicant requests that the Director approve the proposal for three development options as presented. Both the applicant and the applicant's representative are available for questions as necessary. If you have any questions about the above application, please do not hesitate to contact Kristen Taylor at TBG Architects & Planners/Inc (541.687.1010). Sincerely, ti` ^`- i Kristen Taylor, CSBA Project Manager cc: Nick Boyles, OBO Enterprises, LLC Damien Gilbert, Branch Engineering, Inc. Carol Schirmer, Schirmer + Associates, LLC Z:\PROJ\200913 O80 51A-52nd&Main\Cor esp\Agency\Site Plan Review\Tentative\200913-Site Plan Review Tentative.doc • • • City of Springfield - Site Plan Review Application 51s`-52nd & Main Street Redevelopment February 15, 2011 EXHIBIT A Parking Lot Lighting Fixture Specification & Photometric Test Report • t1a 111 u ... . i.... a—•...• • . • • . .. . . v . .._ v- - - -. Cameo Number • • _ ® Notes Type - FEATURES & SPECIFICATIONS . „ . INTENDED USE—Ideal for parking areas.street lighting,walkways and car tom. ti CONSTRUCTION—Rugged die-cast soh corner aluminum housing with 712'nominal mall ,C O N T O V R.` thickness.Die-cost door frame has impact-resistant, tempered,glass!ens that's fully geskeced .0.v rr'';:r"it'45rlE,ea A't?is m h ti fp with one-piece tubular sdicone. FINISH —Standard finish is dark bronze 1008)polyester powder finish,with odder architec- Soft Square Lighting mitt colors available. KAD OPTICAL SYSTEM—Anodized,aluminum hydroiormed reflectorsaES full whiff distributions - % R2'asymmetric),R3(asymmetric),R4lforevard throw)and R5"o!square)are inemhangeaola. High-amiormance anodized,segmented aluminum reflecmrs 1E3 full see distributions SR2 WJ-► (asymmetric).SR3"asymmetric)and SR4SC(forward:haw,sharp:eon Segmented reflec- 1N�V tors attach with tool-less fasteners and are rotatable and interchangeable. ELECTRICAL SYSTEM —Ballast High reactance,high power`actor for 10-150W.-Constant wattage aumtransformer for 175-400,V.Metal halide 150W and below are standard with Mil:70LV-40DW pulse-start ignitor technology:super CWA pulse-start ballast required for 200W.320W and 350W ISCWA option).Ballast is copper-wound and 100%fac:ory-msted. Specifications HPS:70W-400W Super CWA pulse start ballaats.86%efficient and EISA compliant,are required for 151-101W 2D• '035 Mounting (must order SCWA option)for US shipments only.Not available:175M SCWA.n.SA,NOM or INTL EPA1.2ft'- T required for probe start shipments outside the US. *Might 35.9 lbs(16.09 kg) r \ -r - Socket Porcelain,horizontally oriented medium base socket for 70-I5081. Mogul base Length: 17-1/7;44.5 cm) 7-118 socket for 175M and above,and 70-4005,with copper alloy,nickel-plated screw shell and 118.1 Cm) center contact UL listed 1500'N.800V. Widtfr 17-1/£(445 cm) LISTING —UL Listed(standard).CSA Certified Nee Options'.UL listed for 225°C ambient and Depth:7-1/8-(18.1 cm) ■ /I wet locations.IP65 rated in accordance with standard IEC 529. "Weight as configured in L 4- , 17-1/2' t Specifications subject:9 change without notice. example below. (10.2 cm) (445 cm) ORDERING INFORMATION For shortest lead times, configure product using standard options (shown in bold). Example:KAD 400M R3 TB SCWA SPD04 L.PI atI Wattage I VaItage Mounting I Ballast I Options -iP`a KAnt Mara( High 120 Los eno ° (blank) Magnetic Shipped installed in fixture LPI Lamp 'talk pressure 2087 SPD_ Square 04 4"arm ballast. SF Single ruse,120,277,347V14 •. • I included 70M12.0 Indium' 2407 P°I° co Warm CWI Constant OF Double fuse 208,240,48014 IJLP. Less 100M' 70S3 arm RFD_ Round pole 09 9" wattage PO Power trayls lamp 277 isolated PER NEMA twist-lock recep- ,e 150N13 1005 347 12 Warm - Finish t 95052 MD_ Wall Pn/LiBStoll tact¢ • only (na 175M 4007 bracket _ 'ug O photos antral) (blank) Dark 200M4 250S •113ej WWO_Wood . ORS Quartz,restrike system18 bronze • 400S Z,p pole or SCWA Super -0.RSTD QRS time delay10•16 DWN White aaot i 23050HZ wall CWA WTB Termjnal wiring blocks 320P4° Ceramic pulse DBL .Slack.- x . metal HS shield• • 350PA halide DADt2P Degree arm start - t .OMB Medium s (polehz - ballast CSA GSA Certified bronze 4COM 5OMHC DAD12We Degree arm NOTEForshipments INTL Available for MH probe ?Orville (wall)12 start shipping outside the 0NA Natural (wall! to U.S.territories, U.S aluminum 100MHC WBA Decorative wall SCWAmustbe Shipped seoaratelvt7 15OMHC bracket1$•12 specifiedto comply with Fl SA. PEI NEMA twist-lock PE(120, Distribution KMA Mast arm 206;240V1 external fitter PE3 NEMA twist-lock PE(347V) Lfydroformed reflector4 KTMB Twin mounting PEA NEMA twist-lock PE 1480V1 R2 IES type II asymmetric° - bar PEI NEMA twist-lock PE(277V) •',n.;;>t,.,i R3.IES.typelllasymmetricfi) SC Shortening cap for PER • 'F -i,, R4 IES type IV forward option s-t throw° B Optional multi-tap ballast(120,208,240, VG Vandal guard 277V;in Canada:120,277,347V1. WG Wire guard p NIG♦dTTIME" ocS IFS nine V smarm g g -• 3 Optional hive .aP ballast Ii20,22.S.242, ,; Segmented reflectors 277,480/). FRIENDLY SR2 IES type II asymmetric° 10 Consult factory for available wattages. Consul¢@tie izc) evils t-., • a Ghent Globes'Minder ir SR3 IES type III as mmetrics 11 9-army required,when on or more u, -for eghrpauv md"cvon NP Y luminaires are oriented on a 90° - SR4SC IES type IV forward throw drilling pattern. °.t 12 Ships separately. Accessories 13 Available with SPD04 and SP009. Order as separate raMog number. NOTES: 14 Must specify voltage.N/A with TB. Tenon Mounting Sliprtrer Number of fixtures I Not available with SCWA. 15 Only available with SR2,SR3.&SR4SC '. .Tenon 0.0. .One Two4180° Tworn90° Three 6120° Three Four!$90° 2 Not available with 480V. optics. 3 Not available with TOY. 16 Max allowable wattage lamp included. 2-3/8' T20-190 T20-280 T20-29020 120-32031 T20-3902° T20-4902° 4 Must be ordered with SCWA. 17 May be ordered as an accessory. 2-7/W T25-190 T25-280 T25-29030 T25-320 T25-3902° T25-490t0 5 Reduced jacket ED28 required for 18 See wwwIithonia.som/archalors far y- T35-190 . T35-280 T35-29020 135.320 T35.3907° •T35-490E0 SR2,SR3 and 5R45C optics. additional color options. KADVG Vandal guard 6 House-side shield available. 19 Must be specified. KADWG Wire guard Must specify CWI for use in Canada. 20 Must use BROOD Outdoor - Sheet#:KAD-M-S AL-370 )250bl'R3 (ROBE)-Outdoor Photometr eport Rap:.I W W W.V15UM-J IM tWUIW pill/ tc V IC W cu uctauu.aps,to—... PARKING LOT L�HT FIXTURE PHOTO TRIC TEST REPORT - es LITHON/A h1011771,10"' MCii 'rafds. Ltreg KAD 250M R3 (PROBE) - OUTDOOR PHOTOMETRIC REPORT CATALOG is KAD 250M R3 (PROBE) #t' :�. LUMINAIRE: AREA LU,MINAIRE, 250W MH, R3 REFLECTOR, FULL )Au CUTOFF �1 MEETS THE'NIGHTTIME FRIENDLY CRITERIA 1 LAMP CAT n: M250/U :, LAMP: ONE 250-WATT CLEAR BT-28 METAL HALIDE, 'i HORIZONTAL POSITION. 4 t-�' ; ,. LAMP OUTPUT: 1 LAMP(S), RATED LUMENS/LAMP: 19500 lY k t�k^, INPUT WATTAGE: 297 NIGHTTIME p LUMINOUSOPENft1G RECTANGLE(L:1 2DFT;Wr] 20Fl) = FRIENDLY EFFICIENCY: 67% Product Page TER CATAGORY: AREA e SITE LIGHT-TYPE II Specification Sheet TER.VALUE: 26 MAX CD: 7,119.0 AT HORIZONTAL: 65',VERTICAL: 67.5' 'CUTOFF CLASS:_;;'. FULL CUTOFF] ROADWAY CLASS: SHORT,TYPE II Polar Candela Distribution isofootcandfe Not 13.1"LO?150' 150' 1N 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 /. 2 3 7.200 5/403 1-30' 5 4.373 1203 4 3,500 .. 3 1?0' 2400 1,273 107' 2 COt 0 \ 50° 1 i i 2.400 ["i,/ 7a' - f qj .. 3.503 ST 2 -� 4,300 3 _ 5.030 5-3' ---... ... . _-.. -. .. s 7.203 V.A:3' 10' 20' 30' 40' . ig -0'H 0 . 180°H 63 -Max Cd:65'H 5 g -90°H -5 Ei 20 fc 1 fc Mount height: tuft ® 10 fc El 05 fc Total LLF: 1 5 S fc .71 0.1 fc 11150 Max Candela Distance in units of mount height --- Max Cd Value —E--- - LUMENS PER ZONE j :ZONAL LUMEN SUMMARY ZONE LUMENS %TOTAL ZONE LUMENS%TOTAL ZONE LUMENS%LAMP%LUMINAI RE 0-10 201.1 _– 1.5% 90-100 -- 0 _— 0% 0-30 1,974.2 10.1% 15.1% 10-20 621.3 4.8% 100-110 0 0% 0-40 4,010.6 20.6% 30.7% 20-30 1,151.8 8.8% 110-120 0 0% 0-60 9,216.0 47.3% 70.5% 30-40 2,036.4 15.6% 120-130 0 0% 60-90 3,854.5 19.8% 29.5% 40-50 2,644.9 20.2% 130-140 0 0% 0-90 13,070.5 67% 100% D`250MR3 (PROBE) -Outdoor Photometreport http:/!www.visual-3ptootsipnotometrtcvteweriaerawt.aspxrto=... • _ 50-60 2,560.5 19.6% 140-150 0 0% 90-180 0 0% 0% 60-70 2,375.2 18.2% 150-160 0 0% 0-180 13,070.5 67% 100% 70-80 1,422.4 10.9% 160.170 0 0% EFFICIENCY TOTAL: 67% 80-90 56.9 0.4% 170-180 0 0% • • • • City of Springfield - Site Plan Review Application 51a-52"d & Main Street Redevelopment February 15, 2011 EXHIBIT B FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map Number 41039C1162 F A ■ C - D E F A.■ LEGEND t 4 -i .t. 3 h t, — _ __ ry ! a Y - — : t .r !x ' c_. ZAP s " .:'3ul'Ef =::::.=—" = \arcs- --...-- - ..,...noi 4 " ...... _ a IF ...,,, Sal ball . r, . ii.111111. === i 61 ll _._ . - = = ■ �a !�� .... 11.0011=MCI LIE MAP ,n 4 FIRM f Ori I ' no ,: MCORPOHAT®AREAS , , .. j — mI-.w. O� ��� Gold l 1 ` i III I t�`pv ,fir m -r p_ r r. .. LIP NOM can F ^t:z - _ _ lad+,w�...�..7) • •K Y Department of Transportation 9L _� yr , ODOT District 5 ° - 644'A'Street mz S rin fe1 �f. • P g d, OR 97477 a39 Theodore R.Kulongoski,Governor (541)744-8080 Fax:(541)726-2509 John.DOWNING@odot.state.or.us File Code: PMT 4-07 September 16, 2010 - Damien Gilbert Branch Engineering, Inc 310 5th Street Springfield, OR 97477 Subject: Supplemental Documentation Required (Checklist) to Continue Processing of Application for State Highway Approach Highway Number 015, (McKenzie), • at Mile Point 5.72 Application Number 10859 Dear Damien Gilbert: The Oregon Department of Transportation has completed an initial review of your Application for State Highway Approach, and has determined that supplemental documentation is required in order to properly evaluate your application. The Department may require supplemental documentation before an application is deemed complete. (OAR 734051-0070(6)1. The supplemental documentation required for the Department to continue processing your application is identified and defined below. ❑ Detailed information on the type of development, including the number and - square footage of buildings and units with a complete description of the proposed land uses of the property(s) to be served by the approach (es). ❑ Vicinity map(s) showing: ❑ Location on state highway by milepost, engineer's station, or other landmarks; ❑ Existing highway plan and access management controls; ❑ Existing land uses and zoning; ❑ Existing ingress or egress easements; ❑ . Adjoining lots showing the development footprint and all approaches, and any other approaches onto any existing, planned, and proposed abutting roads and streets abutting the site to show at least twice the applicable If you would like a complete copy of the Chapter 734 Division 51 Rule,you may obtaDifite E eltteiVed: visiting'our website at: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/ACCESSMGT/technicalbulletins.shtml or by contacting ODOT's Rules Coordinator at (503) 986-3171. FEB ) 5 2011 Original Submittal Supplemental Documentation Required to Continue Processing of Application for State Highway Approach Additional Documentation Required Highway Number 015,(McKenzie),at Mile Point 5.72 Application Number 10659. Thursday,September 16,2010 Page 2 spacing standard on both sides of the roadway along any roadway available for ingress and egress from the property; and -❑ Structures and other features (e.g., traffic signals, drainage ditches and • pipes, streams, ponds, lakes or railroads). ❑ A preliminary drainage plan of the site showing impacts to the highway right-of- way. ❑ A drainage study prepared by an Oregon Registered Professional Engineer. ❑ Map(s) showing existing and proposed, if known, utility locations before and after development in and along the highway. ❑ Site plan to scale, including: ❑ Existing and proposed approach(es) from the property to the highway as well as to other existing, planned and proposed streets and roads; ❑ Existing, planned and proposed utilities, if known, including in and along the highway; ❑ Right of Way survey and land donation (if applicable); ❑ Identification of protected resource areas such as wetland, timber, or archeological sites, and any identified location or mitigation; ❑ Identification of proposed traffic mitigation measures; ❑ Existing and proposed buildings; ❑ Existing and proposed property lines; ❑ On-site traffic flow pattern; ❑ Parking, including number and arrangement of all spaces including disabled; El Drive through windows/gas pumps; ❑ Existing, planned or proposed transit facilities, such as turnouts; ❑ Sight clearance including landscaping; ❑ Existing, planned and proposed sidewalks on site or on the highway right of way; ❑ North arrow on drawings. and ❑ Pedestrian and bicycle accomodations ❑ Grant El Indenture • Z Transportation Impact Study (see Attachment regarding the Technical Memorandum Review) ❑ An Access Management Plan as a mitigation measure (see Attachment ❑ Hazardous material collection and/or treatment system report. ❑ Other All of the above supplemental documentation must be submitted to our office by November 15, 2010 unless you and the Department agree to a time extension before November 15, 2010. Please note that this application will expire if the supplemental documentation or an extension is not received by November 15, 2010. Unless a time extension is agreed to, submittal of any information after the date of e#Dia1e94 Vied: processed as a new application. I FEB 1 5.2011 Original Submittal • Supplemental Documentation Required tt. _antinue Processing of Application for State Highway Approach Additional Documentation Required Highway Number 015,(McKenzie),at Mlle Point 5.72 Application Number 10859. Thursday,September 16,2010 Page 3 Please contact John Downing, Permit Specialist at (541) 744-8080 if questions arise in the process of providing the supplemental documentation. : *sager- - • ODOT I istrict c: John Downing, Permit Specialist David Knitowski, Regional Access Management Engineer • • • • Date Received: FEB 15 2011 Original Submittal____ • I • . . 7r. . . . Oregon Department of Transportation Application for State Highway Approach FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date Received Stem. Permit Specialist Permit Type: New Change of Use Temporary Restricted • . Modification of Existing: ❑ Yes. ❑ No Deviation:.❑Yes .0'.No NOTES: Hwy#: Milepoint: Station: ••CHAMPS ID#: Required Information The applicant must submit the following information with the Application for State Highway Approach. ODOT will notify the applicant if additional information is required. • All attachments required by answers on the application form, including applicant signature. • If the applicant is not the owner of the property to be served by the approach, then the property owner must authorize the applicant as a designated agent The applicant must have the property owner complete the Authorization of Designated Agent block on this form OR submit a signed letter from the property owner authorizing the applicant as the designated agent_ • Site plan and vicinity map approved or currently being reviewed by the local government • - A Land Use Compatibility Statement(LUCS) fora State Highway Approach (page 4 of this application) must be completed by the local government • A copy of the current County tax lot map for the property served by the approach. Map must highlight all property that would be served by the approach and list all owner name(s) on adjacent properties. Make a note on map if ownership of adjacent property is same as subject property. Identify the location of the proposed approach on map. • A copy of the recorded easement(s), if the subject property has an existing easement(s)for access to the property. • A copy of any existing state or local government approach permits for the property. In addition to the above submittals, the applicant may be required to place stakes or markings near the highway shoulder at the proposed approach location. Definitions for commonly used terms are in the attached brochure. The brochure is also available on the ODOT website located at: http:/J v ■row.oreoon.ocv/ODOT/HWY/ACCESSMGT/ Applicant Information . Last Name:Gilbert First Name:Damien I Company:Branch Engineering, Inc Street Address:310 5th Street City:Springfield J State:OR I Zip Code:97477 I County:Lane -. Mailing Address:310 5th Street City:Springfield State:OR Zip Code:97477 County: Lane Phone Number.541-746-0637 FAX Number. Cell Phone Number. E-mail Address:damien@branchengineering.com . Is applicant working as an Agent of the Owner? YES: 0 NO: ❑ • • If YES, the owner must complete the Authorization of Designated Agent section below, OR ATTACH a letter from the owner authorizing applicant to act as his/her agent. Approach Location Bete Received: Highway Name—May be a statewide highway name such as Pacific Highway, or a local name like Eastrtjq itrrejo" Route Number-The posted.highway number, e.g. 1-5 or US-84 rtD Highway Name: McKenzie Hwy Route Number. 15 County: Lane Mile Point.. 5.72:.":••• - -; .Side of Highway: North ❑ South © East❑ West�riglnal Submittal Is the highway in a national forest area?: Yes ❑ No El cl ` - 734-2680 (8/08) Page 1 of 4 © 0 • • 'Authorization of Designa• Agent • Nick Boyles (printed name of property owner) authorize Damien Gilbert (printed name of applicant) to represent me as my agent in the matter of this highway approach permit application. Owner Signature: Date:t O 1 _1. Loci. Applicant [ NOTIFICATION TO APPLICANT:The ODOT District Office will contact you when your application has been reviewed. If additional documents are required to continue the application process you will be notified. When all of the necessary documents have been received, the application will be deemed complete. If your completed application is approved, preliminary construction specifications will be issued. A performance bond and liability insurance will be required before any construction work can begin on the highway right of way. For the complete rules regarding approach permitting, see OAR Chapter 734 Division 51. The Applicant declares, certifies, and affirms under penalty of applicable state or federal laws that all information provided on this form and attachments are true and complete to the best of his/her knowledge. Printed Name:Damien Gilbert Signature: Date ;Additional•Approach Information :: :.;=(= Application is a request for(check all that apply) ❑ New Approach -There is no existing permitted or grandfathered approach road at the location requested in this application ❑ Temporary Approach—The approach requested will be removed after a specified period of time 13 Existing Approach -This application affects, or may affect, an existing approach ❑ Restricted Use Approach -The approach requested is for emergency services, government, utility access or similar specific uses with limited traffic Vehicle`turning Movements Turn movements requested (check all that apply) All movements: C3 OR Right In: ❑ Right Out ❑ Left In: ❑ Left Out ❑ Property Owner Information (If different than applicant) Last Name:OBO Enterprises LLC I First Name: Street Address:1528 Ferry St#11 city Eugene State:OR I Zip Code:97401 I County:Lane Mailing Address: 1528 Ferry St#11 City:Eugene I State:OR Zip Code:97401 I County:Lane Phone Number FAX Number. Cell Phone Number 541-954-0217 • E-mail Address: Are there additional owners of the subject property? YES: ❑ NO: El If YES, ATTACH the same contact information as above for each of the co-owners on a separate sheet of paper. Property Information (attach additional page(s) if space is insufficient) Subject property address(es):#5175 ᑋ Main Street City:Springfield. . Zip Code:97477 County:Lane Township(s) 175 Range(s)02W Section(s)33 Tax lot(s)06200 & 06300 Current zoning:CC Proposed zoning:CC In the boxes below, describe the existing and proposed land use(s) on the property, includiraatepR gapracreage. Existing: Proposed: residential, Area 1.50 Ac multi-family, fast food, Area 1.50 AcFEB! ri 2011 734-2680 (8/08) Page 2 of 4 ;. Site Plan &Vicinity Map:Requirements Local government site'.plan Wig, Has the local government approved a site plan or is the local government currently reviewing a plan for the proposed land use? ❑ Yes (/f yes, attach a copy of the plans being reviewed by the local government) ® No SQ_P.M Sitep a zg a Ex r S-/.$ s N <.. 3Tx�I�R��ir�,e.�:� fisF!`=�n`kL-'�r,i��.�;S.G,�.r�foa"���.._. Submit drawing(s) no larger than 11"x 17" in size. Site plan(s) shall include all applicable information listed below: Property location and property lines, including: • North arrow • Show ail lots or parcels that are part of the property or development with their corresponding tax lot numbers identified • Distance from the property lines to the center of the proposed approach Using solid lines, show: • Proposed approaches with requested width and turning movements shown • Proposed & existing buildings and structures to be retained • Proposed use of existing buildings and structures to be retained • Other proposed equipment or facilities and their proposed use • Proposed access or"cross-over" easements with neighboring properties • Nearest approaches on both sides of the highway within 500' of the proposed approach center-line Using dashed lines, show: • Existing approaches with width and turning movements shown • Place an "X" on approaches to be removed • Existing buildings and structures to be removed • Existing equipment or facilities to be removed • Other existing facilities to be removed • Existing access or"cross-over" easements with neighboring properties Show proposed on-site circulation, including: • Travel lanes with travel directions indicated • Travel lane widths • Parking spaces or parking areas • date fZ @CBIved: • Access locations to the parking spaces or areas FEB 15 2011 Show nearest landmark or cross street: • Provide nearest cross street name Original Submittal • Distance from the requested approach location to the nearest cross street • All public streets.that abut the property(s) 734-2680 (8/08) Page 3 of 4 DATE RECEIVEEV ODOT •HAMPS ID it liar Oregon Department of Transportation Land Use Compatibility Statement (LUCS) What is a LUGS? A Land Use Compatibility Statement(LUCS) is the form ODOT uses to ensure that Highway Approach Permits are consistent with local land use requirements. Why is a LUGS Required? ODOT Coordination Rules, OAR 731-015, identify Highway Approach Permits as permits that affect land use. State law requires ODOT activities that affect land use to be consistent with acknowledged local comprehensive plans... When is a LUCS Required? An ODOT LUCS must be submitted with every ODOT Highway Approach Permit Application_ How to Complete the LUCS: The applicant completes Section 1. Section 2 must be completed by the local jurisdiction. The applicant then submits the completed LUCS to ODOT as part of the Highway Approach Permit Application. SECTION 1: Applicant&Site Information Print applicant name: Damien Gilbert Applicant signature: Property owner name: OBO Enterprises LLC Subject property address: #5175 & #5195 Main Street, Springfield, OR Site description: residential lots,the house is removed from#5175, the house remains on#5195 but will be torn down for new development Describe the proposed activity, use,or development,including type and volume of traffic it will generate. multi-family use, fast food drive through restaurant Township(s) Range(s) Section(s) Tax lot(s) 17S 02W 33 06200, 06300 SECTION 2 must be filled out by a Local Planning Official SECTION 2: Determination of Compliance with Local Land Use Requirements . The subject property is:*Inside ❑ Outside City Limits Limits (g, Inside ❑ Outside UGB Current Comprehensive Plan designation: li\;T&d Vhe Current zoning: C6/11111 Vn;/I ((nicn&(P l''''% \ Is a Comprehensive Plan or zoning amendment proposed? YES❑ NO a If YES,list the proposed plan designation: proposed zoning: Does the activity,use, or development require land use review to determine compliance with land use regulations? YES (RE. NO❑ If NO, it means that no local land use review is needed. Skip to Local Planning Official Information below. If YES,what is the status of the land use application: ❑Approved ❑ Denied ❑ Under review KNot yet received List file number(s): Is the decision final: YES ❑ NO ❑ Comments: Local Planning Official Information (Required): Jurisdiction: t a Date Received:c Print planning official's name and title: ei-eue \-)cpC , s , PlnnnEr 2. Mailing Address: z Z ` p, /, J FEB-I 5 Wit Dity: 'S ,n 3 i \kI i Zip Code: 9i —7 70riginai Submittal 'hone: 511 I- -7,Z C.- - 3U zi 9 Fax: 5—'1 I- `'' =mail: 7zCc ' S& E'S r� ,AJS (1 C i , Sfrin5 C e p t r) • O9, , lC5 Planning Official's Signature: r H_ / / 7 Date: c) ;c 7 G 9?. flCCfl 10 Vlo\ /,�{// ■ • • N M in M W Epp N in L� rn L it zo a dm 335 6 i E ' L') O Li- 0 a co 61 4. ¢ = 73. O owO: N 1-- 2 o Z gc Y '— r. d kA any SP - MI! ..,* la R i — _. k I = IL IA 5 .11., .111WIN 11111111' 33TId 1SIS, JUflitJitj s a r` j7 I la I e8 I 4 r tS - t� r r _. glismi ,.. 4 E MI 8 ui * s 1 ; ® --- . •Z i i 4 i I . - -- I tj l W ;W W Y I R $ fa x• r 411, U — ,1TIN0 .. NOIlVXVl 0NV og IN3WSS3SSV b0i g+ "gw" O"33S Date Received: A. FEB 1 5 2011 Original Submittal — • • T K/ MAI- T)ETkE.L.° I1 - Oz.-33 - 3 1. HIGHWAY 90" F30• /85.70' '7 1 12847' �^i 6200 I .69 A 1 mi W 01 11 1 0.69 AC. ' � li CC I 4 OBO Enter}�rises OBO Enterprises Enterfrises I 11 o ii K 1a • IN I.89°4.4E � I 80 ti Itt 6203 X p- Harold SE w o h m Pauline e 2 Mesberg o I O Ke9°ga w. " II.%e et; save 40'e_ scar ° Ron & Robin Spencer It ° 6201 ° o$ Vidalia Ort z E�i -02-3','T ,u "- g r t E. Nereo Burr} E 30 fins. TX c1 t C�1 (n I + 6202 1,11? S 60' 589°44'E SEE MAP 17 02 33 34 Date Received: FEB 152011 Original Submittal I, J f r rc r no---Zxo88'go� BLt+L6 NO03N0 '0l31UONIddS Q ektA c•M�.J�N-N4_s � s° 133N1S NIVIN 6615 V 9L19 DZ «G Wiz - d� � '�$ • . 0_J B LLJ I— li 911 S]SI�Jd�181N] 090 ow U 1 ] ] ed1S \ IVIA PU39 72 49 L9 8 f1W W is Li_ . . 0) r o > o N • 04 (133?llc 1V001) - 2¢2 0 > E Q z Ulu ° m 0 W 3 ova 1 �J 1 • S a N 3 5o m � o "- o To I LLJ • • 1- T P•TTT • • • • rat • • • ■• • • • V / 4. • • • • + • • , + , + , • , + • + , • T • • • f • • • • • •• • • • • • . • dO'Ij'E • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • — — -•=1. - • • • • • • • O • • • r IS.\�\\\\\\\vd.RC •• • • • g 0 Q f ♦ Jz •• I N I g • . • . 'I • • • > ° 1 r7 1 • • • • • U o , • , • , '' p •� (n r7 � I • • • • • I ' O I O -1 • • • / r7 'r C7 N O _i _ I • • • + •I O II • it IN et Li I-. 1.1.1 $ • • e 1171 . • s • • • • 1 , I-- • • 4D • N p • 1'tu o � o1 • •1 = Z z(viira w I I I ' ' . — • ♦ I- o • • _ ri 0 00 •' + • • • • �w A `a N • •\ p • • O U ° •• O ' • f • • • • oC • • F- - Q 0 W • • • • • I ; N �uE • ♦ • • • • 0_ I-� • • • U LC_ LC f_ ¢ ; CO CO _ tto to • • • • ♦�• - _ , pZ � _FL' V � ��- � p pO �. •• • • • •• • Z it \ / \ N tD H 'L • • • Z il z-ic r kook -..; \ W �k •f ► • W K tm :le W • AO 47 • WuWZZpo •. � O S • • •i• fug III ei • • • • Kph ° • i • N W. • • • Q W Q Ir W ' • •� • • • • I o N fl �, � � H � • • • • ;�� , • , • • • , • • • t•\� oOlbZ di' _�0 i9Z � N ' *JALI _ NNIn Cr) r . . �_ . . . . . • • Isle • , • I' • , -• • • i a E •• •• • O FoL ll ti • �-� 8 0 . • • • • • • • • • • • Um ° ii •.lf II-- 4, , , ,, M °' ` , � II�11 °LOQ�GO ,1 •� � � ' q So� o20 I 1�1 • • • FQO • 1 I LL. fLZ • . N II • • E n Non Q ~ • � N � � OO • o�p + ' � N �, I Q Es ggX • I • • • X n U' O in • •�II1B f • ° I 00-31 .O1bZ I u., L_L_ 'V` m N `n• _ • • • • • , . , • , Ili ' , taro m 1 0 • . ♦ • - `� C • • • i I 2 Wp� • • • • • • •• • ♦ • • ♦ • ♦ ♦ • • t • ♦ ♦ • Z 0 • • • 0 n S• co - Q O z (u3?llG1V001) I I 1 ;•,•;' o �F 3 0 vi d is L z ° 111 • • • • . • c i ti 1 II .1 1 r I I I 80 4/W ' w 11 I ► I ! a _ _ - -- - - - -15" ST_-4HP----- -• __ .."�I I ( ,• o ■�, ,....--w II . 1 5 -'— 4�s. --8" WW-51St PL -07 — — 8" WW—? '�966.9g4�� -1 Its r — — 6" w_ 1. 8 ----N-5 6'd§ 8496.0 1"'•� '� 4— W---P—It.o Pe m I I �.•. 8 I 'It Lt. s I 11 Q- 500'01'41"W 15216 et. .. . I• •I 9� �I I rc) cF I: � Ia .2– 1 1 I . 61 a-mkt r,Q Z� p �9j/ 1 r�IT Ve- m I'l Po J J r.p Z o f I I 1>.• rn I m o d°. ;) I I . 500'01'41"W 80. Q • ° 4- I I s G ,s2O V 0-1 `'fr. `AGO r C 1 r 7, °' (? 4,% CO I 0 cn C2'� I - 1� '• I rfaVo:5. se m —as7.� ZgrA*�'�� �, �' y/.'. • - .. .- - °r,c qq c I � ., ': oAZ yF41P` ill II 1 1 I;: : .; yb°Q Al la. I— — — 3/4" W— —I • 5z . 1 I` I. /4,e, \ ' .. ° , I• N00'01' .o S00'01'41"W 217.80_ _ _ .`o`m�. ' I b R� 14.36 ✓t 'C■I 1. I ,� AR' , ��d 1 //// I: ' r Q / •• I�f / gia 7 // A i, II m // I . y // = p I n 1°,' 1 . /P 1.. // N ti v w 4.Rd N \/�/ � • � o ��� ��' P it I 9gQ . .. % Gov Q� 41L 1 1 ".• — —OHP i NO0 00'S 4"E • . ' 92.80 eCIP SH'-0H" I I1 �. I %� .._ — — —OHP— '� —r 198.1 dr 1-111 via _^ z — — — yN,o ° mss ,_ 52nd ST - - - -12" ST-s w1" _ - — J Il 1 s - - - - - ' 1�r. .--,.1T-11r • 1 — — 7 . —c � rI I w II II I v,m I ( I 1 .to g —Z—® 1 .&I 1 I L . 11 1 1 1 1 _I II. • I I I I I I ti I I I ! I v t Ti„ ,orre g „ • ; ; i 1 1 I •. �1® ar ® 63 ® f ® ® 7P ' Iliiii I ' ll ; ¶1 , 1 1 1 1 1 I ' l I _ I I It. I m a, `ol, 8 `58838 E 388 88 Q 888888888 �3888g ,91 -A z n € € , ^ 0 z2c t m z z °c 2 g2 00 § zO $ R ° m • S o u oo Z ( j y 2 g ° a i < F> E n a a m pF, pAmr O m n liOkp N m �)? mzn m O m PROJECT TITLE: DATE: asws0N15DOCPIPTIDN, sr: m to Kp) m 2 m ®Branch Engineering, Inc. 51175 &T51951SES, LLC STREET o m enndyDnrtmn Salemofice I.` SPRINGFIELD, OR - . W -, 710 711 h shad 117 commarew IL NE, - u " m SprlvpleId,Dragon 07477 0n16e I0 a 11 DESCRIPTION: 2 0 n 16411 7w-0677 , 0dem,Dragon 07701 1607)770-7677 ODOT DRIVEWAY I m N . o PERMIT APPLICATION .-I y wwx.BrennhSngianerin`.aom �,„rrn,.� .....,,.,r,...,.. . • • Branch Engineering , Inc . Corporate Headquarters Salem Engineering Office Principals (541)746-0637 (503)779-2577 M.Lane Branch,PE 310 5th Street 4310 Cherry Avenue N. Damien Gilbert,PE Springfield,OR 97477 Salem,OR 97303 Renee D.Clough,PE,PLS Rene'Fabricant, PE,SE www.BranchEngineering.com . Ronald J.Derrick,PE,GE July 19, 2010 Mr.Nick Boyles,Manager OBO Enterprises,Inc. 1528 Ferry Street,#11 Eugene, Oregon 97401 RE: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 5175&5195 MAIN STREET SPRINGFIELD,OREGON . Branch Engineering Inc Project No.09-159 Branch Engineering Inc. (BEI) has performed a geotechnical engineering investigation of the subject sites for development of townhomes and commercial buildings at 5175 &5195 Main Street in Springfield,Oregon. The accompanying report presents the results of our site research,field exploration,field and laboratory testing,data analyses,and our conclusions and recommended geotechnical design parameters for the project Based on the results of our study, no geologic or geotechnical hazards were identified on the site that would prohibit the planned development, provided that the recommendations of this report are implemented in the design and construction of the project. .' Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions regarding this report. Sincerely, Branch Engineering Inc. ��D PROFS o� izt #16,171 l� OR GOP1 , 0A' 'repr 5,�199jC->/ V `\i •41 - Expires: December 31, 2011 Richard Walker,E.I.T. Ronald J.Derrick,P.E.,G.E Staff Engineer Principal Geotechnical EngiAate Received. • FEB 1 5 2011 CIVIL STRUCTURES TRANSPORTATION GEOTECHNICALOriginattfhfl Af TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Project and Site Description 1 1.2 Scope of Work 1 1.3 Site Information Resources 1 2.0 SITE SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 2 2.1 Ground Water 2 3.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING 2 3.1 Regional Geology 3 3.2 Site Geology 3 4.0 CONCLUSIONS 3 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 4 5.1 Site Preparation and Earthwork 4 5.1.1 Fill 4 5.2 Fill Slopes 6 5.3 Cut Slopes 6 5.4 Utility Excavations 6 5.5 Drainage 6 5.6 Soil Bearing Capacity 6 5.7 Slabs-On-Grade 6 5.8 Settlement 6 5.9 Friction Coefficient and Lateral Earth Pressures 7 5.10 Pavement Design Recommendations 7 5.11 Seismic Site Classification 7 6.0 REPORT SUMMARY AND LIMTTATIONS 7 Date Received: FEB 15 2011 Original Submittal_ ID 5175& 5195 Main Sheet Springfield, Oregon 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results and findings of Branch Engineering,Inc. (BEI)field observations,testing, and research for the subject site. Our investigation included the evaluation of the subsurface soil conditions at the site and provides geotechnical recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed building foundations, utilities, and pavement design. Our work was performed in accordance with the generally accepted practices of this area. 1.1 Project and Site Description The subject site consists of two parcels located at 5175 and 5195 Main Street. Both addresses are located south of Main Street between 51st Place and 52o1 Avenue in Springfield, Oregon. Currently, 5175 Main Street is a vacant lot with a gravel driveway and home foundation remnants from a previous home that burned down several years ago. The remainder of the property is overgrown by tall grass and blackbeny bushes. 5195 Main Street is an occupied single family residence with an existing garage, driveway, garden area, burn pile and maintained grass field. In total, both sites comprise approximately 1.5 acres and are designated as Tax Lots 6203 and 6300 on Tax Map 17-02-33-32. The property is located at Latitude 44°02'43"N, Longitude 122°56'27"W. Both lots are relatively flat at approximate elevation of +497 feet above mean sea level based on a recent topographic map. It was raining at the time of our field investigation on June 2,2010,but no surface water ponding was observed on the properties. The project proposal,as described to BEI,is to construct 2-story townhome structures along the south site boundary, and two single-story office commercial buildings adjacent to Main Street, with parking facilities in between. Construction will include complete demolition of the existing buildings,driveways, and remnant building foundation. Anticipated foundation loads, are not expected to exceed 3 kips per foot on linear footings and 20 kips on individual column footings. 1.2 Scope of Work . ..__. ...... Our scope of work included a site visit and subsurface investigation on June 2,2010. Seven exploratory test pits were advanced to a maximum depth of six feet at the approximate site locations shown on Figure 1. Dynamic cone penetrometer and in-situ vane shear testing were conducted TP-7. All test pits were logged by a BEI field engineer and backfilled with the excavated material immediately after completion of logging. Soils were visually classified in accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Method D-2488. Field log summaries of the site test pits are presented in Appendix . A, along with copies of nearby well logs from the Oregon Department of Water Resources on-line database and area soil survey. Representative samples were collected from the test pits for laboratory in- situ moisture(ASTM D-4643),Atterberg limits(D-4318)testing,and shrink/swell potential(IS 2720). 1.3 Site Information Resources The following site investigation activities were performed and literature resources were reviewed for pertinent site information: • Review of the United States Department of the Interior Geological Survey (USGS) on-line Quadrangle Map, 7/1/1973. • Review of on-line aerial photograph of site area on 7/24/2000. • Seven exploratory test pits were excavated on site at the approximate locations as shown on Figure 1. Date Received: . Branch Engineering, Inc. FEB 1 5 2011. Page 1 of 8 Original Submittal_-_ • 5175&5195 Main Street • Springfield, Oregon • Review of the Lane County area Web Soil Survey, United States Department of Agricultural (USDA)Natural Resources Conservation Service(NRCS) • Review of the USGS Geologic Map of Oregon,USGS 1991 • Review of Oregon Department of Water Resources Well Logs 2.0 Silt SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Our analyses, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions as they presently exist and assume the exploratory test pits,listed herein,are representative of the subsurface conditions throughout the site. If, during construction, subsurface conditions differ from those described in the test pit logs; BEI shall be informed and if necessary review site conditions and revise recommendations herein. The surface soils in the project area are mapped as Pleistocene age, semi-consolidated, lacustrine and fluvial deposits of clay, silt, sand, and gravel. These alluvial terrace deposits are expected to be several hundred feet deep with various aquifer zones. Observed on our test pits, the upper stratum of the site subsurface stratigraphy consists of 1.5-to 2-feet of soft,wet, dark,organic,topsoil. Beneath the surficial topsoil/fill layer, site stratigraphy generally consists of brown and gray Clayey Silt(ML) with traces of fine sand to depths ranging between 3- to 5.5 feet below the ground surface. The Clayey Silt overlies brown and grey rounded gravel in a sandy silty matrix,commonly known as Bar-Run down to the extents of our excavations. In general,depths to Bar-Ram tend to increase toward the northwest being shallowest at the southeast corner of the property. Additionally, organic topsoil tends to be thickest toward the southeast portion of our exploration. Nearby well logs from the Oregon Water Resources Department online well log query document silt, sand, gravel, and siltstone to depths around 20 feet below ground surface. The NRCS Web Soil Survey maps the site along the Salem-Urban land complex,.which is described as well-drained, alluvial.terrace soil. This soil description and those of nearby well logs are consistent with the observed field conditions. • 2.1 Ground Water Ground water seepage was not encountered within our test pit excavations on June 2,2010. Nearby well logs indicate groundwater levels ranging from 9-feet below ground surface in January 1999,to 12-feet in October 1994. We anticipate that groundwater level in both the regional and perched water tables will - fluctuate with the seasons and should be anticipated to be at the highest level in late winter or spring when rainstorms are more intense and more frequent and at the lowest level in late summer or fall when rainfall is less frequent. The regional ground water level is also expected to be influenced by the level of the McKenzie River, approximately 1-mile to the northwest, and the Willamette River, approximately 1 '/2 mile to the south. 3.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING The following sections described the regional and local site geology. Our field findings are consistent with the geologic mapping of the site area by the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (Walker&MacLeod, 1991). Date Received: FEB 1 5 2011 Branch Engineering, Inc. Original Submit': --- Page 2 of 8 • 5175&5195 Main Street • Springfield, Oregon 3.1 Regional Geology The subject site lies within the southern portion of the Willamette Valley Geomorphic Province(WVGP), east of the Coast Range and west of the Cascade Mountains Provinces. The WVGP is regional lowland that extends from just south of Eugene, Oregon to Vancouver,British Columbia. In Oregon,this alluvial plain is approximately 130 miles long and 20-to 40-miles wide(Orr and Orr, 1996), and is drained by the north flowing Willamette River. Willamette River Valley in the area of the subject site is believed to have been formed in the Quartinary epoch from lacustrine and fluvial deposits of silt and clay. These Quartemary deposits within the subject • site are believed to be underlain by Tertiary sedimentary and volcaniclastic rocks and undifferentiated • tuffaceous sedimentary rocks,tuffs,and basalt from the Miocene and Oligocene epochs. Deposits of sand, silt and clay from fluvial and lacustrine environments covered the bedrock to various depths during the presence of low energy streams and lakes in the southern Willamette Valley. Compression forces,along with uplifting of the Cascade and Coast Range Mountains,during the Miocene and Pliocene epochs depressed the Willamette River Valley. Rapid uplift of the Cascade and Coast Range mountains steepened stream gradients causing increased erosion of the mountains and resulting deposition of gravel layers incised within the fluvial and lacustrine deposits. Approximately 13,500 years ago the Willamette Valley was cyclically flooded by catastrophic breaks in the ice dams of Lake Missoula. These flood events filled the valley to a depth of about 350 feet before retreating,causing sequences of upward fining deposits of silt and clay. 3.2 Site Geology The observed site conditions are generally consistent with the mapped geology of the site and that of the general geologic setting described above. Generally, the upper 1.5-to 2- feet of site is organic topsoil. Below the topsoil are native alluvial terrace deposits of clay,silt, sand,and,gravel to depths over 100-feet. There are several faults mapped.within._10-.to_20-miles of the site to the east, west and south; none of these faults are not known to be active; however, seismic activity has been felt in the area as evidence by the 1993, 5.7 Richter magnitude Scotts Mills earthquake and the 1993, 6.0 Richter magnitude Klamath Falls earthquake. 4.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on our field observations, subsurface explorations, and data analyses, we conclude that the site is geotechnically suitable for the proposed development provided that the recommendations of the report are incorporated into the design and construction of the project. 'The approximately 2-foot topsoil zone at the site is thicker than normal for the area and will require complete removal under building foundations and structural pavements.. The clayey silt that covers the Bar-Run is compressible and is susceptible to settlement under load The subject site will require additional excavation and subgrade preparation that is typically not required for the area, but there are no specific site features or subsurface conditions observed that will impede the proposed site development. It is our understanding that there are no significant grade changes planned for the site, cut and fill depths are not expected to exceed two feet Due to the fine-grain soils on site, earthwork is recommended to be performed during the dry season, generally May through October, however, we understand construction time constraints and have provided alternatives for wet weather conditions. Date Received: FEB 15 2011 Branch Engineering, Inc. Original Submittal. Page3of8 • • 5175&5195 Main Street Springfield, Oregon 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The following sections present BEI's recommendations for anticipated geotechnical aspects of the site development. Site specific specifications are presented below. • 5.1 Site Preparation and Earthwork The following recommendations are for earthwork in the building foundation areas. Earthwork shall be performed in general accordance with the standard of practice as generally described in Appendix I of the 2007 International Building Code and the recommendations herein. The site grading is expected to be minimal for the area; however, any fill placed below structures or pavements shall be observed, documented,and tested for compliance with project specifications by competent,trained personnel. - • Stripping: All areas intended to directly or laterally support structures, road/parking areas, retaining walls, or fills in excess of 1-foot in thickness shall be stripped of vegetation, organic or soft soil; existing fill, and/or any other deleterious material. These strippings shall either be removed from the site or used in nonstructural areas approved by the Geotechnical Engineer of Record(GER). • Subgrade Approval: Once and area is stripped,the GER shall observe and approve the subgrade prior to placement of any fill, separation fabric, base rock, or foundation forms. Based on the conditions observed, additional excavation,placement of subdrains, or other mitigation measures may be required by the GER. The site soils are very moist, which may cause soft subgrade conditions. The site work contractor should be cautioned when excavating for foundations or pavements and minimize heavy truck traffic on site. • Dry-Season Earthwork The in-situ moisture contents of the site soils within about 6 feet of the existing ground surface are 10% to 15% over their optimum moisture content for compaction. Earthwork is recommended to be performed during the dry season,"generally'May"thioiigh October, so that moisture contents of native fill soils can be reduced by spreading and turning the soils, if necessary. The options for moisture control of fill soils during the dry season are more cost effective and generally do not require any specialized equipment other than a water-truck or a plow device. • Wet-Season Earthwork: Fine-gained site soils are moisture sensitive and soften with prolonged exposure to rainfall,particularly when uncompacted. Should wet season earthwork be required to meet project deadlines, specialized processes would likely be required to control soil moisture contents, such as lime or cement treatment of the soils, soil drying kilns, or use of imported granular materials. These methods can be expensive, time consuming, and would require additional fill control oversight and testing. 11.1 Fill BEI anticipates that on-site native soils will be used for structural fills if necessary, although use of imported granular material may be more cost effective for minor fills due to the ease of moisture control and compaction effort. Native soils are suitable for use as structural fill provided our recommendations are incorporated into the design and construction of the project. • . Recommended Soil Compaction: After subgrade is approved by the GER, soil subgrade shall be scarified to a depth of 4 inches, moisture conditioned to within 2% of the optimum moisture content of the soil, and blended with the first lift of fill material. The fill placement an compaction equipment shall be appropriate for fill material type,required depMeR.Q040W• Branch Engineering, Inc. FFn ` ...-,cy Page 4of8 • 5175&5195 Main Street Springfield, Oregon uncompacted lift thickness. Assuming proper equipment selection, the total uncompacted thickness of the scarified subgrade and first fill lift shall not exceed 8-inches; subsequent lifts of uncompacted fill shall not exceed 8-inches unless otherwise approved by the GER. Fine-grain soil fill is generally most effectively compacted using a kneading style compactor, such as a sheeps-foot roller. Structural fill shall be compacted to at least 90% of the materials maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Method D-1557(or equivalent)and the soil moisture content shall be within+/-2%of the optimum moisture content for compaction • Imported Structural Fill: All imported material to be used for structural fill shall be approved by the GER prior to the material's delivery to the site. Most commonly, imported structural fill material is granular and shall not contain more than 5%passing the No.200 sieve. Aggregate fill shall be angular(surface fracture of at least 70%) and well-graded, and shall be compacted to at least 95% of the materials maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Method D-1557 (or equivalent). • Soil Shrink/Swell Potential: Representative samples of the clayey silt soil were tested for their free swell potential (IS 2720) and found to range from 20% to 30%, which is considered to be low to moderate. The Plasticity Index of the soil is 9.4, based on Liquid and Plastic Limits moisture contents of 43.7% and 34.3%, respectively. The shrink/swell of the soil will not adversely affect these structures; however, the soils should still be protected from soil moisture fluctuations by providing positive surface drainage and covering with aggregate soon after exposure of the subgrade. The shrink/swell potential of the Bar-Run is low. Periodic site observations by the GER are recommended during the construction of the project; the specific phases of construction that should be observed are described below in Table 1: Table 1: RECOMMENDED CONSTRUCTION PHASES TO BE OBSERVED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER OF RECORD At completion of site stripping and foundation Subgrade observation by the geotechnical excavation engineer before placement of geotextile fabric or fill Imported fill material Observation of material or information on material type and source Placement or Compaction of fill material Observation by geotechnical engineer or test results by qualified testing agency Date Received: FEB 1 5 2011 Branch Engineering, Inc. Original Submittal Page 5 of 8 5175&5195 Main Street • Springfield, Oregon 5.2 Fill Slopes Site fill slopes in excess of 2-feet in height are not expected for this project 5.3 Cut Slopes Permanent cut slopes are not expected for this site. 14 Utility Excavations Utility excavations within the Clayey Silt site soils should stand near vertical to at least 4 feet in depth; some surface sloughing and sidewall caving may occur due to perched ground water lenses or areas of non-cohesive soil. Utility excavations through the Bar-Run may incur sidewall caving due to the non-cohesive gravels. Heavy equipment should not be placed within 10 feet of an open trench. Site soils are classified as OSHA Type B. 5.5 Drainage • A complete site drainage system is expected to be engineered for this project alteration of existing grades for this project will likely change drainage patterns but should not adversely impact adjacent properties. Perimeter landscape and hardscape grades shall be sloped away from the foundations and water shall not be allowed to pond adjacent to footings during or after construction. 5.6 Soil Bearing Capacity Based upon our site observations and testing, the clayey silt soil beginning at a depth of 18-to 24-inches below the ground surface has an allowable bearing capacity of 1,200 psf and the Bar-Run material found in our test pits at 3-to 6-feet below the ground surface has an allowable bearing capacity of 3,500 psf. The respective bearing capacity of each of these materials caa be'incicased by 1/3 foi shoit teiui loading, such as wind and seismic events. The clayey silt is compressible and due to the varying thickness of this soil over the site, BEI recommends that all building foundations bear on the Bar-Run material to mitigate the potential for differential settlement to occur. The estimated settlement potential of the clayey silt is presented in a Section 5.8 of this report. 5.7 Slabs-On-Grade After preparation of the subgrade as described in Section 5.1, those areas to be overlain by load bearing concrete slabs or beam shall be underlain by a geotextile separation fabric and a minimum of 8-inches of compacted granular material.. A clean, free draining, crushed aggregate is recommended beneath structural slabs. The modulus of subgrade reaction(k) of the soil at is 100 lb/in3. Under floor drainage should be addressed by the designer. 5.8 Settlement BEI estimates that with an allowable bearing capacity of 1,200 psf that foundations bearing on the clayey silt soil between 1.5-to 5.5-feet below the ground surface may incur total settlements of 1-to 2.5-inches and differential settlements up to 1.5-inch depending on loading and the.thickmess of the clayey silt below the foundation. Therefore, it is recommended that all foundations either bear directly on the dense Bar- Run material or atop crushed aggregate fill compacted in lifts to at least 95% of the materials maximum dry density'as determined by ASTM Method D-1557. Structural fills shall be tested for compliance with this compaction specification. DateR+ nnrl eceived: �� . .. - ,� 6:.J Branch Engineering, Inc. Page 6 of 8 FE pp i :1 • • 5175& 5195 Main Street Springfield, Oregon If necessary, settlement mitigation measures in the clayey silt may include preloading and settlement monitoring, modifications to building pad grading to create a uniform subsurface, or underpinning of foundations. BEI can further discuss the settlement issues with the design team upon review of detailed grading and foundation plans. 5.9 Friction Coefficient and Lateral Earth Pressures Although retaining wall structures are not anticipated for this project,the following design parameters are provided. The coefficient of friction of the native clayey silt soil is 0.30, and for the Bar-Run it is 0.45 for concrete poured neat against these materials with no disturbance of the exposed material face. The passive earth pressure of the clayey silt soil within 6-feet of the existing ground surface is 200 pcf equivalent fluid pressure(EP1'). However,the upper 1-foot of the native site soil should be neglected for design purposes unless covered by structural fill or pavements. Passive pressure of the Bar-Run is 400 pcf EFP. Active earth pressure for a cantilever wall capable of movement of at least 0.2% of the wall height at the top of wall is 40 pcf EFP; the at-rest or top restrained wall EFP is 50 pcf. A lateral load increase of 6H2 (H=wall height) is recommend to be applied to the wall for seismic conditions. The EFP active earth pressure in the Bar-Run is 28 pcf and 38 pcf for at-rest conditions. The EFP earth pressures stated above assume a level backfill with no surcharge loads and a free-draining, well compacted,crushed aggregate backfill with no hydrostatic pressure applied to the walL 110 Pavement Design Recommendations The correlated California Bearing Ratio (CBR) for the near surface clayey silt found below the topsoil zone is 3,thereby placing the soil in the poor subgrade class. The parking lot areas are generally expected to have light vehicle traffic while The site access roads will be subject to delivery and garabage trucks. Using the guidance of the 2003 revised Asphalt Pavement Design,Guide, .published.by the Asphalt Pavement Association of Oregon Based, a calculated Structural Number of 2.4, and based on the criteria of a 20-year design life with up to 75%reliability,the recommended pavement section in parking areas is 3 inches of asphalt concrete (AC)over 10 inches of aggregate base for the native soil. The accessways are recommended to be 4 inches of AC over 10 inches of base rock. Pavement subgrades shall be observed.and proof-rolled prior to placement of base rock the base rock shall be crushed with a fractured surface area of at least 70%, and compacted to at least 95% of the material's maximum dry density as _ determined by ASTM Method D1557 or equivalent. BEI recommends using a geotextile separation fabric (Appendix C) between the subgrade and base rock. The base rock shall be tested to measure compliance with this compaction standard prior to placement of asphalt concrete. Ill Seismic Site Classification Based on the soil properties encountered in our site test pits, field test results, and nearby well log information to depths of over 50 feet, a Site Class D is recommended for design in accordance with Tables 1613.5.2 and 1613.5.5 of the 2007 Oregon Structural Specialty Code. • 6.0 REPORT SOOMARY AND LIMITATIONS This report has presented BEI's site observations and research, subsurface explorations, geotechnical engineering analyses, and recommendations for the proposed site development. The conclusions in this report are based on the conditions described in this report and are intended for the exclusive use of OBO Enterprises,Inc. and their representatives for use in design and construction of the development described herein. The analysis and recommendations may not be suitable for other structures or purposes. Services performed by the geotechnical engineer for this project have been conducted with the level o eceived: Branch Engineering, Inc. Page 7 of 8 FEB 15 2011 Original Submittal • 5175&5195 Main Street Springfield, Oregon skill exercised by other current geotechnical professionals in this area under similar budget and time constraints. No warranty is herein expressed or implied. Conclusions in this report are based on the site conditions as they currently exist and it is assumed that the limited site locations that were physically investigated generally represent the subsurface conditions at the site. Should site development or site conditions change, or if a substantial amount.of time goes by between our site investigation and site development, we reserve the right to review this report for its applicability. If you have any questions regarding the contents of this report please contact our office. Date Reied: FEB 15 ce2011 Original Submittal_ Branch Engineering, Inc. Page 8of8 • APPENDIX • TEST PIT LOG SUIVIMARIFS, WELL LOGS, & ON-LINE SOIL SURVEY • • Date Received: • FEB 152011 Original Submittal . IP • • • • . , . SOiL CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA AND TERMINOLOGY �/ Classification of Terms and Content' USCS Grain Size • NAME:MINOR Constituents(12-50%);MAJOR Fines 4200(.075 mm) • Constituents(>50%);Slightly(5-12%) Sand - Fine • #200-#40(.425 mm) Relative Density or Consistency Medium #40-#10(2 mm) Color Coarse #16-#4(4.75)- Moisture Content - - Gravel Hoe #4-0_75 nch Plasticity Coarse . 0.75 inch-3 inches Trace Constituents(0-5%) Cobbles 3 to 12 inches; ' Other.Grain Shape,Approximate gradation, - scattered<15%esL, • Organics,Cement,Structure,Odor_._ numerous>15%est. Geologic Name or Formation:011,VW Slt,Till, Boulders >12 inches . Alluvium;-_) • - - . - Relative Density or Consistehcy Granular Material - Fine-Grained(cohesive) Materials . SPT •SPT Torvane tst Pocket Pen lsf Manual Penetration Test • N Value Density N-Value Shear Strength Unconfined ' Consistency , . <2 - <0.13 >0.25 Very Soft ' Easy several inches by fist . •. . 0-4 VeryLoose 2-4 0.13;0.25 0.25-0.50 Soft Easy several inches by thumb 4-1D Loose d-0 0.25-0.50 0.50-1.00 Medium Stiff Moderate several inches by thumb 10-30 Medium Dense 0-15 0.50-1.00 1.00-200 Stiff -Readily indented by thumb 30-50 Dense 15-30 1.00-2.00 200-4.011 Very Stiff Readily indented by thumbnail >50 Very Dense >30 >2.00 >4.00 Hard Difficult by thumbnail Moisture Content Structure Dry: Absence of moisture,dusty,thy to the touch -Staged:Alternating layers of material or color>6 runt thick- - Damp: Some moisture but leaves no moisture on hand _ Laminated: Alternating layers<6 mm thick Moist Leaves moisture on hand - Fissured: Breaks along definate fracture planes - • Wet Visible free water,likely from below water table . Sfidkensided:Striated.Polished,or gluey fracture planes - Plasticity. Dry Strength Dilatancy :.. Toughness' Blocky: Cohesivesol Ghat tan be broken down into small angular lumps which resist further breakdown ML Non in Low Non to Low Slow to Rapid Low,can't roll Lenses: Has small pockets of different soils,note thickness • CL Low to Med_ Med'nun to High None to Slow Medium Homogeneous Same color and appearance throughout • . MH Med to High Low to Medium None to Slow Low to Medium •- CH Med to High High to V.High None High - . - Unified'Soil Classification Chart(Visual-Manual Procedure) (Similar to ASTM Designation D-24815) - Major Divisions Group Typical Names Symbols - ' Coarse Gravels:50% Clean -GW Well graded gravels and gravel-sand mixtures,little or no lines • Grained brmore Gravels GP Reedy-graded gravels and gravel-sand mixtures,lithe or no fines ' Soils retained on Gravels GM • Sllygravels,gravel-sand-sift mixtures - More than •the No_4 sieve with Fines GC -Clayey gravels,gravel-sand-day mixtures • 50%retained Sands:more Clean SW Well-graded sands and gravelly sands,little or no fines -on No.200 than 50% Sands SP Poorly:graded sands and gravelly sands,title or no fines sieve passing the Sands SM Silty sands,sand-sit mixtures No.4 Sieve with Fines SC Clayey sands,sand-day mixtures • Fine-Grained SO[and Clays ML Inorganic silts,rock flour,dayey silts - • Solis: • Low Pland Cl ys Cl. Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity gravelly days,sandy days.lean days 50%ormore OL - • Organic silt and organic silty days of low plasticity. Passes No. -MH - Inorganicsiils,dayey silts - - - 200 Sieve SIR and Clays OH Inorganic days of high plasticity.fat days High Plasticity Fines _ OH Organic,days Of medium to high plasticity Highly Organic Soils PT ' Peal,muck,and other highly organic soils 4 Date F;8G81"8d• FEB 15 2011 • Original Submittal--`— _" . 0 to \ - ; � [ K�< I \ �\\ � .. . , , , , , , , , , , To \ f \ . o 0 3 (] . _co = a a sk a E | / k � . kl /\ � k \{ k) \ @ \ \§ _ ) ) k) /ƒ)/ & E |t ( hi f; \ ) f �§ c \0 / /f • . / , , . r , , , _m�� - m # • - k I I I I ! ! ! ! 2§ ) # E Uo � . } B � "` \ ƒ ƒ f \ III rs < 1.- .. ... . . . to a o -2 - rd-w < / 2 0X = _ 0 ,a!!#! ° . I I , , I , { i , a , in I;_ .- 7 \ \ ! at / ! : & § / \C § # I- It { � §as {/• o - C FE E } 0� - - \ . § _ a- 0f . . a { § \ >-2 >-° k a = 5 b # - Q. /! ® os ) ) \ ao3 ©" © \ Dale Received: I . \ k 9 ack m a.a ] . - U n 0, ! ! I . } ! . E 15 SII '2-6 E . . � � / ƒ { / m°mo } ) 7 m sb �t - Q ƒ ¥ � $ � . S . . < C r ; % . m a7 cc CC a / )• ; * . 1 � — . cc. - - ° r I I , . I i I . , , , , i • (\ k/ \ .§ ;Cr-- k $ C E k} c § ! * § 7 U cu / ,! o � \ $ ) \( k `` k2 S > _ n ® % ) k °\ §tt / % f k \ƒ 3a . ` ( f 2 /A (! to C` § ) § 2k { }\ • _t�m ' , , . , z , , . . , . , , , • Owes I .2 ack` ! g ) # o , I I I I I ! ! ! 2) \ E m m m©m a • ■ z ; ; ; § co & H— , I I I I ! I , } ... � .. . f . ;)} &« • `®®S \ 9 ;* a )a !. k »§ I I ; , , I I i I c , , ` 7 ( ) / k ! ! tel 2 ^` • . § 0) • I— L \ / 2k ° t § � > - ae .co c !)»2 § 2 ) } 2: . � m ° » { ))ƒ § / c § , ` 2 |. . § \ ) { 2 �\ » ` ■ � � � 7 � !! � is K / # cc • » • -�\ \ ' ' � I co ' , . a.ke qe G a - § & 9 FB157� 2 / - ._ . ± m n \ I I n. }k \ - ^k ' k \ ¥ n ® £ . 2 \ u mwe ! }J g = a . I I I , E T , ; • • • • H O W aI CO I- <UICE w � _ . wI- K o I I I 1 I e 11 / 11_ 111 m c W t_ >7)m m ~ 3 W T.) ac et. O . l m c o 7. Ij a a3 co 3m tm- a LL V J m > Ill n a U m d W V __ 13 G m - oa m E c V m a z v o - m E h m y to Q W `sm . o icO CC .. o ❑.'m - m m To u.1 I-- N N 0 m D Rm . CI M } o } m 0_' E m Ili to c O W n re m m V X a } m CC 0 g c OO n m 0. 1- V m' acci3 I-- 3 - IagwnN aldweg I I I 1 1 CO to a eaioldwest . z m 8 m ,r~_. (1!)glde0 o ‘ I w n v 1G m - t, ro 30 - 3 a nUQPJ�O� i. oa n n° n a $ m Q 4 Q 4 P P P F' I I 1 I I I I I b . O = ct y W F cn OmW 10 Q W C7 m t > , 0 _ J w a S nt W F- d0O V�owc°� a' O C. I I I 1 1 1 a m r m Y E a. w m •w 3 to O V al al w c O = d 2 d-0 a • W e. a' N 0 0 '� (7 m ao Ira m• y - 1- a a3 033 i s O U 3 m > n a E Taj -0 � -CI 0 W 00 E m p m •G Q » E h t @ _I J c O t c - u L Q g3 W .2` mm .:..m$wwV .� W F- n g•v m E F.. m . U' m = m m G J } 0 } m IX E j in r Pd Date Received: -v ii g c J- m E m ,.g? JagwnNa�dwes . . I ' 1 I I 2011 :.. .n in cti u E - 4. . ad61aidweg . (ll)4#ded o n 0 o a m V V V ya_om a d d d O. 'O •O 'L N U y J( X V iu (O uogena�3 P P P P 4 rn Nn P P p P• ,a a s � 'W',.5www F 11 I I I I I 1 1 • • • • • • • a y m a m m • . LL a a. a G m.. 0 ' Z aa o n °v N t o C coo R 5 N m ID c m re C C t a`nv ' m • m 8 22 3 C �m y o ZI- m m • a . m to F • N 4 a E m • v -°- E= ce CC -couloS4 K Q W (A N N U zo Q V a O m a J t m 2 = 0 C Is-. 3CU a m 1> ¢ �re mowi reO as um o .- ti 0 1 1 I r r I 1 I 1 1•cu in Iii O t T Q N « d a a+ 3 3 tf - 6 0 m: E Z o Ec a c w .a ¢ n o 0 N - 0 w o m N ~ a o. 3 co 3 m g O V w j a ~ U a' a c c `. co 0) -0 U Co o 000 o EW U' `mom m t > E J J c 3 E m a ,o % 5o Q 2 30 W �. co W o J K C m a F at w $ . . 0 `m = m a om .Ji `* O Wa ° X o K a m p > o N E Q L N O C 0 N O w a U ? 1 k :.: 1 I 1 1W I c u _ �agwnN aidweg L�...,% a r E 9 ad61 a�dweg Ir "71 ,c I �1w -1 .I I I I I z w w w afar--t- m E e+ 0 0 0 z A fa' -6 m° gii (u)uogana ° Q a S a <eOrIQl 'it Lw:$.,rr��.,q"' ..__.- O. a 0_ 0 .0u i° - F 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 • • I °n . Wi t_:.:.._. .... .. ...WOL .._. -. ..!...'...i _ 0099[9 4 Y o h t rN 0699LV e 099[0 01:691217 0899[96 e 0 [ 6 s� « .:: _^ -Y S .: :.... i°yam:� , r_ :. -a:. s - ..na.....::.... :........... �..:.. _ _. . _ ... . -.. . . . _ .._. . - - Er �{il m F . _ ... ; _ _- 3,,,i- - . -_ _.-. >. _ _. '<:.. .... .w ,. � . ... `:,..:.. .. ".. ., . . .._ .a e1 i.w L±?r+ if ) .Mai .. . . .. .. ...._. .. ... .. ..:.. .._ . ... ... . .:- �'�:�-� - - 2 _ 4..... ...... ... .. Wit. -.:. ... ,,.IT:=. . ...:�,.:..-...,.: - .. n u1 0 .. . . . _ ... .. ..._.. .. -.."..... ..._.._ .. ....... moo' 0 1 o „ --1 .:... ...:.... ._ �. . .._.- _ .. .. t. _.. .:.. ....1..:::.:c.:: .:y,..... Win v: - - _ ....:' ".... . ." . . R .... .,oer._, ....._ :.�:i.:_ . �J5- S _� . .... ._ .� .,.,ter:.F;. - c-7:'...7:: :riaq. :,.Ja .: ,:.:.:•-'.._....: .:."., , :x..:,.:.. .-:oa=r�- =a:';{:.',: _ _ ik•..:i.''':._ L°.v Vii::..:-. . "..::,:..- .r 9�� o�. .9C:99.ZZL �.���� : . .�_:<:•� ' �_ �- -�� eceiv 4 c. ODOLL96 000LL90 0999[86 9[69[96 0999!84 0698[96 0099/86 �'I. 8152011 & 'riginal Subr ttal__� O M 0o p N 0° C N O E m m L N m Nm O >> 0 .3am na 5-13 m o m v c ° m g 2 0 v 5 v D a' di v C E Z CL O D D D � ' 0L D r m Q 0 E 15 O X m L m m m K IDO m ,C r = Q m 3 m 0 °Z Q N m L Q O m O E 0= 0 r L 3 m..: hi a L 00 m a m p m Q 0 • a °m E a Q m c D.a > 0 LL 0 O O 0 C 0` O L. 3 cm 0 Eamm Z .D m D y 2N E D C c a m o, 2-0 32 A n "$ m 5 ..n m m �> ; a) 4-. m Q '—'- [0 iJ 8a 0 _Lm00 CC 0 0 Z= E cm c' °r'aa a to .> a m `0 m E °)O C ,N m. G m C.m T 0 m @ 0 O'O i p r 2 D C 0 ?co 'O < , 0 2-12 ,-,0 m U ° 2 0 °O.L 0 0 2 a m .°0�t 5 m e J T _ l N r co 0 0 0 `N-0 0.0 L, m 0 O °.m m m. m mm .5aD m > — 2 g mEmE n F aE co 0 H-5 i • Soil Map-Lane County Area,Oregon - 5175/5195 Main Street Map Unit Legend Ji Lane CountyArea,Oregon(0R637) y: •Map Unrt Symhol � `! MapUnrt tJame � 'Acres mA01 Percent ofA01, 32 Coburg-Urban land complex 1.6 7.2% 101 Oxley-Urban land complex 0.4 1.9% 119 Salem-Urban land complex 19.9 90.9% Totals for Area of Interest 21.9 100.0% • • Date Received: FEB 1 5 2011 Original Submittal USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 7/21/2010 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey page 3 of 3 Map Unit Description:Salem-Urban and complex—Lane County Area,Oregon 5175/5195 Main Street Lane County Area, Oregon 119—Salem-Urban land complex Map Unit Setting • Elevation: 300 to 800 feet Mean annual precipitation:40 to 60 inches Mean annual air temperature:52 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 165 to 210 days • Map Unit Composition Urban land:45 percent • Salem and similar soils:45 percent Description of Salem Setting • Landform: Stream terraces • Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material:Gravelly mixed alluvium Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches • Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water • (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) • Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding:None Available water capacity: Low(about 4.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated):2s Land capability(nonirrigated):2s • Typical profile 0 to 7 inches: Gravelly silt loam 7 to 26 inches:Gravelly clay loam 26 to 60 inches:Very gravelly sand Date Received: • Description of Urban Land Interpretive groups FEB 1 5 2011 Land capability(nonirrigated): 8 Data•Source Information Original Submittal Soil Survey Area: Lane County Area, Oregon • Survey Area Data: Version 8, Feb 9, 2010 usak Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 7/21/2010 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 1 4.STATEOFORE �`- n_�q�� m1vu4;NV.V4U •40INTITOY ING WELL REPOI� . "2� t/ $ �� is required by ORS 537.765&OAR 690-240-095) ��/ start Card# W-71440 Instructions for completing this report are on the last of this form. ROV 2 1 1994 I) OWNER/PROJECT: WEI.LNO. __ -1 Ate.-TER,n,ES(61_L,OCATIOPf OFWELLBy legal description lame • Rex Kess i n'er and Marvin n .t art M,Wtlllleasslil County Lane iddress 789 Fair Oaks Dr. and 2145 Stonecrest Dr. •mwnship T17S (Ne(:)Range R2W (sae Section 33 :ay Eugene stare OR zp 97491 I. NE 1/4 of_ SW I/4 of above section 2) TYPE OF WORK: 2. Either Street address of well location 5251 Main Street Springfield, DR_ 97477 �+, L'1 New construction _0-Alteration(Repair/Recondition) _ _ or Tax lot number of well location Unknown ❑ Conversion _❑ Deepeamg _ []Abannment _ 3.ATTACH MAP WITH LOCATION IDENTIFIED.Map shall include approximate scale and norm arrow. . 3) DRILLING METHOD (7) STATIC WATER LEVEL: ❑ RotaryAir ❑ Rotary Mud ❑cable: 15 Ft.below land surface. Date 10-18-94 [ HollowStmnAoger ❑ ether .- -� Artesian Pressure -- Do/sq.in. Date -- BORE HOLE CONSTRUCTION (8)WATER BEARING ZONES: _ Yes No - ' - Depth at which water was fast mend 15' -- . Standards 0 Depdt oFcompleted!ell - 20 ft From 'm Esc Plow Rate SWL Lanasace 15' 20' 1 gem -- .Vault Q >t 0 ft ii � water-tight cover • TO o, a:- Surface flash vault V gr 1 a Lockingcap oN..-��,�..e.4 Casing - (9)WELL LOG: Ground elevation 499' _.. . �':t ')\\\\\' tl. .s diameter 2 is cae` • mreMM Sch. 40 PVC ez•o: ': Material � From 1b SW1, er 5; 9,ea.+0?-' 's `. Welded Threaded Gtved n;ob:: o Fine sandy fill 0 3' -v _b.' ,°; ' ❑ ® .❑ material . Seal -p :Q p"'Q Liner _ °j•¢O=� "'ffO Rounded river rock 3 9n 1 ft •a' o:�� . b:� diameter -- in. ' g?QP.; pun; material -- w/minor sandy silty ti.T. ,.: :.qua.\ oft.. Welded Threaded Glued clay. matrix-cork f q :q. x� \.:Q4 p. 0 0 - size coarser w/ 4 ft =e:,te� WMseai: depth. dn \ d `da4a \cAs Normal Bentonite p �:p$�;,\ \�. Amount 3/8" (15D 1 bs) 5°x,7* ,r.o:oi: Gmm weight 14.1 1 bs/ 561' G Borehlollee diameter al . � 9 �LL: a . e.. — [3.Q;o;. p Oq;- — B_ntnn_te plug at least 3 ft thick 7 9`a4,�M:11.tat ? Scteen Filter rQ:eQ.. _�:>;:;, ..,..,• material Sch. 40 PV pack a 4'A'":} = a• 4 R. efl°=t'" „ ::; rip;' From 5' 'lb 20'•e:o_.: TO .T D�f.; i:;= :,y: PO': From - To 20 ft F..:., ..::: jr� p.nn;�n..•;{�.>:;.�:� •.ego:c!: Slot sire .OZO in. a•..XO-'f-fg rill E Sl:...:-..` ...vD Feller Farb a' %'C :':EF» '�' Material Silica sand Darestarted 10/18/94 Completed 10/1R/94 °' C9.0 gfcg.. -cage sic 10-20 in. : :oso:•W.:: ,. ::; ,::o;o:- - (anbonded)Monitor Well Constructor Certification • 6__ I certify that the work Iperfonned on the construction,alteration,or 7 WELL TEST__ _ abandonment of this well is in compliance with ��9�on��trycjjlro��n�,,,,�1 ❑pump _ - -QBailer z __ ❑Flowing A esian - standards. Materials used and information repor�uar 4 16�t61. Permeability -_ - -laMmledge and tidiest - _ MWCCNombe Conductivity PR -- Signed RE@-1 54pptl a/warm:am of water 55 °FC Depth artesian flow found -- ft. . Was water analysis done? [ Ye 1:14C - - (banded)MonittiAbil Constructor Certification; • By whom? Unknown I accept responsibility for the oonsturanjohugoSESNIfigiafrat work performed on this well dining the conreiretron dates reported above.All Depth of strata robe analyzed_From '5 Rte 20 ft• work performed.y..,,this time is in compliance with Oregon well construction Remarks: -. - • • - standards. e n is rote to the. ofmyknowledge and belief. MWCNumber 10288 Name of supervisingk-Geologist/Engineer Robert Goodfellow Signed i or ..ice-�.. •.• : a • ORIGINAL&FIR.T COPY--WAT R RESOURCES DEPARTMENT SECO,41 OPY-CONSTR "C R TEIIRD COPY-CUSTOMER ' . 2 akleinflb-1-41-i-&-tliMi I Az - ' 1111:117 : ' -"1 Alii,E1YED es-c-:--1 NOV 21199 - I / TER EM. O OREGON u Ti / _ -r7 �, f SALEM, OREGON .6 4 44 ______N_ • . 7 / t-CL--- [100 pi 1 . t :— — — 1 9--- A- I . ‘__ v i_ , rprnici + I - -;r: FrEN / II .1031+1-. i i ,y, nitirl-- It-Ills �� ' 1/ter% . \s 1 i it .'41. gn i 41; ?an zabn // :F ` 4 -÷ Niglaili ailLIF1 7 . , I --IN"`, t ° ° r tilt" D0 j . r 1\ ;1.21 . ! '--ca e. . a ) - 11( . idjtir 71 i n Ilya i - Hi; , . .S11 4tsecC I 7V .11 RAIIIIII I L s ..„...., bo %, c; rr, -- ,hut Eilitral , ,.r , ,,, ' \C ' 1 ......nr,,,,I ; I. '' .' icf) ' / 0 In,, r-Ati ii .8" 1 . t I MY(' It 111 I L i /I mniii=1111 11=1: UAW ate k4 =i L 1 Iii II Li ,t r I. J_ • ginal Subm;tt�o' •-..IIlav F L 7 E ///���_ tr\n" I I 1 ... ili . , . . ., ., -. rinCil iiiiireci 1 14 1 r . 1 n II !Il ,jl�nar�rannoo� Amman k©° i - „/!TATE OF OREGON W "t 1 JGGO1 ISC.98C WI" i. P ^:Mi. NTTORING WELL REPO1 T y-, 3v L23776 (a;required by ORS 537.765&OAR 690-240-095) start Card# 331080 Instructions for completing this report are on the last page of this form. (1) OWNER/PROJECT: WELL NO. MW-1 (6) LOCATION OF WELL By legal description • Name John's .Gas & Groceries _ ___ Well Location: County. Lane Address 5390 Main St. Township T 17 SIN orS)Range R 2 WE or W) Section 33 City Springfield State Oregon zip 97478 i. NW 1/4 of SE 1/4 of above section. (2) TYPE OF WORK: 2. Either Street address of well location 5390 Main St. . Springfield. OR [Y3 New construction [3 Alteration(Repair/Recondition) - or Tax lot number of well location (y503 ❑ Conversion ❑ Deepening ❑Abandonment 3.ATTACH MAP WITH LOCATION IDENTIFIED. Map shall include approximate scale and north arrow. (3) DRILLING METHOD (7) STATIC WATER LEVEL: ❑ Rotary Air ❑ Rotary Mud ❑Cable 1011 R be/ow land surface. Dale 9/2/98 )[] Hollow Stem Auger ❑ Other - Artesian Pressure lb/sq.in. Date II BORE HOLE CONSTRUCTION (8) WATER BEARING ZONES: Yes No Depth at which water was first found 10' :ial Standards ❑ 3 Depth of completed well_ 201 f[. From To Est.Row Rate SWL _ Land surface 10' 20' 1 gpm, -,S,— ladairstlatlarfaaiatalath Vault Y 1 �!ft. ;: � Water-tight cover ® ro ~; t Surface Flush vault 1 'ft 0 0 o li Locking cap _ - • r o Ir „j Casing (9) WELL LOG: Ground elevation 505' •f-.`:- 2 rt �:D D: \Q:Q`p:.: diameter in. :e?.o;? co err Material From r To SWL p ..4\ \ I- Q- ma[erialSCh. 40 PVC _ ° 0°O' Asphalt 0' .5' ei'ob .' e2:o:bi: Welded Threaded Glued /� :. . 1 ' 000-a .\ o-a . ❑ © ❑ Fill Crushed rock 5 Seal - Liner clay silty drk. brn. v -:4' rr--.9: Y Y o, s'' �. 5'ft. ob:q;-� o;'byp' diameter - - in. some gravel in silty _ .1 �\ `aD`8D . - - R material clay matrix. ooeg. TO dz?:aqv,.\ \p:1SQr' Welded Threaded Glued a \ .❑ ❑ ❑ Sand & silt ve fine .5 10' 10' �0.. Q' �� T..,.Q ry 41 i;ao .� A\ :::. ,:. : Ft. o..Q.- II.� Well sent: mOl s t ,, -.D\ \O�'Ow Material BentOnitP 3/8a q=ci°o'.\ \%a Amount 150 1bs Gravel in silty matrix 10' 20' _q.a;0:%\ o:o o:� Grout weight 14.1 lhs. g n.ap:., a;6:t• gt /gal. wet ravel ; in Q \ " a Borehole diameter fine sand gravel in Ilk a_Do9-.\ ` `;ft ' `- — 12 R coarse sand p[003p?= ' -110^ Bentonite plug at least 3 ft thick a_a:_ ,;:; r a�,;, , — _ RECD F RECEIVED ..a.D.: eip Screen p� Filter 6:Qa•..: ';eF,s'rr; i d:: 38 QEVS*;'tr r`F—_ Material Srh 40 PVC pack wt-4, ':.'i] LT-:.::n.. ". R' -§- �:- ;:Iv o: i ate real(s), t ocr z s 1998•.4' rz D;-0.::. :.:<yy.a .P..;, Fmm 5 To 20 DEC 1 1 1998 • TO" C}6D,�:`i;Yf'4it i=':fra:Zy�DJ From To W RESuIHt&ts DEFT. °" WATER RESOURCES DEPT -2w h' cz.o'r'i:..l-:'':CiE;? _:-;"e Slot Size 020 in. aOpo..:..::: ;p;.,:,.,;.VVpoC2 Filter P ack: SALEM,OHtuuN A-EM.0ICGON 0 °oQ ""'Y2:, ':" ',F'Q,-!Q Mamie! Silira Sand Date started 9/2/98 Completed 9/2/98 IVY./.iv; :; _ ¢Q9 a Size 10-20 in ' S ,''-.'1:s! (unbonded)Monitor Well Constructor Certification: I certify that the work I performed on the construction,alteration,or -'1 WELLTESfl abandonment of this well is in compliance with Oregon well construction ❑Pump ❑Bailer - :❑Air ❑FlowingArtesian standards. Materials us.. . d infer ation reported above are true to the best knowledge: r. ief , Permeability - - 'Veld - - GPM ' MWC Number 10348 Conductivity - - PH - - Sign.. � .4.�-//�iYl - ":.7..-! ._8 Temperature of water- 550 °F/C Depth artesian now found - ft. / Was water analysis done? [ (Yes ❑No (bon.•. Moni• Y onstmemr Certification- By y 8 whom? PNL I., .,tresI for the construction.a1 6®.sir Oa ent wo . performed on r s well during the construction dates reporltenove. All Depth of strata to be analyzed. From 5' ft.to 20• ft- work performed during this rime is in compliance with Oregon well construction Remarks: standards. This j.s true to .c - k ., k�ioda�yrepelief. or r s7UUlilli7l MWC Number Name of supervising Geo logist/Engineer Mike Darling, RBRA Signe./" �Q'-- Date /a ORIGINAL&FIRST COPY-WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT SEC•1.,-D COPY-CONS RUCFDR THIRD COPY-CUSToM/k �? Ill , Apartment RECEIVED Complex 0 20 e: z DEC 1 1 1998 T: 2.3 RECEIVED (ram E: No WATRESOURCES N E� OCT 2 8 1998 x: 1.7 WATER RESOURCES DEPT SALEM,OREGON II ahal1,1 1 Store ! 1 ! ?Asphalt � 500 Callon A 1 _2 Waste Oil UST I—— i i e It--.1 l 8: 25.000 i 6.000 Gallon i i 6.000 Gallon ' T. 27.000 ,`UST I E: 2.100 _�_ I1 UST —X: 10,000 i 6.000 Gallon I j 6.000 Gallon i �J i lUST ILust I I i Al 1 Canopy IV ! L 1 talClrCWATBt ! RUN DPIECTCN i 1 ! i - 1 D i C 1 i Asphalt f! C �`— 1 iConcrete - ! Date Received. `Undeveloped - - Lot FEB 1 5 2011 MW-1 Original Submitt 8: 3,000 T: 27 ! MAIN y(�C( X 3 0 73 Monitoring Well 1 FIGURE MW-i Location and e Identification Number B: 3.000 Benzene (WO JOHN'S GAS & GROCERY, 5390 Main Street, Springfield, Oregon T: 27 Toluene (ug L E 73 Ethylbenzene (Jug/L) g/ SITE PLAN X: 380 Xylenes (uL) •... - Bergeson-8oese & Associates, Inc. Job Code: JGG01CON.98C .. Environmental Engineering C DO File:Ja001.OWG ai .r Scala r = 20' .— . ,:_ 65 Centennial boa Pro a Line .. , i ne Check ROBERT RONALD ROBINSON . . ,. . .r . • Eugene, Oregon 97401 Checkeo:ROW1tp 9eRCrsoN , - (541) 484-9484 foam 9/15/98 • LHNt 60675 •STATE OF OREGON GEOTECHNICAL HOLE REPORT a��i�2,t/a°?��l(/- oaf; - (as required by OAR 690-240-035) • (1) O WNER/PRP ,CT: le, tuber G� (9) LOCATION OF HOLE by legal description: Name' Address �� �n - �G� amity �a-►Zp Latitude Longitude- esCP + Township 7'7 N t tangc jea4S— E �.•y M g� . City _ S e o State Zip?Mg" Section __X3 N47—]l4 �$i:.e3—I/4 (2) TYPE F W Tax Lot ...—.--L or .....---Block • Subdivision'---- New ❑Deepening ❑Alteration(rcpairheconditi abandonment Street Address of Well(or nearest address - - - 467..-(3) CONSTRUCTION: — ,, f _ �.�p_ ❑Rotary Air .0 Hand Auger ❑Hollow Stem Auger • Map with location Identified must .f shed ['Rotary Mud ❑Cable Tool AKTPush Probe 00t11er (4) TYPE OF HOLE: (10) STATIC WATER LEVEL: • 6Permanent(Uncased Temporary ❑Cased Permanent jp7 ft.below land surface. Date a 73—c ❑Uncased Permanent ❑ Slope Stability ❑Other Artesian ressure P - lb.per square inch. Date (5) USE OF HOLE: (11) SUBSURFACE LOG: qq • Ground Elevation /g/ _.�Zzi.QG �' ►I / Material Descri.tion - From To SWL (6) BORE HOLE CONSTRUCTION: • Special Construction approval❑Yes l t7NO Depth of Completed Hole ,C fe. > -e } i_ HOLE SEAL I //�=r- Diamet From To K/�tata'al / From To Sacks Sacks or pounds �/� ` • �/ 01 .4C f ',�=TwzzT d r `(s //#5. r<JI rJ.0 ��2 � iii/' Date Started „ a�_ Date Completed _ - Backfill placed from r--fr to Material - (12) ABANDONMENT LOG: Filter Pack placed from---ft to ---fL Size of pack - - Material Desal.tion From To m CASINGS . Y__ Diameter From o ge Steel Plastic a ded Threaded - i �� `-s)?• O 1 �� Casing- f i ❑ ❑ • , ' t.* � ■ • ❑ ❑ th1_ealltlal�� fl0 0 • 0 �a—t[ Screen: ❑ ❑ ❑ a —�T�a7:7 _�� ❑ ❑ ❑ • INIMIllraiatgitiglidbigiialIall Slot s- Date started ..O._ Date Completed _�d__ (8) WELL TEST: • • ❑Pump ii Bailer ❑Air ❑Rowing Artesian Professional Certification Permeability 'Yield.--;---- GPM ..._____ - (to be signed by a licensed water supply or monitoring well constructor,Cr Oregon Conductivity PH �— registered geologist or civil engineer)- Temperature of water _5��� Depth artesian flow found--ft. I accept responsibility for the construction,alteration,or abandonment work performed during the construction dates reported above. All work performed Was water analysis done? Yes ❑No during this time is in compliance with Oregon's geotechnical hole construction • By whom? standards..This report is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. • Depth of strata analyzed. From - !� > ft.to /6 ". ft. Lic •-gistration Number- f� Remarks: 0, O arassWaf - -ate Signed Ids_ • sera>fi��t �r eta Affiliation <<,�..:-. .�2tre teasf . . THIS REPORT MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF r IFiterahre • \ ORIGINAL--WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FIRST COPY-CONSTRUCTOR SF;COND COPY- M 2011 • ...._ _.__A Gin../-;!esczt 00 0 2ii:, i'' 7-- -P':•, • •-!.... • 'fri .0. r .:Pt"/' .....4 ?..4. tivf.,1 4. ""-- 4a, 41441,1.71);45t-4. _ ...I :,•••-e.,- ' 1 - 1, - . .3. 4 . - 51 S •1;.'-11; ra ;11 .7 .1 1/x\ • I:: 14?,ICA54254k4,22aV it ...ice . 'an; .40.111111 te.., i... , imp ....,.. I , ..,.. •,, r,. , ,.;•., NE is ... i• i nil Ilf a fvei,/*4_ -; i-n---. t".--.1"1 , _ , ,,,,. .: • - n 11•• ) •75.4,).i34.:•1 r;; a1 t I 'heat I --. " 44.11•••• - r --04 • II . .! .4to.■••• .: :4 I Ill I....44...744T' i --4 ell rt "14;f,:. ''‘Oc-74-; 41 ,• 4'2 li ;;, ' ''.11 "..: H:.5&.:. :',22.. ,rE, l 5 . tnr--, , :.. :. : ] 5 r. by ' i--- 4-Jiaillicl- MA; ; ; ; i1144 !I -54)al 2. '-' I:: . V: 1 F. , Et : it E,4,4 „ ,) ___, _ _ 1,_ mais -1,:ssi•oti ?:..04:0::_,- .., L . . ,„ • ;NA ' 1 : . 0- 1 \ 7 - ; E36 gie.1 --I, 084 a.:!•••:4[Mislig eattit247.T.03 4:4•Nri•TO v.if-tiol •ririYe'in--11 4 ,f1, . ', : 1 L"., -of k I 407 tat:). i;:ain ir;■ittittifi Oka bi rattialignall c rstift , mr : 111 1 I Itral, in .-htz?t EA 1- --I I'' '- ' --11 . a Ly - c -i , -t i P ' ; • 4 .I• 0'',It ver904nr- 1 C. \. . :• • ' 46"1( 2..ji ‘4. - ' • .: - 83 .... 1 p., 17.. i:... ..---i 1.---Lii, ■41; (4.21'. e‘. 14 e.:._ ; / iAlrl 77----1/4;,•k ;Negras Garden j / j, . -...=.: .82 "...- .„- '34.-4.:--,g ! 2 4:„, )))2 ,---__;-_,,, _BIM_ usla...J 1,,, . I: 1 i ---9) ; '..*-4' `Tr: °ries;7266:7...: t I;ft i i• R.. • I s--1 L .1.. 1. t-iqi`.: ::-.7- g 6 '-'-...,,_'504 ‘, "., cat,' • 1 1 1 ) ' '1•4''' .; -,1-.....ta -4'• 1:•481,,7,::,: :.... :-.. t : '.1%. •. :'::.; i'IC re'," .1,--t-vil-I-c-•;s- I ' li • -'A ' '' L . ■ • --- , '.. :., : '71';..• ,',,,r ;" -r.___ 42 ",17;•?-2-- . •'?;."•i • .." ...Au " el -<4§ •‘: I! ' ' % • ' or-1" f) a”;12.-4-2I'Ll 1 - '1.49 11. ''. .. • :il:.-'... 11:. ...-- il ii - ::;l: II tc!ii..;: .-..z .- 2 " •a 5 't\1E '2 4 bv.. • ;:... 14 .1: 7 ;it._,.. • : 4 fr''''';...,--- 63 Z - n : 1, t ' 'X: '''a i ":41::' :;'''''''Cit?1; in ' r‘cltg SO ff •••.g ' •-.,!.. ;,li, 3- ' --711-•'--t*tnr----- t , a• % , . r um t.,• I' I .I” g .5/ t, \ 1 1.-•1 ) 17+clt- 1 .t. ,.. .4 ,‘' . . , , . GravOI 62 \ ■•••r. - ".lt,'" ' -...4),1 ". ; :".h: t- sq : ..-4,441?' -,44101 I!' 4- age.--=4. - 1,,, 1 €%, u-... ..- _..:.; itt. ; , . %,--. - ., c 1 .4::: ..., : -. ._\... ._ ---=,- .v • :::--. .- - - ...., -. -.t.O4i.4 - .4 c .: cf . I :::-•:-.' .•• •.: 1 '• . k -. ',, -t* '. ,•- 4°4 '„,o`:.44- .... i:.- *1 ...El 1 .)) ..' .'i I : '.; iii :C''' '.;.".:. )511 "iu '.!**.1.: . :II 'y'B'('■ .. .2. ; ; .... 1,- 'II.' , /Gra1;7It 0. . '1 . ‘ 5i...s'4.: : -• %'5°9 iY -Th\ca.9, . . . ;.;':;. " 2* t • e -AW.7 •'s1/2., _....:-:(,.1 '6r't-iiir Ti:,- ,1'..v.r.,76) r ..-ry.xiir-.;.-..f4,474: -4. ..... .. i,3, ._:. , .. im• pi,••• •11. ••• •••.rt.‘!"..E:e..‘.... .1 A I-.kth ,---.- : I 's •44' 2.4 • ' i , v,thci ' 48 .'‘4,, ...ct. '2- . :Siffh:4661:4,:,, ...•7:-.):';...... 1-f-':.:15,,,,„ •N ••• ' • 1: 5 : n f71-' I 'gni; ‘4' . A-- ,,,t. 'a--.'''''4•=t7:71:46:t . VO =1.5241232'4. 1i4t. ‘ ..:4 .." -..lrb--f i. .7 :-;' .7: NcN-L. I,:,?' -2:•=1:::.4.-fl,: ::., -C• • .11 -;- 4-7-7E---7 .1- 0./.7-6: 'A, -_,.../- -Nt:iiiE-7',..--- ----- I ,c-\ -, / - .7------\ ;\..::ti4-..-. cL:.s- €,=_.- 501._, - ..: ■. Xt;54 :: I V:• , ,- V/7-- --/6" Ca- 1/4._ -I : ,. a: . E: - \"1/4• N\.". ,. ,' lir : ', . --.. .‘•:.c." :„.:•.:.....:,2:'-'rn =,....,, I . , . ,. ., .§/// ,...,.7.„-:-.<•, _ --ciir.t> L.s,RNh -N----1:::itz7.7:.,.2-:...... •_,..., ii:{‘,,s1: -- _a_..c:,77..,-„,... .4, -• • . ; .: •, ti. 4.. i ;•-.N\\•,), -..:-27../1 \ -• \ (I ;(:.r.. ...:.:i_.;•Lf:17..:::„,::..........• ,... i.f.:.• 1....___1,7 ... .„ . 7( y..y., I i.IV: '.iy i I . :.`ee ". 4P : t•q 4:- m f/61) . / i ji, 3 I \. /;.7.-.. 7„..--... "...,. 1 " ...... ‘...‘,". ce' :,) ' ',I - n .lu. .; gP1: 1.0 a j ;-.,:. :, .`:<:;/..:[,0;547/.7 4, .,.....:,1/,,,,,,, ...±.(':, 1.t ,I . .:::::::-."\\://::::"..„,/...--9,c;,':-.. •-•,52(1:-..... 4\.,::, 1,4 ; :.i (4_4\ . .., . i . „ I; • .t1 l' If f:c.:.:...\ ., :.:‘..t.,' •. . ...;2 C Iji i f L ,,i% ) \\\ 1:*;±:::lty_ .t. ■.0)1 V.,: .. I, :; .‘j.-11 7 ‘ ig ) if ...,. . . ,:,,..2:,--29-,,,i V.s4f:'.....& \\'■: \4., -7-'-if-,-7--1:.'‘N- 7:- \sir:- i -c <1'4;4' :-.7'-'-,-.. . . \I - I i ‘, I, \ - ,i ,,-:-.7-r.,_-_ I k", \\. ..:\. \ -----) ..-___-.-:4,-,, , , /,,,_.i....4.,.., • . , • , \. -,ta r .., 1 i } I • r .." e -NEtElVg ) b , 1.„-r,, , ; i 'e 11 7.r. h ) z---.41.T-i )))/ r., Ai' IVit.'---Ne? I 1. 11 1 . 1 '..\\,fr. • ---,-?.. ga: I -,-;-,,s...ti ), --.3.1/ cc-,-(:: ---(fr- ,1,1697f2 f: _:")....,::::;,- --i- A...„i„ .\.: ,..;6\‘ :--(0.7ti:, ().,:gtt,„...FERBEs211IR Zfigi 4 % CESTEP_I__, n: _ a SALEM, . REGQ ( - ti:X,' ....'•\. \ --,`: ''' ,i I I (Irifti.,,,./...-.:',1, ...._.„,-,--'`..."`-,tc:ct. iiiric).)) ) )1 \.. )nip 1. 73 .;:rei!ra-t 1,..r:.:•::::...:\ \ -.,.::-:‘,miti a k , kr---.fr- /.// /,4"-:-.:._.:--..y.o\\ ic it ( f(*," 04 . 4.... „. \ \ i I' • ,c, ,, --If.„.4-.. ''- ---;14.. -,Fteceiveci: N. nz 1350000 FEET 503 57'30" 5G4 ILO ' - ' '; ul 1 1506 1471 IV NW • !Geological Survey ._ ' •- * .,,, OrWAttl ci•;66gtal Oregon i from aerial GM AtIV 2 0 . 1967 . ..,.. MO D le00 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 li ____,, -. zan datum o'er 1 19. 1 o 1 MIL 330 MILS ate System. STATE OF OREGON • LANE 69549 • Page 1 of 1 WATER SUPPLY WELL REPORT 04-21-2009 WELL LABEL#L 1 101202 • (as required by ORS 537.765&OAR 690-205-0210) START CARD# 11006620 1 (1)LAND OWNER Owner Well ID. (9)LOCATION OF WELL(legal description) First NameBRUCE Last Name PETERSEN County lane Twp 1700 S N/S Range 700 W E/W WM Company Sec Address 41852ND PLACE 11 NE 1/4 of the 5µr 1/4 Lot Lot 2400 City SPRINGFIELD State OR Zi Tax Map Number Lot p 9747 Lat "or DMS or DD (2)TYPE OF WORK®New Well ❑Deepening ❑ Conversion Long "or DMS or DD ❑Alteration(repair/recondition) Abandonment 07.Street address of well ( Nearest address • 3 DRILL METHOD 418 52ND PLACE SPRINGFIELD,OR 97478 Rotary Air ❑Rotary Mud ❑Cable ❑Auger ❑Cable Mud • ❑Reverse Rotary Other (10)STATIC WATER LEVEL Date SWL(psi) + SWL(ft) Exi (4)PROPOSED USES Domestic ❑Irrigation ❑Community sting Well/Predeepening Completed Well ae-m-7nne Elndustrial/Comznericiai[J Livestock❑Dewatering - flowing Artesian? ❑Thermal ❑Injection ❑Other ❑ Dry Hole? ❑ WATER BEARING ZONES Depth water was fast found 19 (5)BORE HOLE CONSTRUCTION Special Standard DAttach copy) SWL Date From To Est Flow SWL(psil + 2 i Depth of Completed Well 58.00 It 1)4-70-2009 19 58 11 MIME BOREHOLE SEAL sacks/ III Dia From To Material From. To Amt lbs i� 10 0 19 remrnt 0 19 11 S S 6 19 SR ■- (11)WELL LOG Ground Elevation How was seal placed: Method D ❑B NC ❑D ri. Material From To ❑Other TOP SOIL 0 1 BackEll placed from ft to ft Material OAM 1 3 Filter pack from ft to ft Material Size GTRAVEL WITH SOME CLAY 3 .58 Explosives used [Jfes Type Amount (6)CASING/LINER Casing Liner Dia + From To Gauge Sd Piste Wld Thrd . . CO=. 6 X 2 58 25 [OZ• ❑ ME L • tab L Cite W *Xi i - NU WA L - Shoe®Inside ❑Outside El Other Location of shoe(s) 5R Temp casing❑Yes _ Dia From To _• (7)PERFORATIONS/SCREENS Perforations MethodNolte Air • - Screens Type Material Perf/S Casing/Screen - Scm/slot Slot it of Tele/ Date Started creep Liner Dia From To width length slots pipe size 04-20-7009 Com leted P 04-20-2009 Pert' liner 6 •17 56 175 1 200 (unheeded)Water Well Coestruntor Certification _ I certify that the work I performed on the construction,deepening,alteration, or _ abandonment of this well is in compliance with Oregon water supply well construction standards. Materials used and information reported above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief (8)WELL TESTS:Minimum testing time is 1 hour License Number 1776 Date 04-91-7009 O PumP 0 Bailer () Air O Flowing Artesian Electronically Filed • Yield gal/min Drawdown Drill stem/Purno depth Duration(hr) Signed DOUG!.AS O TUCKER(F-filed) 11 51? • 1 (bonded)Water Well Constructor Certification I accept responsibility for the construction, deepening, alteration, or abandonment work performed on this well during the construction dates reported above. All work Temperature sg °F Lab analysis❑Yes By performed during this time is in compliance with Oregon water supply well Water quality concerns? DYes(describe below) construction standards. This report is true to the bay kg gin.,apo Alr From Tn • Tlescriptino Amount _ Units License Number 1541 Date 04-21-7009 C7 - _Electronically Filed Signed CASEY JONES IR IF-filed) FEB 1 5 2011 - Contact Info(optional) ORIGINAL-WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT - ^/�,�. „„,,..'' :HIS REPORT MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF COMPLET1919&''Y40RICUN°711Y(aI Form Version: 0� 8—9 • 0E1;1 • TESTING 8IIISPECEION INC: Geotechnical&Construction Services September 21,2010 • Ms. Janet Lobue Project No.:2107120 University of Oregon Report No.: E-26687 1276 University of Oregon Eugene, Oregon 97403 Re: UO Allen Hall Material Testing University of Oregon Campus • Eugene, Oregon • • Dear Ms. Lobue, • Attached are the results of the testing performed by our representatives on the existing wall materials at the above referenced project an September.14&15,2010. The testing program included brick mortar shear strength and epoxy anchor tension testing in the 1922 • building and laboratory compression testing on fifteen (15) concrete cores obtained from the walls of the 1954 building,as outlined in email letters from kpff Engineers dated July 20 and August 17, 2010. We trust the attached information meets your current needs. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact our office at 541-684-3849. Sincerely, Michael y L.. M ey • Vice-President ■ Attachments: brick shear tests—1 page anchor tension tests—1 page • compression tests—1 page floor plans—3 pages . hydraulic ram calibrations-2 pages Date Received: pictures—separate PDF attachment • • FEB 1 5 2011 TBG Architects—John Lawless(email) • Original Submittal Kpff Engineers-Josh Richards(email) • MLM:sc This report and/or enclosed test data is the confidential property of the client to whom it is addressed and pertains to the specific process and/or material evaluated. As such,information contained herein shall not be reproduced in part or full and/or any part thereof be disclosed without FEI Testing &Inspection,Inc.'s written authorization. 750 NJJCorrr.B Avenue Comas,Oregon 97330-phone(541)7574698 fax(541)757-2991 29540 B Airport road-Diger°,Oregon 97402 Thor°(541)6843849 fax(541)684-3851 62979 NE Plateau Drive,Suite 3•Bend,Oregon 97701.phone(541)3824844•fax(541)362-4846 • • a . R dw . t c 0 mnNmmm8v °D m co 0 .0 , „ Nmcoco ° � ° E • c ; c o .5 Cn c • d m co • E E2 • N N N C 3 c c p = m v E in- c c c0 R C N 'mD V CMO N OOCNpro O E .115 E o N A J O co ° Ln co V an rV co w m m S . .O y O v d N � • • N c. c > _ o O L 'fl C O N Cu (V ' Q O p co D) W U Cc 0 E U) U C O O)O O) N C as CpV co 0 t p [O NV C a m C w > C a a) 4 O O CO.) N .4- .r) N p L m § N jp coo o to0 uo g o o o o N a J v c m Rd 2 = CD ms�r A coco ttoo r 0 - NON C O O N " � N C ,C J N C c c p _ O U 0 6 N•0 d d U o to w C • CO C I _ v F cmW `003`0 a) 0 C'0 = a 'O U) c 0 p') O CV N .0 .53 V- w N 0 0 0 0• N en � N ca ° "p 0 0 0 y c O 0Vi C = C O V CO O CO O O V' N C Ul j N N p > > > d O U WO co m0 co 000? o 0 co .o0 0 0 > as Q -1 c cci o o co (0 0 0 co � 0 o a) co o m 0 n> _.- � � mmmmmtpm m > N - RO1� = co N G7 g b m U< < < l 1 j LO r CO r N C7 N E EE E CO . 0 E O O O p c 0 E y �vmc000chC�+ c*) c � ooQ2ppopo N .- N N Cq N r N N N- _ _ _ to O co X N X X N X N r x co Go c0 — O l0 C0 3'ifi 0 3 0 .0 'N L co X V x X N X 2 3 3 L 3 3 3 3 C n .a co co vcov xco x s t .c� r d 0 C M CO of co X c X V co "O O O CO O O O O N < N•'� X ct7 X X V X N X X C U c o N C c N N it 0 d Q r CO a- r N r CO m « 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Qm CO CO CO CO O N N N N 0 N _ — _0 _0 X X X X X . . W W W W WC C C C i� • O M Q (V Cr7 V' LOCo1- N0) Z Nc7 V mmf� mCA F Z (n Cn CO CO • W (..0 (W (AIn in COCn CO CO F- Date Re•eived: FEB 152011 . c 2...-^d 2 ubmittaI a) a) • 0 w c .0 N C 0) 3 3 r r: __ 0 0E • N c E T.) c CO N0 - CO CO 0 N m ,k va -oa 'oa 0c 4-) o -o- w (`') a 3 a) m a) o d mw a) 2 t- a) � � co o 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y 0 Y 0:a � �+ 0 c C C C C C C O C O C C - m a) ccccccncnic co d 3 O O O O O O O O O 0 == = o royammmm • m " Vm O ' 03 N g g E E 2 Y 2 Y m E 0 E o c° (Y.. —O O O O 4 N w Ii.0 4- C X > o CI C C 'O V v 'O '00 '00 O '00 O a)'00 T 0) > a) N C 3 0 o o o o o o c O c 'n o 0 0 c U > o N R' c c c c c c c p c a s = c- w 0 0 0 0 ) O '(p .0 '(6 ,o o a) 0 O 0-0 a) N� 00000o -co. L I o o -- 0`) 0 C 3 o w CO (`6 (`0 m m m 20 m ' +, m N a) 0 O -0 > O O I' a) N N a) N N -'0' "0-' 0 S O c 01'- N O W 0 0 0 0 0 0 oc 0 CC 3 0 n x (Oa m > c CO ZZZZZZ OZ O� Z �� O vo.0m o —° a) m o o 0 C N Ct 9 m 9 Q m (a Y Cl) E' j = -0 a0 - ' I X '5 2 = (n 0 Q co C M" -yam 0 a) -0 ow 0 '� Om c0 ac 0 oY , CO « ...9 a) cm 0 2 Z � � W m 0E)0c me h- m 0' I o Oooco 3 E E 0 Ctl CO c r a R N 8 o ° O 0 O 0 = Ca o o 0 o O.Or w co a F -0 n w N 0 0 = 2 0 o . p c a) 0 03 > > > > a) � c 0 0 0 > c c▪ CO O O co 1.12 0) 0)) C m c (a ( fa m@ 0 0 -c —I13 000000000 ° 0 O E 1� C ?`mo ` ,- r m m 0 a C 000000000 ° 0 Cc d' NON I N I I LO C Q m O MMM CO M to M co M �.n y I I p (pm � I MQ■0. O_ N m i 'O� 4- N - (o v-0 c') • Q y% coa))� � NENE („ 2E c r E , E E E o E o E o c 0 E o 0 0 0 0 o a_ o o *. o822 � " 4- " w `o O m o _ 0 _ 0 -0 3f03 To— 3m3m § 3 o co 5 a). rN5c3w3t30 0 E. Omoow = a) = iyw 0 co 0 a) C m W C m o 3 N 3 0 C a C r-N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O 0 c o 0 0 o O o 0 o O 8 O a (0 to (0 to u) in to (n � Lc) m 'c 'c.c 'c. •c a• �- m (o (O (O CD CD CO CO C.0 co im-1 � "O 0 0 a) Xc�o5 aWi 0 a`) N N o m `o 0) r 3 LLJWWW CCCCCyiW .0 CO x C a) . U 'v 3 0 m -00 m Li C m z • 0 O ea N c0 C y0 na e• f^m.` Z 0 ; y 0 r r 0z mmommmmmmmm I- F F ��,�� FE. I origin a; outs;.....v_________.. • • r O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O u ,- C) V 0) 0 N. CO 0 N CO Cl) N 0) N d a) co r- co co u7 r` N V -O r r O r N c �. C) 04 00 CO C) N N C) CO N M N V N CO o O 0 d (NI a) O C O C o 0 D O O O co to O O to co O O co co O- O to o . u •1+ co N. a) V O V CO IN 0 0 O) N- O CD E y 0 a a) o) a) a) o) 0 a) a) 0 0 0) a) o a) i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r ,— o o r o a o u_ o) c 1 to m d c O y 0)• 0 co r N t0 O N N- 0 0 0 N CO 0 N to i c W 0 CO a) O LO CO V 0 N O N C W CO N N IN O r- u) CO CD O CO u) CD CO r N- CO O. Q d V co C) co co N CO CO CO N C) N V N CO E N U o y coy U c I— co V) v Q 0 I g o7 9 V u7 O u) O O to 0 CO u) 0 0 LO 0. to r0 .Q i— C cO C O V co in co V c0 N CO O) 0 V V _ CO 0 CO N- N CO 0 1- CO 1- a) co O O co .c C O — •V to a) co co N. co a) co V to r . O g J O CO N CO N CO CO CO N V N CO N CO CO V N N y � _ my d 0 rn� . O O .d. > a • V _+ a) r) co 0 o rn co to Cr) o O o CO Lo o co m o 4' TO L r CO 0 u) N co I- CO u) CO O r N O co u7 U E L fl- m C V ui O V O u7 V u) O O O c0 u) O O b N O O Q.-J — t0 V O O C to 6 I 7 o U .N To m a) co 3oc 3 = 'c m .42 o O a o U L in Ca O C w 'O th 0 O to co 0 O to tO to 6 to O co O u) co N CD C L to N 0 u) CO N N- 1- N N to CO to N r b b . ?� C v u 0 v m r v I D of ri 0) CD y E E o ai J _o co N O X Va fa a) O W nau) � E) 2 Pi o 0 888 L. r y i/ 41 0 t0 u) tO N u) O O to O to O to t0 O O m o d L N N - N N N O O N O N O N N O O O 0 0:9 = , C) C) CO C7 CO V V CO V C7 Ti c`') t0 V Ti Z c a w _c L Date Received: Q7 O Z r N i (V r N CV 3 O O a+ N O t4 o O O O a) a) N N N 4J oc Z co co � J � ; ; N N _ FEBt52011 original Submittal • • ./ Iarmuay Pee xoesrp£0 uisaanwn OWL'Wll sane ugsueaa3 AFHPaptl .t=.94lt:elms 0 1 ® HDA u61sa0 anewriPS martial,'Aymauun load O1,1130 t 13A31 Q e N W� 9 z e e S O . r. — A III .. w . k 0, is !I v w z l� Co ' J __ I 3 .°o 0 0 r a r°w arc nil '"�' -�- •I o "rc 0 aan zi z Tiz 3� W i o ■ 3 3E2 Ill° I�I e � � Z >o go a o Oh O r1 __ W mw k' €xu--T w��rLL� :o r . . f.<p o°= = q op 7 i Z a OP oG3 q+,o © - -1 I R: r Ill F r. rc'a1' yb it ,o n d z 3t I r �z C� Uo rco of 2P mF .3 f- rk-l..ci- W zo monk'? K°w i u� `m< in pi __' r F 8 m w oa: 06°66 66 tI! 13,v ,:n:.:::: __N co 13 — r ti . l P1 Ij i ; use I _yyi`4 _ all I ._1 .1--- . -i_ ____d jef r , ° � rr� r«, I „ I' ,,saC " �e a-I..k q_Pt[ g\f- V! y_, j=" I I 1 pi r i I i e ,r .33 _—_ 7� p 8 AI. @ � _'.j ® - I _All_ 1 '32 rt8 Jl . 1 4 1 I I I I I! I ' I I j I ' .... � o p o _ o .. '6 i?) .....• coatekeceitted: 10 o� ^r! • Original 1. b.-.4 T-- . I.N.el P,. (V rlmno iO ALSr5A1110 1 0 140A+OIU u8RY0 nntleps uw ><3 g/H uegy ,l=-g Lit:ors 0 'l�l�� LP 0 in AINa^Wf1 Mild OW30 i 13M13'1 < O 2eD 0 a W w gg [(� Y 2 Y / jI • M I n I I0 v , C W if �A 1 [i/ I ° 22W E tej i.�] 9a e1 y l pjyQp�$� i \1� �WNy _ ZW�O 222 aF2�F$ g T{- — 3 '^ V z ?rpy V~ W�pp,p m V WW°O 0- Y 6•VI © !. i ——ry� r4 + III Z 1W-N 2g,Cya Q2 rdin 1t W¢rc N6e, ,7,.�0 Ng OF?c°� m w I e'S ; --I £ ' }I ;E`-,Ft, .- 1 I I 1 I- i I Bj ,: ii I is ai ' 11 ; 1 E ..11 I II IF t I I rill i � ` `tnr..ml 1 m i I' F 1 I I ; g11u 1 >= j 1 r I u 1 I 5 a !'.5 j H!4—� IlIII i i i , III gg pp k iil 7 9a a da ' I ii ii'i q . f„,t1___3 f___ ::_rip- 4 ,,....O l - it-S-ter'..J.—__J�.M�_�_ __�- —L._.1_i•L .—.-/ -i`____�_ ._. { 1 Ij �� .11 11 1 1 10 i I 11 I I ' I I I I j ry w,n u } 1 • 1Me ., e _ n a oNY i©000Q Date Rcccived: . FEB 15. 2011 Original Submittal cc 1eeowe8 Oue otOZ'Vltt eunr upvedl9 HRH uoIN ',l.SN1:sins cp. ■oono ad AUSesnum I 0 HDA+Dal Area 2peweWS ue6ao Jo%yveN•fl Nvt301+130 cis Q ze . = 1 1 Y 3 e e IL 0 F; i; r �` u w o OF, 1 I: 7 W . p , . _ -- z aW � ;H I. „ L r pa P. w 0 �� 3wa �z q 0 3 g u Lll '_• :, "-I:, . I I 1= it W a'g WwP.�Cgy az tEpj�j N ppLi y Vy J Ew 'F�rupOO rafl in Fz Za 3 CO 4F I'<o iii. fl 2 III I. 1111���I I- F- U to w it O � � a I ; o k I - I m O - — :- 4.1.' ' - i SO ' e le - - . I" 'ol ti; I .• W IO � .••.^te Il= = I 114,1 i I 19 i 14 I �1 I c 4 Ii k�' I'✓ 3-1. 1 rd:: L � � I l I. ie I MR —: I 0 -... s :_ 1_ I 1 1 I II iI II I to n° I _ 1 H O _ O m O < 1 0.:#41*:/_ce d: FFR15211 .1 Original Subn-la ti -'---.. S . Pt5 'y.. aa:� �, as .t .MS �w r� 3 t_ .:. 4,„ I7a r411.541 brit' I�. d t ''0-' - ikkr`a l� � t Lfiar EE Ct I uc 1.f r ]mot 3 n �` _ J ���FFF.I yl el (� fk 1'” �` + x d „ i`;1rs'Lyk[,'13 I t %iir[ ,{' •t ii, n ® 5 r rJ� iliS` H 3-i hr i i h e.1(P:amp(ill; ke•:- �' S.1 �;.q, ti�Eg 3�i SFr � irti i F1, K [n r # F q T 4 tk N t ri-4kir r l e]lrki'� 4.1 1.; M 1,13r -i>.0C,ryr�r %k0:9i tH2-7 tV 11 t 1� � y L : G pit 1� n '�G Afp 77xy �It 4F 7 tit F'p d U" 7,; 'L1 ��� 3 € E I � l r �.� ri a un7g2s 4 rt �,�t. 9 � -Iyr �c ' uc ': 1 {r.ul j� Y 1 i t.i {. r r t hF i �! c s I r tat N �4 t r1 N i qt F'{ F. 11}{w„i (, 4rlpr riq , tv,F�rtFF)t�f+!' Ft,,. :I i 1 i ��1 4�� .,. 41r;fiy.,E$1 �FzGW:, E 4 9000 1r„IF ,t t 1y �i 4� � dtIF.�42 ' ��ti ]fro 1rtrr' r k.{ pe 4 it 3r.uC� 5 1 i',p tl iP't74+{"�1, irF' ,r3 i yitko s.�j+eLv r. oFf 'Ih�, � . - t�t,F fr r { el , ;`c' }ril f l I 1llirt it dii kit iti iilg it'I` :4.14” wl'� rat a+cn1it r e.1 ; ". • • • ;11107,` 'I'x�ng tzi 1 " Q �h�E slIr� gr�� rJT ry' �'C ��e�i2-tT ri.tit� }I'.. o, ik Ep "'l x"21 F�Lr �e .� 28000 p . �ir ��C�') hk- E �y r4.i t-f i ‘1.416.4 4e,FiF k i4 5 S r E tta Fn vt Cc tk i 1; 1. -14L 41 NI fl o- t a.J tt( d1 *r 1 >M 1N•. r4'5 '1, R tay4 r`T 27000 f ( G 1: r �a J r Y � 3 ���.;a f ,,,,��,, J FY7 t L 1 ai � S J i , � tl 1 ,s R o { FyH' li aE 'a:411:�`�T #t�li'� j1 ',1 [ 5 •• x€k F71G ,.e i,�S a 1 S Si i 1 xL �' 42 5 C 4.v r ; i; F �ia s€s p�� L 26000 � � f 3 i � G 7 .. 1 e RF � �€x1J,It. I' #{;� 1 sy J!pT19 z i,Iti'xE 3C� `I- r kFn y,C' - ' t �r �°`'� 4 ' 25000 I4 i 1 i 1 r a ' T& ? i s t,-91.5:1' 1 ai ' ptmo d y a 1 r ' �p 7�4 E ep-. ,v ( �h 4 tr y't v k e :a 24000 w w ] r J , k7 �Ihny gr 1 a �i ; ' '9tril lia d �] d I >,z�� 1 d 6 s It " 1 FALL `d_x r is to *'G. a )r F 1� `'11 7411,.:,.:,:.r r I E , 05i i .: �r1 �I ' r.-,1,ii 3 �hlj qp �c1 23000 * a k J Jr - 1 " jt4 I i 4 f-I'11 1 a i' �t�t, t ,+ 4 a ppF-1 . • !1 1 i et F r ,1.4a ir` `Lprq,�' UMW*r f f: ' 0 ilr'' �w ', '`3 F :' PHr. t'NI'fj .O• lhti.' 22000 41h r J J k Erik 73 xL��yi � � t� t, 4 Sri y 4 z ! [ t4 1 i.. i1 F a J ki 17 �� ,�i� FC i e . .:,,,,Ali, 1' 4 tar +.J i 7 1 411 lau H )k 1 h ltk G � ,. I r7 b,7VF . 21000 }frc 1 ° r +tr1 1 `� III F t r r} S18u 'pad a�Y yi911 7� J s r x 4he`'I FF Si d4 �.,ir i d ry s s I h Yry 7 P { i s 45'.1117 a 1111 t l l lg n 'f F ^ t 2 � � } { b- �4' � j! ��� 1 r 3. i � x h I 1 4 r' 20000 „ ( t r 11 , !, �` rla .,,s L F 'W�; dh �y t1 r i ' ! i Ky 1 s } ��{� -0 rr � J t x F to F �n � 4 a� 7, � >, is a,. ; J4eY � r. 1' I tt TMv l Wrrj4 4" Vyox-{ 9� rjj ; r 1019a 1r , . tt� A 41 19000 [ ,( ' df t} >t 1 11 P I S:4 1, 4.s. (' rtii k l 4 Y ±141,r 1-u 177.," � 1 E 7 j 4.r E 9 r'fl,-t tit. F s1 1J*�iv� t 'A 1 1 73.1 a g C -,A 4 t -r3''r4141 011 '><11f. 18000 Ya r' i.�r `S.ILZCa a-ef -11 a co J 1y ,t [w ,s'x7 U tl a ��`��f N LJ�7 � �{�L ., C I c, yt"■n� Ce 1 t 11 1 st? 'i-x� a ,: d J Er�1 J r P t f i3€] L �b e� 8r 17000 tl Ii 44.3 141 1' J e ihi _r 14-'i,'. ' 4p '�L [{� {{{ t M Y rG r1" �' J FI 1� 1 [-5{ } dr R/ " ii r 4G S� . 1 4 µ3 2J Li 1 i 4 .rig 16000 V v �'a1 0 i.fip40rf it at tt°ivr zFt- 1 tx taixy fal trir tl.l ,01�4,4 ;IFd 1 3 Teri G a r 1 FI- (. �. t s■i L : r IUI'i� Et} ii eR-a e a.1d 11 : - ,i di K : i.41R 311 ' M .. (' � r 15000 � t9 a 1 tr I ll. I.tl F. a� Z f1 Hk6l' 91 ;1 V it i i i t g 1 .0 L 4 i J1 Try 71 i ar 4,h ' d xrt€.b"+ ti 1 � 1 J t rc i Ir r �J 6 a I it li f1 I 191 tE Iwo tlla�.4 a dF ��'I . ! 11Jtf: �8l1y 1It1C4 5t1Jdrv . 9uv } 4.43/4' 14000 'O -a a J 15LI 14 r1 X41 J I� J �l 7 tr €1r '1 i LI x444 a f 3 i4 �d : a >. f i s ai 1, 7ph 1 i' 1 rl4,l -. i'1, FGt I �4` _ s Z 1 ?B I,� I I ti y h4... 1 1%r tt. * utt' 'f ci br 11 F1 C , i _�r l 9 pp i Il` t m j 13000 O { 3F 1, L r �.a 1+ S-'1 f 11 i v1ik� I I q , tl ,1 ,Dzi�"b.1E �i 3� �i tB l i 11 C F P,3,tb �''' J w 1 l fii t6.. 1 9 it p 6 d t' t 3 �ti {{ G.Ul h Ea i- a l 12000 4 C I� z � j s If g �a, f lJ� ^-Fi f 1¢ }w d '3 �J 9� 1s,F O p.' 1I 1 �I.. - <It'qq tl` ] L W-i 1 '1 bi' { Trl er `GS v 1 .10,4. 3 ,a,p L tl �!V yr'Jk €" 1 1 1 k F Gay ] : ..rir f c C 4 er i n-G7 - X49? :1; 1 :21*-:C T3ay di.a 3v rr 00 k r u, k ,}u�n-.- ,1:1 r 11000• O B r:1 l < - ak ii t I uu i., ,�p... u -)- C a: p' ' MFI s is NE'l fc F R 4 f 5'AVii rites '� 1 t d( {h F'te ,13. t a)-4.- Fit ` S' ag # iT M� q1 eif¢1 ?r-�4.t, 10000 4} rt' 'i ',l 41,1. 'I. [' J rly=�`G rP S �I wl F 3.i 1 y M��kKU4 r'1 IIIYS :1 I4 r 9000 i �U c A' , fJ ki>_ Ik�a"1�Fj. t iH �- ,{. r x 14 i 1tF 4gaF , ski '.. 6`,t : r i t r 1'1 i l ii x f{-, is Ent ��� Fa 111 � ,1i r l r�a 7F 1 8000 16 Arid; PT:J 9i r Ili �iiit� ti& kL J k1 1 x`1381 rJ>✓ 4 1 511k V�q�� tf1 C f1, ra k �t i U H 1:1,:::0 JrF 1 r JSJ1l It:F P l ; rXf, 4'elrr EJ42C.1 y 111 nM yiJ ii F1 r ')11i 'g J 1 7000 • ifrztfle;04! J i 11 i` 7 i) 'II "I a, j rtq 4I� C ( , r v d J:tt^ r � It`t 13ji I r: 1 4 .,i11 x ,f " a ['i 2�1 E �t s" 1 s k 11: LNE lddd} r t ,3333E 6000 Ilit 1 cll gg 1,.. 3s 1 It111 f r l 4 a1fE1 ,R. 4i l{tl i� 1 , q .,1:, w9pH si�`- w� 0140( 1� e1 1IP r '+ � ai f ' a ty IS r � rT _a lad r ! I�q�+ r i � f 4�fs e ��' 5000 J�s ' ' �r''�GL 'ti 'a h�i t9 ' �fl a'lfni0GPi.f �1J . DL ' ?Olt tIft rei'vtsf 9 r 1 &e cti 1'I} r E� f 1a.r1 !1 a i "'klair 1 Jt , :4.4:1 4 ;+ - .C�� i$ i fI1s I, 4000 B'O1 Ifi �`'! c� ' 1 4Fy }�1, l� , 1�l 6 i C� k$ ri c errta Ilw S }a Vc tl r 1 il ?rt Ifr i 5o. a el s fk: •- Po -', ffal' f r. 1 J 1 ° tl{ Itl a' €I t�'.i9iN 5 I . 1 c i1F - s 1 '.Fff l i t'><ci-A e1 w i i "17.k.- „ �.. b 1 , ..,,_ 9 .t 3000 i lr @ 11w{ 9 xzry e a 5 4 a � � �fj, ^,tt-�.IS i � �I "a -, e .,...V.4.*�l 3bl fr m , . ]L }r e£� s d � 2000 ! I” 1'' i c� 3 .e'I {h � k 9 yrc i ) Pl a 1 ht rTg ki r� 4 ,I Fe,� I r ,33,r`�t� J a� 1 i a 11 it%r rJ .r>t 5 aJ7� 1 e e . a t L 7 1 o c vvf of "J 1 r� 4 b 'p lit �- a �-h 1000 ' lir ' F f ri . J[P e � 6,i4 f '11.41181 P"d7 ' .+fie t S y t Gc"4 ti �.= I I .0 �ti_..L }. .atr-Y"ra_5.5__ ! 1.._. uiJx._i� 4 tl tdi�. .tr b "> .v� .� , 0 O O O O o '.O o M cr N O 0 CO 0 • . • (isd)amssaid 0611E0 • E !:)afteEBRie!e2roivi.:• rn 600 rn C m o o o o o o o o o o 0 o o o o o o o o o o = D O O N { L O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I� N O r- - j +.+ o 00 OON ? o co O N V' COCO O N 'I' CID NON V NNO C Q �NV COc0 „ „ 1— NNNNNMMMMM 'V 7V 7Vi0 � � � OON �o ¢0 0 Q..M co aoNO ooNNOU MMOOin0Ntorn000 � toOO Q(jgin atSubmt. C fP W 7 0 N (O O V cu R n o 4] r r n 1!] O co n v t0 N # U r f` N N O O N CO O N CO N CO N C J ,- N M <Y � N � � rot__ NM �. Nr N O) No, it: N N N Ni.0 O V d W aa � CD � • • • STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN AND DRAINAGE STUDY FOR 51St-52d & Mai. . -et Redevelopment OPTION A Springfiel. , • • February 15, 2011 Prepared For. <c PRoress� TBG Architects f4� 9 2 132 E. Broadway, Suite 200 /& `3e Oj Eugene, OR 97401 d /> ✓e•EGON` Q �F '1/' o9,20(3\ %RYA• 14° • Branch Engineering, Inc. EX°/2_3,/—/2 310 5th Street Springfield, OR 97477 Phone (541) 746-0637 Fax (541) 746-0389 ��� Branch Engineering, Inc. � Branch Project#09-159 Date Received: FEB 15 2011 • Original Submittal • ' 11/17/2010 12: 09 FAX 541 w 21 CITY OF SPRINGFIELIi*_ ZI 002 • SPRINGFIELD r b': ! 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(a3 Clay of Springfield Public Works Engineering,'Fax# 736-1021,Phone#736-1035) Project Name: OBO Enterprises,LLC Applicant: Branch Engineering Assessors Parcel#: 17-02-33-32 TL 6200& 6300 Date: 11/03/10 Land Use(s): Community Commercial (CC) Phone#: 541-746-0637 Project Size (Acres): 1.5 acres Fax#: 541-746-0389 • Approx.Impervious Area: 1.07 acres Email: greg(n�branchengineering.com Project Description(Include a copy of Assessor's map): 1.5 acres site with two commercial buildings near Main Street and a 15 unit apartment building to the south of the commercial buildings with associated landscaping and parking facilities. Drainage Proposal (Public connection(s), discharge location(s), etc. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary: West side of the site will drain toward 51'I Place and connect to the existing storm line in the street. The east side of the site will drain toward 52iu!Street and connect to the existing storm line in the street Proposed Stormwater Best Management Practices: Infiltration basins and planters will be used on-site with overflows and trapped catch basins. (Area below this line filled out by the City and Returned to the Applicant)— •.(At a minimum, all boxes checked by the City on the from and back of this'sheet shall be submitted _:for;ort application to be complete for submittal, although other requirements.may be necessary.)(; Drainage Study Type (EDSPM Section 4.03.2): (Note,DTI may be substituted for Rational Method) ❑ Small Site Study—(use Rational Method for calculations) V. Mid-Level Development Study—(use Unit Hydrograph Method for calculations) ❑ Full Drainage Development Study—(use Wit Hydrograph Method for calculations) Environmental Considerations: Wellhead Zone: Hillside Development: Wetland/Riparian: Floodway/Floodplain: t /P irde Soil Type: 1 I9 —Lt 1444n ( ail 'Other Jurisdictions: ODD Downstream Analysis: oar Date Received: '! N/A ❑ Flow line for starting water surface elevation: FFR 1S 2on ❑ Design HGL to use for starting water surface elevation: ❑ Manhole/Junction to take analysis to: Return to Matt Stouder p, City of Springfield,email: mstouder(a3cl..springfield.or.us,FAX; (541)736-1021 RPvic.ri 11110100 9 of 10 11/17/2010 12:09 FAX 541 + ?1 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD • 1 )003 COMPLETE STUDY ITEMS For Official Use Only: 141;c Based upon the information provided on the front of this sheer, the following represents a minimum of what is needed for on application to be completeJbr 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 r: n 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. ❑ 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). n 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. • n If a stormwater treatment swats is proposed,submit calculations/specifications for sizing,velocity,flow,side slopes, bottom slope,and seed mix consistent with either BES or CWS requirements. n W• ater Quality calculations as required in Section 3.03.1 of the EDSPM • ❑ A• ll 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) at ❑ 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. n Calculations showing system capacity for a 2-year storm event and overflow effects of a 25-year storm event. • I 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) ❑ if. 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). ❑ E •Elevations of the FROL and flow lines for both city and private systems where applicable. Design of Storm Systems(EDSPM Section 4.04) nr�1 Flow lines,slopes,rim elevations,pipe type and sizes clearly indicated on the plan set. ❑ [& 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 be sufficient to support an 80,000.1b. .. load without failure of the pipe structure. .. - n 44 Manning's "n"values for pipes shall be consistent with Table 4-I 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. Other/Misc n Existing and proposed contours,located at one foot interval. Include spot elevations and site grades showing how site drains ▪ n Private stormwater easements shall be clearly depicted on plans when private stormwater flows from one property to another ❑ rs 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.deo.state.or.us/wq/mmundwn/uichome.hcm for more information: • ❑ Detention ponds shall be designed to limit runoff to pre-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 • *IMPORTANT:ENGINEER PLEASE READ BELOW AND SIGN! the engineer of record,I hereby certify the above required items are complete and included with the t,,t,,a eiidgrdy and plan set- Signature: Date: FEB 1 5 2011 Original Submittal • Revised 11/19/09 10 of 10 • Storm Drainage Evaluation 51Q-52nd Et Main Street Redevelopment - Option A Introduction This evaluation was prepared to summarize the drainage system proposed for the 51st-52nd & Main Street Redevelopment Option A. This storm drainage evaluation will determine the type and size of water quality/quantity facilities that are acceptable to the City of Springfield. The 51st-52nd & Main Street Redevelopment is located on the south side of Main Street and east of 51st Place and west of 52"d Street in Springfield, Oregon. The proposed project site is comprised of two tax lots, TM17023332 TL 6200 and TL 6300. Existing Conditions The existing site is bounded by Main Street to the north, 51st place to the west, 52"d Street to the east and residential to the south. The site consists of an existing building, a burned down existing building, driveways and landscaping. The impervious surfaces consist of roofs. The pervious surfaces consist of landscaping. According to the Soils Survey of Lane County, Oregon, by the Natural Resource Conservation Service, the soil at the site is Salem Urban Land Complex (Soil Number: 119, Hydrologic Group: B). Refer to Appendix A for soils map information. Proposed Site Conditions The proposed project includes two new commercial buildings, three buildings with townhomes with associated parking, sidewalks and landscaping. The parking and drive aisles will consist of asphalt pavement and the sidewalks will be concrete. Water Quality Treatment and Storm Water Conveyance System The City of Springfield is encouraging as much infiltration on this site as possible. Therefore, the site is proposed to have drainage basins which will flow to infiltration basins located across the site. The infiltration basins will be landscaped with appropriate vegetation and topsoil to allow treatment and infiltration of stormwater. Infiltration testing was conducted and the site was determined to have adequate infiltration rates to serve the proposed improvements. See the table below for infiltration results and information. Test Test Location Test Test Soils Measured ..` `- Depth _ infiltration Rate 1 Northwest corner 48" 0-12" Topsoil of site 12-36" light brown clayey silt moist 4.5 inches/hour 36"-42" light brown clayey silt 42"-48" Bar Run See Appendix B for the infiltration testing data. There are three proposed infiltration basins proposed on the site. Each is primarily treating parking areas however one is also infiltrating runoff from one of the proposed buildings roof. See Appendix C for the proposed Drainage Basin Map for location of infiltration basins and the areas they are treating and infiltrating. Below is a brief description of each. Infiltration Basin A Infiltration Basin A is located on the west side of the site and east of the proposed drive-thru restaurant. Infiltration Basin A will have asphalt parking, building roof top and leme1$emit to it. The basin draining to Infiltration Basin A is 0.43 acres. One side has a 3:1 side slope and the FEB 152011 Original Submittal • • Storm Drainage Evaluation 5151-52nd a Main Street Redevelopment - Option A other has a short retaining wall. Infiltration Basin A has approximately 1,685 cubic feet of storage. Infiltration Basin A is bisected by a concrete sidewalk and a 6" storm pipe is proposed to go under the concrete sidewalk to allow Infiltration Basin A to act as one basin. Infiltration Basin A is two feet deep from the top of the growing medium to the overflow. This depth was required because the overflow for Infiltration Basin B is piped to Infiltration Basin A and the invert of the overflow pipe from Infiltration Basin B required this depth. The overflow for Infiltration A is connected to a proposed curb inlet in 515' Place that will be constructed under a Public Improvement Permit. Infiltration Basin B Infiltration Basin B is located on the north side of the site along Main Street and west of the proposed ODOT driveway approach. Infiltration Basin B will have asphalt parking and landscaping draining to it. The basin draining to Infiltration Basin B is 0.15 acres. Infiltration Basin B is one foot deep from the top of the growing medium to the overflow and has 3:1 side slopes. Infiltration Basin B has approximately 473 cubic feet of storage. Infiltration Basin B is bisected by a concrete sidewalk and a 6" storm pipe is proposed to go under the concrete sidewalk to allow Infiltration Basin B to act as one basin. The overflow for Infiltration Basin B is piped to Infiltration Basin A. Infiltration Basin C Infiltration Basin C is located on the north side of the site along Main Street and west of the proposed commercial building. Infiltration Basin C will have asphalt parking and landscaping draining to it. The basin draining to Infiltration Basin C is 0.09 acres. Infiltration Basin C is one foot deep from the top of the growing medium to the overflow and has 3:1 side slopes. Infiltration Basin C has approximately 172 cubic feet of storage. The overflow for Infiltration Basin C is directed to a nearby private storm line to be conveyed offsite to the existing 12" storm line in 52nd Street. Other drainage basins on the site will be treated by double chambered catch basins with filter inserts and conveyed through storm pipes to the public storm system. Stormwater Runoff - Peak discharge rates for the post development conditions were generated using the Santa Barbara Unit Hydrograph method. The King County Department of Public Works, Surface Water Management Division, Hydrographs Programs, Version 4.21 B computer program was used to assist in the hydrologic calculations. See Appendix D for the stormwater runoff results. Below is a summary of the results for each drainage basin. Proposed Conditions Peak Discharge Rates (cfs) Storm Basin A Basin B Basin C WQ (0.83 inches/24 hours) 0.06 0.02 0.01 2 Year (3.3 inches/24 hours) 0.26 0.09 0.05 10 Year (4.3 inches/24 hours) 0.35 0.12 0.07 25 Year (4.8 inches/24 hours) 0.40 0.13 0.08 Date Received: FEB 1 5 2011 Original Submittal • • Storm Drainage Evaluation 51st-52nd a Main Street Redevelopment - Option A Infiltration Basin Sizing Each infiltration basin is characterized in a spreadsheet to be used with the King County Department of Public Works, Surface Water Management Division, Hydrographs Programs, Version 4.21B computer program for routing the developed storm through the infiltration basin. The routing data can be found in Appendix D as well as the infiltration volumes and the required storage for each infiltration basin. Below is a summary of each infiltration basin. Infiltration Basin A Below is a summary of the peak flow rates and the peak elevation the stormwater will get in Infiltration Basin A during the 2 year and 25 year storms. Proposed Infiltration Basin A Storm Peak inflow(cfs) Peak outflow (cfs) Water Elevation (feet) WQ 0.06 0.02 494.30 2 Year 0.26 0.05 495.61 10 Year 0.35 0.08 496.01 25 Year 0.40 0.14 496.04 Infiltration Basin A has approximately 1,578 cubic feet of storage. The overflow is set at an elevation of 496.00. The results show that the 10 year storm just begins to overflow and during the 10 year storm it gets to elevation 496.01. During the 25 year storm, the water begins to overflow and gets a half inch above the overflow. The infiltration basin will be landscaped in accordance with the City of Springfield requirements. Infiltration Basin B Below is a summary of the peak flow rates and the peak elevation the stormwater will get in Infiltration Basin B during the 2 year and.25 year storm. Proposed Infiltration Basin B Storm Peak inflow (cfs) Peak outflow (cfs) Water Elevation (feet) WQ 0.02 0.01 496.12 2 Year 0.09 0.02 496.61 10 Year 0.12 0.03 496.83 25 Year 0.13 0.04 496.91 Infiltration Basin B has approximately 473 cubic feet of storage. The overflow is set at an elevation of 497.00. The results show that even during the 25 year storm, the water does not reach the overflow. This will maximize infiltration opportunity and provide an additional factor of safety. The infiltration basin will be landscaped in accordance with the City of Springfield requirements. Date Received: FEB 15 2011 Original Submittal • • Storm Drainage Evaluation 51"-52nd a Main Street Redevelopment - Option A Infiltration Basin C Below is a summary of the peak flow rates and the peak elevation the stormwater will get in Infiltration Basin C during the 2 year and 25 year storm. • Proposed Infiltration Basin C Storm Peak inflow (cfs) Peak outflow (cfs) Water Elevation (feet) WQ 0.01 0.01 495.90 2 Year 0.05 0.01 496.71 10 Year 0.07 0.07 496.79 25 Year 0.08 0.08 496.80 Infiltration Basin C has approximately 172 cubic feet of storage. The overflow is set at an elevation of 496.75. The results show that the 2 year storm is completely contained within Infiltration Basin C but during the 10 and 25 year storms, the storm water will reach the overflow and the storm water will get a half inch above the overflow elevation. The overflow is connected to an on-site private storm line that eventually flows to the public storm system in 52"d Street. The infiltration basin will be landscaped in accordance with the City of Springfield requirements. The rest of the site will drain to double chambered catch basins with filter inserts located in the parking areas and roof drains from the east commercial building and the townhouses will be directed to on-site private storm line that eventually flows to the public storm system in 52nd Street. See Appendix D for stormwater runoff, routing and infiltration basin stage-storage-outflow calculations. See Appendix E for Infiltration swale section and double chamber catch basin with filter insert. • Date Received: FEB 15 2011 Original Submittal • • Storm Drainage Evaluation 5V-52nd 8 Main Street Redevelopment - Option A Appendix A Soil Maps and Soil Data Date Received: FEB 15 2011 Original Submittal • o 04fi9G94 0E69L04 OZ69G94 OLfi9L94 0069L0ro 0689[94 0989G0ro OL99G94 �_° o .4Z.9S•Zlt q,�, -.. _ -PO 99.ZZL O, ern f 0^' { Hf °� p y. d s G, YW`, 1 -'R¢ _4—.44 r x f."� l 1 �...F-.!' wsct.N� kP�m`. �r ,. 3,, t r „�i�„'`k€"- 'c ., ` W r.'.• t"? t��tn F k't'';n'� ,.is'`r,ipt-wq is vuzs +�y - ,,F� " 15 k!r t; „,..A.,, 0 y r' m,, AE i ' � L-k - � •, {y am' AA r Ty��,d7� f; M el 'ry<�^OL * ,py-.4 f1006-0--i! �` �i' 4 K' +yV' T x $r^.u;'#(r,_yT,, "t r�.i 7t .. st.4'0 r t al` •';d'e+i {' b S''' -'-B %sa h.w1x ws �,,.:� +k7' a n'�' 7 ",..$ r -� Si W"� .SS' 4 ;.t�^''•"rx 'ti i '�,�. ° fi %.rt } � id11 *+43 ask at T}`{r l ,-4..S T '�'¢x r.� �y4., 92Y°��'+i i�utk 4 s:- ,.iT$ ..?ia � r•5' -rP" g � i�"+ a� $ }�"y�J R A ps 1/4-. 9- " ''€�p- kk, -iv�'#=�� 4102 a X sY�...h,G k `S'�l:.. 7�' t'v 3¢, Awl".< j � C4,1 L 2. .-.. ky'3Y1 ai i fas a ` - 1 s�" ui.dG _ 3�0� f�' : - - p. ritrx rich tc f+� 1 ;� : tt ' 4. t f .e..l'A E.}.'4_`rt•tf :i4-e-.k,y._ ^f „ ,e- -v-0.-' 'gg`ifs `carts L F co'� -4` y v k s v, al su0 ? °'f-` '3' ,y�t�r E � 4 in; ,p 4'. X' .E -',A-;.-1, ,, f ), .. 8 QW ��' �„br•t"� 3. t Kl. ° ;k 1.001.:A'K5 ,.r Vta rV k r co 'o ° f��� �4 k j- , , . }tc;�c a 4ry� �rc }'r.,is`v {dF,� Pr m _ 3 ' = t w. xrfi a,a - 4.41 1 7w"-“-. T �w 8, ,• '1/4"-.;�i� -0-. ' its ,kM has :a t`Xrµ E.- r. `” $ �'• C6 in 1,7) f 3 v"' ' c}� „ '' 'F i gy `"s' ..� —R -vs � o rn� r' s t� `r 5� r.�— 4. ,..?': x 1 `' ES ,2 -t '0. �8 . a h� o in df §2T ^4 `"i 2.'�k �'ai.- f-. ? g -AIL F gi"- 't<'.sn'� t rW• OF o 'sif-;442-1” ,{) �," 7+,. t, - yy Y * wr"�Z'SiF L .k CLL''� ,..m r„ TN k �' !. ° x,.i ._ �}rY{f n L 'Z r Ysu, t%Y :4`.t i'A' Z ' C.N. '�r�* i 'i.w - r'i�.�" - .f �� - n'�d�`T" Lk . `ro '" NNft� hd Y`:m.; r:x , rE,#44 , -3. L, K {� k 1 _,. T`1`'S'PyH $3 4 N 4 i lr`� .n b r + 'e ���'". � E0'101" 73 Or " t- SrF 7iT�s � 7 cr tr - sa ey" � m 8X ?,-0?-4,S= T t - .ttrt-'�+ap `Si 3 pr.' s'fsz rt a 8 £.. p F ESC ! ' '�. d M.Y 1.^ vl a-tt 1 N - r.4 a a ,t t rFP p . 8 a �` t, .a- }�� r °.'S'7-''.---C ,A-i„ ,t44 -gS...i-6.5 L�y"4 s. 'F.t.^+ e-- tr tr- p'*, • n --xis' s r� ^' .� ,r1-L ,4 '4:. `. t i fi�`'�• s� 1811 rx ' t`hry ' ,. t ,% 4'rr j $' *S.4110., a.,r te,. 'y. .yNy� N �n 7i «a 6 Pk" x- �{ x 4f • '�"r` L, ,r "a1 w8 Y'�t. m y. s` n'd' j'. t as � � ''Y�µ w E ci° ��.pp "r'S_ vl�€}�Myg + S-:w�„y, y�, ° O O o `f�3 �S,t a 7044'LS 4 •9 .4-n e?‘,t ai t '. p sif-, y ZQ Z, PAST ^`i��3s s zs- : r `yr '. ;- ' I `F>f 4a r } 'I's ,,, ,�..yy 'I -OE Sc.ZZt ". eU,.Of.95.ZZt If 0469L0ro OE69L94 9Z69L94 OL69G0b 0069L04 0689[84 0889[04 OG09G04 Jai FEB 15 2011 original Subr lttSl • • . . C) Op n 0 C \ m m o E m 2 E N N > m -O 2 $ o, 0 3 -50 m u 2 m a m m c o c a) m ) 0 n = °i E ai U C o v N a O - m N O CO E Z O U N _ E Cl) C Q m m '^ O N m `C J+m U O co .c .c - o N O N K N N a O z° v U E . O ° a t E m Q ui $ c 3O N Z ¢ N m G ° O E U .o O m 0- 3 ` m E Z m C .m ¢ t N O d in m O aQ re ° in S j ` ¢ m m N 3 N 3 c -0 >.LL O a O Q T 3 2 m LL o m o 0n m o.N E o o a n EZ K 2 o U o a n N .0 a N m m w n LL U C N v o R3 > 3 N a L co Q J N ' J N -c H o m m . a m Z c E rn m m rn m m ° rn a a 0 -2 • T m O E co T N d m N n d O a c` m C @ j ' m° ¢ N O a Q 4 .O .c n - N CO m 3 C a v 43 d N N .J m N a) m O — o a 2 ¢ co L -O a 3 v N N N N U N a n m U) N N O p m N C N N aim o_ v 'a m S a o — Z v E m E °o)w 2 F- a E co° 0 IL- E w O)) 0 ]- 0 .5 "6 m 2 . Oa iO 2w ¢ > z T O . O w 3 CO i O Q' = U F- ° m w - U) C UJ a) JI i ~ a V O Z O Q . 0 O W . Hv _TN 2 0 ? m Z v o 3 W d E a °' 0 D C $ O 9 n -m t0 v d m m W ¢ o i 2 E = 'o a' tt J w o m 0 O o w m w CO `w N o u Q. d Q co rn < Q 0 m 0 0 0 Z -' O E o U) O ¢ __ 0 2 s Q m m '- 0 err El e ❑ ❑ H ❑ _0 o m C w° w a° 3 l.. F N v U 0 O . . • N m CC N 3 • ry Z I Date Received: T1 FEB 1 5 2011 Original Submittal Hydrologic Soil Group–Lane County Are •rerun • 51ST-52ND&MAIN STREET REDEVELOPMENT Hydrologic Soil Group • Hydrologic Soil Group—Summary by Map Unit—Lane County Area,Oregon Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 119 I Salem-Urban land complex .13 1.5' 100.0%1 I Totals for Area of Interest 1.5 I 100.0 Description Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long-duration storms. The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and three dual classes (ND, B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows: Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential)when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. • Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of-moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture.These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. . Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential)when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. • If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (ND, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes. Rating Options Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Date Received: Component Percent Cutoff- None Specified FEB 1 5 2011 Tie-break Rule: Lower Original Submittal USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 12/1/2010 °® Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 . Storm Drainage Evatuation 51st-52nd & Main Street Redevelopment - Option A Appendix B Infiltration Testing Report Date Received: FEB 1.5 2011 Original Submittal • • • • Project Name: Q& D VIA c, 51-ntz.A- 5ifc Project No.: o°V f 1 Project Location: S I Ftacc S o f/_icld, Date of Field Work: li/z�1J p tlr Comments: tck wh Y _€[`> i 'fl n UOittr ✓'# ' FY L4J6'.� oc..c( i \\UvE Teti oc L TOY, et Lt.-0(t 'r, Ptrc (15q _ k(.oW &p o� P'c(2e-) a. GiafvtLAGI Infiltration Test No. V Depth if Diameter 3 Vol. of Presat. / C$1. Soil Description: a'C ;ut'Si 9- It—the a v�r Shoo Cob'` Si LT Alm St cmor '.1, d n-N eve" Time Time Elapsed Depth to Water Vol. of Water Added zit L= 0 Infiltration Test No. 1 Depth Diameter Vol. of Presat. - Soil Description: Time Time Elapsed Depth to Water Vol. of/Water Added J if ,�,(n2t (•1‘. �ip[ UVOV � St?. • Date Received: FEB 15 2011 Original Submittal r • • Project Name: 061(7 VOL in St w_ .r STIFC Project No.: O 0i-t4 o Project Location: S (S.-` rv;rr.;f, e r(cf Date of Field Work: t(/? (!� Comments: .cc pct Infiltration Test No. Z. Depth Diameter Vol.of Presat. Soil Description: Time Time Elapsed Depth to Water Vol. of Water Added -3 trsitc4 D to 11 0,7c O,�S i{ {,ro by SL b; 7S/6" Infiltration Test No. 3 Depth Diameter Vol. of Presat. Soil Description: Time Time Elapsed Depth to Water Vol. of Water Added '9 f co { \ xY. {h -; g„,, � a s tri P'eyv, =O,�S Dt—IS` {r pTpr_ ibY0 k- U Date Received: FEB 1 5 2011 Original Submittal / 2_ / 2- • • Project Name: ogo fl ir. S?. S Project No.: o rr,'(C:61 Project Location: S St P c..<< s of to Date of Field Work: I I /T k o Comments: S.cc fJcs I Infiltration Test No. it Depth Diameter Vol. of Presat. Soil Description: • Time Time Elapsed Depth to Water Vol. of Water Added tfi h. Z 0 3 S.- • Rudy-6\31,c_ 0 -1C-GI / G(/e�C� � J r« n✓mac mil' S tr,< s� ) hK In tr Infiltration Test No. Depth Diameter Vol. of Presat. Soil Description: Time Time Elapsed Depth to Water Vol. of Water Added Date Received: FEB 1 5 2011 Original Submittal 3 / • • Storm Drainage Evaluation 51s`-52nd a Main Street Redevelopment - Option A • Appendix C Proposed Drainage Basin Map Date Received: FEB 15 2011 Original Submittal ti gi Z 0 . or; ,.-2, to - 0.1 Eal5P z H - 0 0 . 0 , 0) 0 1.1 ttO N clj P. P- .4 44 CI Z CO ' 011 W 0 I g OH 2 T2 § A L) Z cki gc4 e4 c\r° o en w La , a) .Lic ti ,...40 c n - ,,, 0-) cn CLI Z kr; II zq VA* u I co ct '4'4 ••••••I r, Ctct -- tu) aq cz 0 c) c, " Q ' --a■...„, Atitik k w - alto 7.: r- >C1 sr W Z irti 1°1 44 C4 N q V < 0 - % CV Eall 'al 44 cc 0 o c) g a g rt4as a "e.) .c... C4 A Ey tv_i aiki tip 4g. 0 '3. 0 1111 011 A FJ,-1 c .-... Ex c• ...1 • ' , , •,•• rl ..,.> 1 - . - ,--- - °2-?fr • - - e° I_ . - r — -Is Is- • tr,9 Ell1111111.1111 ,t ..._ _,-,.1 m- = . ' I: I 1 / is 01/ / , / . lair"'IS •:/' '.A-1 r//////,/,',.///x, '-/• =•_=-- ///1):::/// // / I il - 1 iliar is .fr_ A 1 ! .d /1 • I / ,,,, / / ',/ / ■ / _ . / ,, is. , / / /Hi - / I" ar irtosimenrsom—H" A //I/ , - /7 , , , / / II; c.) 17/.• ,• / :4'1,• 0/ /./. / L•:". IMF 1- ai,„:. . • / 17//7 i‘, 17/, /7// h. /z . / .,/, ,.■4,, / , , / i 1 ',,f -Mail\ ••• III';7 ' , V / : V ' i / 21 ,. . , .:, /,• 12/ „.., „ ....„ ,/ , ,. / , , 2,.../ . ..., ocmco •• ,. ., , , ,,, / . , ,,, I \ ___\ ... -- CI -1,i,•"V/ ////7//////' // / a 0 I- cS, , • 1 .1 / / ./ / / // / !8 I- --\`ii-`2 "c\aX: ///116, if / / /,,4../ 0 . c., . ...<1 / /,' ,--/// -/ -- , ,.: .,„ „ ,/ ://:,,,2,/ ,/, .... , J.- - \ \- N e3i Qz 8 cc,\,. , / / '// ,////cmi . ,t 6-1 , /, / /[a/-72 X,/ / \..c -a ii Nu_ i 4' / / -- // / i 5) ‘ /I -v / /x 1 i aira. "\,.:011/ ; ,, \ Irir /5S / 4 z / N' 1 1 N 1 a \.\,,N. \ \, anernirimmigas Iht 7 1\\:\ artilliElat ,.t ip ,C13 /.\ \\ --.c- \ ' • Ili 1.-a" • r a ' / /- -/ ' ,/ I i / V ,/-?.. •-• 4 \.\ .\\ \\` II rS / / / N.:\•Imr•_. / '4 r is .* / / • / Alli/ $ (32 ,-.Ingt,ic \ 11 . ; i I Luzzcs • Q .- 0 -, • _--------- r.-!) gA//1- \ _, \cc/ is, i • ,,,,,\ \ arA a - ri \ ' \-• • ‘ \ ///// . -• 7 / /”-- ' /Lc / ('' r., E•-• r I in r4 ! 1 II forAcsear . ;11". 4 ' Ina,. NtTNI 4c,, / / Ni I it'/ PrYalVitry / / •-••••,) \\ '-'‘, \ . i, 1 ea•-•,'' i I 1.i f1-!,'',i,1,,1,,i 11 4/./.„ i0/2/,62 i 5// SI\ m'..\„ N\,\ \..\,\ \.ci.avI,Iis r..:c•'7/t° / V 1.//.////-,1 c/r/-:;7//• / 77/ tE i ,, z,/ // / // • ,,,, ..\\\ ..„ \ ; „ ,,,..\\., ... \ \ es.< . -.,,, / -_, „,„, ,„,,/ // , /,/,,x// i a ll ,._ .,/,,/ / , lb \'• •. cz \‘, -\\--`,,- \ \ ,. ‘ \11 (b.,.. 7 ,/ ,,/ / A/ ./ /// (/ , // 1/ Ill '‘‘, \Z \ • \'''' '' ` \ \, -) i \ \ 1/4 \A 9_ • \ ,\. ,,;\ , .,„ \ , ‘ ,I 1\ \ \ \ \ \ N„ 0 P.? \ `-•val: N.' \' \I \ \ \ N \ •\ \ •\ 18 , k-Li_cn :l \ K\ '‘`. \ \ lis-1Z • - \\11'' 'CC' 15: -‘ \\ \ __, H :‘ ` 4 ci- 1,1 x • .\\\ \ .\ \\ \ . i A -,.‘ali. b,„ ■ \ '‘\,\,\.,\\•N\ \...:('\\\\\ '•\\' \ \\. 41 ,,, al ' .11 f, i\L -\-v------:. ;iamb tiNliimill ,--, 1 , \\\. \ r ./ . i - - / )9 visa . - • ' 1'1 : II ILI . ° I „ •, . . I I ni 1 1 , 7d ;gig . _ 1 . I, ,----,..,_ - PI- Z • • Storm Drainage Evaluation 515` 52nd 8 Main Street Redevelopment - Option A Appendix D Stormwater Runoff& Infiltration Basin Sizing Calculations Date Received: FEB 1 5 2011 Original Submittal Storm Drainage Evaluation 51s`-52nd & Main Street Redevelopment - Option A Infiltration Basin A-Water Quality Storm ******************** S.C.S. TYPE-1A DISTRIBUTION ******************* ********* 1-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** .83" TOTAL PRECIP. ******* ENTER: A(PERV) , CN(PERV) , A(IMPERV) , CN (IMPERV) , TC FOR BASIN NO. 1 0. 09, 61, 0.34, 98,10 • DATA PRINT-OUT: AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES) A CN A CN . 4 .1 61.0 . 3 98.0 10.0 PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT) .06 7.83 773 ENTER [d: ] [path]filename [ .ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-wgaa.dev RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE SPECIFY [d: ] [path] filename[ .ext] OF ROUTING DATA 09159aa.rd DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N) ? Y ROUTING DATA: STAGE(FT) DISCHARGE(CFS) STORAGE (CU-FT) PERM-AREA(SQ-FT) . 494 .00 .00 .0 .0 494 .25 .02 106.0 .0 494 .50 .03 - 242.0 . 0 494 .75 .03 410. 0 .0 495 .00 .04 611. 0 .0 495 .25 .04 843. 0 .0 495.50 .05 1098 .0 .0 495.75 . .05 1377 .0 .0 496. 00 .06 1685.0 .0 496. 25 .59 2023.0 .0 496.50 . 1 .56 2392.0 .0 AVERAGE PERM-RATE: .0 MINUTES/INCH ENTER [d: ] [path]filename[ .ext] OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-wgaa.dev INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS: PEAK-INFLOW(CFS) PEAK-OUTFLOW(CFS) OUTFLOW-VOL(CU-FT) .06 .02 830 INITIAL-STAGE(FT) TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS) PEAK-STAGE-ELEV(FT) .00 8 .33 1494.30 PEAK STORAGE: 130 CU-FT Date Received: FEB 15 2011 Original Submittal • • Storm Drainage Evaluation 5V-52nd & Main Street Redevelopment - Option A Infiltration Basin A-2 Year Storm ******************** S.C.S. TYPE-1A DISTRIBUTION ******************* ********* 2-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** 3.30" TOTAL PRECIP. ******* ENTER: A(PERV) , CN(PERV) , A(IMPERV) , CN(IMPERV) , TC FOR BASIN NO. 1 0. 09, 61, 0.34, 98, 10 DATA PRINT-OUT: AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC (MINUTES) A CN A CN .4 .1 61.0 .3 98.0 10.0 PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT) .26 7.83 3942 ENTER Ed: ] [path] filename [ .ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-2aa.dev RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE SPECIFY Ed: ] [path] filename[ .ext] OF ROUTING DATA - 09159aa.rd DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N) ? y ROUTING DATA: STAGE(FT) DISCHARGE(CFS) STORAGE(CU-FT) PERM-AREA(SQ-FT) 494 .00 .00 .0 .0 494 .25 .02 97 .0 .0 494 .50 .03 223.0 .0 494 .75 .03 379.0 .0 495.00 ..04 568.0 .0 495.25 - .04 786.0 .0 495.50 .05 1026.0 .0 495 .75 .05 1290.0 .0 496.00 .06 1578 .0 .0 496.25 .59 1891 .0 .0 496.50 1.55 2229.0 .0 AVERAGE PERM-RATE: .0 MINUTES/INCH ENTER [d: ] [path] filename( .ext] OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-2aa.dev INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS: PEAK-INFLOW(CFS) PEAK-OUTFLOW(CFS) OUTFLOW-VOL(CU-FT) .26 .05 3903 INITIAL-STAGE (FT) TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS) PEAK-STAGE-ELEV(FT) .00 10. 83 495.61 PEAK STORAGE: 1140 CU-FT Date Received: FEB 1 5 2011 Crig.in^! Submittal • • Storm Drainage Evaluation 51st 52nd ft Main Street Redevelopment - Option A Infiltration Basin A- 10 Year Storm ******************** S.C.S. TYPE-1A DISTRIBUTION ******************* ********* 10-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** 4 .30" TOTAL PRECIP. ******* ENTER: A(PERV) , CN(PERV) , A(IMPERV) , CN (IMPERV) , TC FOR BASIN NO. 1 0.09, 61, 0. 34, 98, 10 DATA PRINT-OUT: AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES) A CN A CN .4 . 1 61 .0 .3 98 .0 10.0 PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT) .35 7 . 83 5330 ENTER [d: ] [path] filename[ .ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-10aa.dev RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE SPECIFY [d: ] [path] filename[ .ext] OF ROUTING DATA 09159aa.rd DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N) ? Y ROUTING DATA: STAGE (FT) DISCHARGE (CFS) STORAGE(CU-FT) PERM-AREA(SQ-FT) 494 . 00 .00 .0 .0 494 . 25 .02 97 . 0 .0 494 . 50 .03 223.0 .0 494 . 75 .03 379.0 - .0 495. 00 . 04 568 .0 .0 495. 25 . 04 786.0 .0 495. 50 .05 1026.0 .0 495 . 75 .05 1290.0 .0 496. 00 .06 1578.0 .0 496.25 .59 1891 .0 .0 496. 50 1 .55 2229.0 .0 AVERAGE PERM-RATE: .0 MINUTES/INCH ENTER [d: ] [path] filename[ .ext] OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-10aa.dev INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS: PEAK-INFLOW(CFS) PEAK-OUTFLOW(CFS) OUTFLOW-VOL(CU-FT) .35 .08 5322 INITIAL-STAGE (FT) TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS) PEAK-STAGE-ELEV(FT) .00 10. 67 '496.01 • ,Y PEAK STORAGE: 1690 CU-FT Date Received. FEB 1 5 2011 Original Submittal • Storm Drainage Evaluation 51s`-52nd a Main Street Redevelopment - Option A Infiltration Basin A-25 Year Storm ******************** S.C.S. TYPE-1A DISTRIBUTION ******************* ********* 25-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** 4 .80" TOTAL PRECIP. ******* ENTER: A(PERV) , CN(PERV) , A(IMPERV) , CN (IMPERV) , TC FOR BASIN NO. 1 0.09, 61, 0. 34, 98, 10 DATA PRINT-OUT: AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TO(MINUTES) A CN A CN .4 .1 61.0 .3 98 .0 10.0 PEAR-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT) .40 7 .83 6037 ENTER [d: ] [path] filename[ .ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-25aa.dev RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE SPECIFY [d: ] [path] filename[ .ext] OF ROUTING DATA 09159aa.rd DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N) ? Y ROUTING DATA: STAGE(FT) DISCHARGE(CFS) STORAGE(CU-FT) PERM-AREA(SQ-FT) 494 . 00 .00 .0 .0 494 .25 .02 97 .0 .0 494 . 50 .03 223.0 .0 494 . 75 .03 379.0 .0 495. 00 .04 568 .0 .0 495. 25 .04 786.0 .0 495. 50 .05 1026.0 .0 495. 75 .05 1290.0 .0 496. 00 .06 1578 .0 .0 496.25 - .59 1891 .0 .0 496. 50 1 .55 2229. 0 .0 AVERAGE PERM-RATE: .0 MINUTES/INCH ENTER [d: ] [path] filename[ .ext] OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-25aa.dev INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS: PEAK-INFLOW(CFS) PEAK-OUTFLOW(CFS) OUTFLOW-VOL(CU-FT) .40 .14 6041 INITIAL-STAGE(FT) TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS) PEAK-STAGE-ELEV(FT) .00 8. 67 496.04 PEAK STORAGE: 1730 CU-FT Date Received. FEB 152011 Original Submittal ___ • • Storm Drainage Evaluation 51"-52nd a Main Street Redevelopment - Option A Infiltration Basin B-Water Quality Storm ******************** S.C.S. TYPE-1A DISTRIBUTION ******************* ********* - 1-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** .83" TOTAL PRECIP. ******* ENTER: A(PERV) , CN(PERV) , A(IMPERV) , CN(IMPERV) , TC FOR BASIN NO. 1 0.04, 61, 0.11, 98, 10 DATA PRINT-OUT: AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES) A CN A CN .2 .0 61 .0 . 1 98.0 10.0 PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT) .02 7 .83 250 ENTER [d: ] [path] filename[ .ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-wqab.dev RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE SPECIFY [d: ] [path] filename[ .ext] OF ROUTING DATA 09159AB.RD ' DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N) ? Y ROUTING DATA: STAGE(FT) DISCHARGE(CFS) STORAGE (CU-FT) PERM-AREA(SQ-FT) • 496. 00 .00 .0 .0 496. 25 .02 80.0 .0 496. 50 .02 183.0 .0 496. 75 .03 314 .0 .0 • 497. 00 .04 473.0 .0 497. 25 .57 661.0 .0 AVERAGE PERM-RATE: .0 MINUTES/INCH ENTER [d: ] [path]filename[ .ext] OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-WQAB.DEV INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS: PEAK-INFLOW(CFS) PEAK-OUTFLOW(CFS) OUTFLOW-VOL(CU-FT) .02 .01 77 INITIAL-STAGE(FT) TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS) PEAK-STAGE-ELEV(FT) .00 8 .67 • 496.12 PEAK STORAGE: 30 CU-FT Date Received: FEB 15 2011 Original Submittal • • Storm Drainage Evaluation 51st-52nd £t Main Street Redevelopment - Option A Infiltration Basin B-2 Year Storm ******************** S.C.S. TYPE-1A DISTRIBUTION ******************* ********* 2-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** 3. 30" TOTAL PRECIP. ******* ENTER: A(PERV) , CN(PERV) , A(IMPERV) , CN (IMPERV) , TC FOR BASIN NO. 1 0.04, 61, 0. 11, 98, 10 DATA PRINT-OUT: AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS. TO(MINUTES) A CN A CN .2 .0 61.0 .1 98.0 10.0 PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT) .09 7.83 1294 ENTER [d: ] [path] filename[ .ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-2ab.dev RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE SPECIFY [d: ] [path] filename[ .ext] OF ROUTING DATA 09159AB.RD DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N) ? Y ROUTING DATA: STAGE(FT) DISCHARGE (CFS) STORAGE (CU-FT) PERM-AREA(SQ-FT) 496.00 .00 .0 .0 496.25 .02 80.0 .0 496.50 .02 183.0 .0 496.75 .03 314.0 . 0 497 .00 .04 473.0 - . 0 497 .25 .57 661. 0 .0 AVERAGE PERM-RATE: .0 MINUTES/INCH ENTER [d:] [path] filename[ .ext] OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-2AB.DEV INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS: PEAK-INFLOW(CFS) PEAK-OUTFLOW(CFS) OUTFLOW-VOL(CU-FT) .09 .02 1263 INITIAL-STAGE(FT) TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS) PEAK-STAGE-ELEV(FT) .00 8.83 ' 496.61 PEAK STORAGE: 240 CU-FT Date Received: FEB 1 5 2011 Original Submittal,_- Storm Drainage Evaluation 51s`-52nd a Main Street Redevelopment - Option A Infiltration Basin B-10 Year Storm ******************** S.C.S. TYPE-1A DISTRIBUTION ******************* ********* 10-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** 4 .30" TOTAL PRECIP. ******* ENTER: A(PERV) , CN (PERV) , A(IMPERV) ,. CN (IMPERV) , TC FOR BASIN NO. 1 0.04, 61, 0.11, 98, 10 DATA PRINT-OUT: AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC (MINUTES) A CN A CN .2 .0 61 .0 .1 98 .0 10'.0 PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT) .12 7.83 1762 ENTER [d: ] [path]filename [ .ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-10ab.dev RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE SPECIFY [d: ] [path] filename[ .ext] OF ROUTING DATA 09159AB.RD DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N) ? Y ROUTING DATA: STAGE(FT) DISCHARGE(CFS) STORAGE(CU-FT) PERM-AREA(SQ-FT) 496.00 .00 .0 .0 496.25 .02 80.0 . 0 496.50 .02 183.0 .0 496.75 .03 314 .0 .0 497. 00 .04 473.0 . 0 497. 25 .57 661 .0 .0 AVERAGE PERM-RATE: .0 MINUTES/INCH ENTER [d: ] [path] filename[ .ext] OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-10AB.DEV - INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS: PEAK-INFLOW(CFS) PEAK-OUTFLOW(CFS) OUTFLOW-VOL(CU-FT) .12 .03 1700 • INITIAL-STAGE(FT) TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS) PEAK-STAGE-ELEV(FT) .00 8.83 496.83 PEAK STORAGE: 360 CU-FT - Date Received: FEB 152011 Original Submittal • Storm Drainage Evaluation 51s`-52nd 8 Main Street Redevelopment - Option A Infiltration Basin B-25 Year Storm ******************** S.C.S. TYPE-1A DISTRIBUTION ******************* ********* 25-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** 4 .80" TOTAL PRECIP. ******* ENTER: A(PERV) , CN(PERV) , A(IMPERV) , CN(IMPERV) , TC FOR BASIN NO. 1 0.04, 61, 0 . 11, 98, 10 DATA PRINT-OUT: AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TO(MINUTES) A CN A CN .2 .0 61.0 .1 98 .0 10.0 PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT) .13 7 . 83 2002 ENTER Ed: ] [path] filename[ .ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-25AB.DEV RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE SPECIFY [d: ] [path] filename[ .ext] OF ROUTING DATA 09159AB.RD DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N) ? Y ROUTING DATA: STAGE(FT) DISCHARGE(CFS) STORAGE (CU-FT) PERM-AREA(SQ-FT) 496. 00 .00 .0 .0 496.25 .02 80.0 .0 496. 50 .02 183.0 .0 496. 75 .03 314 .0 .0 497 . 00 .04 473.0 .0 497 . 25 .57 661.0 .0 AVERAGE PERM-RATE: .0 MINUTES/INCH ENTER [d: ] [path] filename[ .ext] OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-25AB.DEV INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS: PEAK-INFLOW(CFS) PEAK-OUTFLOW(CFS) OUTFLOW-VOL(CU-FT) .13 .04 2112 INITIAL-STAGE(FT) TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS) PEAK-STAGE-ELEV(FT) .00 8. 67 496.91 PEAK STORAGE: 410 CU-FT Date Received: FEB 1 5 2011 Original Submittal • v • • Storm Drainage Evaluation 51s`-52nd 8: Main Street Redevelopment - Option A Infiltration Basin C-Water Quality Storm ******************** S.C.S. TYPE-1A DISTRTBUTION ******************* ********* 1-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** .83" TOTAL PRECIP. ******* ENTER: A(PERV) , CN(PERV) , A(IMPERV) , CN(IMPERV) , TC FOR BASIN NO. 1 0.02, 61,0.07, 98, 10 DATA PRINT-OUT: AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES) A CN A CN . 1 .0 61 .0 .1 98.0 10.0 PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT) .01 7.83 . 159 ENTER [d: ] [path]filename[ .ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-wqac.dev RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE SPECIFY [d: ] [path] filename[ ..ext] OF ROUTING DATA 09159AC.RD DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N) ? Y ROUTING DATA: STAGE(FT) DISCHARGE(CFS) STORAGE(CU-FT) PERM-AREA(SQ-FT) 495 . 75 .00 .0 . 0 496. 00 .01 30.0 .0 496. 25 .01 67.0 .0 496. 50 . .01 115.0 .0 496. 75 . 01 172.0 .0 • 497. 00 . 36 240.0 .0 AVERAGE PERM-RATE: .0 MINUTES/INCH ENTER [d: ] (path] filename( .ext] OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-WQAC.DEV INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS: PEAK-INFLOW(CFS) PEAK-OUTFLOW(CFS) OUTFLOW-VOL(CU-FT) .01 .01 29 INITIAL-STAGE (FT) TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS) PEAK-STAGE-ELEV(FT) .00 8 . 17 495.90 PEAK STORAGE: 10 CU-FT Date Received: FEB 152011 Original Submittal • • Storm Drainage Evaluation 51st-52nd 8 Main Street Redevelopment - Option A Infiltration Basin C-2 Year Storm ******************** S.C.S. TYPE-1A DISTRIBUTION ******************* ********* 2-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** 3. 30" TOTAL PRECIP. ******* ENTER: A(PERV) , CN(PERV) , A(IMPERV) , CN(IMPERV) , TC FOR BASIN NO. 1 0.02, 61, 0. 07, 98, 10 DATA PRINT-OUT: AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES) A CN A CN . 1 .0 61. 0 . 1 98.0 10.0 PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT) :05 7. 83 814 ENTER Ed: ] [path] filename[ .ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-2ac.dev RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE SPECIFY [d: ] [path] filename[ .ext] OF ROUTING DATA 09159AC.RD DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N) ? Y ROUTING DATA: STAGE(FT) DISCHARGE(CFS) STORAGE(CU-FT) PERM-AREA(SQ-FT) 495.75 .00 . 0 .0 496.00 .01 30.0 .0 496.25 .01 67.0 .0 496.50 .01 115.0 .0 496.75 .01 172. 0 .0 497.00 .36 240.0 .0 AVERAGE PERM-RATE: .0 MINUTES/INCH ENTER Ed: ] [path] filename[ .ext] OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-2AC.DEV - INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS: PEAK-INFLOW(CFS) PEAK-OUTFLOW(CFS) OUTFLOW-VOL(CU-FT) .05 .01 886 INITIAL-STAGE(FT) TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS) PEAK-STAGE-ELEV(FT) .00 8.83 • 496.71 PEAK STORAGE: 160 CU-FT Date Received: FEB 15 2011 Original Submittal • • Storm Drainage Evaluation 51s`-52nd a Main Street Redevelopment - Option A Infiltration Basin C- 10 Year Storm ******************** S.C.S. TYPE-1A DISTRIBUTION ******************* ********* 10-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** 4 . 30" TOTAL PRECIP. ******* ENTER: A(PERV) , CN(PERV) , A(IMPERV) , CN (IMPERV) , TC FOR BASIN NO. 1 0.02, 61, 0.07, 98;10 DATA PRINT-OUT: AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES) A CN A CN .1 .0 61.0 .1 98.0 10.0 PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT) .07 7.83 1102 ENTER Ed: ] [path]filename[ .ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-10ac.dev RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE SPECIFY [d: ] [path] filename[ .ext] OF ROUTING DATA 09159AC.RD DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N) ? Y ROUTING DATA: STAGE(FT) DISCHARGE(CFS) STORAGE(CU-FT) PERM-AREA(SQ-FT) 495. 75 . 00 .0 .0 496. 00 .01 30.0 .0 496.25 .01 67 .0 .0 496. 50 .01 115.0 .0 496.75 .01 172 .0 .0 497 .00 .36 240.0 .0 AVERAGE PERM-RATE: .0 MINUTES/INCH ENTER [d: ] [path]£ilename[ .ext] OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-10AC-DEV INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS: PEAK-INFLOW(CFS) PEAK-OUTFLOW(CFS) OUTFLOW-VOL(CU-FT) .07 .07 1103 INITIAL-STAGE(FT) TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS) PEAK-STAGE-ELEV(FT) .00 8 .00 496.79 PEAK STORAGE: 180 CU-FT Date Received: FEB 1 5 2011 Original Submittal • • Storm Drainage Evaluation 51"-52nd a Main Street Redevelopment - Option A Infiltration Basin C-25 Year Storm ******************** S.C.S. TYPE-1A DISTRIBUTION ******************* ********* 25-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** 4 .80" TOTAL PRECIP. ******* ENTER: A(PERV) , CN (PERV) , A(IMPERV) , CN (IMPERV) , TC FOR BASIN NO. 1 0. 02, 61, 0.07, 98, 10 DATA PRINT-OUT: AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES) A CN A CN .1 .0 61 .0 .1 98.0 10.0 PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT) . .08 7.83 1249 ENTER [d: ] [path]filename[ .ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-25ac.dev RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE SPECIFY [d: ] [path] filename [ .ext] OF ROUTING DATA 09159AC.RD / DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N) ? Y ROUTING DATA: STAGE(FT) DISCHARGE(CFS) STORAGE(CU-FT) PERM-AREA(SQ-FT) 495 .75 .00 .0 .0 496.00 .01 30.0 .0 496.25 .01 67.0 .0 496. 50 .01 115.0 .0 496.75 .01 172.0. .0 497 . 00 .36 240.0 .0 AVERAGE PERM-RATE: .0 MINUTES/INCH ENTER [d: ] [path] filename [ .ext] OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-25AC.DEV INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS: PEAK-INFLOW(CFS) PEAK-OUTFLOW(CFS) OUTFLOW-VOL(CU-FT) .08 .08 1242 INITIAL-STAGE(FT) TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS) PEAK-STAGE-ELEV(FT) .00 7 .83 . 496.80 PEAK STORAGE: 180 CU-FT Date Received: FEB 1 5 2011 Original Submittal. Storm Drainage Evaluation • 51c`-52nd Et Main Street Redevelopment - Option A Appendix E Vegetated Infiltration Basin and Double Chambered Catch Basins with Fossil Filter Insert Date Received: FEB 1 5 2011 Original Submittal • I 9 FI MINIMUM — JI FOR PARKING LOTS, TIRE STOPS OR 3:1 MAX. CURBS w/CUTS 2 FT SIDE SLOPES FLATBO OM 12x12 CLEAR FLOW (TMP.) OVERROW AREA AT CUTOUTS 2_ ELEVATION 9=18" a (SEE NOTE 2B) `\\'t\ , 1B" \-2,\\---1.\\:%,...-<\ /\--/A \\/ GRONMG t- \ t \ \cyV • A%VA t� V t/A MEOIUB \�� /� t .• OS_ �i�%\\\/\i, S. it/\\ iti`* . X R w,� 1 i\. ,\. ',� tom_ \ '. i • _ 1-= l' .0-L` • 12" (SEE NOTE 6) r " y J FILTER FABRIC, SEE NOTE 7 SEE SW-150 FOR PIPING DISTING SUBGRADE CONFIGURATION. . . , 1.Provide protection from all vehicle traffic,equipment staging, 6.Drain rock: • and foot traffic in proposed infiltration areas prior to,during, a.Size for infiltration basin:11/2"-'A"washed and after construction. b.Size for flow-through basin:%"washed • c.Depth for Simplfed: 12" 2.Dimensions: d.Depth for Presumptive:0-48",see calcs. a.Width of basin:9'minimum. b.Depth of basin(from top of growing medium to 7.Separation between drain rock and growing medium: overflow elevation);Simplified: 12",Presumptive: Use filter fabric(see SWMM Exhibit 2-5)or a gravel lens('/.-%inch washed,crushed rock 2 to 3 inches c. Flat bottom width:2'min. deep). d.Side slopes of basin:3:1 maximum. ' 8.Growing medium: . 3.Setbacks(from midpoint of facility): a.18"minimum a.Infiltration basins must be 10'from foundations and b.See Appendix F.3 for specification or use 5'from property lines. . sand/loam/compost 3-way mix. b.Flow-through swales must be lined with connection . to approved discharge point according to SWMM 9.Vegetation:Follow landscape plans otherwise refer 16 plant Section 1.3. list in SWMM Appendix F. Minimum container size is 1 gallon. #of plantings per 100sf of facility area): 4.Overflow: a.Zone A(wet): 115 herbaceous plants OR 100 a.Overflow required for Simplified Approach. herbaceous plants and 4 shrubs b.Inlet elevation must allow for 2"of freeboard, b.Zone B(moderate to dry): 1 tree AND 3 large • minimum. shrubs AND 4 medium to small shrubs. c.Protect from debris and sediment with strainer or The delineation between Zone A and B shall be either at the grate. outlet elevation or the check dam elevation,whichever is lowest. 5.Piping:shall be ABS Sch.40,cast iron,or PVC Sch.40. 3" pipe required for up to 1,500 sq ft of impervious area, 10. Install washed pea gravel or river rock to transition from otherwise 4'min. Piping must have 1%grade and follow the • inlets and splash pad to growing medium. Uniform Plumbing Code. 11. Inspections:Call SOS IVDatetiRel (pQed23-7000, for appropriate inspections. FEB 1 5 2011 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MANUAL TYPICAL DE . - Simplified / Presumptive Design Approach - ����� NUMBER L_______ Basin • ` SW-140 \' ni Bureau of Environmental Services \sit -I •L_,RDTM 53" FILTER INSERT (MODEL FGP-24F) WOVEN MESH aL FILTER BODY �� I1•A•,,t�-ted NOTES: 11:1..4•411.4:4 BOX FABRICATED FROM w 1 :� -- .10 GA. MATERIAL Ms as-Inv NEOPRENE GASKET (TWO SIDES) OUTLET i 48" LONG DUCTILE IRON SOLID LID & DUCTILE IRON GRATE PLAN VIEW BIKE PROOF, HEAVY SILT & DEBRIS HIGH DUTY TRAFFIC GRATE CONTAINMENT AREA FLOW SUPPORTS AASHTO L2fx2ixj BYPASS, H25 LOADS FRAME • 53" 1. , OUTLET , _ r, , ,,_ ._,t, 0 LSEDIMENT TRAP LL W/ HINGED • � cv LID SEDIMENT TRAP 48" r REPLACEABLE ABSORBENT SIDE VIEW POUCHES ISOMETRIC SEDIMENT & HYDROCARBONS FILTRATION SYSTEM STATE APPROVED — ASPHALT DIPPEIDate Received: 24"x42" - 6"0 OUTLET FEB 15 2011 S SAND COLLECTOR CATCH BASIN Original Submittal DWG if l PROD- MAN. DOUG P. DWN. PAUL G. SCALE NONE Gibson Steel Basins SINCE 1972 DATE: JAN. 23, 06 MODEL: SCBF10-42H8-6 247 Washington St. Eugene, Or. 97401 ph:(541) 687 — 8672 fax:344-0207 J • STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN AND DRAINAGE STUDY FOR 51St-52nd & M,in-stre - Redevelopment OPTION B Spring ield, OR • February 15, 2011 Prepared For TBG Architects 132 E. Broadway, Suite 200 EO PROF Eugene, OR 97401 c��cyGINE 9SSj — 3800PE 4 V�/7tivj REGON Branch Engineering, Inc. �� 09,706' 310 5th Street `i,°R'71 q N'•O Springfield, OR 97477 CP/2-3/--/2- Phone (541) 746-0637 Fax (541) 746-0389 Q Branch Engineering, Inc. Branch Project# 09-159 Date Received: FEB 1 5 2011 Original Submittal — ' 11/17/2010 12:09 FAX 5410 21 CITY OF SPRINGFIEL•R . . 002 • srmrraclet.o r �..,. � ! .-. r rr yx _ R.,., .. � . _ . _ 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#,73 1035) Project Name: OBO Enterprises,LLC Applicant: Branch Engineering Assessors Parcel#: 17-02-33-32 TL 6200& 6300 Date: 11/03/10 Land Use(s): Community Commercial(CC) Phone#: 541-746-0637 Project Size(Acres): 1.5 acres Fax#: 541-746-0389 • Approx.Impervious Area: 1.07 acres Email: greg(t!branchengineering"eom Project Description (Include a copy of Assessor's map): 1,5 acres site with two commercial buildings near Main Street and a 15 unit apartment building to the south of the commercial buildings with associated landscaping and parking facilities. Drainage Proposal (Public connection(s),discharge location(s), etc. Attach additional sheet(s)if necessary: West side of the site will drain toward 51" Place and connect to the existing storm line in the street. The east side of the site will drain toward 52"`' Street and connect to the existing storm line in the street. Proposed Stormwater Best Management Practices: Infiltration basins and planters will be used on-site with overflows and trapped catch basins. (Area below this line filled out by the City and Returned to the Applicant)— (el r a mininnwt, all boxes checked by the City on the front and back of this'sfieet shall he submitted :.;for:pg application to be complete for submittal, although other requirements.may be necessory.),-: Drainage Study Type(EDSPM Section 4.03.2): (Note,UII 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: �� Hillside Development: 4, Wetland/Riparian: Floodway/Floodplain: OA, P la Soil Type: I R —gezistg.,Wiv4,,\ 194t 1p Other Jurisdictions: ODDS- Downstream Analysis: ~r t.? N/A Date Received: ❑ Flow line for starting water surface elevation: ❑ Design HGL to use for starting water surface elevation: FEB 15 _2011 ❑ Manhole/Junction to take analysis to: {� G� Return to Matt Stouder @ City of Springfield,email: mstouderQdspringt—ie��o�us,F k)-7.a4-ui2L . 11/17/2010 1 2:0 9 FAX 54106 21 CITY OF SPRINGFIELStt 0 0 0 3 COMPLETE STUDY ITEMS For Official Use Only: NigS Based upon the information provided on the fi ont of this sheet, the following represents a minimum of what 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 tnay be required. Note: Upon soaping sheet submittal, ensure completed form has been signed in the space provided below: Interim Design Standards/Water Quality(EDSPM Chapter 3) Reg'd N/A 1': ❑ A• ll 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. P,%; El Where required,vegetative stonnwater 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). n F• or 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 �. n If a stonnwater 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. ❑ Water Quality calculations as required in Section 3.03.1 of the EDSPM ® ❑ 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) • ❑ Drainage study prepared by a Professional Civil Engineer licensed in the state of Oregon. Fl n A complete drainage study,as required in EDSPM Section 4.03.1,including a hydrological study map. • [1 C• alculations showing system capacity for a 2-year storm event and overflow effects of a 25-year storm event U [-I T• he 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) ❑ ut, 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). ❑ •Elevations of the FILL and flow lines for both city and private systems where applicable. Design Storm Systems(EDSPM Section 4.04) f-t I F• low lines,slopes,rim elevations,pipe type and sizes clearly indicated on the plan set. ❑ [� 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 be sufficient to support an 80,000 load without failure of the pipe structure. ❑ 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. Other/Misc • n Existing and proposed contours,located at one foot interval. Include spot elevations and site grades showing how site drains ❑ Private stormwater easements shall be clearly depicted on plans when private stormwater flows from one property to another ❑ Rs 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.den.state.or.us/wq/aoundwo/uichome.hcm for more information. 61 ❑ Detention ponds shall be designed to limit runoff to pre-development mtes for the 2 through 25-year storm events "Tltfs form shat be included as an attachment, inside the front cover,of the stonnwater study IMPORTANT:ENGINEER PLEASE READ BELOW AND SIGN! pp As the engineer of record,I hereby certify the above required items are complete and included witQg�iRec.e)r 'er study and plan set. Signature: Date: FEB 9 5 2011 • Original Submittal_----- Revised 11/19/09 in ,c rn .^ • Storm• Drainage Evaluation 5V-52nd £t Main Street Redevelopment - Option B Introduction This evaluation was prepared to summarize the drainage system proposed for the 51st-52nd & Main Street Redevelopment Option B. This storm drainage evaluation will determine the type and size of water quality/quantity facilities that are acceptable to the City of Springfield. The 51st-52nd & Main Street Redevelopment is located on the south side of Main Street and east of 5151 Place and west of 52"d Street in Springfield, Oregon. The proposed project site is comprised of two tax lots, TM17023332 TL 6200 and TL 6300. Existing Conditions The existing site is bounded by Main Street to the north, 5151 place to the west, 52nd Street to the east and residential to the south. The site consists of an existing building, a burned down existing building, driveways and landscaping. The impervious surfaces consist of roofs. The pervious surfaces consist • of landscaping. According to the Soils Survey of Lane County, Oregon, by the Natural Resource Conservation Service, the soil at the site is Salem Urban Land Complex (Soil Number: 119, Hydrologic Group: B). Refer to Appendix A for soils map information. Proposed Site Conditions The proposed project includes two new commercial buildings, three buildings with townhomes with associated parking, sidewalks and landscaping. The parking and drive aisles will consist of asphalt pavement and the sidewalks will be concrete. Water Quality Treatment and Storm Water Conveyance System The City of Springfield is encouraging as much infiltration on this site as possible. Therefore, the site is proposed to have drainage basins which will flow to infiltration basins located across the site. The infiltration basins will be landscaped with appropriate vegetation and topsoil to allow treatment and infiltration of stormwater. Infiltration testing was conducted and the site was determined to have adequate infiltration rates to serve the proposed improvements. See the table below for infiltration results and information. Test Test Location Test Test Soils Measured `'°` Depth infiltration Rate I Northwest corner 48" 0-12" Topsoil of site 12-36" light brown clayey silt moist 4.5 inches/hour 36"-42" light brown clayey silt 42"-48" Bar Run See Appendix B for the infiltration testing data. There are three proposed infiltration basins proposed on the site. Each is primarily treating parking areas however one is also infiltrating runoff from one of the proposed buildings roof. See Appendix C for the proposed Drainage Basin Map for location of infiltration basins and the areas they are treating and infiltrating. Below is a brief description of each. Infiltration Basin A Infiltration Basin A is located on the west side of the site and east of the proposed drive-thru restaurant. Infiltration Basin A will have asphalt parking, building roof top and . .c6IRSeArcistifs to it. The basin draining to Infiltration Basin A is 0.43 acres. One side has a 3: sloe s ope and the FEB 15 2011 Original Submittal • • Storm Drainage Evaluation 51`t-52nd a Main Street Redevelopment - Option B other has a short retaining wall. Infiltration Basin A has approximately 1,685 cubic feet of storage. Infiltration Basin A is bisected by a concrete sidewalk and a 6" storm pipe is proposed to go under the concrete sidewalk to allow Infiltration Basin A to act as one basin. Infiltration Basin A is two feet deep from the top of the growing medium to the overflow. This depth was required because the overflow for Infiltration Basin B is piped to Infiltration Basin A and the invert of the overflow pipe from Infiltration Basin B required this depth. The overflow for Infiltration A is connected to a proposed curb inlet in 51m Place that will be constructed under a Public Improvement Permit. Infiltration Basin B Infiltration Basin B is located on the north side of the site along Main Street and west of the proposed ODOT driveway approach. Infiltration Basin B will have asphalt parking and landscaping draining to it. The basin draining to Infiltration Basin B is 0.13 acres. Infiltration Basin B is one foot deep from the top of the growing medium to the overflow and has 3:1 side slopes. Infiltration Basin B has approximately 473 cubic feet of storage. Infiltration Basin B is bisected by a concrete sidewalk and a 6" storm pipe is proposed to go under the concrete sidewalk to allow Infiltration Basin B to act as one basin. The overflow for Infiltration Basin B is piped to Infiltration Basin A. Infiltration Basin C Infiltration Basin C is located on the north side of the site along Main Street and west of the proposed commercial building. Infiltration Basin C will have asphalt parking and landscaping draining to it. The basin draining to Infiltration Basin C is 0.08 acres. Infiltration Basin C is one foot deep from the top of the growing medium to the overflow and has 3:1 side slopes. Infiltration Basin C has approximately 172 cubic feet of storage. The overflow for Infiltration Basin C is directed to a nearby private storm line to be conveyed offsite to the existing 12" storm line in 52nd Street. Other drainage basins on the site will be treated by double chambered catch basins with filter inserts and conveyed through storm pipes to the public storm system. Stormwater Runoff Peak discharge rates for the post development conditions were generated using the Santa Barbara Unit Hydrograph method. The King County Department of Public Works, Surface Water Management Division, Hydrographs Programs, Version 4.21B computer program was used to assist in the _ hydrologic calculations. See Appendix D for the stormwater runoff results. Below is a summary of the results for each drainage basin. Proposed Conditions Peak Discharge Rates (cfs) Storm Basin A Basin B Basin C WQ (0.83 inches/24 hours) 0.06 0.01 0.01 2 Year (3.3 inches/24 hours) 0.26 • 0.07 0.05 10 Year (4.3 inches/24 hours) 0.35 0.10 0.07 25 Year (4.8 inches/24 hours) 0.40 0.11 0.08 Date Received: FEB 15 2011 Qriginal Submittal • • Storm Drainage Evaluation 5r-52nd E Main Street Redevelopment - Option B Infiltration Basin Sizing Each infiltration basin is characterized in a spreadsheet to be used with the King County Department of Public Works, Surface Water Management Division, Hydrographs Programs, Version 4.21B computer program for routing the developed storm through the infiltration basin. The routing data can be found in Appendix D as well as the infiltration volumes and the required storage for each infiltration basin. Below is a summary of each infiltration basin. Infiltration Basin A Below is a summary of the peak flow rates and the peak elevation the stormwater will get in Infiltration Basin A during the 2 year and 25 year storms. Proposed Infiltration Basin A Storm Peak inflow (cfs) Peak outflow (cfs) Water Elevation (feet) WQ 0.06 0.02 494.32 2 Year 0.26 0.05 495.61 10 Year 0.35 0.08 496.01 25 Year 0.40 _ 0.14 496.04 Infiltration Basin A has approximately 2,200 cubic feet of storage. The overflow is set at an elevation of 496.00. The results show that the 10 year storm just begins to overflow and during the 10 year storm it gets to elevation 496.01. During the 25 year storm, the water begins to overflow and gets a half inch above the overflow. This will maximize infiltration opportunity and provide an additional factor of safety. The infiltration basin will be landscaped in accordance with the City of Springfield requirements. Infiltration Basin B Below is a summary of the peak flow rates and the peak elevation the stormwater will get in Infiltration Basin B during the 2 year and 25 year storm. Proposed Infiltration Basin B Storm Peak inflow (cfs) . Peak outflow (cfs) Water Elevation (feet) .. WQ 0.01 0.01 496.13 2 Year 0.07 0.02 496.73 10 Year 0.10 0.02 496.99 25 Year 0.1 I 0.04 497.01 Infiltration Basin B has approximately 475 cubic feet of storage. The overflow is set at an elevation of 497.00. The results show that the 10 year storm does not reach the overflow but during the 25 year storm,the water does reach the overflow. This will maximize infiltration opportunity and provide an additional factor of safety. The infiltration basin will be landscaped in accordance with the City of Springfield requirements. Date Received: FEB 15 2011 Original Submittal • Storm Drainage Evaluation 51"-52nd 8 Main Street Redevetopment - Option B Infiltration Basin C Below is a summary of the peak flow rates and the peak elevation the stormwater will get in Infiltration Basin C during the 2 year and 25 year storm. Proposed Infiltration Basin C Storm Peak inflow(cfs)_ Peak outflow (cfs) Water Elevation (feet) WQ 0.01 0.00 495.87 2 Year 0.05 0.01 496.58 10 Year 0.07 - 0.05 496.78 25 Year 0.08 0.07 • 496.79 Infiltration Basin C has approximately 218 cubic feet of storage. The overflow is set at an elevation of 496.75. The results show that the 2 year storm is completely contained within Infiltration Basin C but during the 10 and 25 year storms, the storm water will reach the overflow and the storm water will get a half inch above the overflow elevation. The overflow is connected to an on-site private storm line that eventually flows to the public storm system in 52"d Street. The infiltration basin will be landscaped in accordance with the City of Springfield requirements. The rest of the site will drain to double chambered catch basins with filter inserts located in the parking areas and roof drains from the east commercial building and the townhouses will be directed to on-site private storm line that eventually flows to the public storm system in 52"d Street. See Appendix D for stormwater runoff, routing and infiltration basin stage-storage-outflow calculations. See Appendix E for Infiltration swale section and double chamber catch basin with filter insert. • Date Received: • FEB 15 2011 Original Submittal • • Storm Drainage Evaluation 515t-52nd 8 Main Street Redevelopment - Option B Appendix A Soil Maps and Soil Data • Date Received: FEB 15 2011 Original Submittal_ • • EN 0469G8b OE69LH4 OZ69LH0 0169[84 0069L9b 0699G96 0889[86 OL89L94 �� .6Z.95 ZZL _ - - .bZ.99.ZZL L fy� 4 -a 'fii Cr y>ta ay5,a % `+L�cr ms pR , ._ guy, ; q�, s_- r a N' m.� � 'y�idx. .�.> ,,,,t1: 7 f$ Z ire' ' t "b.T N r 37?: ;�'i7-yw� >•.G(c>.�'lrfzlfn.Fa'ka ? +L �°' �0 Mgt__ 3M q 5 t 1$pun 1'i °$y^ ti. F ry'}y {.w 1h�kY "J�- ,�e.,r c . J 4„' . s a r*...•'is' as tne. "* "2,. r 't` y }'zy, y L 4':sitih..t `` ,r' t ry f ,y� . :t. ' 'fy °•o a s4L'.Z,r -^ ,. ., am„ .a { t- ¢ r+ ?fi; a r ~�4L...a k , s r v $ yw. k rr a 1�i k`^hr°d#F�`• , ,+ �P�P a d r�*-�.``'” { r`Tn'�'��� � 3k j re, E: > a is=``� 1 e xMw �c,, i� k,# o- i1ACr - e : vC r fi,,4- ,,,.. ., '4 ,fik. r. t ' cu } : 'its Hs `4.x'1 `° t XN L r �r -r -.b.° F 3-,P32...„, n Tarn C =y; F3' r t S's '6 r '� "z'rM, ,R*F.4 T -- O r Y.,, t t t n-s 4 e.,. p :(:_ sY esi;C Vim,}ZZ _ Z::: Y h C_ 1- Z 1 _ ✓ -, �. j-31 Np w =f— " n,^q t : '+2wv'Srt hl*.-s :. a.L 0J 3' g"' rX m S- 9 02 . -r;"5,:: ::3/4,.-i Tnn >,111 -.. .m # 1-. ry x*' - r 1 +".Fi�3 ni9 ,kF -�` xff+ `°,�.. c� n F T t F- $ wt. j �X 'tf a. w �5Y?. ' ` �_ ,�m I 0 cc o Aw v Mme,$ 12trn(�"4 �2nF '+3R$✓ _ a .G K-t 1+"f x z } c ems` ° "" s r t,31 t)f..4>El fsRi t t,Ln rt w: o m % A '"(-,a :ter .a., .i� xM -_,;..1.,€` "k.€cl L ywr. -r _p >i4� a v v a ' rei h a 0Z 5 'qt 0. .v r . a f iP! vF salty ,..,,r �'''e}5 4 o ow,' +t) ' d S s a1 .r>ti , '4'YiSt . o gr. . L ' o Wit 332 `D0ID, P t '• r `i'-I-'5415054-.$5.° W: t,y{' z+ „v-TN "_fig` " t ' , �i . 2T• > , ,ti i e x,, r w ;'y` -1,,-,.";.;OIL.-;2:_-'--,..' -`z _ gi W'v w �a]�y,,}, Y a �,x "ids�.5 w i 3 f'Xr�"'T+"w* F 53 _"¢ -r t" ? 'Cy^jr. 11 i y3:WI ��r Dr ' a xt x 74*•i y 'h'3 Sw 1k i3 a ':4'i s t, m '.; �i,-(-� `5?.1 ,,P•:.41.'�",L441.1n.°y,yk >2-' '"'X r - '...t. Ua Ems+ 4`- s a 'ojy j t '.}� ''r 3.-� 2 y F ,�t)t �, ,y,. �`l b. li- #F A /, P( 1 3' r S_ u a + + t."7:4<:12 tYw'ct r g } v . tY''Ta. ri -�:E' re " v :. "J4c ' a cA 't} s 2 y ,, vim' i.. ' �o m.*t.§v 'w'jy�5 �; v :-.::-+)::- i 'Fb :: .s,�z=r.l� ' -r" f r y �°+ m &y r ''.3Fyi,,V'FF yw r } ` ' eHYr6`v°Fy'$ �: i �T�- 14'e ,rYF�j TryTSe ge �,. Fry��20.,y$1��4�, 1 ,4+ �y • 'A .). 41; ,t '‘,.74.-s„...,-.-s J3 .fi G o .R#.� h ffiu ^+c✓ "' :'y„ey9 flXm' `' ,. 'ks L de" °n� e �." r r 5. ca$ h*, e t V+ .+-, t r n *a, '¢-.: 7 � „. �W. i , 01/4 „,Attr a" A e - 3 f .6t,yiw' y ya'.'_�.,/ $vtlx'. a 1, � ..y )."fsiv�:}if •:?„,.b x 'n co e..r Z � , w a t "'-rtS e f,,.r Y, ., 'v a'w '}`�' e'r? ' f o 0 y ......V,L4 ri4i ti fi ' " y'c'` ^'f 64.. t, ., iels ls'r� .awa z-0, r`�4a'ii yS , j F" `?.,, '' n''1 z z AE.9S.ZZL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -OE.9S.ZZ1 III OD69L94 0069L9b OZ69L94 OL69LH4 0069[86 0689[84 08H9LBD OL@9L94 �I; FEB .1 5 2011 or iN Original Submittal • • • 0 0 m w o o E m m m N • N a) > co N -O • _ m u � -oo 3 c 8 c mZ co m co a) - `N N m m CO w a C 't g — Y m O d .0-- D 0 Z m O U J C O m n C W 0 =Z T M U o co = t ... p % m y o N . Q Z E co E Q ? O Z O O N in N m L ` fD O E U = C m r 3 ` CO E �/ m < L N VI o Cl) o m a C CO w C LL N j U U D Q N O) ° . U. L O <co O m N N N Tu_ O n"O ' >trt c T c o co C o 0 CO 2- m m LL co a m ry b.n1 E o a c o. m m E .O -o 'a ce L2 oo U 'O- E ma mm m E a m H a m " N ° ° m E CL c o D d c o O.V m m 3 m w Q O. ° m m J m V1 J > N 0 d O m r m n Z C — m O N O m N. _ m E c w .. m m = -° c o w T U) 0 m 1° m E ° .al m e co >. N d N b d O U >` 0 a ° 0 m � W . � a (U m L C D_n _i zzi T E co d g co m m m ii m n 'c cmi 2 `� w ° 'o c o w 2 < m t y 3 co u°i Vmi N U co D O. o N d w 0 'd m m n m m m a `o w > - 2 °3 m E m E rn w 2 H o. E 0 3 o H E co u) o F °o E 5 O a 0O v Q > m T W 2 LU '° CC (n . o I_ o o W N m W n N I CO oo Z 0 N Q U Z cn N o N ° FL d o co b T m O m w w O Q m To c m Z v c L .. al ea .- a al r^ 0 2 m a o V p n y m d v o 0 W a o g m m w c m ' c J m o m = K U e o G o z ii : o W d ¢ d h . a a m m o a o o O CO ¢ 5 p 2 s c 0 m w o ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ " o d 2 I Date Received: FEB 1 5 2011 Original Submittal, • • Hydrologic Soil Group–Lane County Area, Oregon 51ST-52ND&MAIN STREET REDEVELOPMENT • Hydrologic Soil Group Hydrologic Soil Group—Summary by Map Unit—Lane County Area,Oregon Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 119 I Salem-Urban land complex :B 1.5! 100.0% Totals for Area of Interest 1.5 I 100.0% Description Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long-duration storms. The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and three dual classes (ND, B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows: Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential)when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or • gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture.These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff-potential)when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (ND, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes. Rating Options Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff None Specified Date Received: Tie-break Rule: Lower FEB 1 5 2011 usDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 12/1/2010 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Original Submittal Pane 3 of 3 • • • Storm Drainage Evaluation 51st-52nd Ft Main Street Redevelopment - Option B Appendix B Infiltration Testing Report Date Received: FEB 1 5 2011 Original Submittal . i •• • • . . Project Name: 0 g D Vharn anzek 5 Tf-c- Project No.: oci -ts-9 Project Location: S isj Place I Se';11(--ic-16 b 1(- Date of Field Work: /1/Lii° 0 Comments: E +c,..e..h olcas4frini.e..”AS uRti-tr Le v4..1 [41 cutchi- bk cit i-0 1.(:_k4 if--- • 3--z_ f 4, o L D 44-oe, 6k ko(i -,n. ripz (2,5/8'`.; be.Low &p o - frqkl) p./athr LOAGI Infiltration Test No. V Depth Lf Diameter 3 Vol. of Presat. i C/41— Soil Description: re cue s op.. ,fia 4 ifrtor a Iwo,0 o- " 31 I-T riCei ST. 11•"71 LI ass r • )4, Mit-na. eve? Time Time Elapsed Depth to Water Vol. of Water Added Z;313 c-,0--- . Infiltration Test No. I Depth Diameter Vol. of Presat. Soil Description: Time Time Elapsed Depth to Water Vol. ofrWater Added -2, :46 Pre, lotAn .-g f! 15-ien 1-- v- to tk C tec 'UV'Olk 'Ste' Date Received: FEB 1 5 2011 Original Submittal ( A • • Project Name: 06(2 kinGt;i1 Sft .h C"Eti< Project No.: 0 (Cc', Project Location: (3: ((J ( “-t- (Ael'11 S (ct Date of Field Work: /I r:31((:( Comments: frc.e pcf I Infiltration Test No. Z. Depth Diameter Vol. of Presat. Soil Description: Time Time Elapsed Depth to Water Vol. of Water Added fm. kft.Tt°, P — .etvt •--1 A 0 C-7Cti J Tye cr F 0"; 5-11 Infiltration Test Test No. i Depth Diameter Vol. of Presat. Soil Description: Time Time Elapsed Depth to Water Vol. of Water Added 00 irr 1,A ck •4 j". -‘.4 ``A ; (1C n pTcfc- 6,r0voikk- ft> 2-Sir' Date Received: FEB 1 5 2011 Original Submittal • Project Name: ()go We mn S t. S r 4° Project No.: o A`(S° Project Location: s r cr P f .tt. ) s of I Date of Field Work: V h )s ICO Comments: c.c,c, pc r Infiltration Test No. if Depth Diameter Vol. of Presat. Soil Description: Time Time Elapsed Depth to Water Vol. of Water Added L i6 , -� `'I J 6,1 Je�5 `rt` S In c V1. n R 4 y� a ( e,ver iJ Utrf Infiltration Test No. Depth Diameter Vol. of Presat. Soil Description: Time Time Elapsed Depth to Water Vol. of Water Added Date Received: FEB 1 5 2011 Original Submittal i 3 / • • Storm Drainage Evaluation 515t-52nd a Main Street Redevelopment - Option B Appendix C Proposed Drainage Basin Map Date Received: FEB 15 2011 Original Submittal siti ifil Z 0 CD C-; CO pi C.) • g L12°) 1.•-•••1 0 0▪ P; A i (:)) t 1"M F., al Cm ca tat' --' ° ya A' E r. i ra 1:2 ---- A ° E- va§ 0 ix cv c, 0 co 4 011 ccl cz' ciii LL, . ; Cll .1. tri El : Ei — cu 7d1 F,. i 1 •Th CI) OM id I I ¢ ›, 6----- a. -z:c ••••1 r, ¢ tut) iii tug XI f:Zi 0 0 2-, —, ec a, ----a..., "4 Kg 1 g g- P4 C.) ‘3 g ,...„, ..< , a_ g a • rt. X 4a g -g _a 0 0 CV ki b W o (,) • --, oz cn ki • I cz ° ale'" 44 , rzi ka ;... q E•4 r_171 Clr O La Val to I 1 ti. 4 1 LS Prz29 I M :--i"" •S .4 ,. M . I i .a4r- -7 (---- - _.__ •c_ ::„, - ns'i ---- -- ya-- -- -,--?(-• -- - --B-1-g1- .....---- , l i Dri if HO / 7 - E - - , . . / / /„ .< / / A A__. i .d. , , / / /217/7i/ // /27 , 77 „,_/7 ; 27.;. H // // / //„ / , ' I : j r i :. //// / / /////// //1..// ,//13/ A '9 IS .9 / / / / 7/ „ , „ / / / I , / /./ . / //// yr 7,, ,,,,////1.0., . , / ... 7 , , / / . ... .. , , ..=, ,, ,, , „ , „ , 0 / 4...7/ 7 , Rai ''' / / / i' / / // / 6. / / , v .. / ./. . 8 / ,__ 1 -- I • 2 / car .. . . I I tti 1 / / / /PO4.1r2 . 1 1 ‘ / / MI. / / / / 1 - ' Elinn . ' lialiniarn 1 is .fr: //ar Era/V /7/// /2/tri I :& Mil / / / „;.1../ to/ / i ---- --1-- 1-1. r\ P?'.alLa dirat: a AfiggreI - red . . /t'a ' ,/(I i.. \SII-WIWII '■ - / 4 u , ,,,: . 7- / / 1/4. :-.. Nn\ r pr-, , / al '' I ' 1/4k \ i • ‹t I \ IR. \\* • 4/1 7 osisirss, , , .• f 1 . - ?_ •-•. C.3 li cr. Co Z 0 or - ysi,/A S * Ct 0 (I) co ' i . ....._._ _ • , _ _ ._,._,nr....„,,.._ 4._ ac_.w07 asurgagnanaseamm// (9, ,,,,,/, i - WaNatEtlabliIM a rag wv//A ,, , ,, , 10„;.,,,,. i 1 _ •.?_ 0,5/ / , ‘, \\\.\\\:\>, • ••„ o co •cc /a. \\\ , \ , \ra /, / ///,-.3r//▪ /pzt, / • i 1 ! \ --/- - A k- e7ca rn /„, 0 ", N \ \\ \ "--N a // 1/•/,011// //. :. I i• Ninlibi *. caLLI_ k-CD abhZ c;77/11\H INCIS .\\,\\:::•:\\' \--1.01 F ::„:„/ „.„,,,i/i/ii",,,,i 7 ral I ; / .4•4‘)/ /11/ Z//.\\:\: \ \ \I \ \\ NI:27/,/ ' 7/ ,,.- gE / I, ' .... //77 :/-/- itc-c ---\:\'• N(7, 11//iV ' ki, , , , ,„., , / , r „„- - /,,v . \,\ ,..\ ,... / ,, / . Ar/ s / ill • - I :- • #77 //:,:\.. \ - Arerawroies \\ \it. -thwt, isti / “f°,,,',2 / // , -. __. .-•-• l• 1 I i L.\ i , , k \\ il NI \<51r1pa 1 P V/A1(//</ //1:71, eV \ / /' ,,• p. , 4 ----\\ I \ KlElimi62 ' ' /.4 • ' 7" / / % ' imi; 4 / I N ‘„ \\, ,\* ' N • /4 r , / /id .,/,// /- / / / / , .N.. c-, : k •iii; .z ,._ \ A -uN , \\ ar . _ . . ,_. , , , . L. __, • sl• 19- "C .4 \ IA _ .., u-) , i_u • 0 - , gi )-- ; • ' i 2 \ 18 _ \ \ , ...: \:-.\\1, .\....__ .,• \\\ \\ \' \• \fiz -ii 1.,• .:•-\\N • ,-,_-= , , 6 -s•; ; \ \ \- p‘\:..-\\ ,\N„-,, ,„\\ -- .- -?. ' ., .\\CL \ \\ \ ' \\„\ \\ N‘ \ \\\ t1/4\ \\ \.\ \ "• ' i1/4 ' \ \ ilinumMi . \\\:•\\,:v N.\\\ r i 1 ;11 \4\ : ' \i, ‘ P•-.■=1~12--\\N .\\ \:41, J\,__"_,.,_ ,::: ,,\\\H,:\, it\ I ii ' ' \ I \\‘.. -t • ',-*ta \ \\\.\ \ \ ‘' ' \\\\N \ N \ 1 ' Ski \ .\t; , • 10-"Yelt\tercilikrYW N \ \ \\N, t",. ,EN ,'■,'\.1/4‘,•I.. "/_ - ‘t \ •' i - ‘ C \ \ \ \ \ ef b. ME = Am" 1 , rld isT 9 1 1 1 111,41111111111111110 I • „ i : 5 a _ -- . : 1 1 1;5- • Storm Drainage Evaluation 51s`-52nd & Main Street Redevelopment - Option B Appendix D Stormwater Runoff& Infiltration Basin Sizing Calculations Date Received: FEB 1 5.2011 Original Submittal • • Storm Drainage Evaluation 51x`-52"d 8: Main Street Redevelopment - Option B Infiltration Basin A-Water Quality Storm ******************** S.C.S. TYPE-1A DISTRIBUTION ******************* ********* 1-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** .83" TOTAL PRECIP. ******* ENTER: A(PERV) , CN(PERV) , A(IMPERV) , CN(IMPERV) , TC FOR BASIN NO. 1, 0.09, 61, 0.34, 98, 10 DATA PRINT-OUT: AREA(ACRES) • PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES) A CN A CN . 4 .1 61.0 .3 98 .0 10.0 PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT) .06 7 .83 773 - - ENTER [d: ] [path] filename[.ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-wgaa.dev RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE SPECIFY [d: ] [path] filename[ .ext] OF ROUTING DATA 09159aa.rd DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N) ? Y ROUTING DATA: STAGE(FT) DISCHARGE (CFS) STORAGE(CU-FT) PERM-AREA(SQ-FT) 494 . 00 .00 .0 .0 494 .25 .02 106.0 .0 494 . 50 . 03 242 .0 .0 494 . 75 .03 410.0 .0 -495. 00 .04 611 .0 .0 495.25 .04 843.0 .0 495. 50 .05 1098 .0 .0 495. 75 .05 1377 .0 .0 496. 00 .06 1685.0 .0 496.25 . 59 2023.0 .0 496. 50 1.56 2392.0 .0 AVERAGE PERM-RATE: .0 MINUTES/INCH ENTER [d: ] [path]filename[ .ext] OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-wqaa.dev INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS: PEAK-INFLOW(CFS) PEAK-OUTFLOW(CFS) OUTFLOW-VOL(CU-FT) .06 .02 830 INITIAL-STAGE (FT) TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS) PEAK-STAGE-ELEV(FT) .00 8.33 494.30 PEAK STORAGE: 130 CU-FT Date Received: FEB 15 2011 Original Submittal • • Storm Drainage Evaluation • • 51s`-52nd 8 Main Street Redevelopment - Option B Infiltration Basin A-2 Year Storm ******************** S.C.S. TYPE-1A DISTRIBUTION ******************* ********* 2-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** 3.30" TOTAL PRECIP. ******* ENTER: A(PERV) , CN(PERV) , A(IMPERV) , CN(IMPERV) , TC FOR BASIN NO. 1 0.09, 61, 0.34, 98, 10 DATA PRINT-OUT: AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES) A CN A CN . 4 .1 61.0 .3 98 .0 10.0 PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT) .26 7 .83 3942 ENTER [d: ] [path]filename [ .ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-2aa.dev RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE SPECIFY [d: ] [path] filename[ .ext] OF ROUTING DATA 09159aa.rd DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N) ? Y ROUTING DATA: STAGE(FT) DISCHARGE(CFS) STORAGE(CU-FT) PERM-AREA(SQ-FT) 494 . 00 .00 .0 .0 494 .25 .02 97.0 .0 494 . 50 .03 223.0 .0 494 . 75 .03 379.0 .0 495 . 00 .04 568 .0 .0 495 . 25 .04 786. 0 .0 495 . 50 .05 1026.0 .0 . 495. 75 .05 1290.0 .0 496. 00 .06 1578 .0 .0 496. 25 .59 1891.0 .0 496. 50 1.55 2229.0 .0 AVERAGE PERM-RATE: .0 MINUTES/INCH ENTER [d: ] [path]filename[ .ext] OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-2aa.dev INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS: PEAK-INFLOW(CFS) PEAK-OUTFLOW(CFS) OUTFLOW-VOL(CU-FT) .26 .05 3903 INITIAL-STAGE(FT) TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS) PEAK-STAGE-ELEV(FT) .00 10.83 495.61 PEAK STORAGE: 1140 CU-FT Date Received: FEB 1 5 2011 Original Submittal • • Storm Drainage Evaluation 51Q-52nd 8 Main Street Redevelopment - Option B Infiltration Basin A-10 Year Storm ******************** S.C.S. TYPE-1A DISTRIBUTION ******************* ********* 10-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** 4 .30" TOTAL PRECIP. ******* ENTER: A(PERV) , CN(PERV) , A(IMPERV) , CN(IMPERV) , TC FOR BASIN NO. 1 0.09, 61, 0.34, 98, 10 DATA PRINT-OUT: AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES) A CN A CN .4 . 1 61.0 .3 98.0 10.0 PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT) .35 7 .83 5330 ENTER [d: ] [path] filename [ .ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-10aa.dev RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE SPECIFY [d: ] [path] filename[ .ext] OF ROUTING DATA 09159aa.rd DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N) ? Y ROUTING DATA: STAGE(FT) DISCHARGE (CFS) STORAGE(CU-FT) PERM-AREA(SQ-FT) 494 . 00 .00 .0 .0 494 .25 .02 97 .0 .0 494 . 50 .03 223.0 .0 • 494 .75 .03 379.0 .0 495. 00 .04 568 .0 .0 495. 25 .04 786.0 .0 495. 50 .05 1026.0 .0 495. 75 .05 1290.0 . 0 496. 00 .06 1578 .0 . 0 496.25 .59 1891.0 .0 496. 50 1 .55 2229.0 . 0 AVERAGE PERM-RATE: .0 MINUTES/INCH ENTER [d: ] [path] filename[ .ext] OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-10aa.dev INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS: ,PEAK-INFLOW(CFS) PEAK-OUTFLOW(CFS) OUTFLOW-VOL(CU-FT) . .35 .08 5322 INITIAL-STAGE(FT) TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS) PEAK-STAGE-ELEV(FT) . 00 10. 67 496.01 Date STORAGE: 1690 CU-FT Date R @C@IVBd: FEB 15 .2011 Original Submittal • • Storm• Drainage Evaluation 51s`-52nd & Main Street Redevelopment - Option B Infiltration Basin A-25 Year Storm ******************** S.C.S. TYPE-1A DISTRIBUTION ******************* ********* 25-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** 4 . 80" TOTAL PRECIP. ******* ENTER: A(PERV) , CN (PERV) , A(IMPERV) , CN(IMPERV) , TC FOR BASIN NO. 1 0.09, 61, 0.34, 98, 10 DATA PRINT-OUT: AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TO(MINUTES) A CN A CN .4 . 1 61 .0 .3 98 .0 10.0 PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT) .40 7.83 6037 ENTER [d: ] [path] filename[ .ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-25aa.dev RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE SPECIFY [d: ] [path] filename[ .ext] OF ROUTING DATA 09159aa.rd DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N) ? Y ROUTING DATA: STAGE(FT) DISCHARGE(CFS) STORAGE(CU-FT) PERM-AREA(SQ-FT) 494 .00 .00 .0 .0 494 . 25 .02 97 .0 .0 494 .50 .03 223.0 .0 494 .75 .03 379.0 .0 495.00 .04 568 . 0 .0 495 .25 . 04 786.0 .0 495. 50 .05 1026.0 .0 495.75 .05 1290. 0 .0 496.00 .06 1578.0 .0 496.25 .59 1891.0 .0 496.50 1.55 2229.0 .0 AVERAGE PERM-RATE: .0 MINUTES/INCH ENTER [d: ] [path] filename[ .ext] OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-25aa.dev INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS: PEAK-INFLOW(CFS) PEAK-OUTFLOW(CFS) OUTFLOW-VOL(CU-FT) .40 .14 6041 INITIAL-STAGE(FT) TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS) PEAK-STAGE-ELEV(FT) .00 8 .67 496.04 PEAK STORAGE: 1730 CU-FT Date Received: FEB 1 5 2011 Original Submittal • Storm Drainage Evaluation 51 `-52nd 8: Main Street Redevelopment - Option B Infiltration Basin B-Water Quality Storm ******************** S.C.S. TYPE-1A DISTRIBUTION ******************* ********* 1-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** .83" TOTAL PRECIP. ******* ENTER: A(PERV) , CN(PERV) , A(IMPERV) , CN(IMPERV) , TC FOR BASIN NO. 1 0.04, 61, 0.09, 98, 10 DATA PRINT-OUT: AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES) A CN A CN .1 .0 61.0 . 1 98. 0 10.0 PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT) .01 * 7 . 83 204 ENTER [d: ] [path]filename[ .ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-WQBB. DEV RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE - SPECIFY [d: ] [path] filename[ .ext] OF ROUTING DATA 0915986.RD DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N) ? Y ROUTING DATA: STAGE(FT)- DISCHARGE(CFS) STORAGE(CU-FT) PERM-AREA(SQ-FT) 496. 00 .00 .0 .0 496. 25 .01 63.0 .0 496. 50 .02 141 .0 .0 496. 75 - .02 235.0 .0 497 . 00 .02 345.0 .0 497 . 25 .55 472.0 .0 AVERAGE PERM-RATE: .0 MINUTES/INCH ENTER [d: ] [path]filename [ .ext] OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-WQBB. DEV INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS: PEAK-INFLOW(CFS) PEAK-OUTFLOW(CFS) OUTFLOW-VOL(CU-FT) .01 .01 47 INITIAL-STAGE(FT) TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS) PEAK-STAGE-ELEV(FT) .00 8 .50 496.13 PEAK STORAGE: 30 CU-FT Date Received: FEB 1 5 2011 Original Submittal Storm Drainage Evaluation 51"-52nd a Main Street Redevelopment - Option B Infiltration Basin B-2 Year Storm ******************** S.C.S. TYPE-1A DISTRIBUTION ******************* ********* 2-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** 3.30" TOTAL PRECIP. ******* ENTER: A(PERV) , CN(PERV) , A(IMPERV) , CN(IMPERV) , TC FOR BASIN NO. 1 0 .04, 61, 0.09, 98, 10 DATA PRINT-OUT: AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES) A CN A CN . 1 .0 61 .0 . 1 98.0 10.0 PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT) .07 7.83 1071 ENTER [d: ] [path] filename[ .ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-2B8.DEV RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE SPECIFY [d: ] [path] filename[ .ext] OF ROUTING DATA 09159BB.RD DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N) ? Y ROUTING DATA: STAGE(FT) DISCHARGE (CFS) STORAGE(CU-FT) PERM-AREA(SQ-FT) 496. 00 . 00 .0 .0 496. 25 .01 63.0 .0 496. 50 .02 141.0 .0 496. 75 .02 235.0 .0 497 . 00 .02 345.0 .0 497 .25 .55 472.0 .0 AVERAGE PERM-RATE: .0 MINUTES/INCH ENTER [d: ] [path] filename [ .ext] OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-2BB.DEV INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS: PEAK-INFLOW(CFS) PEAK-OUTFLOW(CFS) OUTFLOW-VOL(CU-FT) .07 .02 1079 INITIAL-STAGE(FT) TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS) PEAK-STAGE-ELEV(FT) .00 8 . 67 496.73 PEAK STORAGE: 220 CU-FT Date Received: FEB 1 5 2011 Original Submittal • Storm Drainage Evaluation 5Vt-52nd Et Main Street Redevelopment - Option B Infiltration Basin B- 10 Year Storm ******************** S.C.S. TYPE-1A DISTRIBUTION ******************* ********* 10-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** 4 .30" TOTAL PRECIP. ******* ENTER: A(PERV) , CN(PERV) , A(IMPERV) , CN(IMPERV) , TC FOR BASIN NO. 1 0.04, 61, 0.09, 98, 10 DATA PRINT-OUT: AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES) A CN A CN .1 .0 61.0 . 1 98.0' 10 .0 PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT) .10 7.83 1467 ENTER [d: ] [path] filename[ .ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-IOBB.DEV RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE SPECIFY [d: ] [path] filename[ .ext] OF ROUTING DATA 09159BB.RD DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N) ? Y ROUTING DATA: STAGE(FT) DISCHARGE(CFS) STORAGE(CU-FT) PERM-AREA(SQ-FT) 496. 00 . 00 .0 .0 496. 25 .01 63.0 .0 496. 50 . 02 141.0 .0 496.75 . 02 235.0 .0 497 . 00 . 02 345.0 .0 497 .25 .55 472.0 .0 AVERAGE PERM-RATE: .0 MINUTES/INCH ENTER [d: ] [path] filename[ .ext] OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-10BB.DEV INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS: PEAK-INFLOW(CFS) PEAK-OUTFLOW(CFS) OUTFLOW-VOL(CU-FT) .10 .02 1386 INITIAL-STAGE(FT) TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS) PEAK-STAGE-ELEV(FT) .00 9.00 ' 496.99 PEAK STORAGE: 330 CU-FT Date Received: FEB 1 5 2011 Original Submittal • Storm Drainage Evaluation 51"-52nd Ft Main Street Redevelopment - Option B Infiltration Basin B-25 Year Storm ****************+*** S.C.S. TYPE-1A DISTRIBUTION ******************* ********* 25-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** 4 .80" TOTAL PRECIP. ******* ENTER: A(PERV) , CN(PERV) , A(IMPERV) , CN(IMPERV) , TC FOR BASIN NO. 1 0.04, 61, 0.09, 98, 10 DATA PRINT-OUT: AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TO (MINUTES) A CN A CN .1 .0 61.0 . 1 98. 0 10.0 PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT) .11 7.83 1671 ENTER [d: ] [path] filename [.ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-25BB.DEV RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE SPECIFY [d: ] [path] filename[ .ext] OF ROUTING DATA 09159BB.RD DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N) ? Y ROUTING DATA: STAGE(FT) DISCHARGE (CFS) STORAGE (CU-FT) PERM-AREA(SQ-FT) 496.00 .00 .0 .0 496. 25 .01 63.0 .0 496. 50 .02 141 .0 .0 496. 75 .02 235.0 .0 . 497 . 00 .02 345.0 .0 497 . 25 .55 472 .0 .0 AVERAGE PERM-RATE: .0 MINUTES/INCH ENTER [d: ] [path] filename[ .ext] OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-25BB.DEV INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS: • PEAK-INFLOW(CFS) PEAK-OUTFLOW(CFS) OUTFLOW-VOL(CU-FT) .11 .04 1597 INITIAL-STAGE (FT) TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS) PEAK-STAGE-ELEV(FT) .00 8.50 ' 497.01 PEAK STORAGE: 340 CU-FT Date Received: FEB 1 5 2011 Original Submittal-_____ • • Storm Drainage Evaluation 515`-52nd a Main Street Redevelopment - Option B Infiltration Basin C-Water Quality Storm ******************** S.C.S. TYPE-1A DISTRIBUTION ******************* ********* 1-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** .83" TOTAL PRECIP. ******* ENTER: A(PERV) , CN(PERV) , A(IMPERV) , CN(IMPERV) , TC FOR BASIN NO. 1 0 .01, 61, 0.07, 98, 10 DATA PRINT-OUT: AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TO(MINUTES) A CN A CN .1 .0 61 . 0 .1 98.0 10.0 PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT) .01 7. 83 159 ENTER [d: ] [path] filename[ .ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-wqbc.dev RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE SPECIFY [d: ] [path] filename[ .ext] OF ROUTING DATA 09159bc.rd DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N) ? Y ROUTING DATA: STAGE(FT) DISCHARGE(CFS) STORAGE(CU-FT) PERM-AREA(SQ-FT) 495.75 .00 .0 . 0 496.00 .01 39.0 . 0 496.25 .01 88 .0 .0 496.50 .01 - 147.0 . 0 496.75 .01 218 .0 .0 497 .00 .37 301.0 .0 AVERAGE PERM-RATE: .0 MINUTES/INCH ENTER [d: ] [path] filename [ .ext] OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-wgbc.dev INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS: PEAK-INFLOW(CFS) PEAK-OUTFLOW(CFS) OUTFLOW-VOL(CU-FT) .01 .00 29 INITIAL-STAGE(FT) TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS) PEAK-STAGE-ELEV(FT) .00 8 .33 495.87 PEAK STORAGE: 10 CU-FT Date Received: FEB 1 5 2011 Original Submittal • • Storm Drainage Evaluation 51s`-52nd 8 Main Street Redevelopment - Option B Infiltration Basin C-2 Year Storm ******************** S.C.S. TYPE-1A DISTRIBUTION ******************* ********* 2-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** 3.30" TOTAL PRECIP. ******* ENTER: A(PERV) , CN(PERV) , A(IMPERV) , CN(IMPERV) , TC FOR BASIN NO. 1 0.01, 61, 0.07, 98, 10 • DATA PRINT-OUT: AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES) A CN A CN .1 .0 61 .0 .1 98.0 10.0 PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT) .05 7.83 796 ENTER [d: ] [path] filename [ .ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-2bc.dev RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE SPECIFY [d: ] [path] filename[ .ext] OF ROUTING DATA 09159bc.rd DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N) ? Y ROUTING DATA: STAGE(FT) DISCHARGE(CFS) STORAGE(CU-FT) PERM-AREA(SQ-FT) 495 .75 .00 . 0 .0 496. 00 .01 39.0 .0 496.25 • .01 88.0 .0 496.50 .01 147.0 . 0 496.75 .01 218. 0 .0 497 .00 .37 301. 0 .0 AVERAGE PERM-RATE: .0 MINUTES/INCH ENTER [d: ] [path] filename[ .ext] OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-2bc.dev INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS: PEAK-INFLOW(_CFS) PEAK-OUTFLOW(CFS) OUTFLOW-VOL(CU-FT) .05 .01 882 INITIAL-STAGE(FT) TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS) PEAK-STAGE-ELEV(FT) .00 8.83 ' 496.58 PEAK STORAGE: 170 CU-FT Date Received: FEB 1 5 2011 Original Submittal • • • Storm • Drainage Evaluation 5V-52nd ft Main Street Redevelopment - Option B Infiltration Basin C-10 Year Storm ******************** S.C.S. TYPE-1A DISTRIBUTION ******************* ********* 10-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** 4 .30" TOTAL PRECIP. ******* ENTER: A(PERV) , CN(PERV) , A(IMPERV) , CN(IMPERV) , TC FOR BASIN NO. 1 0. 01, 61, 0.07, 98, 10 DATA PRINT-OUT: AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES) A CN A CN . 1 .0 61 .0 .1 98.0 10.0 PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT) .07 7.83 1067 ENTER [d: ] [path] filename[ .ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-10bc.dev RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE SPECIFY [d: ] [path] filename[ .ext] OF ROUTING DATA 09159bc.rd DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N) ? Y ROUTING DATA: STAGE (FT) DISCHARGE (CFS) STORAGE(CU-FT) PERM-AREA(SQ-FT) 495. 75 .00 .0 . 0 496. 00 .01 39.0 .0 496. 25 .01 88.0 .0 496. 50 .01 147 .0 .0 496. 75 .01 218.0 .0 497 . 00 .37 301 .0 .0 AVERAGE PERM-RATE: .0 MINUTES/INCH ENTER [d: ] [path] filename [ .ext] OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-10bc.dev INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS: PEAK-INFLOW(CFS) PEAK-OUTFLOW(CFS) OUTFLOW-VOL(CU-FT) .07 .05 1098 INITIAL-STAGE(FT) TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS) PEAK-STAGE-ELEV(FT) .00 8. 17 • 496.78 PEAK STORAGE: 220 CU-FT Date Received: FEB 1 5 2011 Original Submittal • • Storm Drainage Evaluation 51"-52nd 8 Main Street Redevelopment - Option B Infiltration Basin C-25 Year Storm ******************** S.C.S. TYPE-1A DISTRIBUTION ******************* ********* 25-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** 4 .80" TOTAL PRECIP. ******* ENTER: A(PERV) , CN(PERV) , A(IMPERV) , CN(IMPERV) , TC FOR BASIN NO. 1 0.01, 61, 0.07, 98, 10 DATA PRINT-OUT: AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC (MINUTES) A CN A CN . 1 .0 61.0 . 1 98 .0 10.0 PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT) .08 7 .83 1204 ENTER [d: ] [path] filename[ .ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-25bc.dev RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE SPECIFY Ed: ] [path] filename[ .ext] OF ROUTING DATA 09159bc.rd DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N) ? Y ROUTING DATA: STAGE(FT) DISCHARGE(CFS) STORAGE (CU-FT) PERM-AREA(SQ-FT) 495.75 .00 .0 .0 496.00 .01 39.0 .0 496.25 - .01 88.0 .0 496.50 .01 147 .0 .0 496.75 .01 218 .0 .0 497 .00 .37 301 .0 .0 AVERAGE PERM-RATE: .0 MINUTES/INCH ENTER [d: ] [path] filename[ .ext] OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-25bc.dev INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS: PEAK-INFLOW(CFS) PEAK-OUTFLOW(CFS) OUTFLOW-VOL(CU-FT) .08 .07 1236 INITIAL-STAGE(FT) TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS) PEAK-STAGE-ELEV(FT) .00 8.00 ' 496.79 PEAK STORAGE: • 230 CU-FT Date Received: FEB 1 5 2011 Original Submittal__ Storm Drainage Evaluation 51st-52nd a Main Street Redevelopment - Option B Appendix E Vegetated Infiltration Basin and Double Chambered Catch Basins with Fossil Filter Insert Date Received: FEB 1 5 2011 Original Submittal_ _____ r r r • • • • • ,C 9 FT MINIMUM i FOR PARKING LOTS, TIRE STOPS OR CURBS W/CUTS 3:1 MAX. 2 Fl SIDE SLOPES FLAT BOTTOM 12"x12" CLEAR FLOW (TYP.) OVERFLOW AREA AT CUTOUTS 2_ ELEVATION n ®,, .. .•... • (SEE NOTE 2B) —' " \ X ) \'-'\''.;-A/AAj V A V \ •.\' V �" • •• 18 \ ',. \ice\\-'�� : �\ \R \ R\-• �,; 12' (SEE NOTE 6 '1 - _ I ` i--?0�r'` . - 1 w i -��-"' - FILTER FABRIC, SEE NOTE 7 SEE SW-150 FOR PIPING J ' • 'EXISTING SUBGRADE _ - CONRGURA1ON. 1.Provide protection from all vehicle traffic,equipment staging, 6.Drain rock: and foot traffic in proposed infiltration areas prior to,during, a.Size for infiltration basin:1'/2"-3/."washed and after construction. b.Size for flow-through basin:3,4"washed c.Depth for Simplified: IT • 2.Dimensions: d.Depth for Presumptive:0-48",see talcs. a.Width of basin:9'minimum. b.Depth of basin(from top of growing medium to 7.Separation between drain rock and growing medium: . overflow elevation);Simplified: 12",Presumptive: Use filter fabric(see SWMM Exhibit 2-5)or 9"-18". a gravel lens(%-%inch washed,crushed rock 2 to 3 inches c. Flat bottom width:2'min. deep). . d.Side slopes of basin:3:1 maximum. 8.Growing medium: 3.Setbacks(from midpoint of facility): 8.18"minimum • a.Infiltration basins must be 10'from foundations and b.See Appendix F.3 for specification or use 5'from property lines. sand/loam/compost 3-way mix. b.Flow-through swales must be lined with connection to approved discharge point according to SWMM 9.Vegetation:Follow landscape plans otherwise refer to-plant Section 1.3. list in SWMM Appendix F. Minimum container size is 1 gallon. #of plantings per 100sf of facility area): 4.Overflow: a.Zone A(wet): 115 herbaceous plants OR 100 a.Overflow required for Simplified Approach. herbaceous plants and 4 shrubs b.Inlet elevation must allow for 2"of freeboard, b.Zone B(moderate to dry): 1 tree AND 3 large minimum, shrubs AND 4 medium to small shrubs. c.Protect from debris and sediment with strainer or The delineation between Zone A and B shall be either at the grate. outlet elevation or the check darn elevation,whichever is lowest. 5.Piping:shall be ABS Sch.40,cast iron,or PVC Sch.40. 3" pipe required for up to 1,500 sq ft of impervious area, 10. Install washed pea gravel or river rock to transition from otherwise 4"min. Piping must have 1%grade and follow the inlets and splash pad to growing medium. Uniform Plumbing Code. 11. Inspections:Call BDS IVR Inspection Line, (503)823-7000, • for appropriate inspections.Date Received: FEB 1 5 2011 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MANUAL TYPICAL DETAILS - Simplified / Presumptive Design Approach - Original Submittal NUMBER .J Basin ELb SW-140• r Bureau of Environmental Services •• \::. • FLOGARDTM 53" FILTER INSERT cy (MODEL FGP-24F) • __TS WOVEN MESH �H�' x FILTER BODY•w �, iiOJi ••ra. ig 1 `! •>.�•t� • NOTES: j;`se �*;•• N BOX FABRICATED FROM OD �1 �•`A?: 10 GA. MATERIAL NEOPRENE GASKET 1 (TWO SIDES) OUTLET '. 48" LONG j DUCTILE IRON SOLID LID & DUCTILE IRON GRATE PLAN VIEW BIKE PROOF, HEAVY SILT & DEBRIS HIGH DUTY TRAFFIC GRATE CONTAINMENT AREA FLOW SUPPORTS AASHTO L2bx2ix BYPASS H25 LOADS FRAME 53' ir . , • OUTLET r,_ L 1- -- -,a2 0 z LSEDIMENT TRAP W/ HINGED LID SEDIMENT TRAP 1 48" 1 REPLACEABLE ABSORBENT SIDE VIEW PO..UCHES ISOMETRIC SEDIMENT & HYDROCARBONS FILTRATION SYSTEM STATE APPROVED — ASPHALT DIPPEDate Received: L 24"x42" — 6"o OUTLET FEB 1 5 2011 SAND COLLECTOR CATCH BASIN submittal DW G # PROD. MAN. DOUG P. DWN. PAUL G. SCALE NONE Gibson Steel'Basins SINCE 1972 DATE: JAN. 23, 06 MODEL: SCRF10-42H13-6 247 Washington St. Eugene, Or. 97401 ph_(547) 687 - 8672 fax:344-0207 K ; • • • STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN AND DRAINAGE STUDY FOR 51st-52nd & Ma ' treet Redevelopment OPTION C2 'pringhielT, () February 15, 2011 Prepared For TBG Architects 132 E. Broadway, Suite 200 ¢5,p PRop. Eugene, OR 97401 � ,aGiNFF ssjo2 Ar 53800PE a O EGON Branch Engineering, Inc. CPF os,7o°� ' 310 5th Street A. A. MP Springfield, OR 97477 ExP 12_3/_/Z Phone (541) 746-0637 Fax (541) 746-0389 Q� Branch Engineering, Inc. y" Branch Project#09-159 Date Received: FEB 1 5 2011 Original Submittal 11717.(2010 12:09 FAX 541 • 21 CITY OF SPRINGFIELI. lj 002 stn.rvGinCL.0 IL{tl 1' • I.r^s J v t .✓ Jl l" old '-at r-:a j { < eQS.'4"! "`qa +, to ` tr 0.pF��4a4�10� 7r:. 1 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 Man Stouder @ City of Sprtheteld Public Works Engineering;Fax#736-1021,Phone# 736-1035.) Project Name: MO Enterprises,LLC Applicant: Branch Engineering Assessors Parcel#: 17-02-33-32 TL 6200 & 6300 Date: 11/03/10 Land Use(s): Community Commercial(CC) Phone#: 541-746-0637 Project Size(Acres): 13 acres Fax#: 541-746-0389 Approx.Impervious Area: 1.07 acres Email: greg@branchengineering.com Project Description(Include a copy of Assessor's map): 1.5 acres site with two commercial buildings near Main Street and a 15 unit apartment building to the south of the commercial buildings with associated landscaping and parking facilities. Drainage Proposal(Public connection(s), discharge location(s),etc. Attach additional sheet(s)if necessary: West side of the site will drain toward 51"Place and connect to the existing storm line in the street. The east side of the site will drain toward S2"6 Street and connect to the existing storm line in the street. Proposed Stormwater Best Management Practices: Infiltration basins and planters will be used on-site with overflows and trapped catch basins. (Area below this line fined out by the City and Returned to the Applicant)-- (Ara mininnvn all boxes checked by the City on the front and back of this sheet shall be submitted - .. an application 10 be complete for submittal, although other)-equirements may be necesscry:);=. Drainage Study Type (EDSPM Section 4.03.2): (Note,Till may be substituted for Rational Method) i Small Site Study—(use Rational Method for calculations) %%t Mid-Level Development Study—(use Unit Hydrograph Method for calculations) ❑ Full Drainage Development Study—(use Unit Hydrograph Method for calculations) Environmental Considerations: I Wellhead Zone: 9 � Hillside Development: f,11/t� Wetland/Riparian: Floodway/Floodplain: tilt r' Soil Type: 1.141 q-F ( 4,, 1. ba0 Other Jurisdictions: OD us- Downstream Analysis: (o `-- r- ile N/A ❑ Flow line for starting water surface elevation: ❑ Design HGL to use for starting water surface elevation: ❑ Manhole/Junction to take analysis to: Date--Received• Return to Matt Stouder @ City of Springfield,email: mstouder @ci_springfield.or.usFFQX` (541) 36-b021_ Original Submittal MI O ,'cad till orllo onf in • A/1772010 12:09 FAX 541 • 21 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD el 003 COMPLETE STUDY ITEMS For Official Use Only: Nags *Based upon the information provided on the front of this,sheet, the following represents a minimum of what is needed for an application to be complete for submittal with respect to drainage;however, this list shmdd 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 reaping 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 R'% 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. P037, ❑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). % ❑ 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. o.. ❑ If a stonnwater 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. efa ❑ Water Quality calculations as required in Section 3.03.1 of the EDSPM • ❑ 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) ® ❑ Drainage study prepared by a Professional Civil Engineer licensed in the state of Oregon. ❑ ❑ 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. �&] I I The time of concentration(Tc)shall be determined using a 10 minute start time for developed basins. Review of Downstream System(EDSPM Section 4.03.4.0 ❑ %v 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). ❑ I'ct •Elevations of the I-IGL and flow lines for both city and private systems where applicable. Design of Storm Systems(EDSPM Section 4.04) rte- r❑r'�I F• low lines,slopes,rim elevations,pipe type and sizes clearly indicated on the plan set_ ❑ rfhp Minimum pipe cover shall be IS 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 be sufficient to support an 60,000 lb load without failure of the pipe structure. ❑ 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 Ml based on Table 4-1 as well. Other/Misc ▪ n E• xisting and proposed contours,located at one foot interval. Include spot elevations and site grades showing how site drains .• n Private stormwater easements shall be clearly depicted on plans when private stormwater flows from one property to another ❑ FT, 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.denstate.or.us/wefgroundwa/uichome.hcm for more information. • ❑ D• etention ponds shall be designed to limit runoff to pre-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 *71V1PORTAN,T.•ENGINEER PLEASE READ BELOW AND SICN! Date Received: As the engineer of record,I hereby certify the above required items are complete and included with the submitted stormwater study and Pitt« set_ - FEB 1 5 2011 Signature: Date: • Original Submittal Revised 11/19/09 • 10 of 10 t. • • Storm Drainage Evaluation 51s`-52nd a Main Street Redevelopment - Option C Introduction This evaluation was prepared to summarize the drainage system proposed for the 51st-52nd & Main Street Redevelopment Option C. This storm drainage evaluation will determine the type and size of water quality/quantity facilities that are acceptable to the City of Springfield. The 51st-52nd & Main Street Redevelopment is located on the south side of Main Street and east of 51' Place and west of 52nd Street in Springfield, Oregon. The proposed project site is comprised of two tax lots, TM17023332 TL 6200 and TL 6300. Existing Conditions The existing site is bounded by Main Street to the north, 51"place to the west, 52nd Street to the east and residential to the south. The site consists of an existing building, a burned down existing building, driveways and landscaping. The impervious surfaces consist of roofs. The pervious surfaces consist of landscaping. According to the Soils Survey of Lane County, Oregon, by the Natural Resource Conservation Service, the soil at the site is Salem Urban Land Complex (Soil Number: 119, Hydrologic Group: B). Refer to Appendix A for soils map information. Proposed Site Conditions The proposed project includes one new commercial buildings, three buildings with townhomes with associated parking, sidewalks and landscaping. The parking and drive aisles will consist of asphalt pavement and the sidewalks will be concrete. Water Quality Treatment and Storm Water Conveyance System The City of Springfield is encouraging as much infiltration on this site as possible. Therefore, the site is proposed to have drainage basins which will flow to infiltration/detention basins located across the site and pervious pavers will be installed in some parking spaces. The infiltration/detention basins will be landscaped with appropriate vegetation and topsoil to allow treatment and infiltration of stormwater with storage above for detaining stormwater. Detention of the stormwater runoff for the 10 year storm is used to determine the reduction in service development charges. Infiltration testing was conducted and the site was determined to have adequate infiltration rates to serve the proposed improvements. See the table below for infiltration results and information. Test Test Location Test Test Soils Measured Depth infiltration Rate 1 Northwest corner 48" 0-12" Topsoil of site 12-36" light brown clayey silt moist 4.5 inches/hour 36"-42" light brown clayey silt 42"-48" Bar Run See Appendix B for the infiltration testing data. There are two proposed infiltration/detention basins proposed on the site. Each is primarily treating/detaining parking areas. See Appendix C for the proposed Drainage Basin Map for location of infiltration/detention basins and thles t[erived: treating and infiltrating/detaining. Below is a brief description of each. FEB 1 5 2011 Original Submittal • • Storm Drainage Evaluation 51s`-52nd & Main Street Redevelopment - Option C Infiltration/Detention Basin A Infiltration/Detention Basin A is located on the west side of the site and west of the proposed restaurant. Infiltration/Detention Basin A will have asphalt parking and landscaping draining to it. The basin draining to Infiltration/Detention Basin A is 0.22 acres. One side has a 3:1 side slope and the other has a short retaining wall. Infiltration/Detention Basin A has approximately 800 cubic feet of storage. Infiltration/Detention Basin A is bisected by a concrete sidewalk and a 6" storm pipe is proposed to go under the concrete sidewalk to allow Infiltration/Detention Basin A to act as one basin. Infiltration/Detention Basin A is two feet deep from the top of the growing medium to the overflow. There is another 6" of freeboard above the overflow. The overflow for Infiltration/Detention Basin A is connected to a proposed 8" storm line that is connected to a proposed 12" storm line in 515` Place that will be constructed under a Public Improvement Permit. The outlet structure has a 1-1/2" diameter orifice set at elevation 494.50 to control the flow of water out of the infiltration/detention basin and allow for a reduction in service development charges. Infiltration/Detention Basin B Infiltration/Detention Basin B is located on the north side of the site along Main Street and west of the proposed ODOT driveway approach. Infiltration/Detention Basin B will have asphalt parking and landscaping draining to it. The basin draining to Infiltration/Detention Basin B is 0.29 acres. Infiltration/Detention Basin B is 1'-6" deep from the top of the growing medium to the overflow and has 3:1 side slopes. Infiltration/Detention Basin B has approximately 887 cubic feet of storage. The overflow for Infiltration/Detention Basin B is connected to a proposed 4" storm line that is connected to the existing public storm system in 52"d Street. The outlet structure has a 1-1/2"diameter orifice set at elevation 495.25 to control the flow of water out of the infiltration/detention basin and allow for a reduction in service development charges. Other drainage basins on the site will be treated by double chambered catch basins with filter inserts and conveyed through storm pipes to the public storm system. Stormwater Runoff Peak discharge rates for the post development conditions were generated using the Santa Barbara Unit Hydrograph method. The King County Department of Public Works, Surface Water Management Division, Hydrographs Programs, Version 4.21B computer program was used to assist in the = hydrologic calculations. See Appendix D for the stormwater runoff results. Below is a summary of the results for each drainage basin. Proposed Conditions Peak Discharge Rates (cfs) Storm Basin A Basin B WQ (0.83 inches/24 hours) 0.03 0.04 2 Year (3.3 inches/24 hours) 0.15 . 0.20 10 Year (4.3 inches/24 hours) 0.20 0.27 25 Year (4.8 inches/24 hours) 0.22 0.30 Date Received: FEB 152011 Original Submittal • • • Storm Drainage Evaluation 5V-52nd e Main Street Redevelopment - Option C Infiltration Basin Sizing Each infiltration/Detention basin is characterized in a spreadsheet to be used with the King County Department of Public Works, Surface Water Management Division, Hydrographs Programs, Version 4.21B computer program for routing the developed storm through the infiltration basin. The routing data can be found in Appendix D as well as the infiltration volumes and the required storage for each infiltration/detention basin. Below is a summary of each infiltration/detention basin. Infiltration Basin A Below is a summary of the peak flow rates and the peak elevation the stormwater will get in Infiltration Basin A during these specific storms. • Proposed Infiltration Basin A Storm Peak inflow (cfs) Peak outflow (cfs) Water Elevation (feet) WQ 0.03 0.01 494.32 2 Year 0.15 0.07 495.10 10 Year 0.20 0.08 495.36 25 Year 0.22 0.09 495.51 � Infiltration Basin A has approximately 800 cubic feet of storage. The overflow is set at an elevation of 496.00. There is a 1-1/2" diameter orifice in the outlet structure and it is set at elevation 494.50. The 10 year storm event will be detained as much as possible to allow for a reduction in the service development charges. The orifice and outlet are set above the water quality storm event to allow for maximum storm water treatment. The water quality storm will infiltrate within 21 hours. The infiltration basin will be landscaped in accordance with the City of Springfield requirements. Infiltration Basin B Below is a summary of the peak flow rates and the peak elevation the stormwater will get in Infiltration Basin B during these specific storms. Proposed Infiltration Basin B Storm Peak inflow(cfs) Peak outflow (cfs) Water Elevation (feet) WQ 0.04 0.02 494.99 2 Year 0.20 0.09 495.56 10 Year 0.27 0.10 495.82 25 Year 0.30 0.11 495.96 Infiltration Basin B has approximately 887 cubic feet of storage. The overflow is set at an elevation of 496.25. There is a 1-1/2" diameter orifice in the outlet structure and it is set at elevation 495.25. The 10 year storm event will be detained as much as possible to allow for a reduction in the service development charges. The orifice and outlet are set above the water quality storm event to allow for maximum storm water treatment. The water quality storm will infiltrate within 21 hours. The infiltration basin will be landscaped in accordance with the City of Springfield requirements. The rest of the site will drain to double chambered catch basins with filter inserts located in the parking areas and roof drains from the east commercial building and the townhouses will be directed to on-site private storm line that eventually flows to the public storm system in 52nd Street. Date Received: FEB 15 2011 mammal • • Storm Drainage Evaluation 51s`-52nd a Main Street Redevelopment - Option C See Appendix D for stormwater runoff, routing and infiltration basin stage-storage-outflow calculations. See Appendix E for Infiltration swale section and double chamber catch basin with filter insert. • Date Received: FEB 1 5 2011 Original Submittal • • Storm Drainage Evaluation Sr-52nd ft Main Street Redevelopment - Option C Appendix A Soil Maps and Soil Data Date Received: FEB 1 5 2011 Original Submittal • • 0669LBb OE69L96 OZ69L86 O169L96 0069[86 0689[06 0989L96 OL99L8b 6Z.9S2Zl -Pa.95.ZZ1 O 4, A n'"s`r} ^' ' +xtEY'i'tt a , n�..�.. �r"..y 's.. 'J- 1 r r a� � , . '`tip"*" .;'. .•3 ..�.a g, �'r"' .r A`�1, 9 � $ � z "`� "£ a ;494144 is vuzs � . �3 ., *Fa ua $ n i t' °3e i.,,, . ,k a�"c .irt V f yKy " .Lr c-- P i i'r xL+,�'▪ }� 1, jVwelk,;fr t[' ,R,k w'Af�` 'tY � aCaa -e-- - `. ird i. ,T5 r� • �'r-ya ac � z6 �-}q ( v� '� a 4 P- Psic•Y,, t W s h LrWR y y 1 , i � j 'i ,F illy. t + 3 F � ,i. 1 p ? „�.�. f ( A.st , �H tw"3 $7 m£ 1. 5 'S , d , 4, O n t c : 0,4 m 4. A.. 4 y ia� 1.0 .45. R a. r a ' .M' '"5'i1!y� '. i 50-n. „, .ia"`u> t`k fl c ,x r sL 4 *0i + _ ,:t-,-(---.�-7�. y . , ' T ,ryyv ���'+4.-z ,c ss� .014 S. Y i Fria * -. o i "s` Frt S-. n- `,.:R2 :',^. *— r} rrj , , e '4,5,�tn, yr Y, fly, •z,, §. a r+ 'R z t4� t n E'�ra- a4t°'�m S rr,t4---e .4 J1 ....b' F - t..t ..e -7✓ i'%` Ia v 3 e-R r ':2 # n1,r^ 9--.3-.' t y Jr e€. x ert 9, 2 �a - a`°M9a' dS r !r ; -y ' r ' s .y�r 1 fig „ r 2 R t,,:... a lia 1 7 - ' c.,°, '„mot 8 '" _r kY A ,s r" r {t. t '^-: g ray 4fs . Y'S , �Ly n 4%,t,',j.���W a ate- �Ti co Z at-y "6 $ ai .`'c '-Y �. Y 'SG�i o W 6a9 x • + "'$ Y'n +-F q .3• f id ui i :.fiLNJ{�d� ' <s P- o OO � ?�?,'s�st ��� ��..ii } t<'�a._: i Vii+ 4a 53f .� ;.� �� _ �`� Q W te: r M rS- `„▪ „ A it �$ --a-r^ radf .s e O lxs 5a, s "' "-as, .9-9 - 7 ,„, i f _ �� i ss -.,.-aaY: 3 W i•,"*'a • h . ca .aro J c a. ;"'M4'z`wu Z T .:f 7,} 4 Lr" ,s {Ect,city 'y8 $▪ 441 *,i ` f �` +i it 1' sQ rx. xi �g,-9.- r y `"rv"r" a...- i 2w A i_ d , �,,,,, '' A -7.-. J x m zf z - •ass" "1' -. o I I- ..; mzr ri r• y 4v ?^ ,+j >, 7v i 1,0z<e^4 a' co p¢ oo k7,7*, rh:;;,, q �4,,,xz -S4-9,,---,v,vdd Av:Sg'°,`R' ',P. a:.,.,� ys,Pt 4a,>`'z.7b`Y`. R d i.^f $$! e 'ex .. g, b(+ ^N 3 � f'6. 9,oz , e '{LYJ� AC` .. , i� a4 L i 5„ `o f Vil ap < 8rr.,.��•+!E t r h k 4 y.y'-•a yi s 8 1 a` air& � ey!.b p -S` fry. F. s ' $ !^'' b � � it =y 8 5 V tL i r .42 A� •i * , 2yi t �`^ . `, -... r ,---c, t F i' at rYi ¢ Vr .1! s i . w i 3 A• 8�' 3' a l r ° _ A 8 6-pr 7e A-.- ,-.29 � r iirl � ,-'' T 0, r- r `,,:-.1 rf 'Hi r x 3 - ") i �' J• .a v f i rL 'ai d Fs FUx -a r el r yy FFFFn r'o,J•, 'd -n fir. .�s2 n , e{- '�" '3,.Zs- y� ti U 4"aa-l','0 'G'4 a'Li'- + x over, e. Iel Yrr_ /4, } tt--c--T -, m ot4 .. ac satn 4tit pay w. ' 4">'g? :.. 4 c s4'+D m • ''r4}2�"!r`h.� h`5 .F GA�'.�'E P % >'h"+Y'u' . . '..-*s :.,,7 _. ° .or eJ*�,r$-' 4,y! "9. 'vcrp ,,. i. , !a rc:.. ate, ' ' S a. ,.- �' ..r �� a,66'C. �fi'� RG m �st��,Kq.+�S`c _ ,X � v, !r �, � .5q34-Y 'Ay+ zcj Y! r .' 4,- 'Sv � .e."`m.#� ,t zd 'f a. .tr x ,fi , a ,'.� { dam. r `g �' �rf 3: t r? lM , e � "4 Vid.C`s Y' E o -o w o I"' L !� Y .14`1 3 i 4 ht* 6} �x4 K To 0 t, 5 ,6 r k A t i'`y+�` , 3y' h ..a Ti � C ie 1 �; ..M va..,*y ^d+ri�-w ! V' "hJ.r "'s .#rJ+ '--*2 - 5 m --,- 7, s"4{ _,"; ' '":k � 55"+Q�i E ,�i x�'�v1 i u , „ ;. §,. * :Ra n_"�^'G 2 Z ' lr pis k. six, ,T ! . . -v 0.ayr ' r N ' �,4..; -'' m ; cei�6g ' C I 0E.9S.ZZL 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 9 .`ZZL �' 0069E917 0E69186 OZ69696 OL69L80 0069[96. 0689[86 0099406 OL89Leb FEB 15 2011 J Original Submittal O C O a O m N r g 0 CO o E m a) E N i N a) > 6 0)>i 0 O O 0 O I .O C z p ` N O _ 0 N O = a) a u o) -0 ,O c 6 E En O. 0 c • 0 ° 'o m E Z m o ow a o O fn c V aJ Ur _ - E -al o >,." U' O co m .. t _ ✓ 0 y a 0 Z m ° E a, Q fn 3 o ° Z G U o o -c o v °p O E U .`_" U m - t 3 " mom: Et N 6- v d a Q m O ¢ ° O a T N 0 c T LL o N > T d O c o o c c o E — a) 0 Z o vi a0i 0-N E o 'O c a d o E a i 1 ° a U N o m o O > m a CL m E D m o m > 3 d a t in Q O-▪ R [a ') m J U, t 0 O N ._ L '° Z D E c .. rn °:=" O 0 • n N .. 0 m -o v V >. a) co - O O) 0 c 0 CO o c --- O. a T UI m N •CO E - U @ 0 O C N ] f0 U G O 0 O O O 2 N c T E u) 0 3 0 N i) o O- N N .-. O N 0 0 . — 10 U — Z Q 0 = D 77 3 Z N r a N to VI M O � U a a>) co 0 E a) m • a L O m v m 3 a o L m — N L o N m E 0 Z H a E to i U H £ rn o O F- u E o a ai m 2 O a mO 112 G > a • C a ` = w Oa CD '. U r o a) W U) c W 0 n J K 'O Z U Q . o c . N Z 0 N O ,O O F y a _T co c 2 O Cl E • m Z c W 9 = 6 • I » a 0 _a a - a m v o m m ° W `o E m '" E A g ¢ ¢ CO C0 CL d Q U) c, Q a aa m 0 0 0 Z = O : O U) O K = 3 2 -4 Q d - a a w a 3 0 0 O • . z f O 0 : L. 0 3 0 Z • Date Received: FEB 1 5 2011 Original Submittal • • Hydrologic Soil Group-Lane County Area'Qregun • 51ST-52ND&MAIN STREET REDEVELOPMENT Hydrologic Soil Group Hydrologic Soil Group—Summary by Map Unit—Lane County Area,Oregon Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 119 [Salem-Urban land complex ,B 1.5! 100.0% Totals for Area of Interest 13 100.0 Description Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long-duration storms. The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and three dual classes (ND, B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows: Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential)when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture.These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential)when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes. Rating Options Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff. None Specified Date Received: Tie-break Rule: Lower FEB 1 5 2011 LsD.A Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 12/1/2010 ® Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Original Submittal Page 3 of 3 • • • Storm Drainage Evaluation 51“-52nd a Main Street Redevelopment - Option C Appendix B Infiltration Testing Report • Date Received: FEB 1 5 2011 Original Submittal • • Project Name: Og o v1 c c-n ante.'. S i K Project No.: o'f Project Location: t i sr Plea-c J S p r it 9 c'ci� n Date of Field Work: h1/410 e bf`°i Comments: Krru.s�.kS rr s4rtr 1e j l;+(ov[(/1� b.:C(c -u ^,�T/fir` ?� Lo•&ort,, ok 1:0(t 7e at(c (t tt� : bctow p or_ PF(k) ctviet Infiltration Test No. 12 Depth if Diameter 3 Vol. of Presat. F esL Soil Description: lti To 3. IL-964 sICrttr Shoo cnti'1 ItBX e+ri+tst Lmor Time Time E1atased Depth to Water Vol. of Water Added Z - . IA v= o Infiltration Test No. } Depth Diameter Vol. of Presat. Soil Description: Time Time Elapsed Depth to Water Vol. of/Water Added il' 10 i"1 I FK'� T • i " N to �p.c,2C pk P(pc Qv ou(l 'S1f ., Date Received: FEB 1 5 2011 Original Submittal_ IA • • Project Name: 06(7 vojp Project No.: 0 -firg - ' Project Location: CI, iC-1- lixa- ievat, Jr sr (Id Date of Field Work: fri3 itc-; Comments: f pcf Infiltration Test No. Z Depth Diameter Vol. of Presat. Soil Description: Time Time Elapsed Depth to Water VoL of Water Added tc 1774) fm 4A7r, 1 p r; ti ti 0 0,1,7" b_oucilnk fr-> y e Infiltration Test No. 3 Depth Diameter Vol. of Presat. Soil Description: Time Time Elapsed Depth to Water Vol. of Water Added 't CO yy- y66 h fict, `‘ ro - ot-1, on pirtg_ inovolkl— I fo 2.1e Date Received: FEB 9 5 2011 Original Submittal 2_ Project Name: oto wtr.ir■ Cl. S rtre ProjectNo.: oo,-(S0 Project Location: Sect P Fct ) sec lc! Date of Field Work: ! I i T /to Comments: s.0 Pc r Infiltration Test No. It Depth . Diameter Vol. of Presat. Soil Description: Time Time Elapsed Depth to Water Vol..of Water Added IA = tJ ids • r. t; atop r.- � '1C`I� tver`i ;. �k5 S , / v- In [PTAC yLrl Infiltration Test No. Depth Diameter Vol. of Presat. Soil Description: • Time Time Elapsed Depth to Water Vol. of Water Added Date Received: FEB 1 5 2011 Original Submittal 3 / • • Storm Drainage Evaluation 51"-52nd a Main Street Redevelopment - Option C Appendix C Proposed Drainage Basin Map Date Received: FEB 1 5 2011 Original Submittal lel o • . ii, ,...; LZ C..) 0 . .- z ,- , 0 • . a-- N g gi t-- , „.. 0, E! w cr, Z .. . to 0., =- t- N 6 PI N al •ICI ris_l 0•.".1 2 • . N. bil N .ai , ° “° “ E ' "ro' 0 0 c, a E .F1 1 U--. ----- .0 L-- ..] I t.d (..) C.Rt4 r?, , co LB 0 rn I S--4 CD L.' 4 r- 8 2 iv . 2 -e-,,- • - 3 o . co _ , L-I a..) .a 7 d 7, --° Y 2 v) -.. ea .,..: cf ...w. 0 it a. ci) (Zs iii 11 ___an;7._ n w > ..... 0 CD Z U _ LL .5 est 13 -cC z ------__.‘.\ --FANnkri— , 2 cr4 ..Q 6. is m..? .• t a. I :, cc 4 . — r4 > r-9 Swag c4 C4 W 0 o 1 0 • = I - cu 4%2 • ” S-1 ..c.'" ti>ig 1 i t E. 13 Z Ir'N ,..., -.a 44 Esl •z ,c, cf) Lt., .., .I co , . ,.. .. , ... , ._ i_. cs, I ...., , • . _. . ... ... .. . _... -65 .. z cz z --I rx-, 1 Cr) ic-54" . . '. .• .h. 0 in . 1 ; • i ..!. n. IS PrrOg '' ‘' ,....„- m • . ._ . , I la :,, • (-\" K1 b _. ,-.•. • IL 1 .: .,, . 71. ,-. „.. .., ..y. ./. v,•, ./.•„,./..),(•,,(•./././• 1\',„ \k.\-\ ,..,N. \ ,•. , , b.N. ,N. \...N.N.. N..Nc.\,... .N 1 '1. , ?•>:-/I l . H2..11F;(7);"44,-s-W- 111";:r4,,,,:,/,..)3`,H),,;SZt.4,.‘,1"</<5‘'""&1_- 1 . \ , - , - , ...,,ci\ a: 1/4. 4.4-7.;,..,,,„.„„.„.L ... . . . ,k4kr34,1';''i :\''''' • , 1 :1, . .....•.• ..• ir_ iy. :-., • . . ..-.--,.\\\\ , .0, . \ \ :44„:0.-0-;-1,4::.07<?- .,:' \..• ‘, \ I Il ;• • 1 \X.15•), ..„..-- -- ----- ----- .---- liC: \ \ '••••• \ Ir fr'•tr•:!qialg".: \...,: A` . Kibl: ltc_i:W'X.tf i:":::;:t .'"4 •,,:",.'' • I ;I! g ., rse,,,,t, _ , _____--____---_,....---.__••-•- ....-i-. \ \ \ \.,\co 7....-..:..„,„,„„,. , , .•. ,,,p,41t ..e0..-.../.. ,•,*-r. -•:.: ••,. ., 1 -. ' ,!;?iv --_-------- ----- ---".... -----:•,' N\\-:\- -\ nip..!?2fli \ ' ,. ;;;;:4,14P:1:49?..?-:.- -.)••:.,:,•. -\.: •-•:,. ,... ?c .-: ,-,>,;( - ___••--- ..,----- _-•----:_•-----__-•>,(iN\\\\ \ ,,IMO it---;1i.ii.gb \\' \I IIIV4itntki:II : ' . ■ i I II 8 •A yi-., :; - ------- ----- ..--- -_----..- ...- - on 91.0k \ .\I v..4..**trte%11:.;:;:.:&; v • ..\ LA . c--) .....---- ----- - - --- --h.-7.-- \h .!II r? ,il6F q;:its:m5:- N N.•.1!Ttat!. .,,c.5:::.,:.. ..: I :1 n >v) ;afr ---- --7 h ----c-i- ..J•••-- i ,•. \ \ _ — - ,, -,-,- . \• Lu .I.' xe' ' ------I- -- --- -- -I --- ----1 \ \ \\ \ ail-------.r:-,- ? \ ': .-\I ?iita4:Ie:c.,:t.K.:,IY-- •I \•••-:. , A "ez /- --- ,..----- " .--..-- .------I'- ..- ,, 'N• '• ' - \ IMIERISO, \ -••,\'‘ WiI7.1,Y.IiII;.; ;:.2II;:', H __-----••• .....••••••-1--,.._..,--- „......--., .:..,:l. N „, ,-. .....04-4, , .....„...., ,i,,,,„,,,,„ ,.:,, ., , . ----- ___... , _ 4 ,k1 NI)C ---••-• --••"--.I', -- LF : ..-•':' \ ' :-:2',.,\ . ,A I----n1L"- -:•7:" "J",;:.)•,-:Y-7'1::S",- cr' -.N'.'' I'Ll-lt,q I-I :,'•I.-1,',".";-1J ' "••• I>'• • . ... -, \ ',1 FIWI?:.;,'"', I-n,i2P.:, \o„," , ,:i. ,,, ,, .;,-.!,,t: , . • .,.• 1 : •1 ,,x•n cs)• --" \qr.*, \ "-. y., ‘‘, MiNoili>,--,-!:.;;,-; „ •, N, I r,):.t!":,•11r/ti:■••■N ,:-::gIl"•.;,• 'I:\ ,. S' i i : /,•1) a- C. 0 „.--- ___.,-- „....,_-- ..,„ R€7 . ' Lj <:1- '11) . ..----0 ---- ---- . ' . 11Rwir,\\ -,. \ al_ .. ,,,..„,.. -.... a ia, ,:.., .. ..A • 1 -1-- -...-- , /lox ; .1 ----, / .---- - z ;-:: • ' ' ' .1 "" <-1" `)- --- - I N. \ --% ' ' 'la' . - ". k) ,, ,..... ' -7.- ' fl i i 'U )2.1: d;‘,/,,X,e;rK --.-- C.0 •T \ ''' \ \-,•1 ‘ (.-. ,.. \ ,-,• \*-\ Iii,N-T. \K•••'<'\<N•••‘''.' 41 l' v‘, .. ' -i , • II i XTI 4,■/ liMialin •••■ ligngghji.<2*.: N 4111111Ma. \. ' ' N.. •' ••\ ' al' — - - .-' .N.:••/,-I'y - ••=c LI- , ..--.-- ...- It • .-:\••\', ‘\...''c••\ c' ‘I .II\ I .•,['l>,!(66:- . ...------c-.:, ..- ------ ,,,.. ___, , i • 1 1/4":. \c\, V.,....•,• :-•,,E5. . . „ . 1 ' /I',*4)4)).e: .------------;.-----..-1- -..1.-------------- .------ -1.:•:-"1------------ ----.... ------4X--°: -,-,-.-,,:r07,- '':.\. tki:-- - iV,7D::::.-.L.*,.. . ; c• /VA ----__.---___ ----___------_,...----- --t 1 -- , .12-1r,:aiy.,:,.tv'.;-;...)..Y,i':'. ----E; '; " j-- -i---_!------c .1—\--iii.soinbc.. .:.::: : .. , „ •N ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,...„,„..„ .. " :" ----- , ,., _.61‘•• //' ---'---- - ---- ----: --I— I, /_,./„ //,— ,......,..,-mizIg•p, ;.,;z.-.,..ti..LK4.,';':-...'-4-3:1,''..;.., - ,.:• 6-1 (L',1•14.:. P.--:.74A1;•,*.-. . •\......-, 1/4.14,,;:??.--.-i-T.,,-.-t,-e •• i •.\otr-. .-:-.1,-i. (c;:;_--t_.... __i-------_;.---1 - - 1//-„/, - .•-'I i•:,:s:&. - :, ,,-;• •• <:•;.-,.< •:',:,::::•--, ; - .-L,., ••\4■-•,-.--1-----1 • , ...3 -- i \ 174 ; • • N.:\ *---: ----III' - i----[-:-- 1. ....i------.-- - - - / - bic:67,,-1;i:,,u, '.,• :',' ::‘,:, 1•::::::::,,,,:: ;y:-,-,-.,,-II, .. ::: I . ,1 i :- -- •••11 - .-, - ",!-,: I titi:iri:, -,.:-.,,,,...•.,„:„ , \ • ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,m•Fu:?.' •., • `.,'.••'-,__. ' •'.:! I .I.I: I -, ''.,‘r40""-;•en.i.a■Ititra:g1,;;It 4.;•":i,M):: ,/, -•": i /- ;/ / .-- , : _ ''!kf,•:2`':t•f•r:: :?:::icc • . I " 3' • .4;11:::eg;:".ttl' '''Intfts:-SsIV#teotiltat3Itki-II;r:I; .Ir• 1/:/ / / / i' / Cr H:;:,:!:?:,,,,,it',", r , M'ff:::: ::;": ::':::..;'•H-:•:,*:'' 6._ . .:( "'I\'•::IPAIrit_,4•1freiieicl‘4,40:42:17*:! /I / --- "/ ,•'• /,',.../ ,' //,& •;"1,2:::; :•,,,t1f, ,T.:'I :=7. z :::: :::),:::i:h.;;;;4 8 " ...:' -I- , ', -,,-/,/..-/ II-./,,,,/.,' .11. t,"i',.',7 ',,,rifc: --",'I Wa6 .%:c.. ' Y..-1,-." ':, ;::: :2,, k. *b:• "44',:,t7h).', F.,,i:,,::,g.:7,L,4,,,,it.,--,?,:t...t.y:.,,i,,iypt..::?,°,-.!': : 1- 7 - .- 1, , • bil • ---;:-.F., WM , `. :,:::;,".': ':'f -':N .O •• ' . '' , II • :'. :'.,::••54,1;.F.4;1. ;4..Y IL';,:::!.:.t,:. 4, .• -'• , • -' .,," -'n\L,I,': '''', ‘ \ •\`...•S":1\ :': : '•<•.:-.':\ '•: .• '',.:'•• ::1 ' • : E :•.: ':::';A,•,: ::';:',Viti•IIIMIi5.GnE;.:t.;!i::: . '1.-! .2. In' ' / /g . T.';177:il: ::: ..\:,...•••,. :-... '',"•• • '.. :: : . : k:::: -2Y:1':(7) C3 1-1-1 Qt,,,..:“.•i-";.13•:ly',.:-....::: • !• / ' Y' .' • •• • ISM • -.-' • 1 :: • • \!,•‘: 'ir,:),:-.?:2..or.,::"yr ac; co c.:, --i-.Y.:4„n.;',:::.....,.-: ::, . . .__, -z • - - , „ , • )-_ c.r) .civ , ick.!,,:mS,;j.q:;:rto -,- c=r4, ",544-;: ,:%,:.',-,- , .- .- ,t G-5 o co, .cc. ,/ .- .-' ,. • r...__ 1-. , .,. , 1 z " i!,.,.k..,!iit.::, :..•:::' i .: ' ./. . --zi cIS k-- do' c!\; . )7.i -. •1 o i---- ; : ,h ,,i .. ..112.71*:!' '' • :.,t, ...:,. H:-: :. '.1.:',; i' , : ' / / 7 Z C") C I '' .- ' rif hC- 1--,-- • le .,,:., ..,„• .,- . , . / ' - ' ! 1 5.. -••`-: ?r,',1.1/2:;;:c.;;::::::!•:!.::;i7.,...;c:i..,:#.1.- " / , / i i ,,-1 ,- _ " - • " ' , \' ,,,'„, - ,- / ..,/ ,ii.. ' ' 'c. ''..• \1:5.<17.- ''`Naltaiiia I at iimiLmsHEN ,- 7 ,- , -- "I ha : . . ' 1 - Mellaill.11111■111111111111611.4 . PI V ct • %2 , 0 •I 1 . 7 1 . 1 I _ .... . „.. • . ._ 1;1! • • Storm Drainage Evaluation 51st-52nd a Main Street Redevelopment - Option C Appendix D Stormwater Runoff& Infiltration Basin Sizing Calculations Date Received: FEB 1 5 .2011 Original Submittal • • • Storm Drainage Evaluation 51"-52nd if Main Street Redevelopment - Option C Infiltration Basin A-Water Quality Storm ******************** S.C.S. TYPE-1A DISTRIBUTION ******************* ********* 1-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** .83" TOTAL PRECIP. ******* ENTER: A(PERV) , CN(PERV) , A(IMPERV) , CN(IMPERV) , TC FOR BASIN NO. 1 0.03, 61, 0. 19, 98, 10 DATA PRINT-OUT: AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES) A CN A CN .2 .0 61 .0 .2 98 .0 . - 10.0 PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT) .03 7 .83 432 ENTER [d: ] [path] filename[ .ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-wgca.dev RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE SPECIFY [d: ] [path] filenaine[ .ext] OF ROUTING DATA 09159ca.rd DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N) ? Y ROUTING DATA: • STAGE(FT) DISCHARGE (CFS) STORAGE(CU-FT) PERM-AREA(SQ-FT) 494 .00 .00 .0 . 0 494 .25 .01 57 .0 .0 494 .50 .02 125.0 .0 494 .75 .05 205.0 .0 495.00 .06 298.0 .0 495.25 .08 404 .0 .0 495.50 .09 524 .0 .0 495.75 . 10 660.0 .0 496.00 .11 812.0 .0 496.25 .82 982.0 .0 496.50 2.11 1171.0 .0 AVERAGE'PERM-RATE: .0 MINUTES/INCH ENTER [d: ] [path] filename[ .ext] OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-wgca.dev- INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS: PEAK-INFLOW(CFS) PEAK-OUTFLOW(CFS) OUTFLOW-VOL(CU-FT) .03 .01 359 INITIAL-STAGE (FT) TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS) PEAK-STAGE-ELEV(FT) .00 8. 33 494.32 Date Received: PEAK STORAGE: 70 CU-FT FEB 1 5 .2011 Original Submittal • • Storm Drainage Evaluation 5V-52od a Main Street Redevelopment - Option C Infiltration Basin A-2 Year Storm ******************** S.C.S. TYPE-1A DISTRIBUTION ******************* ********* 2-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** 3.30" TOTAL PRECIP. ******* ENTER: A(PERV) , CN(PERV) , A(IMPERV) , CN(IMPERV) , TC FOR BASIN NO. 1 0.03, 61, 0.19, 98, 10 DATA PRINT-OUT: AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES) A CN A CN .2 .0 61.0 .2 98.0 10.0 PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT) .15 7 .83 2167 ENTER [d: ] [path] filename [ .ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-2ca.dev RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE SPECIFY [d:] [path] filename[ .ext] OF ROUTING DATA 09159ca.rd DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N) ? Y ROUTING DATA: STAGE(FT) DISCHARGE (CFS) STORAGE (CU-FT) PERM-AREA(SQ-FT) 494 . 00 .00 . 0 .0 494 . 25 .01 57.0 .0 494 . 50 .02 125. 0 .0 494 . 75 .05 205.0 .0 495. 00 .06 298.0 .0 495.25 .08 909 .0 .0 495. 50 .09 524 .0 . 0 _ 495. 75 .10 660.0 .0 496. 00 .11 812.0 .0 496. 25 .82 982.0 .0 496. 50 2.11 1171 .0 .0 AVERAGE PERM-RATE: .0 MINUTES/INCH ENTER [d: ] [path] filename( .ext] OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-2ca.dev INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS: PEAK-INFLOW(CFS) PEAK-OUTFLOW(CFS) OUTFLOW-VOL(CU-FT) .15 .07 2206 INITIAL-STAGE (FT) TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS) PEAK-STAGE-ELEV(FT) .00 .8.17 495.10 Date Received: PEAK STORAGE: 340 CU-FT FEB 1 5 2011 Original Submittal. • • Storm Drainage Evaluation 51st-52nd if Main Street Redevelopment - Option C Infiltration Basin A- 10 Year Storm ******************** S.G.S. TYPE-1A DISTRIBUTION ******************* ********* 10-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** 4 .30" TOTAL PRECIP. ******* ENTER: A(PERV) , CN(PERV) , A(IMPERV) , CN(IMPERV) , TC FOR BASIN NO. 1 0.03, 61, 0. 19, 98, 10 DATA PRINT-OUT: AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES) A CN A CN ..2 .0 61 .0 .2 98.0 10.0 PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT) .20 7. 83 2907 ENTER [d: ] [path] filename [ .ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-10ca.dev RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE SPECIFY [d: ] [path] filename[ .ext] OF ROUTING DATA 09159ca.rd DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N) ? Y ROUTING DATA: STAGE(FT) DISCHARGE (CFS) _STORAGE(CU-FT) PERM-AREA(SQ-FT) 494 . 00 .00 .0 .0 494 .25 .01 57.0 .0 494 .50 .02 125.0 .0 494 .75 .05 205.0 .0 495.00 .06 298 .0 .0 495.25 .08 404 .0 .0 495. 50 .09 524 .0 .0 495. 75 . 10 660.0 . 0 496. 00 .11 812 .0 .0 496. 25 .82 982.0 .0 496. 50 2. 11 1171.0 .0 AVERAGE PERM-RATE: .0 MINUTES/INCH ENTER [d: ] [path] filename[ .ext] OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-10ca.dev INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS: PEAK-INFLOW(CFS) PEAK-OUTFLOW(CFS) OUTFLOW-VOL(CU-FT) .20 .08 2908 INITIAL-STAGE(FT) TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS) PEAK-STAGE-ELEV(FT) .00 8 .33 495.36 PEAK STORAGE: 450 CU-FT Date Received: FEB 1 5.2011 Original Submittal • III Storm Drainage Evaluation 51s`-52nd a Main Street Redevelopment - Option C Infiltration Basin A-25 Year Storm ******************** S.C.S. TYPE-1A DISTRIBUTION ******************* ********* 25-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** 4 .80" TOTAL PRECIP. ******* ENTER: A(PERV) , CN(PERV) , A(IMPERV) , CN(IMPERV) , TC FOR BASIN NO. 1 0. 03, 61,0.19, 98, 10 • DATA PRINT-OUT: AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES) A CN A CN .2 .0 61 .0 .2 98 .0 10.0 PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT) .22 7 .83 3282 ENTER [d: ] [path] filename[ .ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-25ca.dev RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE SPECIFY [d: ] [path] filename[ .ext] OF ROUTING DATA 09159ca.rd DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N) ? Y ROUTING DATA: STAGE(FT) DISCHARGE(CFS) STORAGE(CU-FT) PERM-AREA(SQ-FT) 494 .00 .00 .0 . 0 494 .25 .01 57.0 .0 494 .50 .02 125.0 .0 494 .75 .05 205.0 .0 495.00 .06 298.0 . 0 495 .25 .08 404 . 0 .0 495 .50 .09 524 .0 .0 495 .75 .10 660.0 - .0 496.00 .11 812.0 .0 496.25 .82 982.0 .0 496.50 2.11 1171.0 .0 AVERAGE PERM-RATE: .0 MINUTES/INCH ENTER [d: ] [path] filename [ .ext] OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-25ca.dev INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS: PEAK-INFLOW(CFS) PEAK-OUTFLOW(CFS) OUTFLOW-VOL(CU-FT) .22 .09 3130 INITIAL-STAGE(FT) TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS) PEAK-STAGE-ELEV(FT) . 00 8.33 495.51 PEAK STORAGE: 1900 CU-FT Date Received: FEB 1 5 2011 Original Submittal______ . • Storm Drainage Evaluation 51Q-52nd a Main Street Redevelopment - Option C Infiltration Basin B-Water Quality Storm ******************** S.C.S. TYPE-IA DISTRIBUTION ******************* ********* 1-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** .83" TOTAL PRECIP. ******* ENTER: A(PERV) , CN(PERV) , A(IMPERV) , CN(IMPERV) , TC FOR BASIN NO. 1 0. 03, 61, 0.26, 98, 10 DATA PRINT-OUT: AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TO(MINUTES) A CN A CN .3 .0 61.0 .3 98.0 10.0 PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT) .04 7 .83 591 ENTER [d: ] [path] filename[ .ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-wqcb.dev RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE SPECIFY [d: ] [path] filename [ -ext] OF ROUTING DATA 09159cb.rd DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N) ? Y ROUTING DATA: STAGE(FT) DISCHARGE (CFS) STORAGE(CU-FT) PERM-AREA(SQ-FT) 494 . 75 .00 .0 .0 495. 00 . 02 92.0 .0 495. 25 - .07 208.0 .0 495 . 50 .09 351. 0 - .0 495. 75 .10 520.0 .0 496. 00 .11 704 .0 .0 496. 25 . 11 887 .0 .0 496. 50 . 65 1071 .0 .0 AVERAGE PERM-RATE: .0 MINUTES/INCH ENTER [d: ] [path] filename[ .ext] OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-wqcb.dev INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS: PEAK-INFLOW(CFS) PEAK-OUTFLOW(CFS) OUTFLOW-VOL(CU-FT) .04 .02 521 INITIAL-STAGE(FT) TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS) PEAK-STAGE-ELEV(FT) .00 8.50 494.99 PEAK STORAGE: 80 CU-FT Date Received: FEB 1 5 2011 Original Submittal • • Storm Drainage Evaluation 5V-52nd Main Street Redevelopment - Option C Infiltration Basin B-2 Year Storm ******************** S.C.S. TYPE-1A DISTRIBUTION ******************* ********* 2-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** 3.30" TOTAL PRECIP. ******* ENTER: A(PERV) , CN(PERV) , A(IMPERV) , CN(IMPERV) , TC FOR BASIN NO. 1 0. 03, 61,0. 26, 98, 10 DATA PRINT-OUT: AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES) A CN A CN .3 .0 61.0 .3 98.0 10.0 PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT) .20 7.83 2946 ENTER -[d: ] [path] filename[ .ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-2cb.dev RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE SPECIFY [d: ] [path] filename[ .ext] OF ROUTING DATA 09159cb.rd DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N) ? Y ROUTING DATA: STAGE(FT) DISCHARGE(CFS) STORAGE(CU-FT) PERM-AREA(SQ-FT) 494 . 75 .00 .0 .0 495. 00 . 02 92.0 . 0 495. 25 .07 208 .0 .0 495. 50 .09 351.0 .0 495.75 .10 520.0 .0 496.00 .11 704 .0 .0 496.25 . 11 887 .0 . 0 496.50 . 65 1071.0 .0 AVERAGE PERM-RATE: .0 MINUTES/INCH ENTER [d: ] [path] filename[ .ext] OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-2cb.dev INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS: PEAK-INFLOW(CFS) PEAK-OUTFLOW(CFS) OUTFLOW-VOL(CU-FT) .20 .09 2937 INITIAL-STAGE(FT) TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS) PEAK-STAGE-ELEV(FT) .00 8. 17 495.56 PEAK STORAGE: 390 CU-FT Date Received: FEB 1 5 2011 Original Submittal Storm Drainage Evaluation 51"-52nd £t Main Street Redevelopment - Option C Infiltration Basin B-10 Year Storm ******************** S.C.S. TYPE-1A DISTRIBUTION ******************* ********* 10-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM - **** 4 .30" TOTAL PRECIP. ******* ENTER: A(PERV) , CN(PERV) , A(IMPERV) , CN(IMPERV) , TC FOR BASIN NO. 1 0.03, 61, 0.26, 98, 10 DATA PRINT-OUT: AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC (MINUTES) A CN A CN .3 .0 61.0 .3 98 .0 10.0 PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT) .27 7.83 3939 ENTER [d: ] [path] filename[ .ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-10cb.dev RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE SPECIFY [d:] [path] filename[ .ext] OF ROUTING DATA 09159cb.rd DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N) ? Y ROUTING DATA: STAGE(FT) DISCHARGE(CFS) STORAGE(CU-FT) PERM-AREA(SQ-FT) 494 .75 .00 .0 .0 495 .00 .02 92 .0 .0 495.25 .07 208 .0 .0 495 .50 . 09 351.0 .0 495.75 .10 520.0 .0 496.00 .11 704 .0 .0 496.25 .11 887 .0 .0 496.50 . 65 1071 .0 .0 AVERAGE PERM-RATE: .0 MINUTES/INCH ENTER [d: ] [path] filename[ .ext] OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-10cb.dev INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS: PEAK-INFLOW(CFS) PEAK-OUTFLOW(CFS) OUTFLOW-VOL(CU-FT) .27 .10 3963 INITIAL-STAGE(FT) TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS) PEAK-STAGE-ELEV(FT) .00 8.50 495.82 PEAK STORAGE: 570 CU-FT Date Received: Infiltration Basin B-25 Year Storm FEB 1 5 2011 Original Submittal f Storm Drainage Evaluation 51st-52nd & Main Street Redevelopment - Option C ******************** S.C.S. TYPE-1A DISTRIBUTION ******************* ********* 25-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** 4 .80" TOTAL PRECIP. ******* ENTER: A(PERV) , CN(PERV) , A(IMPERV) , CN(IMPERV) , TC FOR BASIN NO. 1 0. 03, 61,0.26, 98, 10 DATA PRINT-OUT: AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TO(MINUTES) A CN A CN .3 .0 61 .0 .3 98.0 10.0 PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT) .30 7.83 4441 ENTER [d: } [path] filename[ .ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-25cb.dev RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE SPECIFY [d: ] [path] filename[ .ext] OF ROUTING DATA 09159cb.rd DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N) ? Y ROUTING DATA: STAGE (FT) DISCHARGE(CFS) STORAGE(CU-FT) PERM-AREA(SQ-FT) 494 . 75 .00 .0 .0 495. 00 .02 92.0 .0 495. 25 .07 208 .0 .0 495. 50 .09 351.0 .0 495. 75 .10 520.0 .0 496. 00 .11 704 .0 .0 496. 25 .11 887.0 .0 496. 50 . 65 1071.0 .0 AVERAGE PERM-RATE: .0 MINUTES/INCH - - - ENTER (d: ] [path] filename [ .ext] OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 159-25cb.dev INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS: PEAK-INFLOW(CFS) PEAK-OUTFLOW(CFS) OUTFLOW-VOL(CU-FT) .30 .11 4425 INITIAL-STAGE(FT) TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS) PEAK-STAGE-ELEV(FT) . 00 8 .50 • 495.96 PEAK STORAGE: 670 CU-FT Date Received: FEB 15 2011 • • Storm Drainage Evaluation 51s`-52nd £t Main Street Redevelopment - Option C Appendix E Vegetated Infiltration Basin and Double Chambered Catch Basins with Fossil Filter Insert • • Date Received: FEB 1 5 2011 Original Submittal • • • • 1 9 FT MINIMUU A FOR PARKING LOTS. TIRE STOPS OR 3:1 MAX. CURBS W/CUTS 2 Fl SIDE SLOPES FLAT BOTTOM 12-912" CLEAR FLOW (TYP) _rOVERfLOW AREA AT CUTOUTS ELEVATION i 2- 9--IB- n �1 d. ` __ (SEE NOTE 28) \/..\\;:\,...\--, :- ` 18' V\CC:�AA /A`\""1,-\\17:-\\(,.1:-A,\ 44ROVn ✓�,%/V<,; \\ -, , `, X`\`.\\,. ;1•,1,.\-/),`,..--1\\----1-- 91-"/�7 - 12 (SEE NOTE 6) ___I-- .r -72—t.„..- �-. \� f ,\ 'oRMR ROCK` - '�2 • , i �. - - - • -- FILTER FABRIC, SEE NOTE 7 SEE SW-150 FOR PIPING EXISTWG SUBGRADE CONF1GURA11ON. - 1.Provide protection from all vehicle traffic,equipment staging, 6.Drain rock: and foot traffic in proposed infiltration areas prior to,during, a.Size for infiltration basin: 1W-3/."washed and after construction. b.Size for flow-through basin:'/."washed c.Depth for Simplified: 12" 2.Dimensions: d.Depth for Presumptive:048",see talcs. a.Width of basin:9'minimum. b.Depth of basin(from top of growing medium to 7.Separation between drain rock and growing medium: overflow elevation);Simplified: 12",Presumptive: Use filter fabric(see SWMM Exhibit 2-5)or . a gravel lens(%-1/.inch washed,crushed rock 2 to 3 inches c.Flat bottom width:2'min. deep). d.Side slopes of basin:3:1 maximum. 8.Growing medium: 3.Setbacks(from midpoint of facility): a.18"minimum a.Infiltration basins must be 10'from foundations and b.See Appendix F.3 for specification or use 5'from property lines. . sand/loam/compost 3-way mix. b.Flow-through swales must be lined with connection .-:.. to approved discharge point according to SWMM 9.Vegetation:Follow landscape plans otherwise refer to-pfant Section 1.3. list in SWMM Appendix F. Minimum container size is 1 gallon. #of plantings per 100sf of facility area): 4.Overflow: a.Zone A(wet): 115 herbaceous plants OR 100 a.Overflow required for Simplified Approach. herbaceous plants and 4 shrubs b.Inlet elevation must allow for 2"of freeboard, b.Zone B(moderate to dry): 1 tree AND 3 large minimum. shrubs AND 4 medium to small shrubs. c.Protect from debris and sediment with strainer or The delineation between Zone A and B shall be either at the • grate. outlet elevation or the check dam elevation,whichever is . lowest. 5.Piping:shall be ABS Sch.40,cast iron,or PVC Sch.40. 7 pipe required for up to 1,500 sq ft of impervious area, 10. Install washed pea gravel or river rock to transition from otherwise 4"min. Piping must have 1%grade and follow the ' inlets and splash pad to growing medium. Uniform Plumbing Code. p�����`°� �py �``,,,,��llLL��"" 11. Inspections:Call BDS IVR Inspy itry iPtted00, for appropriate inspections. FEB 1 5 2011 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MANUAL TYPICAL 8 fuJIjbmittal - Simplified / Presumptive Design Approach - NUMBER k . Basin . \ SW-140 �1`fi; Y jl)o Bureau of Environmental Services - • OGARD TM . 53" FILTER INSERT (MODEL FGP-24F) "PVT,: WOVEN MESH FILTER BODY Q � � _ NOTES: d 1 . .r •i BOX FABRICATED FROM �i ���i. ••', 10 GA. MATERIAL NEOPRENE GASKET I (TWO SIDES) OUTLET I 48" LONG DUCTILE IRON SOLID LID I & DUCTILE IRON GRATE PLAN VIEW BIKE PROOF, HEAVY SILT & DEBRIS DUTY TRAFFIC GRATE CONTAINMENT AREA HIGH SUPPORTS AASHTO FLOW L2zx2zxls BYPASS H25 LOADS FRAME 53 : lir . z ino{.R.X3fm� ��'3 / OUTLET , r_ v Z ki2 �__ ■ SEDIMENT TRAP W/ HINGED LID SEDIMENT TRAP 48" REPLACEABLE , ABSORBENT III SIDE VIEW POUCHES ISOMETRIC SEDIMENT & HYDROCARBONS FILTRATION M ceWed: STATE APPROVED - ASPHALT DIPPED 24"x42" — 6"0 OUTLET FEB t 5 2611 i SAND COLLECTOR CATCH BASIN Q"9�nalSubmittar DWG # l PROJ. MAN. DOUG P. DWN. PAUL G. SCALE NONE Gibson Steel Basins SINCE 1972 DATE: JAN. 23, 06 MODEL: SCBF70-42H8-6 247 Washington St. Eugene, Or. 97401 ph:(547) 687 — 8672 fox:344-0207