The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutApplication APPLICANT 9/20/2022City of Springfield Development Services Department 225 Fifth Street Springfield, OR 97477 Final Site Plan Review SPRINOFIRLD W Application Site Plan:❑x Minor Site Plan Modification: ❑ Ma'or Site Plan Modification: ❑ Required Project Information (Applicant., complete this section) Applicant Name: Wildish Land Co. Phone: 541-485-1700 Company: Wildish Land Co. Fax: KellyW@Wildish.com Address: P.O. Box 40310 Eugene, Oregon, 97404-0047 Applicant's Rep.: Kelly L. Wood Phone: 541-684-7785 Company: Wildish Sand & Gravel Co. Fax: KellyW@Wildish.com Address: P.O. Box 40310 Eugene, Oregon, 97404-0047 Pro ertOwner: Wildish Land Co./Eugene Allen Co. Phone: 541-485-1700 Company: Wildish Land Co./Eugene Allen Co. Fax: KellyW@Wildish.com Address: P.O. Box 40310 Eugene, Oregon, 97404-0047 ASSESSOR'S MAP NO: 18-03-02-20 TAX LOT NOS : 2800, 3000, 3100, 3200 Property Address: 5001 Franklin Blvd. Eugene, Oregon 97403 Size of Property: 43.97 Acres ❑x Square Feet ❑ Proposed Name of Project: Wildish Plant 1 Fill Placement Description of If you are filling in this form by hand, please attach your proposal description m this application. Proposal: Placement of fill materials within the Greenway Overlay District to align and conform with the FEMA CLOMR-F Existing Use: Vacant Land Tentative Case #: 811-22-000124-NP2 Si natures: Please si n and Drint your name and date in the aDDrODriate box on the next Daae. Required Project Information (City Intake Staff., complete this section) Associated Applications: Case No.: Date: Reviewed b Application Fee: $ Technical Fee: $ Posta a Fee: $0 TOTAL FEES: $ PROJECT NUMBER: Revised 1/1/08 Molly Markarian 1 of 4 Signature Owner: I represent this application to be complete for submittal to the City. I affirm that the information identified by the City as necessary for processing the application is provided herein or the information will not be provided if not otherwise contained within the submittal, and the City may begin processing the application with the information as submitted. This statement serves as written notice pursuant to the requirements of ORS 227.178 pertaining to a complete application. Signature Steven J. Wildish Date: Revised 1/1/08 Molly Markarian 2 of 4 City of Springfield Development Services Department 225 Fifth Street Springfield, OR 97477 Final Site Plan Review SPRINGFIELD I& ##� Application Type (Applicant: check one) Site Plan: IMinor Site Plan Modification: ❑ Ma or Site Plan Modification: ❑ Required Project Information (Applicant: complete this section) Applicant Name: Wildish Land Co. 777 541A85-1700 Company: Wildish Land Co. Fax: KellyW@Wildish.com Address: P.O. Box 40310 Eugene, Oregon, 97404-0047 Applicant's Rep.: Kelly L. Wood Phone; 541-684-7785 Company: Wildish Sand & Gravel Co. Fax: KellyW@Wildish.com Address: P.O. Box 40310 Eugene, Oregon, 97404-0047 Pro ert Owner: Eugene Water& Electric Board (EWEB) Phone; 541-685-7000 Company: Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) Fax: Address: P.O. Box 10148, Eugene Oregon, 97440 ASSESSOR'S MAP NO: 18-03-02-20 TAX LOT NOS : 3300 Property Address: No Address for this Tax Lot Size of Property: 2.06 (Map) Acres x square Feet ❑ Proposed Name of Pro ect: Wildish Plant 1 Fill Placement Description of if you are filling in this form by hand, please attach your proposal description to this application. Proposal: Placement of fill materials within the Greenway Overlay District to align and conform with the FEMA CLOMR-F Existing Use: Vacant Land I Tentative Case # : 811-22-000124-NP2 SI natures: Please si n and orint your name and date in the anorooriate box on the next a e. Required Project Information (City I ntake Staff: complete this section) Associated Applications: Case No.: Date: Reviewed by: Application Fee: $ Technical Fee: $ Posta a Fee: $0 TOTAL FEES: $ PROJECT NUMBER: Revised 1/1/08 Molly Markarian 1 of 4 Signature Owner: I represent this application to be complete for submittal to the City. I affirm that the information identified by the City as necessary for processing the application is provided herein or the information will not be provided if not otherwise contained within the submittal, and the City may begin processing the application with the information as submitted. This statement serves as written notice pursuant to the requirements of ORS 22].1]8 pertaining to a complete application. See attached EWEB Agreement Date: Signature See attached EWEB Agreement Revised 1/1/08 Molly Markarian 2 of 4 AGREEMENT Date: November 19, 2021 Between: ("Parties') Wildish Land Co. ("Wildish") 3600 Wildish Ln. P.O. Box 40310 Eugene, OR 97408 Eugene Water and Electric Board ("EWEB") P.O. Box 10148 Eugene, OR 97440-2148 Owner of Real Property located at Map Number 18-03-0220, Tax Lot 3300 Owner of Real Property located at Map Number 18-03-0232, Tax Lot 3800 WHEREAS, Wildish sold a portion of its Tax Lot 3800 to EWEB ("EWEB parcel") subsequent to receiving a CLOMR-F Determination on approximately 36 acres of its property, including the EWEB parcel. WHEREAS, Wildish is nearly complete in raising the elevation of its property subject to the CLOMR-F Determination. WHEREAS, EWEB has determined that it is in its best interest for the EWEB parcel to remain a part of the CLOMR- F Determination. WHEREAS, The EWEB parcel requires approximately 7,250 cubic yards (or more depending upon the setback determination) of fill materials to meet the requirements of the CLOMR-F Determination. NOW THEREFORE, Wildish and EWEB agree as follows: 1. Fill Materials Wildish will provide at no cost to EWEB approximately 7,250 cubic yards (or more depending upon the setback determination) of clean construction fill materials placed within Tax Lot 3800. Fill placement will be limited to the approved area situated between the 150 -foot Greenway Overlay District Boundary and the Railroad Right -of -Way. In accordance with the City of Springfield Land and Drainage Alteration Permit, all fill shall be clean material and shall be devoid of hazardous materials or other waste such as used asphalt and/or concrete. 2. Grading and Sloping Wildish will complete all grading and sloping in accordance with the CLOMR-F at no cost to EWER. Wildish will permanently stabilize the fill material through compaction with heavy equipment during fill placement and grading. 3. Temporary Stabilization Wildish will provide temporary stabilization, as needed, at no cost to EWEB. The fill is anticipated to be primarily granular material with a low potential for water or wind erosion. Temporary stabilization may include bio -berms, silt fencing, mulching, covering, and/or hydro -seeding. 4. Fencing Ata mutually agreeable time, (but not later than the development of either the Wildish or EWEB adjoining parcels), EWEB, at no cost to Wildish, will install a fence and gate to separate the adjoining parcels. The parties shall mutually agree upon the design and materials used in construction of the fence and gate. EUGENE WATER & ELECTRIC BOARD Name: Wally McCullough Title: Water Engineering Supervisor Signature: �[ aly— Digitally signed byby W�ly— Date: M 11[0 McCullough Date: 2021.12.01 ugh 14:40:17 -08'00' WILDISH LAND CO. CITY OF SPRINGFIELD -FINAL SITE PLAN NARRATIVE Wildish Land Co. P.O. Box 40310 Eugene, Oregon, 97408-0047 Project Name: Wildish Plant 1 Fill Placement Applicant Representative: Kelly Wood Email: Ke IIvWPWildish.com Phone: 541-684-7785 Dated: September 20, 2022 Project Location The project area includes Township 18 South, Range 3 West, Section 2, Tax Lots 2800, 3000, 3100, 3200, and 3300. Determinations and Permits The following documents are included in the initial Site Plan Review application and are available upon request. • Deeds and Title Reports • Biological Assessment, Essential Fish Habitat and Floodplain Habitat Assessment • Oregon Fish and Wildlife Services (OFWS) Concurrence Letter • Watershed Science and Engineering (WSE) Hydraulic Analysis • FEMA CLOMR-F Determination • EWEB Agreement • City of Springfield Type I Floodplain Overlay District Development Permit • City of Springfield Land and Drainage Alternation Permit • DEQ NPDES Construction Stormwater Control Permit -1200C • April 5, 2022 Development Issues Meeting Notes • Willamette River Greenway Setback Determination— Notice of Decision Fill Operations Engineering calculations estimated that approximately 170,000 cubic yards of clean fill materials would be necessaryto fill and grade the above listed tax lots to an elevation of approximately 1 -foot above the Base Flood Elevation. Between 2016 and 2021, Wildish imported approximately 130,000 cubic yards of material to the Plant 1 site. Approximately 40,000 cubic yards of clean construction fill materials will be imported to the site to complete the fill project as delineated on the CLOMR-F Determination. All fill materials will be placed within the 75 -foot area located between the 150 -foot Willamette Greenway Overly Boundary and the 75 -foot Riparian Resource Area Setback as shown on the attached plan maps. 2022 Permitting A Site Plan Review application was submitted to the City of Springfield on May 12, 2022. The application was deemed completed on May 31, 2022. Wildish also submitted a Willamette Greenway Development Permit (Case #811-22-000106-TYP3) for the same fill project on April 27, 2022. The Willamette Greenway Development Permit was approved by the Planning Commission on August 16, 2022. A condition of approval for the Willamette Greenway Development Permit is the approval of a Site Plan Review application. On September 9, 2022, the Tentative Site Plan Review, Staff Report & Decision concluded that the Tentative Site Plan, as submitted, complies with Criteria A-E of SDC 5.17.125. There are no Conditions of Approval as part of the Site Plan Review decision. With the approval of the Site Plan Review application, Wildish has achieved compliance with the Willamette Greenway Development Permit and can proceed with fill operations. Attachments 1. Site Plan Maps 2. Staff Report & Decision, Type II Tentative Site Plan Review. Decision Issue Date: September 9, 2022. 3. Staff Report and Recommended Findings, Planning Commission - Willamette Greenway Development Permit. Public Hearing Dates: July 19, 2022 & August 16, 2022. Decision Date: August 16, 2022. Site Plan Maps SITE PLAN ler CLOMR-P APPLICATION WILDISN PROPERTIES, GLENWOOD NW 1/4 SEC.2 T 10 S, R3 W W.M. NR 1/4 SEC. S 1 13 S, R S W W.M. ASSESSOR'S MAP NO. 10-03.03-11 TL No.'k 1300, 1900 k 1500 ASSESSOR'S MAP NO. 18-03-02-20 TL Na. 2300 SPRINGFIELD, LANE COUNTY, OREGON FEBRUARY 2S, 2016 34 33 9 R Nxe:r•kN a 4 \ xx Nrce kwr (I\ /i / /i / sNvw nom ozw`"kki mrui 9 / /'TL No. 1600// / J APProx. 0.70 ACRES AVERAGING 5 FEET OF m„, �\ FILL = 5,600CY 1 6 rt ,mnum ao. ifo3 / / M 6f./- / C` T " rt ll lean/ TL No. 2600////// \ 75-Foot Riparian Setback \ 150-Foot Greenway Overlay District Boundary L'nio 10 NYEAUF 16-Foot Perimeter Fence __ J2W.A1HµA�OME6 PVAVk rNVINOlINC k BV{V9YING INC. • Nal usnn rxu m.n u ,uuoxo, wn ,.0 IAG01 llr 2 MDT TO HST, SCALE.P _ TOO- SOON"m I, Ta, OF RWO HEIRAw 'UNINICNAT `l LEGEND: TV OF BNOR .RTIC:;LFwPAIII,AR. FAI SLE DYF9MI —444— es naon FLEER 1. HELI -AA— ACHANAC ESI ESS I.--FR.aNm, FILL SIA.. iO BE wE 1.1 bxR AT OFF has been TYPICAL FILL GENERAL NOTES HOMIESTFEFAA I N, ORF FoS�° TiHIn�I"".MAHE"�RF"'u"ESAW rd L.&rEEamA I. NO L REEL ED mr"ecnErRmi":io"o ^: rzErnAom "wmnQLiWTE i.iaBrm�E o.Wr SIA.' AIT.IT DERSO Off NS' I. J. CUT �'L.:I�.M BDA�HE AFFELE�eaIASAR, ,,TERAC EoDACT HE NA, `mF•nwxE°u'iiE:niu�,�uunWcmP riilnrd VESSEL FAV MAI As INVESTED S 1. TED NOTION ou RE IMSULLM MTH TO ANN,°Fn, OMEN. nE",. w BEE. WELLHEAD 1. RNgryiv HIL ,N,iPVSL CAERE' pE LANE M9 SITE ME VHP3 MBp1 OL'WXD C010.ER NN HWPEPE TY�°IE,"nIN E""P. AMMINELY DOn KAS RND M FAIN. FISH ARE. u'n .E M IB SUSHI. A. THERE K M MGE CATECT TO USBRNaES ON STE. MAINE, THAT CANI HAITI BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES VN V nFARI, EEMFHE.T�'oAAn M awLPo-iNS`"' cBTwA�o 1 EBwRETION L ALL FdAVFINEN FILL BYES SHALE BE IT NVR mTER. AI :I¢`s eF'r'F ATr ASO I ESN ALL I'll FILL RIF PEE" TO INcTO HE �TE FOL 04", s.uuunm vRV A.11 IECHERFEET S Up/LX OF AFFECT.4ERIFM'OPRRY ILLAM$T CAR Approx. 4.4 ACRES AVERAGING 5FEET OF FILL = 35,000CY DIVER STANDARD NOTES ',dE � SMANSR�BE � ff`Fr h°B"� ' 9`IT,PnbM AL�HS. :`� �,� q ALL w°."n:'°w�wf9v�"� r`°o".'vB'"rtcnIXs°%�rBN"�:4iRAN TV NATION, xE,�+BNs.mE,l""zwE TH°T .-I ACH HEREFFIFTHLACTEA ANATTER .1 .1 HEART HE r9AV HEREART -11 - "IO HE E r Aw ArurrNV ITTELATIALLABOAREVE. IS F THE d":tI:®5°.eE `;=Igo Er��"O pNwISRTy'T°R""cN�. og"r."'r wrI HEM.S?,"s am�."mw" HISTARENSH IF THE �T NVTERRMDT«;M.ETwTV HEVI�=MI'M— AN MAT &OF HEALTH _ A EnlLI a OMI ANNE T:oVIS "WnT .I. MACHINES W FI A, ANAL I OFF .1 IT FRIANTS ON lE HOOFIN VAY A "IT ALL NET HE a; CW"& oe w.icE'NVNO wm mN.w&F IOL`�"WIS "o�a° 14 EP""O.� �rM� MR.��a-.A.. APF NFIIT"HES;°ArM u P"r°="EwH: B°Tri: a4e'I�a. rD MART I'L°dA: OALLM MR RATES SAL HOT LAT 111 "11 11 INTER THE ELF nOI,. XTEWNV NVmgNc...TrD �ENas w.L H dvN==r.HE �..�," Ana FM N 'A•`° '"N�M"+"RiNVO �rIMM. ��'�,.I LW AW TOOS. HIT MD I. WOFNEENERAFERNABOO.n..T N nW Ar I . AN. ..E.°wrEH �O.,L,o»': s4`.'a<"imwiD &Tr uBEAT AABHO m(�N�C rtYOR L� OI s�Nf EI HE CL AT I-. AUEST15' ITS Wu[ N TURx S,.rt OF s STRw nE,@ F%g..A Wk az nuttTEEP.1 BV TIE SONmu¢'Tnm un uNNIANER Ta'AS— uTOF Pq nE mr—HEA' I TO INITEL¢e IDI. L ]01 AgFCF 4MRiV rsV[Xs X 08 IF A B =SAHzu m. RoN ffIT IN , ESCP ADDISIDxAL COURSE. ,,AS Nr P6.. ..:.. N. -own TI....... .._.. .' .. 5 ®sr N IHAN, E n, wson THE w u.sr p5 vTBvaE aira. _. .. IwslT Ta, OF RWO HEIRAw 'UNINICNAT `l LEGEND: TV OF BNOR .RTIC:;LFwPAIII,AR. FAI SLE DYF9MI —444— es naon FLEER 1. HELI -AA— ACHANAC ESI ESS I.--FR.aNm, FILL SIA.. iO BE wE 1.1 bxR AT OFF has been TYPICAL FILL GENERAL NOTES HOMIESTFEFAA I N, ORF FoS�° TiHIn�I"".MAHE"�RF"'u"ESAW rd L.&rEEamA I. NO L REEL ED mr"ecnErRmi":io"o ^: rzErnAom "wmnQLiWTE i.iaBrm�E o.Wr SIA.' AIT.IT DERSO Off NS' I. J. CUT �'L.:I�.M BDA�HE AFFELE�eaIASAR, ,,TERAC EoDACT HE NA, `mF•nwxE°u'iiE:niu�,�uunWcmP riilnrd VESSEL FAV MAI As INVESTED S 1. TED NOTION ou RE IMSULLM MTH TO ANN,°Fn, OMEN. nE",. w BEE. WELLHEAD 1. RNgryiv HIL ,N,iPVSL CAERE' pE LANE M9 SITE ME VHP3 MBp1 OL'WXD C010.ER NN HWPEPE TY�°IE,"nIN E""P. AMMINELY DOn KAS RND M FAIN. FISH ARE. u'n .E M IB SUSHI. A. THERE K M MGE CATECT TO USBRNaES ON STE. MAINE, THAT CANI HAITI BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES VN V nFARI, EEMFHE.T�'oAAn M awLPo-iNS`"' cBTwA�o 1 EBwRETION L ALL FdAVFINEN FILL BYES SHALE BE IT NVR mTER. AI :I¢`s eF'r'F ATr ASO I ESN ALL I'll FILL RIF PEE" TO INcTO HE �TE FOL 04", s.uuunm vRV A.11 IECHERFEET S Up/LX OF AFFECT.4ERIFM'OPRRY ILLAM$T CAR Approx. 4.4 ACRES AVERAGING 5FEET OF FILL = 35,000CY DIVER STANDARD NOTES ',dE � SMANSR�BE � ff`Fr h°B"� ' 9`IT,PnbM AL�HS. :`� �,� q ALL w°."n:'°w�wf9v�"� r`°o".'vB'"rtcnIXs°%�rBN"�:4iRAN TV NATION, xE,�+BNs.mE,l""zwE TH°T .-I ACH HEREFFIFTHLACTEA ANATTER .1 .1 HEART HE r9AV HEREART -11 - "IO HE E r Aw ArurrNV ITTELATIALLABOAREVE. IS F THE d":tI:®5°.eE `;=Igo Er��"O pNwISRTy'T°R""cN�. og"r."'r wrI HEM.S?,"s am�."mw" HISTARENSH IF THE �T NVTERRMDT«;M.ETwTV HEVI�=MI'M— AN MAT &OF HEALTH _ A EnlLI a OMI ANNE T:oVIS "WnT .I. MACHINES W FI A, ANAL I OFF .1 IT FRIANTS ON lE HOOFIN VAY A "IT ALL NET HE a; CW"& oe w.icE'NVNO wm mN.w&F IOL`�"WIS "o�a° 14 EP""O.� �rM� MR.��a-.A.. APF NFIIT"HES;°ArM u P"r°="EwH: B°Tri: a4e'I�a. rD MART I'L°dA: OALLM MR RATES SAL HOT LAT 111 "11 11 INTER THE ELF nOI,. XTEWNV NVmgNc...TrD �ENas w.L H dvN==r.HE �..�," Ana FM N 'A•`° '"N�M"+"RiNVO �rIMM. ��'�,.I LW AW TOOS. HIT MD I. WOFNEENERAFERNABOO.n..T N nW Ar I . AN. ..E.°wrEH �O.,L,o»': s4`.'a<"imwiD &Tr uBEAT AABHO m(�N�C rtYOR L� OI s�Nf EI HE CL AT I-. AUEST15' ITS Wu[ N TURx S,.rt OF s STRw nE,@ F%g..A Wk az nuttTEEP.1 BV TIE SONmu¢'Tnm un uNNIANER Ta'AS— uTOF Pq nE mr—HEA' I TO INITEL¢e IDI. L ]01 AgFCF 4MRiV rsV[Xs X 08 IF A B =SAHzu m. RoN ffIT IN , ESCP oxw r.a.mwrm meAE sifxq �xi ntxs� swysm �naear.a 1 inch =1 W feet err mw —yyr.omgxyvxgnwaasw —�umssxgwer-rm —r4ae.xws� r m_uww�m ZmXfYfM151 Ou vnnM9 ❑btl Mu aEj§ � .5 aeay.a 1 iwh =100 feet lw m% s 133063.8 Cubic Cubic Yards AE Zone 1 -z. s 71.. rbc, 1 inch = IW fee ❑ 2 o� \ � _ 1 Inch= 1001" - -• i / 9 ' 9 Approximate Boundary of EWEB [[� Property TL 3300 8 � P Or FILLroorva rv. 11yr, M%tI Ri111 OHW �r —wvmpn. xW x4nvqunu wmYx4nwwvw 133063.8 Cubic Yards AE Zone 'C I T �NIm f. M9 ♦ ❑9ufYN^^ mw ( gS 8b € �smii.i 1 � � Y g� 1 irch =100 feet r. f r SOURCE i / 9 ' 9 Approximate Boundary of EWEB [[� Property TL 3300 8 � P Or FILLroorva rv. 11yr, M%tI Ri111 OHW �r —wvmpn. xW x4nvqunu wmYx4nwwvw Ver uneJ:[ ry qzl �NIm f. M9 ❑9ufYN^^ mw ( gS 8b € �smii.i g� 1 irch =100 feet SOURCE ` 9E own a -- d..�re•ro.w�w...�r __u'"ormwr.rw, —rod... nvu ra.0 mms ❑nw.a.. � srww,a„ 1 inch 100 feel fir sou Hill ININ Legend 1 Inch = 500 feet ,o Note: The CLOMR-F assumes fill will be placed vertically at the 75-ft setback line. This will not change the results of the Biological Assessment. TAX LOT 1500 460 470 I — 460 — FILL_ I -- 450------1 Al-- — -------1 — 446.7(BASE FLOOD ELEVATION PLUS 1 FOOT) — _. ---HA2 _- 440 430 EXISTING GRADE— RADESuka'=1011 REAL 9 on ° e P I Scale V=101 1W o w ao $pIB:1'=4PVB�IaI mov,^I� CROSS SECTION Al • A2 cour mI;E"+„% S PINGFIELD(GLEMNSO), OP °� FleMms»NN.1W69. Note: The CLOMR-F assumes fill will be placed vertically at the 75-ft setback line. This will not change the results of the Biological Assessment. �i TAX LOT 2800 TAX LOT 1800 TAX LOT 2800 �I 480-1 _.._ _— 470 - _— -_ B1 I B1 FILL 450 _I_ _ _ I 447.7 (BASE FLOOD J'�1WEM�W� � ELEVATION PLUS 1 FOOT) // //1114 440 II I 430 �OHW_ - � B2 EXISTING GRADE T 75' SETBACK J TOP OF BANK FROM TOP OF BANK CD a — WWI: IM`= Pl'=�tarN5V0e�m 131 - B2 CROSS SIGLEEMCNGTGIUOI, SCHIRMER CATER CROUP I. „ME ta no 81 W E R.G.EGqNt ISEMCWHSHInMCIMN/ Note: The CLOMR-F assumes fill will be o..... placed vertically at the 75 -ft setback line. This will not change the results of ' € the Biological Assessment. CROSS SECTION C1 I� 480 TAX LOT 3100 — r r= -C2 470 P 460 -- — -- FILL -4487 (BASE _.FLOOD -. -- 450 I. –. —_ –..– =ELEVATION r _.. –PLUS 440– – \ 430 EXISTING GRADE [TOP O 75' SETBACK OF BANK FROM TOP OF BANK � o..... ' € --xa�m�w sm:i im CROSS SECTION C1 YAa da.. j r r= -C2 ew P o sa iao "II\ \\�� I _I •^ .... SPPINGFIELGIGLEIMJCOI. CW -_ -..... Note: The top of fill elevation is shown here as 452.7 ft NAVD88. It should be approximately 450ft NGVD29 (or 453.7 ft NAVD88). The CLOMR-F assumes fill will be placed vertically at the 75-ft setback line. This will not change the results of the Biological Assessment. 480- - - - 460 — --- FILL-- ---- --.-_— 452.7 (BASE FLOOD 450 {- arvi44',�/;0, " -PLUS 1ON ELEVATI --- I - ON - , OHW -- - - - _- 440 - FL_ - - - ------- - -- -- -l- - --.. D2 - --.- 430 EXISTING GRADE 75' SETBACK TOP OF BANK FROM TOP OF BANK CD sub: r=ion W" o� CROSS SECTION D7 - D2 6PRINCl10.DIGLFNVMODI, OR Sub: �•=fiWNW oo.r Flenlgmnln NFVDBA o Exhibit B, Page 1 of 12 Staff Report and Recommended Findings Planning Commission Willamette Greenway Development Permit (Wihitsh Land Co.) Public Hearin- Dates: July 19, 2022 & August 16, 2022 Case Number: 811-22-000106-TYP3 Applicant: Wildish Land Co. Property Owners: Wildish Land Co. and the City of Eugene Subject Site: Consists of five (5) properties located in the Glenwood Riverfront area for a total of -44 acres. Wildish Land Co. owns the first 4 subject properties listed below, while the 56 property is owned by the City of Eugene: 1. 5001 Franklin Boulevard (Tax Assessor's Map 18-03-02-20, Tax Lot 3200) 2. 4857 Franklin Boulevard (Tax Assessor's Map 18-03-02-20, Tax Lot 3100) 3. 4851 Franklin Boulevard (Tax Assessor's Map 18-03-02-20, Tax Lot 3000) 4. 4747 Franklin Boulevard (Tax Assessor's Map 18-03-02-20, Tax Lot 2800) 5. Not yet municipally addressed (Tax Assessor's Map 18-03-02-20, Tax Lot 3300) REQUEST The Planning Commission is asked to conduct a public hearing then deliberate and approve, approve with conditions, or deny the Willamette Greenway Development Permit request for a fill project that will help facilitate future development at the subject site. SITE INFORMATION / BACKGROUND The Willamette Greenway Development permit is requested for an approximately 44 -acre undeveloped subject site consisting of five (5) separate properties along the eastern side of Franklin Avenue in the Glenwood neighborhood, adjacent to the west bank of the Willamette River. All five properties were previously annexed into City Limits. The applicant's request is to add fill within a portion of the Willamette Greenway Overlay District, which will help prepare for and facilitate future development on these properties in accordance with the Springfield Development Code and the adopted Glenwood Refinement Plan. All properties making up the subject site are zoned Employment Mixed -Use (EMU) in the Glenwood neighborhood. The subj ect site is located in the Special Flood Hazard Area with portions of the properties situated in the Willamette Greenway Overlay District, the Flood Way, Floodplain AE Zone, and the riparian resource area. There are no other nahral features or hazards located on this property such as locally significant wetlands or proximity to drinking water wellheads. The applicant previously obtained a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) establishing a revised Flood Way/Floodplam boundary. In 2014, the applicant went back to FEMA and obtained a Conditional Letter of Map Revision based on Fill (CLOMR-F), which allows the subject site to be raised out of the Floodplain. Then in 2015, the applicant obtained City approval for a Floodplain Overlay District Development Permit to add struchual fill on the subject site up to the outer boundary of the Willamette Greenway, which has already been completed. The applicant's current request for a Willamette Greenway Development Permit aims to continue the fill project within a portion of the Willamette Greenway, which is consistent with FEMA's CLOMR-F that was issued for the subject site. The applicant proposes to add struchual fill within the Willamette Greenway up to the 75 -foot -wide riparianresource area. The placement of fill within the Willamette Greenway is one of the final items needed to formally remove the subject site from Floodplain regulations imposed through the Floodplain Overlay District. The proposed fill project will make the subject site "shovel ready' and allow the property to be developed. Exhibit B, Page 2 of 12 Willamette Greenway Overlay District -The SpringfieldDevelopment Code (SDC) covers the Willamette Greenway (WG) Overlay District, which is established to protect andpreserve natural scenic, historic, andrecreational qualities of lands along the Willamette River. This overlay district delineates the Willamette Greenway area for the City and establishes standards for the delineation of the Greenway Setback Area. The WG Overlay District applies to all lands which are within 150 feet of the ordinary low water line on the channel of the Willamette River or are adjacent to the river and are publicly owned for park and recreation purposes (SDC 3.3-300). Specific to the Glenwood Riverfinnt portion of the WG Overlay District, the overlay district applies to all lands within the Glenwood Riverfront that are 150 feet from the ordinary low water line of the Willamette River (SDC 3.4-280.13). Figure I shows the Willamette Greenway Overlay District for the vicinity of the subject site. The Willamette Greenway Overlay District is shown in green spots with the Willamette River running north -south in dark gray and the undeveloped properties making up the subject site located on the western side of the river. Greenway Setback Line - In accordance with SDC 3.3-325, a Greenway Setback Line is established to protect, maintain, preserve, and enhance the natural, scenic, historic, and recreational qualities of the Willamette Greenway. The applicant established the Greenway setback along the subject site with the approved land use application (Case #TYP314-00001) in 2014 where the Greenway Setback Line is located"at the upland extent of the riparianvegetation (Riparian Edge, or 10') from top of bank, whichever is greater" The survey drawings of the established Greenway Setback Line are included in Attachment #11 of the applicant submittal. Figure 2 shows the established Greenway Setback Line in purple along the western bank of the Willamette River, which closely follows the eastern boundaries of the properties making up the subject site. From the Greenway Setback Line to the outer boundary of the WG Overlay District, permitted uses are listed in SDC 3.4-250 for Employment Mixed -Use zoning whereas only water - dependent or water -related uses are permitted between the Willamette River and the Greenway Setback Line. Figure l- Willmiaae Geee.vgr Figure 2- Established Crcniay Oreday Dusteict &tback Line e Figure l- Willmiaae Geee.vgr Figure 2- Established Crcniay Oreday Dusteict &tback Line Exhibit B, Page 3 of 12 Riparian Resource Area — Riparian resource areas within the City are locally significant protected areas that (a) safeguard fish and wildlife habitat; (b) safeguard water quality and natural hydrology to control erosion and sedimentation, and to reduce the adverse effects of flooding; (c) safeguard the amenity values and educational opportunities hies for City's wetlands and riparian areas for the community, and (d) improve/promote coordination among Federal, State, andlocal agencies regarding development activities nearwetlands andriparian areas (SDC 4.3-117.A). Figure 3 shows the riparian resource area adjacent to the subject site with blue diagonal stripes. The Riparian Setback extends 75 -feet westward from the Riparian Edge of the Willamette River. The aforementioned Greenway Setback Line has been established either within or along the inner boundary of the riparian resource area for the subject site. Special Flood Hazard Area - Because the subject site is within the Special Flood Hazard Area, the applicant previously obtained a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) establishing a revised Flood Way/Floodplain boundary. In 2014, the applicant went back to FEMA and obtained a Conditional Letter of Map Revision based on Fill (CLOMR-F), which allows the subject site to be raised out of the Floodplain. Then in 2015, the applicant obtained City approval for a Floodplain Overlay District Development Permit (Case #TYP115-00039) to add structural fill on the subject site up to the outer boundary of the Willamette Greenway. Figure 4 shows the Special Flood Hazard Area on the subject site, with the Flood Way shown in pink and the Floodplain (Zone AE) shown in blue. The proposed fill project aims to raise the land elevation of the subject site with structural fill in order to remove the subject site from the Floodplain. Figewe3-Riparlmx Ree.,, Area IN FLOOD WAY Ft4- Specid FloadHacmdA a FLOODPLAIN ZONE AE This application was submitted to the City on April 27, 2022, audit was deemed complete at the Development Review Committee on May 24, 2022. On June 15, 2022, the applicant's representative submitted a revised written narrative, which provided more context behind some of the criteria and development standards for the Willamette Greenway Overlay District. Please refer to the revised submitted applicant narrative for more information (Attachment #3 of the Planning Commission's Agenda Item Summary (AIS) packet). Exhibit B, Page 4 of 12 The applicant also submitted a Site Plan application (Case #811-22-000124-TYP2) for the same fill project on May 12, 2022. If the Planning Commission approves this Willamette Greenway Development Permit request, it will not be issued without Site Plan approval, and the fill project cannot begin until the Final Site Planis approved by the City and the Development Agreement is executed by the applicant. On July 14, 2022, the applicant's representative submitted the following to the City: (1) Public Hearing Comments in response to the staff report (Attachment #4 of the AIS Packet); and (2) the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Renewal Notice of the NPDES 1200-C Construction Stormwater General Permit (Attachment #4, Exhibit A of AIS packet). Because the renewal notice extends the permit to December 14, 2025, City staff removed one of the recommended Conditions of Approval. This Condition of Approval stated that "The applicant nasst implement the Best Management Practices(BMPS) required in the DEQErosion and Sediment Control Plan(ScheduleA of Permit 7200-C) for all fill activities that are subject to this WG Overlay Permit. " Notification and Written Comments Notification was sent to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the subject site on June 20, 2022, with a July 6`s deadline for written comments to be included in the staff report. Notices were also posted on the City's website and the Development & Public Works (DPW) Digital Displays in City Hall on June 27, 2022. City staff also posted three notices on the subject site along Franklin Boulevard and also posted a notice on the City Hall's Public Notice Board on July 1, 2022. City staff received no written comments prior to the publication of this staff report. The City will still accept written comments up until the public hearing. Newspaper notice of the public hearing was published in the legal notices section of 77ie Register Guard on July 14, 2022. In accordance with SDC 5.1.440(A) a published notice of a Type 3 application must be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least 20 days before the first hearing, or, if more than one hearing is provided, at least 10 days before the first hearing. Because the newspaper notice did not meet the requirements of SDC 5.1.440(A) for the July 196 Planning Commission public hearing, the public hearing most be continued and the record held open to the August 16`s Planting Commission meeting. Both the July 196 and August 166 Planing Commission public hearings will be conducted as a hybrid in-person and online meeting via Zoom. Members of the public can provide testimony to the Planting Commission prior to the meeting and can join the online meeting remotely using the Zoom app, by telephone, or attending the meeting in- person at City Council Chambers. Details regarding how to join the online meeting and in-person meeting were provided in the notification letter mailed to adjacent residents and property owners, in the posted public hearing notices, in the Planning Commission meeting agenda, and posted on the City's website and SpringfieldOregonSpeaks. org. At the July 196 Planting Commission public hearing, there were no public comments or testimony on this development project application. Criteria of Approval The following Springfield Development Code (SDC) sections pertain to Willamette Greenway Development Permit requests (applicability of criteria of approval are discussed in more detail below): • SDC 3.3-330, Willmnette Greemvay District Development Standards • SDC 3.3-325, Greemvay Setback • SDC 5.9-120, Discretionary Use Criteria • SDC 3.4-280.L, Willamette Greemvay Development StandardsforMixed-Use Districts in Glemvood Exhibit B, Page 5 of 12 Proposed Findings In Support of a Willamette Greenway (WG) Development Permit Approval The findings below address the applicable criteria and development standards listed in the Springfield Development Code (SDC). General Finding: The applicant also submitted a Site Plan Review application for the proposed fill project on May 12, 2022. The Site Plan Review staff report and decision is not yet completed. However, the Willamette Greenway Development permit is granted only if the applicant's Site Plan Review application is also approved by the City, using the approval criteria specified in SDC 5.17-125, per SDC 3.4.280(G)(2). The Site Plan application is Case #811-22-000124-TYP2. Condition of Approval: 1. The Willamette Greenway Development permit will be granted only if the applicant's Site Plan Review application is also approved by the City using the approval criteria specified in SDC 5.17-125. The Site Plan application is Case #811-22-000124-TYP2. Criteria: Willamette Greenway (WG) District Development Standards (SDC 3.3 330), Greenway Setback (SDC 3.3 325), and Discretionary Use Criteria (SDC 5.9-120) Finding: Under SDC 3.4.280(G)(2) "Review," development within the Glenwood Riverfront portion of the WG Overlay District is using the Type III Discretionary Use procedure in accordance with criteria specified in SDC 3.4- 280.L. The standards in SDC 3.4-280.L are alternative to those in SDC 3.3-325 to SDC 3.3-330. Therefore, the criteria and development standards for SDC 3.3-330, SDC 3.3-325, and SDC 5.9-120 do not apply to the applicant's proposed fill project and request for WG Development Permit approval. Criterion: WG Development Standards for Mixed -Use Districts in the Glenwood (SDC 3.4-280. L) SOC3.4-280.L A'ILLAMETTE GBEENWAYDEVELOP&ENT STANLLIBQS FOR MIXED-USE DISTRICTSIN THE GLENWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD In the GlemvoodRive�front portion of the WG Overlay District, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the following uvelve (12) criteria of approval: 1. Any development, change ofuse or intensification of use permitted in the base zone shall be oriented tmvard the river benveen the Willamette Greemvay Setback Line and the Willamette Greemvay outer boundary. EXCEPTION Proposed water -dependent and water -related uses listed in Subsection 3.4-280D.2. shall be permitted within the Greemvay Setback Line. Finding: In response to the SDC 3.4-280.L.1 development standard, the City agrees with the applicant's statement that "the proposed fill materials will be placed within the 75 foot area located in benveen the ISO' Willamette- Greemvay Overlay District Boundary and the 75 foot Riparian resource area Setback" Structural fill is considered a type of development that changes the site elevation, but the fill does not have an "orientation." Therefore, this development standard is not applicable for the proposed fill -only development project. 2. Benveen the Greenway Setback Line and the Willamette Greemvay outer boundary, any development, change of use or intensification of use shall provide the maeinmm possible landscaped areadopen space benveen the activity and the river. Finding: The proposed fill project is considered the "activity," and the applicant states that they will not add fill or conduct any development within the 75 -foot -wide riparian resource area of the Willamette River as shown earlier in Figure 3. This 75 -foot -wide riparian resource area west of the Willamette River would conserve all the riparian vegetation on the subject property. According to the 2010 Local Wetlands Inventory and Riparian Corridor Exhibit B, Page 6 of 12 Assessment for the Glemvood Area, under "Riparian Code: R -WR -S Left bank," the riparian resource area of the subject site contains several species of both woody and herbaceous vegetation including Oregon bigleaf maple trees, Oregon ash trees, California black cottonwood trees, Himalayan blackberry brambles, Pacific poison oak vines, and orchard grasses. Finding: Because the existing riparian resource area protects all the riparian vegetation, as listed in the Local Wetlands Inventory and Riparian Corridor Assessment, it also affords the greater degree of protection for fish and wildlife habitat, even though that habitat is not considered significant as determined by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Service (OFWS) in a concurrence letter dated June 10, 2015 (Attachment #3). The applicant is not proposing to remove any vegetation or open space between the riparian resource area outer boundary and the Willamette River. Therefore, the maximum possible landscaped area and open spaces are preserved. Moreover, this area of the subject site is being reserved and dedicated for a future Willamalane recreational multi -use path along the west bank of the Willamette River. This criterion is met. 3. Significant air, water, and land resources, including but not limited to, natural and scenic areas, views, vistas, and fish and wildlife habitats in and adjacent to the Greemvay, shall be protected, preserved, restored, or enhanced to the maximum extent practicable. Finding: "Significant" resources as used in this section means those resources adopted by the City as locally significant resources in the Goal 5 inventory or other comprehensive plan inventory, which focuses on natural resources, scenic and historic areas, and open spaces. There are no significant air resources impacted by this proposal, and the Glenwood Refinement Plan notes that there are no identified scenic qualities or viewpoints within the subject portion of the Willamette River Greenway. However, this development proposal and subject site include the locally -significant riparian resource area adjacent to the Willamette River as well as any fish and wildlife habitats in and adjacent to the Greenway. Finding: The 2010 Glemvood Natural Resource Wildlife Habitat Assessment states that"sites that passed the Tier 1 and Tier 2 criteria comprise the final proposed inventory of significant sites for incorporation into the existing Springfield Natural Resource Inventory." The assessment of the subject site (Riparian Code: R -WR -S Left bank) determined that while there are areas mapped on the State Wetlands Inventory and areas mapped as Fish -Bearing Streams, which are part of the Tier 1 significance criteria, the subject site didnot meet the Tier 2 significance criteria. Therefore, the Wildlife Habitat Assessment (WHA) for the subject site determined there are no significant fish and wildlife habitats. Finding: The proposed project will maintain and protect the 75 -foot -wide riparian resource area— currently vegetated with trees, brambles, shrubs, vines, and grasses — via Best Management Practices (BMPs) described in the DEQ Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (Attachment #9). The BMPs identified in the DEQ Erosion and Sediment Control Plan meets the requirement to protect adjacent fish and wildlife habitat and the adjacent riparian resource area to the maximum extent practicable. Finding: As documented in Attachment #11 of the submitted application, the Willamette Greenway Setback Line was established for the subject site in 2014. The Hearing Official stated in the establishment of the Greenway Setback Line decision that" The proposed Willamette Greemvay setbackrvill encompass the entire riparian vegetative fringe along the easternportion ofthe subjectproperty. The location ofthis riparianfringe has been documented and memorialized through recent aerial photographs used by the applicant. While most of the subject property is highly disturbed, the preservation ofthe riparianfringe will ensure, to the greatest degree possible, the Willamette Greemvay setback standards that look to promote recreational needs, protect fish and wildl fe habitat, and enhance and protect the natural vegetative fringe along the river." Finding: Because the riparian resource area is found within the Willamette Greenway Overlay District, as shown earlier in Figure I and Figure 3, the 150 -foot -wide portion of the Willamette Greenway will conserve all the existing riparian vegetation on the subject property and will also maximize protection of existing fish and wildlife habitat. Exhibit B, Page 7 of 12 4. The maintenance of public safety and protection of public and private property, especially from vandalism and trespass, shall be provided to the maxinumi extent practicable. Finding: The property is currently enclosed by a 6 -foot perimeter fence, which the applicant proposes to continue using as part of the proposed fill activities. This fence has been adequate to protect the property against trespass during the last several years when the applicant added structural fill to the subject site, outside of the Willamette Greenway Overlay District. Finding: The property is currently enclosed by a 6 -foot perimeter fence, which the applicant does not propose to remove as part of the fill activities. Protection of the property to the maximum extent practicable requires the protection of property to the maximum amount that is reasonable. In the last five years, there have been 16 total calls for police services for the subject property. Five of these were response to an alarm. Of the remaining eleven only two resulted in any cases filed: one for theft and one towing of a nuisance vehicle. There were two calls for criminal trespass at the subject property and one call for illegal dumping that did not result in any cases filed. There were no calls related to vandalism. Finding: There is no evidence of any existing unreasonable risks to the public or private property with the existing six-foot fence in place. There are no additional structures proposed in this application or site changes that would increase the risks to public safety or public or private property. Requiring additional safety measures would not be reasonable inlight of the proposed development (fill) and the characteristics of this site. By providing andmaintaining the 6 -foot perimeter fencing around the subject site, the applicant encourages public safety and protection from trespass and vandalism to the maximum extent practicable. Therefore, this criterion is met. S. The natural vegetative fringe along the river shall be enhanced, protected, and maintained in order to assure scenic quality and viewpoints, protection ofwildlife, protectionfrom erosion and screening of uses from the river. Finding: The natural vegetative fringe along the river is within the riparian resource area of the Willamette River. The subject site has an existing 75 -foot -wide riparian resource area containing fish and wildlife habitats, and it is located on the eastern side of the 150 -foot -wide Willamette Greenway Overlay District, abutting the Willamette River's western bank. The vegetation located in the riparian resource area protects from erosion and screening of uses from the river. As conditioned, the applicant will be required to implement BMPs described in the DEQ Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to further protect the riparian resource area from erosion. There are no identified scenic qualities and viewpoints within the portion of the Willamette Greenway subject to this permit, as noted above; however, preservation of the natural vegetative fringe within the riparian resource area conserves any scenic qualities associated with the site that are not identified in the Glenwood Refinement Plan. There are no uses proposed in this application that would require screening from the river. Therefore, this criterion is met. 6. Areas of animal flooding, floodplain and wetlands shall be preserved or restored in their natural state to the mailmen, extent practicable to protect water retention, overfimv and other naturai functions specified in Section 3.3-400. Finding: The subject property has portions located in the Flood Way and the Floodplain AE Zone, which places flre subject site in the Special Flood Hazard Area. See Figure 4 for more detail. Therefore, these areas must be preserved according to the Floodplain Overlay District standards listed in SDC 3.3.400. Finding: In accordance with SDC 3.3.410A, the Floodplain (FP) Overlay is established to promote the public liealflr, safety and general welfare, and to minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas. The provisions of SDC 3.3.410A are designed to: (I) Protect mina, life and health (2) Minimize expenditure ofpublic n oney on costly flood control projects. (3) Minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding, and generally undertaken at the expense of the general public. Exhibit B, Page 8 of 12 (4) Minimize prolonged business interruptions. (5) Minimize damage to public facilities and utilities, including, but not limited to: water and gar mains, electric, telephone and sewer lines, streets and bridges located in areas ofspecial flood hazards. (6) Help mutation a stable tae bare by providingfor the sound use and development offlood hazard areas so at to minimize blight areas caused by flooding. (7) Notify potential buyers that the property it in a specialflood hazard area, and at applicable, notify potential buyers when development has been approved under a variance to the Floodplain Overlay District standards. (8) Minimize the threat to persons, property, and urban water qualityfromflooding, and inadequate or improper drainage resulting from uncontrolled development or redevelopment of land to include filling, grading, excavation, removal,eardavodr construction including berms and dikes, stockpiling of materials, or other land and drainage alterations. (9) Notify those who occupy special flood hazard areas that they assume responsibility for their actions. (10) Participate in and maintain eligibility forflood insurance and disaster relief. Finding: The applicant previously obtained a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) establishing a revised Flood Way/Floodplain boundary. In 2014, the applicant went back to FEMA and obtained a Conditional Letter of Map Revision based on Fill (CLOMR-F), which allows the subject site to be raised out of the Floodplain. The CLOMR-F is included as Attachment #5 in the submitted application, and a Type I Floodplain Overlay District application was approved by the City on October 29, 2015 (Attachment #7) to add fill to the subject site up to the outer boundary of the Willamette Greenway. Finding: The applicant's request for a Willamette Greenway Development Permit will allow them to continue the fill project consistent with FEMA's CLOMR-F that was issued for the subject site. The placement of fill within the Willamette Greenway Overlay District is one of the final items needed to formally remove the subject site from Floodplain regulations imposed through the Floodplain Overlay District. The proposed fill project will make the subject site "shovel ready' and allow the property to be developed. Finding: The following addresses each of the provisions of SDC 3.3.410A and how they are (or are not) applicable to the proposed fill project: (I) Protect human life and health By adding fill to the subject site in order to remove it from the Floodplain, the applicant is protecting human life and health of those who may work at or may be a user of the subject site once fully developed. The risk to human life and health is decreased when the subject site is no longer in the Floodplain Overlay District. (2) Minimize expenditure ofpublic money on costly flood control projects. When the fill project is completed on the subject site at the expense of the applicant and property owners, expenditures of public money on costly flood control projects is minimized because the fill project will remove the site from the Floodplain Overlay District. (3) Minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding, and generally undertaken at the expense of the general public. When the fill project is completed on the subject site at the expense of the applicant and property owners, the need for rescue/relief efforts and expenses associated with flooding because the subject site would then be removed from the Floodplain Overlay District. (4) Minimize prolonged business interruptions. This provision is not applicable as there is no existing business use operating on the undeveloped, vacant subject site. (5) Minimize damage to public facilities and utilities, including, but oat limited to: waterand gar maim, electric, telephone and sewer lines, streets and bridges located in areas of special flood hazards. This provision is not applicable as there are no existing public facilities and utilities on the subject site. (6) Help maintain a stable tae bare by providingfor the sound use and development offlood hazard areas so at to minimize blight areas caused by flooding. This proposed fill project would remove the subject site from Exhibit B, Page 9 of 12 the Floodplain, thereby providing for the sound use and development on the subject site. The subject site would also not be at risk of blight areas caused by flooding when the fill project is complete. (7) Notify potential buyers that the property is in a specialfiood hazard area, and at applicable, notify potential buyers when development has been approved under a variance to the Floodplain Overlay District standards. The applicant does not plan to sell or develop the subject site until the proposed fill project is complete. Potential buyers would then be informed that the subject site is no longer in a special flood hazard area. The applicant has not applied for a variance to the Floodplain Overlay District. (8) Minimize the threattoperson,property, and urban water qualityfromflooding,, andinadequate orimproper drainage resulting from uncontrolled development or redevelopment of land to include filling, grading, excavation, removal,eardsvodr construction including berms and dikes, stockpiling of materials; or other land and drainage alterations. As part of the applicant's approved Land Drainage & Alteration Permit (LDAP) for the subject site and the fill project, planting vegetation (i.e., native groundcover) on the areas where fill was added is required to minimize threats such as urban water quality and erosion from flooding. (9) Notify those who occupy specialfiood hazard areas that they assume responsibility for their actions. There are no occupants in the special floodhazard areas onthe subject site. Also, the applicant does not planto sell or develop the subject site until the fill project is complete and the area is removed from the Floodplain Overlay District. (10) Participate in and maintain eligibility forflood insurance and disaster relief. This provision for flood insurance and disaster relief would no longer be applicable when the proposed fill project is complete because the subject site would be removed from the Floodplain Overlay District. Finding: SDC 3.3.41013 lists methods and provisions that help accomplish the purpose of SDC 3.3.410A: (I) Restricting or prohibiting uses and development which are dangerous to health, safety, and property due to water or erosion hazards, or which result in damaging increases in erosion or in flood heights or velocities. (2) Requiring that uses and development vulnerable to floods, include'ng facilities which serve such uses, be protected against flood damage at the time of initial construction. (3) Controlling the alteration of natural floodplain, stream channels, and protective barriers, which help accommodate or channel flood waters. (4) Controllingfilling, grading, dredging, and other development, which may increase flood damage. (5) Preventing or regulating the contrntion of flood barriers which will unnaturally divert flood waters, or which may increase special flood hazards in other areas. (6) Issuing a Floodplain Development Permit. Finding: The following addresses each of the methods or provisions listed in SDC 3.3.410B and how they are (or are not) applicable to the proposed fill project: (I) Restricting or prohibiting nes and development which are dangeron to healtI4 safety, and property due to water or erosion hazards, or which result in damaging increases in erosion or in flood heights or velocities. The fill project is the only proposed use and development in this application. This does not pose a danger to health, safety, and property because the fill prof ect will not result in damaging increases in erosion or in flood heights or velocities as determined by FEMA in the applicant's CLOMR-F (Attachment #5). (2) Requiring that nes and development vulnerable to floods, including facilities which serve such nes, be protected again[ flood damage at the time of initial contrntion. When the fill project is completed, the subject site will be removed from the Floodplain Overlay District, and this provision would no longer be applicable at time of approved initial construction on the subject site. (3) Controlling the alteration of natural floodplain, stream channels, and protective barriers, which help accommodate or channel flood waters. The City agrees with the following information provided by the Exhibit B, Page 10 of 12 applicant on how the proposed fill project preserves or restores areas of annual flooding and floodplain in their natural state to the maximum extent practicable to protect water retention, overflow, and other natural functions specified in Section 3.3-400: 'As documented in the Watershed Science and Engineering (WSE) Hydraulic Analysis (Attachment 94), the "Willamette River through the project reach is entrenched,therefore, the floodplain is inundated lessfiequently than is typical. (...) simulations reveal that the main channel through the project reach has the capacity to convey approximately 47,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) (about a 20 - year event) before flow begins to spread onto the left (west) floodplain (...) Only about 900 cfs ofthe total 71,000 cfs is conveyed on the floodplain where the fill will be placed during a 100 -year event. Given the entrenched nature of the river within the project area, the infrequency of inundation, and the limited volume ofwater retentionfor a 100-yearflood (which was calculated based on the entirety of the fill site), there are negligible benefits for the 75foot area located in benveen the ISO -foot WG Overlay District Boundary and the 75 foot Riparian Setback " (4) Controlling filling, grading, dredging, and other development, which may increase flood damage. The proposed fill project will remove the subject site from the Floodplain Overlay District, which will decrease flood damage on the site. (5) Preventing or regulating the construction of flood barriers which will unnaturally divert flood waters, or which may increase special flood hazards in other areas. The proposed fill project does not prevent or regulate the construction of any floodbarriers, thereby not impacting how floodwaters are diverted or special flood hazards in other areas. (6) Issuing a Floodplain Development Permit. The applicant was already issued a Type 1 Floodplain Development Permit (Case #TYP 115-00039) by the City on October 29, 2015, which approved the fill project on portions of the subject site not located in the Willamette Greenway Overlay District (Attachment #7). This Willamette Greenway Development Permit application requests approval to complete the fill project in order to meet all the requirements of the CLOMR-F (Attachment #5). Finding: Based on the findings above, the applicable requirements of SDC 3.4.410A & B regarding the Floodplain Overlay District are met, and thereby meeting this criterion. 7. Recreational needs shall be satisfied as specified in the Glemvood Refinement Plan andlor this Plan District. 8. Adequate public access shall be provided to and along the river by appropriate legal means for all development as specified in the applicable base zone, overlay district, or this Plan District. Finding: Because the subject site is located adjacent to the Willamette River in the Glenwood neighborhood, the adopted Glenwood Refinement Plan and Glenwood Riverfront Plan area are applicable. In accordance with SDC 3.4- 280.L.7, the Glenwood Refinement Plan allocates 25-35% of lands located in the Glenwood Riverfront Plan area for open space, drainage facilities, the riparian setback area, and public rights-of-way. The Glenwood Refinement Plan also states that the City shall defer to the Willamalane Parks & Recreation District to investigate the potential for acquiring and developing public riverfrom parkland. Finding: The applicant previously dedicated a 20 -foot -wide strip of land for a multi -use path within the 75 -foot riparian setback, which will allow for appropriate access to the river by the public in the context of the future development of the properties in conjunction with future development of a recreational multi -use path in this portion of the subject site. Finding: The Willamalane Park & Recreation District is a public -serving entity whose mission is "to deliver exceptional parks and recreation to enrich the lives of everyone we serve," including people of all ages and abilities. 10 Exhibit B, Page 11 of 12 In accordance with SDC 3.4-280.L.8, it is expected that Willamelane will provide adequate and legal public access to and along the river when developing the planned recreational multi -use path as specified in the Springfield Development Code and Glenwood Refinement Plan. Therefore, these criteria are both met. 9. Areas ofecological, scientific, historical, or archeologicalsignificance shall be protected, preserved, restored, or enhanced to the maximum extent practicable. Finding: The subject site does not contain any significant scientific, historical, or archeological significance based on local inventories and the adopted Glenwood Refinement Plan. However, the Willamette River, Willamette Greenway Overlay District, and the riparian resource area are all considered ecologically significant resources. Finding: The applicant addresses how they will protect, preserve, restore, or enhance areas of ecological significance in Findings under other development standards in SDC 3.4-280.L.2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10. As already conditioned, this criterion is met. 10. Significant fish and wildlife habitats shall be protected to the maximum extent practicable. Finding: The submitted Biological Assessment, Essential Fish Habitat, and Floodplain Habitat Assessment (Attachment #2) determined there are no significant fish and wildlife habitats on site in the areas affected by the fill. However, there are fish and wildlife habitats located in the riparian resource area. The proposed fill project does not include any work in the 75 -foot -wide riparian resource area that would disrupt this habitat area. Indirect impacts on this habitat are protected by conditioning this approval on implementation the BMPs in the DEQ Erosion and Sediment Control plan, thereby meeting this development standard. 11. Significant natural and scenic areas, viewpoints and vistas shall be protected to the maximum extent practicable. Finding: As explained in the findings under the criterion in SDC 3.4-280L.3, there are no significant scenic qualities or viewpoints within the Glenwood portion of the Willamette River Greenway that is subject to this application. Therefore, this criterion is met. Finding: As previously stated in this staff report, the subject site includes both the Willamette Greenway and the riparian resource area adjacent to the Willamette River, which are significant natural areas. This finding incorporates the following applicant narrative regarding significant natural areas: Finding: As documented on the Biological Assessment, Essential Fish Habitat and Floodplain Habitat Assessment (Attachment 92), there are no wetlands located in the proposed project area or within the subject properties therefore no conservation or maintenance is required. The 2014 established Greemvay Setback Line will conserve all of the existing riparian vegetation on the subject property. 'Because the setback area protects all the riparian vegetation, it affords the greatest degree of arolec0on forfish and wildl fe habitat, even though that habitat is not considered significant" (Attachment 92) [as determined by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Service (OFWS) in a letter dated June 10, 2015 (Attachment #3)]. Finding: Additionally, m described in the Willamette River Greemvay Setback Determination—Notice of Decision (Attachment 911-7TP314-00001, Page 7 of 10), the "The proposed setback area would conserve all of the existing riparian vegetation on the subject property. Became the proposed setback area protects all the riparian vegetation on the subject property, it affords the greatest degree ofarolec0on for fish and wildlife habitat, even though that habitat is not considered significant". There are no activities proposed within the 75 foot Riparian Setback. Finding: In accordance with SDC 3.4-280.L.11, the applicant is not planning to fill or develop within the 75 -foot - wide Riparian Setback area, which is also located in the Willamette Greenway, thereby protecting the significant natural area to the maximum extent possible. Therefore, this criterion is met. 11 Exhibit B, Page 12 of 12 12. Any necessary tree felling shall comply with Section 5.19-100 and shall occur in a manner that ensures the wildlife habitat and natural scenic 0ualitiesfound in the Glemvoodlliverfront portion of the WG Overlay District will be maintained and shall be restored by mitigation on-site. Only diseased trees or trees in danger of falling located between the ordinary Imv water line and the Greemvay Setback Line may be removed with a certified arbonst's statement. Finding: The proposed development is a fill project, which does not include any tree felling activity. With the exception of the vegetated/riparian resource area delineated during the establishment of the Greenway Setback, vegetation at the subject site is minimal and typically consists of grasses, shrubs, and blackberries. Because no tree felling activity is proposed, this development standard is not applicable to this Willamette Greenway Development Permit request. Conclusion As conditioned herein, the request to add fill on the subject site meets the applicable Willamette Greenway Development Standards For Mixed -Use Districts in the Glenwood Neighborhood in accordance with SDC 3.4-280.L. CONCLUSION: Based on the above -listed criteria, development standards, findings, and conditions of approval, City staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposal because it meets the applicable stated criteria for a Willamette Greenway Development Permit. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SDC 5.22-120 allows for the Approval Authority to attach conditions of approval of a Willamette Greenway Development Permit request to ensure the application fully meets the criteria of approval. The specific language from the code section is cited below if there are any recommended conditions. 5.22-120 CONDITIONS The Approval Authority may attach conditions as may be reasonably necessary in order to allow the Willamette Greenway Development Permit to be granted. 1. The Willamette Greenway Development permit will be granted only if the applicant's Site Plan Review application is also approved by the City using the approval criteria specified in SDC 5.17-125. The Site Plan application is Case #811-22-000124 TYP2. The Planning Commission may choose to apply conditions of approval as necessary to comply with the Willamette Greenway Development Permit criteria and development standards. 12 SPRINGFIELD TYPE II TENTATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW, � STAFF REPORT & DECISION OREGON Project Name: Wildish Glenwood Riverfront Site Plan Review Project Proposal: Add fill within a portion of an approximately 44 -acre undeveloped site consisting of five (5) separate properties along the eastern side of Franklin Avenue in the Glenwood neighborhood, adjacent to the west bank of the Willamette River. Case Number: 811-22-000124-TYP2 Project Location: 1. 5001 Franklin Boulevard (Map 18-03-02-20, Tax Lot 3200); 2. 4857 Franklin Boulevard (Map 18-03-02-20, Tax Lot 3100); 3. 4851 Franklin Boulevard (Map 18-03-02-20, Tax Lot 3000); 4. 4747 Franklin Boulevard (Map 18-03-02-20, Tax Lot 2800); 5. Unaddressed Parcel (Map 18-03-02-20, Tax Lot 3300). Zoning: Employment Mixed -Use (GEMU) Comprehensive Plan Designation: GEMU (Glemvood Refinement Plop) Overlay Districts: Floodplain Overlay District and Willamette Greenway Overlay District Pre -Submittal Meeting Date: April 5, 2022 Application Submitted Date: May 12, 2022 Decision Issued Date: September 9, 2022 Appeal Deadline Date: September 23, 2022 Associated Applications: 91 1 -22 -000107 -PRE (Pre -submittal Meeting for Site PlanReview); 91 1 -22 -000047 -PRE (Pre -submittal Meeting for Willamette Greenway Development Permit); 811-22-000106-TYP3 (Willamette Greenway Development Permit); APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM Applicant: Applicant's Representative: Property Owner: Steven J. Wildish Kelly L. Wood Eugene Water & Electric Board WildishLand Co. WildishLand Co. (EWEB) P.O. Box 40310 P.O. Box 40310 P.O. Box 10148 Eugene, OR 97404 Eugene, OR 97404 Eugene, OR 97440 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM POSITION REVIEW OF NAME PHONE Project Manager Planning Haley Campbell 541-726-3647 Transportation Planning Engineer Transportation Michael Liebler 541-736-1034 Public Works Engineer Utilities Cla on McEachem 541-736-1036 Public Works Eupiwer Sanitary & Storm Sewer Cla on McEachem 541-736-1036 Deputy Fire Marshal Fire and Life Safety Gilbert Gordon 541-726-2293 Building Official Building Chris Carpenter 541-744-41' DECISION: The standards of the Springfield Development Code (SDC) applicable to each criterion of Site Plan Approval are listed herein and are satisfied by the submitted plans unless specifically noted with findings and conditions necessary for compliance. Final Site Plans must conform to the submitted plans as conditioned herein. This is a limited land use decision made according to City code and state statutes. Unless appealed, the decision is final. Please read this document carefully. REVIEW PROCESS: This application is reviewed under Type II procedures listed in Springfield Development Code Section 5.1-130 and the site plan review criteria of approval SDC 5.17-125. Applications for Limited Land Use Decisions require the notification of property owners/occupants within 300 feet of the subject property allowing for a 14 day comment period on the application (SDC Section 5.1-425). The applicant and parties submitting written comments during the notice period have appeal rights and are mailed a copy of this decision for consideration. In accordance with SDC 5.17-125 to 5.17-135, the Final Site Plan must comply with the requirements of the SDC and the conditions imposed by the Director in this decision. The Final Site Plan must be in substantial conformity with the tentative plan reviewed. Portions of the proposal approved as submitted during tentative review cannot be substantively changed during Final Site Plan approval. SITE INFORMATION: A Site Plan Review application is requested form approximately 44 -acre site consisting of five (5) separate properties along the eastern side of Franklin Avenue in the Glenwood neighborhood, adjacent to the west bank of the Willamette River. There are no structures on the parcels. All five properties are inside the Springfield city limits and within the Phase 1 Glemvood Refinement Plan area adopted in 2012. The adopted Glemvood Refinement Plop diagram and the Springfield Zoning Map identifies the tax lots as being zoned and designated Glenwood Employment Mixed -Use (GEMU). The applicant's request is to add fill within a portion of the Willamette Greenway Overlay District, which will help prepare for and facilitate future development on these properties in accordance with the Springfield Development Code and the adopted Glenwood Refinement Plan. The subject site is currently located in the Willamette Greenway Overlay District, the Flood Way, Floodplain Zone A, the 500 -year Flood area, and includes a riparianresource area. There are no other natural features or hazards located on this property such as wetlands or proximity m drinking water wellheads. This application was submitted to the City on May 12, 2022, and it was deemed complete at the Development Review Committee on May 31, 2022. The applicant also submitted a Willamette Greenway Development Permit (Case #S 11- 22-000106-TYP3) for the same fill project on April 27, 2022, it was deemed complete at the Development Review Committee on May 24, 2022, and approvedby the Planning Commission on August 16, 2022. A condition of approval for the Willamette Greenway Development permit is the approval of this Site Plan Review application using the approval criteria in SDC 5.17-125. WRITTEN COMMENTS: In accordance with SDC 5.1-425, notice was sent to adjacent property owners/occupants within 300 feet of the subject site on May 24, 2022. No comments were received. CRITERIA OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL: SDC 5.17-125, Site Plan Review Standards, Criteria of Site Plan Approval states, "the Director shall approve, or approve with conditions, a Type II Site Plan Review Application upon determining that criteria A through E of this Page 2 of 14 Section have been satisfied. If conditions cannot be attached to satisfy the criteria, the Director shall deny the application." A. The zoning is consistent with the Metro Plan diagram, and/or the applicable Refinement Plan diagram, Plan District map, and Conceptual Development Plan. Finding 1: The subject site is zoned Employment Mixed Use (Glenwood) and designated Light Medium Industrial and Mixed Use, consistent with both the Metro Plan diagram and the Springfield Zoning Map. Finding 2: The adopted Glenwood Refinement Plan applies to the subject site, specifically the 2004 Glenwood Riverfrom Plan. The Glenwood Refinement Plan supports and facilitates the redevelopment of Glenwood into "an attractive place to live, work, and visit." The proposed fill project helps prepare and facilitate future development of the subject site. Finding 3: In accordance with SDC 3.4-250 the following uses are allowable as either primary or secondary uses in the GEMU District subject to Site Plan Review: eating and drinking establishments; personal services including fitness centers, spas, hair stylists, etc.; professional/scientific/commercial office enterprises; retail sales and services; business parks; hospitals; light manufacturing uses; office employment where there is limited interaction with the public; recycling centers; warehousing and distribution; public or private parking lots/structures; low impact facilities; and wireless telecommunications systems facilities. Finding 4: Wildish is seeking permits for the placement of fill within the Willamette Greenway Overlay District Boundary in advance of having a development plan. Once a development plan is determined, an analysis of the proposed use and its consistency with the Metro Plan, Refinement Plan, Plant District map, and Conceptual Development Plan will be warranted. Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion A. B. Capacity requirements of public improvements, 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 Development & Public Works Director or a utility provider shall determine capacity issues. Finding 5: Approval of tius proposal is limited to the placement of fill materials to the area located in between the 150 -foot Greenway Overlay District Boundary and the 75 -foot Riparian Setback shown on the Site Plans. There are no proposed or existing facilities; nevertheless, a look at the availability of public improvements is warranted. Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub -element of the criterion. Water and Electricity Improvements Finding 6: SDC 4.3-130 requires each development area to be provided with a water system having sufficiently sized mains and lesser lines to furnish an adequate supply to the development and sufficient access for maintenance. Springfield Utility Board (SUB) coordinates the design of the water system within Springfield city limits. Finding 7: Future development will access the water system connections along the Franklin Blvd. frontage of the site. SUB Water advises that there is an existing 9 -inch service line that provides stubs to tax lots 2800, 3100 and 3200. Water will need to be provided to tax lots 3000 and 3300 at the time of development. Finding S: The proposed development will derive electricity service from the existing overhead power lines that nun along Franklin Blvd. Page 3 of 14 Finding 9: In accordance with provisions of the City's Development Code and the adopted Phase 1 Glemvood Refinement Plon, it is likely that the overhead power and telecommunication lines along the property frontages on Franklin Blvd. will need to be placed underground in the future. Installation shall be coordinated with SUB Electric. Conclusion: The existing and proposed SUB Water and Electric facilities are adequate to serve the site in the event that additional utility services are required in the future. The proposal satisfies this sub -element of the criterion. Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Management Facilities Sanitary Sewer Finding 10: Section 4.3-105(B) of the SDC requires that sanitary sewers shall be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to existing mains. Additionally, installation of sanitary sewers shall provide sufficient access for maintenance activities. Finding ll: Section 4.3-105(C) of the SDC requires that the sanitary sewer must be designed and constructed in conformance with Chapter 2 of the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual (EDSPM). Finding 12: Section 2.02.1 of the City's EDSPM states that when land outside anew development will logically direct flow to sanitary sewers in the new development, the sewers shall be public sewers and shall normally extend to one or more of the property boundaries. Finding 13: Four of the five parcels (Map 18-03-02-20, Lots 2800, 3000, 3100, and 3200) have access to the sanitary sewer service from an existing 18 -inch public sewer line that runs north -south along the Franklin Blvd. frontage of the site. The sewer line has not been extended to the EWEB parcel (18-03-02-20, Lot 3300); this must be addressed at the time of development. Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub -element of the criterion. Stonmwater Martmement (Quantity) Finding 14: SDC 4.3-110(A)(2) states that a storrawater management system must be installed to serve each new development within the city limits. Finding 15: SDC 4.3-110(A)(3) requires the stonnwater management system to be designed and constructed in conformance with SDC 4.3-110(B) Stonnwater Study Standards. Finding 16: SDC 4.3-110(A)(4) requires the stonnwater management system be separated from any sanitary sewer system. Finding 17: SDC 4.3-110(A)(5) requires any new development that creates or replaces 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface area and discharges to the storm system must install stomr water controls that minimize the amount and rate of surface water runoff into the city stonnwater system. The stonnwater system must be constructed consistent with the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual Sections 4.03.1, 4.03.2, and 4.03.4. Finding 1S: There is no piped public storrawater system along the property frontage, and the nearest public storrawater facility is isolated from the subject site. No impervious surfaces are being created. Therefore, at the Lime of development, storrawater will need to be managed entirely on-site. Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub -element of the criterion Page 4 of 14 Streets and Traffic Safety Controls Finding 19: SDC 4.2-105(G)(2) requires that whenever a proposed land division or development will increase traffic on the City street system and that development has unimproved street frontage, that street frontage shall be fully improved to City specifications. Finding 20: The site has frontage on Franklin Blvd. along the western edge; it is inside the City limits and classified as an arterial street. Franklin Blvd. is improved with paving and lane striping, but lacks curb, gutter, sidewalk, street trees, street lighting, pedestrian amenities, and a piped stormwater system. Note that the intersection of Nugget Way and Franklin Blvd. is to be reconfigured with future development of a roundabout intersection. Until buildout occurs, it is premature to install the full suite of street improvements along the western edge of the site. Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion B. C. The proposed development shall comply with all applicable public and private design and construction standards contained in this Code and other applicable regulations. Finding 21: The elements, sub -elements and code standards of Criterion C include but are not limited to: Conformance with standards of SDC 5.17-100, Site Plan Review and SDC 3.4-200 Glenwood Employment Mixed Use Zoning District • Employment Mixed Use - Schedule of Use Categories (3.4-250) • Employment Mixed Use - Base Zone Development Standards (3.4-265) • Glenwood Riverfront Mixed -Use District - Public and Private Development Standards (3.4-270) • Glenwood Riverfront Mixed -Use District —Building Design Standards (3.4-275) Overlay Districts and Applicable Refinemerd Plan Requirements • Phase 1 Glenwood Refinement Plan (2012) • Willamette Greenway Overlay District • Floodplain Overlay District Conformance with Standards of SDC 5.17-100, Site Plan Review and SDC 3.4-200, Employment Mixed - Use District Schedule of Uses for Glenwood Riverfront Mixed Use Plan District (3.4-250) Finding 22: The following uses are allowable as either primary or secondary uses in the GEMU District subject to Site Plan Review: eating and drinking establishments; personal services including fitness centers, spas, hair stylists, etc.; professional/scientific/commercial office enterprises; retail sales and services; business parks; hospitals; light manufacturing uses; office employment where there is limited interaction with the public; recycling centers; warehousing and distribution; public or private parking lots/structures; low impact facilities; and wireless telecommunications systems facilities. Finding 23: Wildish is seeking permits for the placement of fill within the Willamette Greenway Overlay District Boundary in advance of having a development plan. Future development must be consistent with the allowable elements of the Employment Mixed -Use zone. Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub -element of the criterion Base Zone Development Standards (3.4265) Page 5 of 14 Finding 24: In accordance with SDC 3.4-265, buildings in the Employment Mixed Use District are regulated by the build -to lines andbuilding setbackprovisions of SDC 3.4-275.H; the landscape provisions of SDC 3.4-270.17; and the building height provisions of SDC 3.4-275D. Finding 25: Future development will need to meet the requirements of the adopted Glemvood Refinement Plan for building placement, landscaping, and parking as detailed in the standards above. Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub -element of the criterion. Public and Private Development Standards (3.4-270) Finding 26: Due to the limited scope of the fill project, the availability of adequate public and private facilities and services are not required for the proposed use. However, this sub -element must be met for proposed future development and uses on the subject site. Finding 27: In accordance with SDC 3.4-270A, public streets, alleys, and sidewalks in the Glenwood Riverfrom shall be as described in the Glenwood Refinement Plan Transportation Chapter and designed and constructed as specified in the Springfield Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual. The subject site has frontage on Franklin Blvd. The Franklin Blvd. street frontage has paving and lane striping but lacks curb, gutter, sidewalk, street trees, street fighting and pedestrian amenities. These standards will need to be addressed at the time of development, in conjunction with the future roundabout intersection project at Nugget Way and Franklin Blvd. Therefore, the proposal meets this requirement. Finding 29: In accordance with SDC 3.4-2703, street trees and curbside planter strips are required for public street frontages. Curbside planters and street trees will be required along the Franklin Blvd. frontage at the time of development. Therefore, the proposal meets this requirement. Finding 29: In accordance with SDC 3.4-270.C, private on-site fighting shall meet the standards of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) and be shielded and downcast to prevent glare and fight trespass onto adjacent properties and public rights-of-way. Lighting fixture cut sheets and photometric diagrams for the installation of future lighting will be required at the time of development. Therefore, the proposal meets this requirement. Finding 30: In accordance with SDC 3.4-2701), bicycle facilities are required off-street as part of the multi -use path specified in SDC 3.4.270(E); on -street; or as part of a mid -block connector. The proposed future development will need to consider the bicycle parking requirements in SDC Table 3.4-2. Therefore, the proposal meets this requirement. Finding 31: In accordance with SDC 3.4-270.E, a multi -use path is to be constructed along the Glenwood Riverfront. The applicant has previously dedicated a 20 -foot -wide strip of land for a multi -use path within the 75 -foot riparian setback, which will allow for access to the river by the public in conjunction with fiture development of a recreational multi -use path. Therefore, the proposal meets this requirement. Finding 32: In accordance with SDC 3.4-270.17, private landscaping is required within building setbacks, within the parking lot interior, on the site perimeter for screening of parking lots, and for the management of stormwater. Landscaping can consist of trees, shunbs, groundcover plants, or a combination thereof. At the time of development, a proposed planting plan will include a combination of L 1, L2 and L3 landscaping for the site as described in SDC 3.4-270.F. Therefore, the proposal meets this requirement. Finding 33: In accordance with SDC 3.4-270.G, vehicle and bicycle parking areas shall be designed and constructed in accordance with provisions of the Glemvood Refinement Plan. In accordance with SDC 3.4- 270.G.5.b., parking facilities shall be permitted aboveground and in underground parking structures; in surface parking facilities located in interior courts; within or on top of a building; and facing Franklin Blvd., provided they are screened and limited to two rows of parking with a bi-directional driving aisle. The proposed future Page 6 of 14 development will also need to consider the vehicle parking requirements in SDC Table 3.4-1. Therefore, the proposal meets this requirement. Finding 34: At this time, the applicant is not proposing a new or modified public sanitary sewer facilities. Therefore, SDC 3.4-270.H is not applicable. Finding 35: In accordance with SDC 3.4-270.I., public and private stormwater facilities shall be designed and constructed as specified in the City's EDSPM. There is no piped stormwater system available for the property, staff recommends that the applicant manage stormwater runoff on-site at the time of development. Therefore, the proposal meets this requirement. Finding 36: At this time, the applicant is not proposing a public park or open space. Therefore, SDC 3.4-270.7 is not applicable. Finding 37: There is an existing transit stop for LTD bus route #95 (LCC/Springfield) along Franklin Blvd. The existing transit stop will need to be retained along the frontage unless measures are taken by LTD to remove or relocate it. At such time as Franklin Blvd. is redeveloped as an urban arterial street, transit stations will be incorporated into the project design. In the meantime, the existing transit stop will need to be retained as currently installed. Therefore, the proposal meets this requirement. Finding 3g: At this time, the applicant is not proposing alight manufacturing facility. Therefore, SDC 3.4-270.M is not applicable. Finding 39: There are no inventoried historic resources on the site. Therefore SDC 3.4-270.N is not applicable. Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub -element of the criterion. Building Design Standards (3.4275) Finding 40: Due to the limited scope of the fill project, the building and site design standards are not required for the proposed use. However, this sub -element must be met for proposed future development and uses on the subject site. Finding 41: In accordance with SDC 3.4-275.A, building design standards for the Glenwood Riverfront area apply to new development and site redevelopment. The obj ective of the design standards is to establish a sense of place, promote aesthetically pleasing buildings and sites that are oriented to the human scale, and provide an improved streetscape. Finding 42: In accordance with SDC 3.4-2753, a project design team is required for proposed developments requiring Site Plan Review. The applicant's project design team complies with the requirements of SDC 3.4- 275.13 because it includes a civil engineer and landscape architect (an architect is not warranted for ano-rise Site Plan Review application). Finding 43: In accordance with SDC 3.4-275.C, building facades are to include architectural detailing including awnings and canopies, variation in building materials, ground floor windows and doors, and other features. At this time, the applicant is not proposing building development. Therefore, SDC 3.4-275.0 is not applicable. Finding 44: In accordance with SDC 3.4-275D., the minimum building height is 20 feet andthere is no maximum building height requirement. At this time, the applicant is not proposing building development. Therefore, SDC 3.4-2751) is not applicable. Finding 45: In accordance with SDC 3.4-275.E, building massing and articulation is to be employed where building facades are visible from the public realm. At this time, the applicant is not proposing building development. Therefore, SDC 3.4-2751) is not applicable. Page 7 of 14 Finding 46: In accordance with SDC 3.4-275.F.1.d, a future building must provide for more than 25 percent window glazing along the full length of all four elevations to allow for views into the entrance lobby and work areas, and for employees to look outside. At this time, the applicant is not proposing building development. Therefore, SDC 3.4-275.F.1.d. is not applicable. Finding 47: In accordance with SDC 3.4-275.G, building entrances are to be oriented such that they are identifiable, canbe accessed fromthe public sidewalk, andhave architectural elements such as awnings, canopies and overhangs. At this time, the applicant is not proposing building development. Future development must face Franklin Blvd., have dedicated pedestrian connections to Franklin Blvd. (and the future Franklin Blvd. and Nugget Way intersection improvements), and contain the architectural elements noted above. Therefore, SDC 3.4-275.G is not applicable. Finding 48: In accordance with SDC 3.4-275.11, new construction is to comply with build -to lines that bring building edges closer to the public street. An exception to this provision for sites in Subarea D that are south of the Union Pacific Railroad Tracks (such as the subject site) allows for parking lots to be developed between the building and the street. The fill project does not include parking improvements. Future parking must meet the parking lot and pedestrian connection standards in this section. Therefore, SDC 3.4-275.H is not applicable. Finding 49: In accordance with SDC 3.4-275.I, pedestrian amenities are intended to serve as informal gathering spaces and contribute to a walkable environment. The subject site currently has unimproved frontage along Franklin Blvd. Future pedestrian amenities as found in SDC 3.4-275.I.2 must be addressed at the time of development. Therefore, SDC 3.2-275.I is not applicable. Finding 50: The applicant is not proposing a building, therefore screening rooftop mechanical equipment, as found in SDC 3.4-275.7, is not applicable. Finding 51: The applicant is not proposing a parking structure, therefore SDC 3.4-275.K is not applicable. Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub -element of the criterion. C.3 Overlay Districts and Applicable Refinement Plan Requirements Finding 52: The subject site is not located within the mapped Time of Travel Zones (TOTZs) for Springfield's drinking water wells. However, as a "Best Practices" recommendation for this site, care must betaken during fill construction to prevent contamination that may spill or leak onto the ground surface. Any spills or leaks must be cleaned up immediately and cleanup materials disposed off-site in accordance with Lane County and State DEQ requirements. Finding 53: The subject site is within the adopted Glemvood Refinement Plop area. As stated previously, the current Employment Mixed Use zoning is consistent with the zoning designation for the property, and therefore satisfies the Refinement Plan policies applicable to this site. The proposed development meets the adopted Refinement Plan and Development Code provisions for new development in this area of Glenwood as stated herein. Finding 54: The site is outside the delineated Nodal Development area of the Glemvood Refinement Plan, therefore this overlay district is not applicable. Finding 55: The adopted Phase 1 Glemvood Refinement Plop and the City's Natural Resource Inventory mapping do not identify any potentially significant or regulated wetlands within the proposed project area. Finding 56: The site is within the delineated Willamette Greenway Overlay District and the Flood Way, Floodplain Zone A, and the 500 -year floodplain; therefore the provisions of SDC 3.4-280.L. and SDC 3.3.400) Page 9 of 14 are applicable to the subject development. A concurrent Willamette Greenway Development Permit was submitted with this Site Plan Review application and a staff report and decision has been rendered. Criterion: WG Development Standards for Mixed-Use Districts in Glenwood (SDC 3.4-280.L) and Floodplain Overlay District standards (SDC 3.3-400) Finding 57: In accordance with SDC 3.4-280.L. L, any development pemutted in the base zone shall be oriented toward the river. Except that proposed water-dependent and water-related uses hstedin SDC 3.4-280(D)(2) shall be pemutted within the Willamette Greenway outer boundary. As noted herein, the proposed fill materials will be placed within the 75-foot area located between the 150' Willamette Greenway Overlay Boundary and the 75- foot Riparian resource area setback. Structural fill is a type of development that changes the site elevation, but the fill does not have an "orientation". Therefore, this development standard is not applicable for the proposed fill development project. Finding 58: In accordance with SDC 3.4-280.L.2., requires that between the Greenway Setback Line and the Willamette Greenway outer boundary, any development shall provide the maximum possible landscaped area/open space between the activity and the river. The applicant stated inthe Willamette Greenway Development Narrative, that they will not add fill or conduct any development within the 75-foot-wide riparian resource area of the Willamette River and would conserve all the riparian vegetation on the subject property. Because the existing riparian resource areaprotects all riparian vegetation, the maximum possible landscaped and open space areas are preserved. Moreover, this area of the subject site will be reserved and dedicated for a future Willamalare recreational multi-use path along the west bank of the Willamette River. Finding 59: In accordance with SDC 3.4-280.L.3., significant air, water, and land resources, including natural and scenic areas, views, vistas, and fish and wildlife habitats in and adjacent to the Greenway, shall be protected, preserved, restored, or enhanced to the maximum extent practicable. " Significanf' resources as used in this section refers to those resources adopted by the City as locally significant resources in the Goal 5 inventory or other comprehensive plan, which focuses on natural resources, scenic and historic areas, and open spaces. There are no significant air resources impacted by this proposal, and the Glenwood Refinement Plan notes that there are no identified scenic qualities or viewpoints within the site's portion of the Willamette River Greenway. However, this development proposal and subject site include the locally-significant riparian resource area adjacent to the Willamette River as well as any fish and wildlife habitats in and adjacent to the Greenway. Finding 60: The 2010 Glemvood Natural Resource Wildlife Habitat Assessment determined that the subject site did not meet the Tier 2 significant criteria and that there are no significant fish or wildlife habitats on the subj ect site. A DEQ Erosion and Sediment Control Plan was also submitted with the Willamette Greenway Permit which identified Best Management Practices (BMPs) to protect adjacent fish and wildlife habitat and the riparian resource area. One of the conditions of approval in the Willamette Greenway Permit requires the applicant to implement these BMPs for all fill activities that are subject to the permit. Finding 61: In accordance with SDC 3.4-280.L.4., public safety and protection of public and private property, especially from vandalism and trespass, shall be provided to the maximum extent practicable. The property is currently enclosed by a 6-foot perimeter fence, which the applicant will continue to use as part of the proposed fill activities. The fence has been adequate to protect the property against trespass during the last construction phase of structural fill on the subject site. Finding 62: In accordance with SDC 3.4-280.L.5., natural vegetative fringe along the river shall be enhanced, protected, and maintained to assure scenic quality and viewpoints, protection ofwildlife, protection from erosion and screening of uses from the river. The natural vegetative fringe along the river is within the riparian resource area ofthe Willamette River. The vegetation within the existing 75-foot-wide riparian resource areaprotects from erosion and screening of uses and contains fish and wildlife habitats. As conditioned in the Willamette Greenway Permit and noted above, the applicant will be required to implement BMPs described in the DEQ Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to protect the riparian resource area from erosion. There are no identified scenic qualities and viewpoints within the portion of the Willamette Greenway. Page 9 of 14 Finding 63: In accordance with SDC 3.4-280.L.6., areas of annual flooding, floodplain and wetlands shall be preserved or restored in their natural state to the maximum extent practicable to protect water retention, overflow and other natural function specified in Section 3.3-400. The property has portion located in the Flood Way, Floodplain Zone A, and the 500 -year floodplain. Therefore, these areas must be preserved according to the Floodplain Overlay District standards in SDC 3.3.400). Criterion: Floodplain Overlay District standards (SDC 3.3-400) Finding 64: The applicant previously obtained aLetter of Map Revision (LOMR) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) establishing a revised Flood Way/Floodplain boundary. In 2014, the applicant went back to FEMA and obtained a Conditional Letter of Map Revision based on Fill (CLOMR-F), which allows the subject site to be raised out of the Floodplain. The CLOMR-F is included as Attachment #5 in the submitted application, and a Type I Floodplain Overlay District application was approved by the City on October 29, 2015 (Attachment #7). Finding 65: The applicant's request for a Willamette Greenway Development Permit (and Site Plan Review application) to continue the fill project is consistent with FEMA's CLOMR-F. The placement of fill within the Willamette Greenway Overlay District is one of the final items needed to formally remove the subject site from Floodplain Zone A regulations. The proposed fill project will make the subject site "shovel ready' and allow the property to be developed. Finding 66: In accordance with SDC 3.3.410A, the Floodplain (FP) Overlay is established to promote the public health, safety and general welfare, and to minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas. The provision are designed to: (I) Protect huaman life and health. By adding fill to the subject site in order to remove it from the Floodplain, the applicant is protecting human life and health of those who may work at or maybe a user of the subject site. The risk to human life and health is decreased when the subject site is no longer in the Floodplain Overlay District. (2) Minimize expenditure of public n oney on costly flood control projects. When the fill project is completed, expenditures of public money on costly flood control projects is minimized because the fill project will remove the site from the Floodplain Overlay District. (3) Minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding, and generally undertaken at the expense of the general public. When the fill project is completed, the need for rescue/relief efforts and expenses associated with flooding would no longer apply because the subject site would be removed from the Floodplain Overlay District. (4) Minimize prolonged business interruptions. This provision is not applicable as there is no existing business use on the undeveloped, vacant subject site. (S) Minimize damage to public facilities and utilities, including, but act limited to: waterand gas mains, electric, telephone and sewer lines, streets and bridges located in areas of special flood hazards. This provision is not applicable as there are no existing public facilities and utilities on the subject site. (6) Help maintain a stable tax base by providingfor the sound are and development offlood hazard areas so as to minimize blight areas caused by flooding. This proposed fill project would remove the subject site from the Floodplain and flood hazard areas, thereby providing for the sound use and development on the subject site. The subject site would also not be at risk of blight areas caused by flooding when the fill project is complete. Page 10 of 14 (7) Notify potential buyers that the property is in aspecialflood hazard area, and as applicable, not fy potential buyers when development has been approved under a variance to the Floodplain Overlay District standards. The applicant does not plan to sell or develop the subject site until the proposed fill project is complete. Potential buyers would then be informed that the subject site is no longer in a special flood hazard area. The applicant has not applied for a variance to the Floodplain Overlay District. (8) Minimize the threat to persons, property, and urban water qualityfromfiooding, and inadequate or improper drainage resulting from uncontrolled development or redevelopment of land to include filling, grading, excavation, removal, eardavork construction including berms and dikes, stockpiling of materials, or other land and drainage alterations. As part of the applicant's approved Land Drainage & Alteration Permit (LDAP) for the subject site and the fill project, planting vegetation (i.e., native groundcover) on the areas where fill was added is required to minimize threats such as urban water quality and erosion from flooding. (9) Notify those who occupy special flood hazard areas that they assume responsibilityfor their actions. There are no occupants in the special flood hazard areas on the subject site. (10) Participate in and maintain eligibilityforfiood insurance and disaster relief. This provision would no longer be applicable when the proposed fill project is complete because the subject site would be removed from the Floodplain Overlay District. Finding 67: SDC 3.3.410B lists methods and provisions that help accomplish the purpose of SDC 3.3.410A. Those methods or provisions are: (1) Restricting or proldbiting uses and development which are dangerous to health, safety, and property due to water or erosion hazards, orwhich result in damaging increases in erosion or inflood heights or velocities. The fillproject is the only proposed use and development in this application. This does not pose a danger to health, safety, and property because the fill project will not result in damaging increases in erosion or in flood heights or velocities as determined by FEMA in the applicant's CLOMR-F (Attachment #5). (2) Requiring that uses and development vulnerable to floods, including facilities which serve such uses, be protected against flood damage at the time of initial construction When the fill project is completed, the subject site will be removed from the Floodplain Overlay District, and this provision would no longer be applicable. (3) Controlling the alteration of natural floodplain, stream channels, and protective barriers, which help accommodate or channel flood waters. The applicant providedthe following information in their Willamette Greenway Permit narmtive on how the proposed fill project preserves or restores areas of annual flooding and floodplain in their natival state to the maximum extent practicable to protect water retention, overflow and other natural function: 'As documented in the Watershed Science and Engineering (WSE) Hydraulic Analysis (Attachment 94), the "Willamette River through the project reach is entrenched, therefore, the floodplain is inundated less frequently than is typical. (..) simulations reveal that the main channel through the project reach has the capacity to convey approximately 47,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) (about a 20- year event) before flow begins to spread onto the left (west) floodplain (..) Only about 900 cfs of the total 71,000 cfs is conveyed on the floodplain where the fill will be placed during a 100-year event. Given the entrenched nature of the river within the project area, the infrequency of inundation, and the limited volume of water retention for a 100-yearflood (which was calculated based on the entirety of the fill site), there are negligible benefits for the 75foot area located in betmveen the ISO-foot WG Overlay District Boundary and the 75 foot Riparian Setback " Page 11 of 14 (4) Controlling filling, grading, dredging, and other development, which may increase flood damage. The proposed fill project will remove the subject site from the Floodplain Overlay District, which will decrease flood damage on the site. (5) Preventing or regulating the construction of flood barriers which will unnaturally divertflood waters, or which may increase special flood hazards in other areas. The proposed fill project does not prevent or regulate the construction of any flood barriers; therefore, it will not impact how flood waters are diverted or special flood hazards in other areas. (6) Issuing a Floodplain Development Permit. The applicant was already issued a Type 1 Floodplain Development Permit (Case #TYP 115-00039) bythe City on October 29, 2015, which approvedthe fill project on portions of the subject site not located in the Willamette Greenway Overlay District (Attachment #7). This Willamette Greenway Development Permit application requests to complete the fill project in order to meet all the requirements of the CLOMR-F (Attachment #5). Finding 68: Based on the findings above, the applicable requirements of SDC 3.4.410A & B regarding the Floodplain Overlay District are met. Finding 69: In accordance with SDC 3.4-280.L.7., recreational needs shall be satisfied as specified in the Glenwood Refinement Plan and/or this Plan District. The Glenwood Refinement Plan allocates 25-35% of lands located in the Glenwood Riverfinnt Plan area for open space, drainage facilities, the riparian setback area, and public rights-of-way. The Glenwood Refinement Plan also states that the City shall defer to the Willamalane Parks & Recreation District to investigate the potential for acquiring and developing public riverfrom parkland. Finding 70: In accordance with SDC 3.4-280.L.S., adequate public access shall be provided to and along the river for all development as specified in the applicable base zone, overlay district, or this Plan District. The applicant has previously dedicated a 20 -foot -wide strip of land for a multi -use path within the 75 -foot riparian setback, which will allow for appropriate access to the river by the public in the context of the future recreational multi -use path. It is expected that Willamalane will provide adequate public access to and along the river when developing the planned recreational multi -use path as specified in the Springfield Development Code and Glenwood Refinement Plan. Finding 71: In accordance with SDC 3.4-280.L.9., areas of ecological, scientific, historical, or archeological significance shall be protected, preserved, restored, or enhanced to the maximum extent practicable. The subject site does not contain any significant scientific, historical, or archeological significance based onlocal inventories and the adopted Glenwood Refinement Plan. However, the Willamette River, Willamette Greenway Overlay District, and the riparian resource area are all considered ecologically significant resources. The applicant addresses how they will protect, preserve, restore, or enhance areas of ecological significance in Findings under other development standards in SDC 3.4-280.L.2, 3, 5, 6, 7, S, and 10. Finding 72: In accordance with SDC 3.4-280.L.10., significant fish and wildlife habitats shall be protected to the maximum extent practicable. The submitted Biological Assessment, Essential Fish Habitat, and Floodplain Habitat Assessment (Attachment #2) determined there are no significant fish and wildlife habitats on site in the areas affected by the fill. However, there are fish and wildlife habitats located in the riparian resource area. The proposed fill project does not include any work in the 75 -foot -wide riparian resource area that would disrupt this habitat. Finding 73: In accordance with SDC 3.4-280.L.1 I., significant natural and scenic areas, viewpoints and vistas shall be protected to the maximum extent practicable. As explained in the findings under the criterion in SDC 3.4-280L.3, there are no significant scenic qualities or viewpoints within the Glenwood portion of the Willamette River Greenway that is subject to this application. The applicant is also not planning to fill or develop within the 75 -foot -wide Riparian Setback area, which is located in the Willamette Greenway, thereby protecting the significant natural area to the maximum extent possible. Page 12 of 14 Finding 74: In accordance with SDC 3.4-280.L.12., Any necessary tree felling shall comply with Section 5.19- 100 and shall occur in a manner that ensures the wildlife habitat and natural scenic qualities found in the Glenwood Riverfrom portion of the WG Overlay District will be maintained and be restored by mitigation on- site. The proposed development is a fill project, which does not include any tree felling activity. With the exception of the vegetated/riparian resource area delineated during the establishment of the Greenway Setback, vegetation at the site is minimal and typically consists of grasses, shrubs, and blackberries. Because no free felling activity is proposed, this development standard is not applicable to this Willamette Greenway Development Permit request. Conclusion: The request to add fill on the subject site meets the applicable Willamette Greenway Development Standards For Mixed -Use Districts in the Glenwood Neighborhood in accordance with SDC 3.4-280.1, and the Floodplain Development Standards in accordance with SDC 3.3-400. This proposal satisfies Criterion C. 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 curb cuts on arterial and collector streets as specifled in this Code or other applicable regulations and comply with the ODOT access management standards for State highways. Finding 75: In accordance with SDC 4.2-120.C, site driveways shall be designed to allow for safe and efficient vehicular ingress and egress as specified in Tables 4.2-2 through 4.2-5, the City's EDSPM, and the City's Standard Construction Specifications. Ingress -egress points must be planned to facilitate traffic and pedestrian safety, avoid congestion, and minimize curb cuts on public streets. Finding 76: Installation of driveways on a street increases the number of traffic conflict points. The greater number of conflict points increases the probability of traffic crashes. Effective ways to reduce the probability of traffic crashes include: reducing the number of driveways; increasing distances between intersections and driveways; and establishing adequate vision clearance areas where driveways intersect streets. Each of these techniques permits a longer, less cluttered sight distance for the motorist, reduces the number and difficulty of decisions that drivers must make, and contributes to increased traffic safety. Finding 77: Due to the limited scope of the fill project, the availability of parking and ingress -egress are not required for the proposed use. These standards must be addressed at the time of development, in conjunction with the future roundabout intersection project at Nugget Way and Franklin Blvd. Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion D. E. Physical features, ind uding, but not limited to: steep slopes with unstable soil or geologic conditions; areas with suscepfibill ty of flooding; significant clusters of trees and shrubs; watercourses shown on the Water Quality Limited Watercourse Map and their associated riparian areas; wetlands; rock outcroppings; open spaces; and areas of historic and/or archaeological significance, as may be specifled 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. Finding 78: The Natural Resources Study, the National Wetlands Inventory, the Springfield Wetland Inventory Map, Wellhead Protection Overlay and the list of Historic Landmark Sites have been consulted and there are no natural features or resources on the property that warrant protection. The subject property has portions located in the Flood Way, Floodplain Zone A, and the 500 -year floodplain and the Willamette River, Willamette Greenway Overlay District, and the riparian resource area are all considered ecologically significant resources. As noted above in response to SDC 3.3-400, the placement of fill within the Willamette Greenway Overlay District is one of the final items needed to formally remove the subject site from Floodplain. Therefore, this provision would no longer be applicable when the proposed fill project is complete. The applicant addresses how they will protect, preserve, restore, or enhance areas of ecological significance in Findings under other development standards in SDC 3.4-280.L.2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10. This proposal satisfies Criterion E. Page 13 of 14 CONCLUSION: The Tentative Site Plan, as submitted, complies with Criteria A-E of SDC 5.17-125 SUMMARY OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: No Conditions of Approval WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE BY THE APPLICANT TO OBTAIN FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL? Five copies of a Final Site Plan, the Final Site Plan application form and fees, and any additional required plans, documents or information are required to be submitted to the Planning Division within 90 days of the date of this letter (ie. by December 7, 2022). In accordance with SDC 5.17-130, the Final Site Plan shall comply with the requirements of the Springfield Development Code and the conditions imposed by the Director in this decision. The Final Site Plan otherwise shall be in substantial conformity with the tentative plan reviewed. Portions ofthe proposal approved as submitted during tentative review cannot be substantively changed during final site plan approval. QUESTIONS: Please call Haley Campbell in the Current Development Division of the Development & Public Works Department at (541) 726-3647 or email hcamnbelli_sminefield-or.eov if you have any questions regarding this process. Page 14 of 14