Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMeeting Packet Planner 6/23/2023DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MEETING FORM APPLICANT: Matt Matthews, Milton Creek LLC MEETING DATE/TIME: Tuesday, July 18, 2023 11:00 a.m. PLACE: DPW Conference Room 615/616 and Virtual via Zoom CONTACT PERSON: Tom Sievers 726-2333 ❑ Current Planning Staff: ❑L Miller, ❑A Limbird, ❑M Rust, ❑K Notary, ❑T Sievers ❑ Kristi Krueger, AIC City Engineer— DPW ❑ Kristi Krueger, AIC Managing Civil Engineer— DPW ❑ Ken Vogeney, Emergency Manager— DPW ® Clayton McEachem, Civil Engineer, Development 8 Public Works ❑ Matt Stouder, Environmental Services Div. Manager/MWMC General Manager ❑ Kristi Krueger, Capital Engineering Manager, Development 8 Public Works ® Michael Liebler, Transportation Planning, Civil Engineer, Development 8 Public Works ® Gilbert Gordon, Deputy Fire Marshall 2, Fire @. Life Safety Department ❑ Ben Gibson, Maintenance Supervisor, Development 8 Public Works ❑ Eric Adams, Planning, Willamalane Park and Recreation District ® Ladd Boyce, Keoki Lapina, Springfield Utility Board (Water) ❑ Greg Miller, Springfield Utility Board (Water) ® Sanjeev King, Nick Amann, Springfield Utility Board (Electric) ® Amy Chinitz, Springfield Utility Board (DWP) ❑ Thomas Jeffreys, (EPUD) Emerald Peoples Utility District ❑ Michael Wargo, Willamalane Park and Recreation District ❑ Matt Caswell, Planning 8 Development Manager, ODOT, State Highway Division (odotr2planngr@odot.smte.or. us) ❑ Brad Rudler, (Electric) Eugene Water and Electric Board ❑ Wallace McCullough, (Water), Eugene Water and Electric Board ❑ Brett Yancey, Chief Operations Officer; Springfield Public Schools ❑ Chris Reiersgaard, Asst. Director of Facilities & Operations; Springfield Public Schools ❑ Safe Routes to School, Springfield Public Schools ® Chris Carpenter, DPW Building Official ❑ Andrew Shearer, Police Chief, Police Department ❑ Tom Schwetz, LTD, Planning and Development Director ❑ Luke Pilon, Centuryl-ink ❑ Jeff Paschall, Community Development Manager — DPW ❑ Jeremy Sherer, City Surveyor— DPW ❑ Sunny Washburn, Program Coordinator, Environmental Services ❑ Sasha Vartanian, (Steve Gallup, cc only) Lane County Transportation - send to LCPWrPReferrals@lanecounty.gov ONLY ❑ Marie Longworth, Central Lane Communications 911 ❑ Monte Brown, Northwest Natural Gas ❑ Jason McDonald, Comcast Cable ❑ Water Resource Coordinator, ESD ❑ Jamie Porter, Rainbow Water District ❑ Kristina Kraaz, City Attorney (Mary Bridget Smith upon specific request) ❑ Allie Camp, Economic Development ❑ Sarah Weaver, Administrative Specialist (DIM Annexations) Please mark who you would like to attend this meeting and return form and file to Shannon. Thanks! Revised: 06/08/2020 DEVELOPMENT INITIATION MEETING DEVELOPMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SPRINGFIELD CITYHALL 225 FIFTH STREET DPW Conference Room 6151616 +Zoom Meeting Dater Tuesday, July 18, 2023 11.00 — 12.00 1. DEVELOPMENT INITIATION MTG #811 -23 -000035 -PRE 811-23-000138-PROJ Matt Matthews Assessor's Map: 17-03-35-14 TL: 11700 Address: 1132 C Street Existing Use: residential Applicant has submitted proposal for phased middle housing development on existing residential parcel. Planner: Tom Sievers The Development Issues Meeting informational packet for this meeting is available on-line for you to review or print out @ Laserfiche website: www.si)ringfield-or.gov/weblink8/browse.asl)x VICINITY MAP 811 -23 -000135 -PRE Development Initiation Meeting 17-03-35-14 TL 11700 1132 C Street Matt Matthews City of Springfield Development & Public Works 225 Fifth Street Springfield, OR 97477 Development Issues Meeting (DIM) Prospective Applicant Name: SPRINGFIELD Phone: tj y/ 2Zl-v, Company: I Fax: Address:���'7 Prospective Applicant's Rep.: Phone: Company: Fax: Address.- Owner: ddress: Owner: �1>L 0 It -L41111 -t 0AI-MV251.,43-A I Phone: Company: I Fax: Address: ]3?'L $' <T"0014VAmz Ot-' ASSESSOR'S MAP NO: J7-CJ3- 5-d ITAX LUT NO(S): 7c7o Pro a Address: f -Z $`?^ Size of Property: . :.5 Acres ASquare Feet ❑ Description of If you are filling in this Form by hand, please attach your proposal description to this application Proposal: Existing Use: _ # of Lots/Parcels: Avg. Lot/Parcel Size: sf IDensity: du/acre Prospective Applicant: ' � I q ( '2 Date: �� Signature ' 'Print Required Project Information f City Zntake Staff. complete this section)l Case No.: Date: Reviewed by: Application Fee: Technical Fee: O 1Postage Fee; O TOTAL FEES: PROJECT NUMBER: -k.'- ".;: ... .4 .. Revised 5/21/13 KL 1 of 3 ARCHITECTS ♦PLANNERS June 16, 2023 City of Springfield Development Services Planning Division 225 5" Street Springfield, Oregon 97477 RE: 1132 C Street — Middle Housing Infill (202301/1.3) Development Issues Meeting (DIM) Project Address: Assessor's Map & Tax Lot: Applicant/Property Owner: Applicant/Owner's Representative: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1132 C Street, Springfield, Oregon 97477 17-03-35-14-11700 Milton Creek LLC 6721 Glacier Drive Springfield, Oregon 97478 Contact: Matt Matthews 541.221.4063 Epmatt1976@msn.com TBG Architects + Planners 132 East Broadway, Suite 200 Eugene, Oregon 97401 Kristen Taylor or Zach Galloway 541.687.1010 ktaylor@tbg-arch.com or zgalloway@tbg-arch.com The applicant is requesting a DIM for a proposed residential infill project on a developed site located at 1132 C Street on Tax Lot 11700 of Lane County Assessor's Map 17-03-35-14 ("site"). The applicant proposes to execute the middle housing infill project in multiple phases using the recently adopted middle housing code standards. Below is a brief description of the proposed project, and concept Site Plan, Floor Plan, and Elevation drawings are attached for reference. Existing development • Single -unit detached dwelling on an existing 0.25 -acre lot. Phase 1 — Detached Triplex on Existing Lot • Retain existing single -unit dwelling. • Construct two new detached units. • Provide shared access between dwellings abutting segment of proposed gravel improved alley. • The resultant development is a detached tri-plex, per middle housing definitions on the existing 0.25 - acre lot. 541.687.1010 1132 EAST BROADWAY. SU I TE 2001 EUGENE. OREGON 97401 1 TBG -ARCH. COM City of Springfield June 16, 2023 Page 2 of 9 Phase 2 — Detached Duplex and Fourplex on Two Separate Lots • Submit required Partition applications (Tentative Plan and Final Plat) to create two lots that comply with R-1 minimum lot standards. o Create a 3,793 -square -foot lot for the existing detached duplex. o Create a 7,000 -square -foot lot for the development of an attached fourplex. • Demolish existing older single -unit dwelling on original parcel. • Construct attached fourplex. Phase 3 - Middle Housing Land Division • Submit required Middle Housing Land Division applications (Tentative Plan and Final Plat) to create 6 total child lots. o Create 4 child lots on east parent lot. o Create 2 child lots on west parent lot. We request at a minimum, staff members from planning, transportation, fire, building permit, and public works to attend the meeting. Please do not hesitate to invite additional staff members to attend the meeting to adequately address the questions. SITE INFORMATION Location/Address: The site is located at 1132 C Street, Springfield, Oregon 97477, east of the Brattain Campus of Gateway High School. Tax Lot: County records identify the site as Tax Lot 11700 of Lane County Assessor's Map 17-03-35-14. Acreage: The site is 0.25 acres. Ownership: The site is owned by Milton Creek LLC. Plan Land Use Designation: The site is designated Low Density Residential (LDR) in the Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan). The site is within the Springfield Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Zoning/Surrounding Land Uses: The applicant's lot is zoned Low Density Residential (R-1). All abutting and surrounding properties are also zoned R-1 and developed with low density residential dwellings, except for the school site on the west end of the block. The school site is in the Public Land & Open Space zone. Access: The primary access to the site is via C Street with an unimproved public alley at the back of the site. City of Springfield June 16, 2023 Page 3 of 9 DIM QUESTIONS (Questions in Bold) 1. Land Use 1) As described below, at different points in the proposed development phasing, the existing and proposed residential dwellings will be defined as single -unit dwelling, detached duplex, detached triplex, and an attached fourplex. Per SDC 3.2.210, each of these residential housing types is listed as permitted and subject to additional development standards. Please confirm. 2) Please confirm that the proposed development is not subject to net density requirements because it meets the codified definitions of "residential infill' per SDC 6.1.110. 3) In Phase 1, the Applicant proposes the addition of 2 units to the existing Tax Lot 11700, which will result in a detached triplex. Per SDC 3.2.250(A), the Phase 1 proposal will require a Type 1 application concurrently with a building permit. Please confirm. 4) In Phase 2, the Applicant intends to partition the existing lot into two lots. a. The resultant west lot will be approximately 3,793 square feet, which will have the existing two detached dwellings that were constructed during Phase 1. 1Mth the partition, these units will become a detached duplex on the newly created lot. The minimum lot size for a duplex dwelling is 3,000 square feet. Please confirm this interpretation. b. The resultant east lot will be about 7,000 square feet with the existing single -unit dwelling. This existing dwelling will be demolished and an attached fourplex will be constructed. At 7,000 square feet, the resultant east lot complies with the minimum lot size for a fourplex in the R-1 zone. Please confirm this interpretation. c. Both lots exceed the 3,000 square foot minimum lot size standards in the R-1 zone. Please confirm the proposed partition and proposed dwellings for each lot above are consistent with the R-1 minimum lot sizes. Please see the attached concept Site Plan for details. 5) In Phase 2, the proposed fourplex is a permitted use subject to SDC 3.2.255. The proposed elevations show doors oriented to the public right-of-way, and windows and doors that exceed the minimum 15 percent coverage requirement. Please confirm that the 15 percent Window and Door Coverage standard is only applicable to the units facing C Street. Does staff have other feedback regarding the design illustration in the attached concept Floor Plan and Exterior Elevation drawings and are these requirements met in the individual phases as applicable? 6) In Phase 3, the Applicant proposes a future middle housing land division for the two lots created in Phase 2 that would create individual lots for each dwelling unit — 2 child lots on the west lot and 4 child lots on the east lot. It is our understanding that the two lots created by the partition process in Phase 2 become the parent lots to the subsequent middle housing child lots that are created through the middle housing land division. Based on our review of SDC 3.2.245, 3.2.250 and 3.2.255, there are no minimum lot sizes for the child lots created by the middle housing land division. Please confirm. Consistent with SDC 5.12.225 and as shown on the attached concept Site Plan, each child lot can have only 1 dwelling unit. Please confirm this interpretation is accurate. iMoa1.TEET,.,,,„u 1 City of Springfield June 16, 2023 Page 4 of 9 7) The Applicant is proposing a single -occupancy room (SRO). Per SDC 6.1.100, defines SRO as "a residential property that contains multiple single room dwelling units where each unit is for occupancy by a single eligible individual. The unit need not, but may, contain food preparation or sanitary facilities, or both." Consistent with the definition, the residential property includes multiple SROs, each with space for food preparation and a bathroom. Please confirm that the proposed SROs can be incorporated and approved within the proposed middle housing dwelling types. 8) Please confirm that the Lot Coverage and Impervious Surface Standards calculations are consistent with the City's interpretation of SDC 3.2.255. See the attached concept Site Plan. Based on the table below and the definition of Lot Coverage at SDC 6.1.100, it is our interpretation that lots or parcels of 4,500 square feet or larger in size are calculated using "maximum lot coverage" and the other 2lot descriptions in the first 2 rows in the table below are calculated using "maximum impervious surface". Please confirm. Table 3.2.225 Lot Coverage and Impervious Surface R-1 R-2 R-3 Standards Lots or parcels with more than 15% slope or above 670 feet in 35% maximum impervious surface elevation Lots or parcels of less than 4,500 square feet in size 60% maximum impervious surface Lots or parcels of 4,500 square feet or larger in size 45% maximum lot covers e 9) The driveway connections to all of the units are proposed on C Street. See the attached concept Site Plan. a. Per SDC 6.1.110, frontage is described as a "portion of a lot or parcel that abuts a dedicated public... street". We interpret the street frontage standards to apply only to the proposed project street frontage (i.e., where the private property abuts the right-of- way). Please confirm. b. Based on the below definitions and table, it is not clear if and what criteria under SDC 4.2.120(A) Site Access and Driveways standards including SDC Table 4.2.2 address the driveway access/driveway apron verses the on-site driveway from the structure to the property line. The attached concept Site Plan illustrates our interpretation of the applicable requirements for the phases and each phase is described below. Can you please clarify the code requirements and confirm that the proposed design for each phase is consistent with the requirements? See specific phase information and questions below in subsection "c.". (i) Relevant SDC references: SDC 6.1.110 Definitions Access. The approved means by which vehicles have ingress and/or egress to an approved lot/parcel or development area. Driveway. A vehicular access that provides connection between a structure or parking area on private property and the public street system. "Driveway" may include a private easement to provide vehicular access to more than 2 or more properties. iMoa I. ITIIPLI u I City of Springfield June 16, 2023 Page 5 of 9 Driveway Approach. The edge of a driveway where the driveway abuts a public right- of-way, including the approach wings (see Figure 6.1-B below). Based on the figure below and the other code references, we did not include the wings in the dimensional width calculations. Please confirm correct. If this is the case, Middle Housing projects will either almost always have to go through a Type 2 land use process and/or the projects will not be able to be designed. Figure 6.1-B. Driveway Approach SDC 3.2.255(C)(4) Middle Housing Streets — The subject property must have access that meets the standards in SDC 4.2.120(A) and the fire apparatus access road standards as required by and in compliance with the Oregon Fire Code. c. In the Phase 1 detached triplex configuration, the proposed driveways connecting to C Street are the following: About 22'-2 % ", which includes the new detached unit facing C Street and the shared private driveway accessing the other new detached units off the improved alley segment, and 12'-3" for the existing single -unit dwelling. The total is 34'-5 W linear feet (about 39 percent) of the 90 -feet of overall street frontage, which is less than the required 50 percent of the property frontage but exceeds the 30 -foot maximum requirementwhen less than 50 percent of the property frontage per Table 4.2.2. Can the Applicant request an adjustment to this code section through the Type 2 approval process (see also question in subsection (iv) below) and can staff conceptually support 34'-5 Yz" width driveway apron? J. In all phases, the distance from the paved on-site driveways from the structure to the property line located off C Street are 20'-6" and alley are 24'-4", which complies with the required minimum 18 feet per Table 4.2.2. This assumes that the Paving Distance in SDC Table 4.2.2 refers to the driveway on-site and not the driveway approach from public right- of-way to the property line. Please confirm this is correct. City of Springfield June 16, 2023 Page 6 of 9 e. In Phase 2 after the partition of the site into 2 lots, the proposed driveway approaches are the following: East Property C Street (Alley is similar): The driveway approaches include the about 21'-7" minimum width shared fourplex and a 6-5" portion of the shared driveway accessing the alley units, which totals 28'-0" and 48 percent of the possible 58'-5" of street frontage. Therefore, the proposal is less than the maximum 30'-0" and 50 percent allowance and complies with this criterion. Please confirm this is correct. West Property: C Street (Alley is similar): The driveway approaches is 15'-9 W wide including the detached duplex unit and a 5'-7" portion of the shared driveway accessing the alley units, which totals is 50 percent of the possible 31'-7" of street frontage and less than 30'-0". Therefore, the proposal is less than maximum 30'-0" and 50 percent allowance and complies with this criterion. Please confirm this is correct. Note that a 6-5" portion of the minimum 18'-0" width of 2 or more dwelling units per SDC 4.2.2 is located on the east property. The proposed access to the existing unimproved alley from C Street is via a shared driveway between what will become the 2 parent lots in Phase 2. The Applicant is proposing to upgrade the public alley only in front of the subject parcel (see question below), which will provide access to the north alley facing units. One of the detached duplexes on the west parent lot and two of the attached fourplex units on the east parent lot are proposed to take access from this proposed section of improved alley via C Street and the shared driveway. In Phase 3 these units will be divided into individual child lots for each dwelling unit and the driveway approaches and driveways will remain unchanged. (i) Per SDC 4.2.120(A)(2), middle housing units with frontage on a local street may have 2 more driveway accesses from the local street. In addition to the primary driveway, subsection (b) clarifies that the lot "may have 1 additional driveway serving ... a rear yard." We interpret this to mean that the proposed shared private driveway that accesses the rear yards of the future parent lots, as described above, is allowed. Also, subsection (b) limits the combined width of the driveways to 32 feet. As shown on the concept Site Plan and described above, the combined widths of driveways for the east lot is about 28'-0" and for the west lot is 15'-9 W, which are both less than the maximum 32' width requirement. Therefore, both parcels comply with the above criteria. Please confirm that our interpretation is correct, and the proposed driveway siting and dimensions are code compliant. (ii) At Phase 2 (Phase 3 is similar with no changes to the driveway configuration), the final build -out will include 2 driveway connections to the abutting C Street public right-of- way and 2 driveway connections to the abutting alley right-of-way (only improved in the section abutting the Applicants parcel). In Phase 3, each dwelling unit will have a single access from the child lot created by the middle housing division described above. Per SDC 4.2.120(A)(1), each lot can have 1 approved driveway access with direct access to a public street or alley. Please confirm that the resultant 3 child lot driveway connections to C Street and 3 child lot driveway connections to the north alley are code compliant. iMoa1.TEET,.,,,„N1a City of Springfield June 16, 2023 Page 7 of 9 10) Per SDC 4.2.120(C) and Table 4.2.2, drivewaywidths are set at 12 -feet for one middle housing dwelling unit, which is challenging and sometimes in conflict with other standards like the above driveway access standards and lot coverage for instance, which collectively render lots unable to effectively and functionally design and construct the needed middle housing types. As shown on the Site Plan, the driveway area to the individual garages have 12 -feet wide clear area. The proposed ribbon paving within the wider crushed rock (or pervious paver) driveways is an attempt to minimize impervious surfaces dedicated to cars so that the project can allocate more area to housing. Subsection (2) provides a pathway for requesting an alternative to the codified standards in Table 4.2.2. Please explain the application process. Can staff support the proposed alternative paving approach and reduced widths of the driveways that provide direct access to the garages? 11) The private driveway between the two proposed middle housing parent lots provides access to the north alley from C Street. As described above, the alley does not connect to 12' Street and therefore, it will be improved along the section abutting the subject site to provide sufficient width for vehicular maneuvering. The shared central driveway is proposed to be 12 - feet wide. Like the driveways accessing each unit, we propose using the ribbon paving to minimize impervious surfaces and then add crushed rock (or pervious pavers) to achieve the required minimum width. We consider the provided function and width similar to the 12 -foot paved width required by the City for panhandle lots on improved streets. Please confirm that this private driveway design and width located between two rightsof-way can be approved as proposed. 12) Per 3.2.250(C), the middle housing proposal must demonstrate that sufficient infrastructure is provided to the site. Are there any known infrastructure constraints in the vicinity? 13) Currently, C Street is improved with a sidewalk that is separated from the street by a planting strip and 4 street trees. The location of the proposed driveways and utility improvements will force the removal of at least 2 of the existing trees. Per SDC 4.2.140(8)(3), we understand that replanting new replacement street trees is required. There may be insufficient planting area for 4 new replacement trees. What alternative arrangements are available to meet the replacement standard when there is insufficient planting area to accommodate additional replacement trees? 14) Per recent state mandated changes (Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities rules) to local minimum parking requirements, local jurisdictions are required to exempt areaswithin %- mile of a frequent transit corridor from parking standards. It is our understanding from recent conversations with City staff that Main Street is the only identified frequent transit corridor in Springfield. Please confirm that Main Street is the only eligible corridor. The site is about 1,350 -feet (approx. 1/4 mile) from Main Street via C Street and North 12' Street. Please confirm that a minimum number of parking spaces will not be required on this site. 2. Stormwater and Public Access 1) Confirm that the 5 -feet setback for an infiltration facility only applies to shared property lines, and that there is not a required setback at ROW property lines. 2) Are soakage trenches allowed under vehicular pavement? 3) Can you confirm that soakage trenches are allowed under pedestrian pavements? City of Springfield June 16, 2023 Page 8 of 9 4) If roofs from two units go into a shared downspout and the runoff crosses a lot line, will a maintenance easement be required? 5) The existing public alley along the northern property boundary is not improved to City standards and it is currently overgrown with vegetation. The Applicant proposes to grade and gravel the alley to provide access to the alley -oriented middle housing units. Future residents will access their units via this segment of the alley, which provides adequate width for maneuvering after the proposed improvements. Drivers can access this segment of the public alley via the proposed shared central driveway, not via North 12" Street on the eastern end of the block. This use of the public alley is consistent with the codified definition that states alleys provide a "means of public access to abutting property and [are] not intended for general traffic circulation." Please confirm that the Applicant's proposal to grade and gravel the segment of public alley abutting the subject parcel is allowed as described above and proposed in the attached concept Site Plan. 6) The Applicant understands that a shared access easement will be required for the north facing units. 7) Other than curb cuts and driveways as applicable, are there any other public improvements required as part of this development? 3. Building and Fire Code 1) Construction to comply with the 2021 Oregon Residential Specialty Code (ORSC) and 2022 Oregon Fire Code (OFC). Please confirm and identify additional applicable codes. Are updated codes scheduled to be released within the next 12 months? 2) Please confirm that the following proposed strategies will provide compliance with the OFC as follows: a. Per OFC 503. 1.1 — project meets max 150' distance, 'hose length', to all portions of the exterior wall on the first story from fire access road, see path on site plan for path locations. b. Per OFC 507.5 - the distance to all portions of the exterior wall on the first story from the fire hydrant exceeds 400' and is less than 600'. Is it optional to either have a new public fire hydrant installed, instead of a NFPA 13R fire sprinkler system for each unit? 3) Please confirm that the following proposed strategies will provide compliance with the ORSC fire resistance rated separations: a. Unit Separations to be in accordance with ORSC Section R302.2 for Townhouses. b. Roof crickets over 30" to be in rated accordance with ORSC Section R302.2.6.3 and Figure R302.2.6.3(3). c. Penetrations at rated assemblies in accordance with ORSC Section R302.4. d. Dwelling -garage fire separation to be in accordance with ORSC Section R302.6. e. Exterior Projections — per ORSC Table R302.1 exterior wall projections are allowed to be non -rated if more than 3' from the property line, the roof overhand and side -yard porch columns and cover will be more than 3' from the property line and do not require fire resistance protection. f. Are additional fire resistance rated assemblies required? iMoa1.TEET,.,,,„„Ea, City of Springfield June 16, 2023 Page 9 of 9 4) Please confirm that the following proposed strategy will provide compliance with ORSC Chapter 11 -Energy Efficiency as follows: a. Envelope Insulation: (i) Wall: R-21 Cavity min. (ii) Floor: R-30 min. (iii) Flat Ceiling/Attic: R-49 min. b. Wndows: U-0.27 min. c. Doors with more than 2.5 sf glazing: U-0.40 min . J. One additional measure: Item 5 — Dwelling Units with all electric heat — Ductless heat pump in primary zones (living, kitchen, dining, SRO, Master Bedroom), and bedroom electric heat with programmable thermostats. e. All air barrier and sealing to complywith ORSC Table N11104.8. 5) Do the existing fire hydrant(s) have adequate capacity/flow rate for the proposed use, or will a new hydrant be required? Please explain. Are there any emergency access concerns with the site and proposed use? 4. In general, do City staff have any issues or concerns regarding the proposed project? Thank you for your time and effort in clarifying these questions so that we can proceed smoothly with the development of this proposed project. ZG/KT Enclosures: City of Springfield DIM Application Form — 1 copy Plan Set — 1 copy Site Plan Floor Plans, Unit A & B Exterior Elevations cc: Matt Matthews, Milton Creek LLC Anna Backus, PE KPFF Consulting Engineers Z WR0=301 Matthews C SI Site EvaluationlCorrespV gencADVd M2301-DIM.do 1 ■ Mna 1.TECT11P11 u 1