HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecision Planner 5/31/2024:SPRINGFI
TYPE 2 TENTATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW,
STAFF REPORT & DECISION
Project Name: Rosboro Expansion Site Plan Review
0
Project Proposal: Construct a new 150,000 ft2 glulam beam production facility and modify a 72,000 ft2 planer mill
building along with truck loading and maneuvering areas and stormwater management facilities on a developed 84.2-
acre industrial site in central Springfield. __.. _, 1
Case Number: 811-24-000089-TYP2
Project Location: 2509 Main Street
(Map 17-03-36-00, TL 100, 300 & 401)
Zoning: Heavy Industrial (HI)
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Heavy Industrial (HI)
(Springfield Comprehensive Plan)
Overlay Districts:
Drinking Water Protection (DWP)
Completeness Check Meeting Date:
March 8, 2024 ; r
Application Submitted Date: April 2, 2024
111. Jill
Decision Issued Date: May 31, 2024
Appeal Deadline Date: June 12, 2024
Associated Applications: 811-24-000007-PRE (Development Initiation Meeting); 811-24-000065-PRE
(Completeness Check Meeting)
APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM
Applicant: Applicant's Representative: Project Engineer:
Dean Locke Curt Wilson, AIA Matt Keenan, PE
Rosboro Inc. Wilson Architecture KPFF Engineering
2509 Main Street 86530 Sanford Road 800 Willamette Street, Suite 400
Springfield OR 97477 Eugene OR 97402 Eugene OR 97401
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM
POSITION
REVIEW OF
NAME
PHONE
Project Manager
Planning
Andy Limbird
541-726-3784
Transportation Planning Engineer
Transportation
Michael Liebler
541-736-1034
Public Works Engineer
Utilities
Clayton McEachern
541-736-1036
Public Works Engineer
Sanitary & Storm Sewer
Cla on McEachern
541-736-1036
Deputy Fire Marshal
Fire and Life Safety
Gilbert Gordon
541-726-2293
Building Official
Building
Chris Carpenter
541-744-4153
Site Information: The proposed project site comprises three adjoining parcels that are located to the south of Main
Street, Aster Street and South A Street and generally between South IV' and South 28t" Streets. The northeast edge
of the property has frontage on Main Street at the intersection with South 28t' Street. The property is approximately
84.2 acres and it contains an existing sawmill and wood products facility. The applicant is proposing to replace an
existing planer mill with a new 72,000 ftz planer mill building, and to construct a new 150,000 ft2 glulam beam
production building along with paved truck loading and maneuvering areas and stormwatcr management facilities.
The subject site is located at 2509 Main Street (Assessor's Map 17-03-36-00, Tax Lots 100, 300 & 401) and the
property is zoned and designated Heavy Industrial (HI) in accordance with the adopted Springfield Comprehensive
Plan diagram and the Springfield Zoning Map.
The overall amount of new or modified impervious surface and building area generated by the proposed development
exceeds the provisions for Minimum Development Standards under Springfield Development Code (SDC)
5.15.110(A). Accordingly, this application is processed as a Type 2 land use action under the Site Plan Review
provisions of SDC 5.17.100.
DECISION: This Type 2 decision grants Tentative Site Plan Approval. The standards of the Springfield
Development Code 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.
(See Page 13 for a summary of the conditions of approval.)
OTHER USES AUTHORIZED BY THE DECISION: No additional uses are authorized by this decision beyond
what is approved in this decision. Future development must be in accordance with the provisions of the Springfield
Development Code, filed easements and agreements, and all applicable local, state, and federal regulations.
REVIEW PROCESS: The application is being reviewed under the Site Plan Review approval standards of SDC
5.17.125.
Procedural Finding: The subject application was submitted on April 2, 2024 and considered complete on April 23,
2024. Therefore, this decision is issued on the 38' day following completeness and the 59t' day overall of the 120
days mandated by Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 227.178.
Procedural Finding: 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 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 (See Written Comments below and Appeals at the end of this decision).
Procedural Finding: On April 23, 2024, the City's Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed plans
(23 Sheets — KPFF Engineering Sheets C130, C140, C200-C202, C300-C302, C400-C402 & C500-0502; Wilson
Architecture Sheets All 1, A141, A211 & A241; and New Way Electric Inc. Sheets E003-E006) and other supporting
information. City staff s review comments have been reduced to findings and conditions only as necessary for
compliance with the Site Plan Review approval standards of SDC 5.17.125(A).
Procedural Finding: As stated in SDC 5.17.130, the Final Site Plan must comply with the requirements of the
Springfield Development Code and the conditions imposed by the Director in this decision. The Final Site Plan
otherwise must be in conformance with the tentative plan reviewed. Portions of the proposal approved as submitted
during tentative review cannot be changed during Final Site Plan approval. Approved Final Site Plans (including
Landscape Plans) must not be changed during Building Permit Review without a land use approval to modify the
plans.
Page 2 of 16
WRITTEN COMMENTS:
Procedural Finding: In accordance with SDC 5.1.425, notice was sent to adjacent property owners/occupants within
300 feet of the subject site on April 30, 2024. No telephone inquiries or written comments were received.
SITE PLAN APPROVAL STANDARDS:
SDC 5.17.125(A), Site Plan Approval Standards states, "The Director must approve, approve with conditions, or
deny a proposed Site Plan Review application based on the following standards."
1. The proposed land use is a permitted use or is allowed as a discretionary use in the land use district.
Approval Standard: The subject property is located in the Heavy Industrial (HI) district. Per SDC 3.2.420, heavy
manufacturing and production are listed as Permitted Uses in the HI district and are subject to Site Plan Review.
Finding 1: The applicant is proposing to construct a new 72,000 ft2 planer mill where an existing planer mill is
located on the site. Additionally, the applicant is proposing to construct a new 150,000 ft2 glulam production
building to the west of the planer mill building. The type of products proposed to be manufactured on the site
are large glulam beams used for building construction. The scale and type of activity on the site falls into the
category of heavy manufacturing and production.
Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Standard of Approval 1.
2. If a use is allowed as a discretionary use, in addition to meeting the standards below, a Discretionary Use
application must be approved in conformance with the standards in SDC 5.9.100.
Finding 2: The proposed use is listed as Permitted in the Heavy Industrial district so a Discretionary Use permit
is not required. Therefore, this standard of approval is not applicable to the proposal.
Conclusion: Standard of Approval 2 is not applicable.
3. The proposal complies with the standards of the land use district of the subject property.
Approval Standard: SDC 3.2.425 provides base zone development standards for the Heavy Industrial district.
The base zone development standards include parcel size, building setbacks and building height.
Approval Standard: SDC 3.2.425(A) specifies a minimum 10,000 ft2 parcel size for Heavy Industrial sites with
at least 75 feet of street frontage.
Finding 3: The subject development site is approximately 84.2 acres which exceeds the minimum area
requirement in SDC 3.2.425(A). The proposal meets this requirement.
Finding 4: The subject development site has approximately 457 feet of frontage on Aster Street and South 19'
Street along the northwestern edge; about 885 feet of frontage on South A Street along the northern edge; about
192 feet of frontage on South 23rd Street along the northern edge; about 878 feet of frontage on Main Street along
the northeastern edge; and about 1,660 feet of frontage on South 28' Street along the eastern edge. The parcel
frontages meet the requirements of SDC 3.2.425(A).
Approval Standard: SDC 3.2.425(A) does not limit the amount of building coverage on sites within the Heavy
Industrial district provided other parameters such as building setbacks are met.
Approval Standard: SDC 3.2.425(B)(1)(c) specifies a 10-foot front yard building setback for sites within the
Heavy Industrial district.
Approval Standard: SDC 3.2.425(B)(2)(c) specifies a 5-foot setback for parking, driveway and outdoor storage
setback for sites within the Heavy Industrial district.
Page 3 of 16
Finding 5: The applicant's site plan provides for a building setback that exceeds the minimum 10-foot
requirement from the nearest fronting public street as depicted on Sheet C140. The front yard building setback
meets the requirements of SDC 3.2.425(B)(1)(c).
Finding 6: The applicant's site plan provides for parking, driveway and outdoor storage setbacks that meet the
minimum 5-foot requirement from the nearest property line as depicted on Sheet C140. The proposal meets the
requirements of SDC 3.2.425(B)(2)(c).
Finding 7: There are no maximum building coverage or impervious surface area limitations for Heavy Industrial
sites provided other requirements for building and parking lot setbacks, landscaping, and stormwater management
facilities are met. The proposal meets these requirements as outlined in Subsection 7 below.
Approval Standard: SDC 3.2.425(B)(3)(a)(iii) specifies a minimum 10-foot setback from a residential zoning
district boundary where a Heavy Industrial site abuts an R-1, R-2 or R-3 Residential district.
Finding 8: The subject property does not abut any residential district boundaries. Therefore, the requirements
of SDC 3.2.425(B)(3)(a)(iii) are not applicable to this proposal.
Approval Standard: In accordance with SDC 3.2.425(C)(1)(b) there is no maximum building height in the Heavy
Industrial district unless the site abuts a residential district.
Finding 9: The subject property does not abut any residential district boundaries. Therefore, there is no building
height limit on the site.
Finding 10: According to the applicant's submitted site plan, the planer mill building is proposed to be
approximately 39.7 feet high at the eave line and 44 feet high at the roof peak as depicted on Sheet A141. The
glulam beam manufacturing building is proposed to be approximately 39.5 feet high at the eave line and 45.5 feet
high at the roof peak as depicted on Sheet A241.
Approval Standard: In accordance with SDC 5.19.110, for sites larger than 10,000 ft2 a Tree Felling Permit is
required for the removal of more than five trees 5-inches in diameter or larger over any 12-month period.
Finding 11: The applicant is proposing to remove approximately 27 qualifying trees from the project area to
allow for site clearing, grading and building construction. The number of trees proposed for removal triggers the
requirement for a Tree Felling Permit.
Condition of Approval:
1. Prior to issuance of permits for initial site grading or construction of the glulam beam building, the
applicant must obtain a Tree Felling Permit for removal of approximately 27 qualifying trees from the
site.
Conclusion: As conditioned herein, this proposal satisfies Standard of Approval 3.
4. The proposal complies with any applicable approved master plan, master facilities plan, refinement plan,
and/or special planned district.
Finding 12: The subject site is not within an adopted neighborhood refinement plan or master plan area.
Approval Standard: The site is within the mapped 10-20 year Time of Travel Zone for the 16' & Q Street
drinking water wellhead. In accordance with SDC 3.3.225(A)(1)&(2), a requirement for Drinking Water
Protection Permit is triggered when there is an application for Site Plan Review on a property and the proposed
use will affect the use, storage or production of hazardous materials that could pose a risk to ground water.
Page 4 of 16
Finding 13: The City's drinking water wellhead system is a protected Goal 6 resource under Oregon law
Finding 14: The applicant has an existing Drinking Water Protection (DWP) Overlay District permit issued in
October 2016 for a 12,000-gallon diesel tank on the site.
Finding 15: Based on the nature of uses and activities on the site it is likely that there will be a need to provide
secondary containment for hazardous materials as a built-in measure to the proposed planer mill and glulam beam
buildings. Additionally, the changes to manufacturing processes may introduce new hazardous materials and
substances that could pose a risk to groundwater. For these reasons, issuance of a new Drinking Water Protection
Permit for the new and modified manufacturing buildings is required before the Final Site Plans are approved
and the applicant submits for Building Permits.
Finding 16: The developer has incorporated wellhead protection notes on the construction plans for the project
as found on Sheet C 140.
Finding 17: Standard wellhead protection signs must be posted on -site during construction on a fence or
standalone post in a highly visible location (such as the construction entrance or in conjunction with other site
safety signage). Wellhead protection signs can be obtained from Amy Chinitz at the Springfield Utility Board
(SUB) Water for a nominal cost of $15 per sign. Contact SUB Water at 541-726-2396 or email Amy:
amyc(+subutil.com.
Finding 18: Standard wellhead protection signs must be posted on -site permanently at the trash enclosure and
on the planer mill and glulam beam building exteriors.
Conditions of Approval:
2. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant must obtain a new Drinking Water Protection
Permit for the planer mill building and glulam beam building.
3. During construction the applicant must post standard wellhead protection signs at highly visible
locations within the project area.
4. Prior to issuance of Final Building Occupancy and commencement of operations the applicant must
post standard wellhead protection signs in highly visible locations at the trash enclosure and on the
exterior of the planer mill and glulam beam buildings.
Conclusion: As conditioned herein, this proposal satisfies Standard of Approval 4.
5. The proposal complies with the applicable sections of SDC 4.2, Infrastructure Standards -Transportation.
Approval Standard: SDC 4.2.105(B)(1) & (2) requires that whenever a proposed development will generate 100
or more peak hour trips, or 1,000 daily vehicle trips, a Traffic Impact Analysis will be required.
pproval Standard: SDC 4.2.105(G)(2) requires that whenever a proposed land division or development will
increase traffic on the City's street system and that development has unimproved street frontage abutting a fully
improved street, that street frontage must be fully improved to City specifications.
Approval Standard: SDC 4.2.105 and the City's Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual
(EDSPM), state that improvement requirements for local and collector streets include paving, curb, gutter,
sidewalk, planter strip, street trees, street lighting, and stormwater management facilities.
_Approval Standard: SDC 4.2.140 and Chapter 6 of the EDSPM state that street trees are required to be planted
or replaced for every 30 feet of frontage except where required streetlights or approved driveway approaches are
located.
Page 5 of 16
Finding 19: The applicant has indicated in their project narrative that the proposed building modifications and
construction of a new glulam beam manufacturing building will not cause an appreciable increase in passenger
vehicle or heavy truck trips to and from the site. The City's Transportation Engineer has reviewed the proposal
and determined that there will be no appreciable change in passenger vehicle trips to the site because there are
no projected increases in employees working at the site during any given shift. Additionally, the proposal
represents a re -tooling of existing buildings and facilities so the project isn't expected to increase production
volumes that would require an increase in heavy truck traffic or a change to the type of truck traffic. In the
absence of changes to truck traffic patterns there isn't a need or requirement for the applicant to provide a
geometric analysis of the surrounding transportation infrastructure. Based on the above reasons, no traffic
mitigation measures are proposed or required for the project. The proposal meets this requirement.
Finding 20: The subject site has frontage on Aster Street, South 19' Street and South A Street along the northwest
edge. These streets are not improved to full urban standards and lack curb, gutter, sidewalks, full width of paving,
continuous street trees and piped stormwater facilities. Because the project will not cause an increase in vehicle
traffic to and from the site, public street frontage improvements are not triggered for this proposal and none are
proposed.
Finding 21: The subject site has frontage on Main Street along the northern edge. Main Street is an Oregon
Department of Transportation state highway that is improved with curb, gutter, sidewalks, full width of paving,
striped vehicle and bicycle lanes, piped stormwater facilities, street lighting and discontinuous street trees. The
project does not trigger requirements for Main Street frontage improvements and none are proposed.
Finding 22: The subject site has frontage on South 28t' Street along the eastern edge. This street is classified as
a collector street and is improved with paving, lane striping, street lighting and roadside ditches. The street lacks
curb, gutter, sidewalks, piped stormwater facilities, striped bicycle lanes and street trees. The project does not
trigger requirements for South 28t' Street frontage improvements and none are proposed.
Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Standard of Approval 5.
6. The proposal complies with the applicable sections of SDC 4.3, Infrastructure Standards -Utilities.
Sanitarr Sewer
A roval Standard: SDC 4.3.105(B) requires that sanitary sewers must be installed to serve each new
development and to connect developments to existing mains. Additionally, installation of sanitary sewers must
provide sufficient access for maintenance activities.
Approval Standard: SDC 4.3.105(C) requires that sanitary sewers must be designed and constructed in
conformance with Chapter 2 of the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual.
Approval Standard: SDC 4.3.105(D) states the City Engineer must approve all sanitary sewer plans and proposed
systems prior to development approval for an application proposing or requiring new sanitary sewer construction.
Finding 23: The existing site has sanitary sewer service from a network of private and public sewer lines that
cross the site. Effluent from the site is discharged to the public sanitary sewer system in South A Street and Aster
Street and eventually reaches the regional wastewater treatment plan in Eugene. The applicant is not proposing
to change the private or public sanitary sewer lines serving the project area. It is expected that the amount of
sanitary sewer effluent discharged from the site will remain comparable to existing conditions because the
proposed connections are primarily for staff restrooms, break rooms and hand washing stations which do not
contribute significant flows to the public system. City staff has not identified any sewer system deficiencies
downstream of the subject property and no capacity problems have been identified in the City's Sanitary Sewer
Master Plan. Because there is adequate capacity in the public system downstream of the subject site, and the
proposed development will not cause a significant increase in sewage flows from the site, no modifications or
upgrades to the sanitary sewer system are warranted with this proposal.
Page 6 of 16
Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub -criterion of Standard of Approval 6
Stormwater Manav enaent
Approval Standard: SDC 4.3.110(A)(2) requires that a Stormwater management system must be installed to serve
each new development within the City limits.
Approval Standard: SDC 4.3.110(A)(3) states the stormwater management system must be designed and
constructed in conformance with SDC 4.3.110(B) - Stormwater Study Standards.
Approval Standard: SDC 4.3.110(A)(5) states that any development that creates or replaces 5,000 square feet or
more of impervious surface area and discharges to the storm system must install storm water controls that
minimize the amount and rate of surface water runoff into the City's stormwater system. The storm system must
be constructed consistent with EDSPM Sections 4.03.1, 4.03.2, and 4.03.4.
Ag2roval Standard: SDC 4.3.110(B)(1) requires that a complete Stormwater Study must be submitted for all
developments that generate public and/or private stormwater runoff from more than 1 acre of land or generate
peak flows in excess of 0.5 cubic feet per second. Applications for development that creates 5,000 square feet of
new impervious surface or modifies an existing stormwater management system with a capacity of 0.5 cubic feet
per second or greater must also include a complete Stormwater Study.
Approval Standard: SDC 4.3.110(D) requires new developments that create or alter more than 5,000 square feet
of impervious surface to capture and manage the first 1.4-inches of rainfall from each storm event as outlined in
SDC 4.3.110(D)(2) and in accordance with the applicant's Stormwater Study. The structural stormwater control
must have sufficient capacity to fully capture, infiltrate, evapotranspirate and/or reuse stormwater runoff on -site
without discharging to any off -site public or private system.
Approval Standard: SDC 4.3.110 and EDSPM Section 4 require new developments that cannot meet the onsite
retention standard found in SDC 4.3.110(D) must employ a system of one or more post -developed best
management practices (BMPs) that in combination are designed to achieve at least an 80% reduction in the total
suspended solids in the runoff generated by that development and a reduction in mercury, bacteria and heavy
metals to the maximum extent practicable.
Approval Standard: EDSPM Section 4.02 states that stormwater system design within a development site must
include provisions to address water quality concerns, the collection and conveyance of runoff from all public and
private streets and easements, and from the roof, footing, and area drains of single -unit, duplex, multi -unit,
commercial, or industrial buildings. Furthermore, the design must provide for the fixture extension of the
stormwater system to the entire drainage basin in conformance with current adopted stormwater master plans or
approved modifications to those plans.
Approval Standard: Section 3.03 of the City's Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual requires
that private stormwater facilities provide for suitable ongoing maintenance to ensure the long-term functionality
of the system.
Approval Standard: The City of Springfield has adopted the provisions of the Eugene Stormwater Management
Manual for stormwater facility sizing and design. Springfield has adopted its own Stormwater facility plant list
as found in EDSPM Appendix 6B.
Finding 24: The applicant has a 1200-Z industrial stormwater discharge permit from the state Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ). The applicant is obligated to report the results of stormwater discharge testing to
the state and to address any deficiencies in stormwater quality. These ongoing measures include but are not
limited to regular maintenance of existing stormwater facilities, changes in operational practices, and
incorporation of new technology or mechanisms for improving water quality.
Page 7 of 16
Finding 25: The applicant has provided a geotechnical report for the site that shows there is at least 10 feet of
impervious clays underlying the project area. For this reason, the site is not able to infiltrate the baseline amount
of stormwater runoff and alternative mechanical stormwater treatment systems are necessary.
Finding 26: The applicant is proposing alternative stormwater treatment by using vegetated treatment for limited
areas of the site and relying primarily on mechanical treatment for the balance of the project area. The proposed
vegetated planter for treating runoff from the parking area meets the City's requirements for stormwater quality
treatment. However, the vegetated filtration planters for the parking areas have not been shown with sufficient
details to meet the requirements of SDC 4.3.110 and Appendices D and F of the Eugene Stormwater Management
Manual. A cross-section detail and typical planting plan will be required for the filtration planters and these must
be included in the Final Site Plan. A condition to this effect is hereby made a part of this decision.
Finding 27: The mechanical treatment proposed for the remainder of the project area is a Contech CDS water
quality manhole which is approved for pre-treatment and removal of total suspended solids by virtue of its listing
with the state of Washington's Technology Assessment Protocol — Ecology (TAPE) system. However, this form
of mechanical treatment does not meet the City's requirements for removal of mercury, bacteria, and other heavy
metals. The applicant must provide a mechanism for achieving treatment for all pollutant types listed in the
stormwater report, including mercury, bacteria, and other heavy metals. The mechanism selected will require
amendments to the applicant's Stormwater Study. Conditions to this effect are hereby made a part of this
decision.
Finding 28: The vegetation proposed for use in the filtration planters will serve as the primary pollutant removal
system for stormwater runoff from the parking area. The mechanical water quality manhole will serve as the
primary pollutant control removal system for the rest of the project area. Satisfactory pollutant removal through
the process of sedimentation and filtration will occur only when the vegetation is fully established in the filtration
planters. To ensure satisfactory establishment of vegetation and ongoing functionality of the proposed
stormwater management facilities, the applicant must provide an Operations and Maintenance Agreement that
designates maintenance responsibility for the various components of the private system. A condition to this effect
is hereby made a part of this decision.
Conditions of Approval:
5. The Final Site Plan must provide a cross-section detail and planting plan for the vegetated filtration
planters consistent with the design standards outlined in Appendix D of the Eugene Stormwater
Management Manual. The planting plan must meet the requirements of Springfield EDSPM
Appendix 6A.
6. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant must provide an alternative vegetative and/or
mechanical stormwater treatment mechanism that achieves treatment for all listed pollutant types
including but not limited to total suspended solids, bacteria, mercury, and other heavy metals. The
selected treatment mechanism(s) must be depicted on the Final Site Plan.
7. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant must prepare and submit an amended
Stormwater Report that incorporates the alternative vegetative and/or mechanical treatment
mechanisms for all listed pollutant types including but not limited to total suspended solids, bacteria,
mercury, and other heavy metals.
8. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant must prepare and submit an Operations and
Maintenance Agreement for the filtration planters, water quality manhole and other vegetative and/or
mechanical treatment mechanism(s) installed within the project area. The Operations and
Maintenance Agreement must designate maintenance responsibility for operating and maintaining the
system.
Page 8 of 16
9. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, a Notice of Operations and Maintenance Agreement must be
recorded against the property at Lane County Deeds & Records and evidence thereof provided to the
City.
Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies this sub -criterion of Standard of Approval 6.
Water Quality Protection
Finding 29: The subject site is not located near a Water Quality Limited Watercourse, or within or adjacent to a
riparian protection area. Therefore, the requirements of SDC 4.3.115 are not applicable to this proposal.
Natural Resource Protection Areas
Finding 30: The subject site contains a process water effluent pond that is identified as a natural resource area
on the National Wetland Inventory. However, the City's adopted Natural Resources Inventory does not, list the
effluent pond as a significant feature. Because of the location and nature of the effluent pond (i.e. interior to the
mill site and used for process water), staff has determined that it does not warrant special protection measures.
Therefore, the requirements of SDC 4.3.117 are not applicable to this proposal.
Undercround Placement o Utilities
Approval Standard: SDC 4.3.125 requires that whenever possible, all utility structures, facilities and equipment
must be placed underground.
Finding 31: There are existing overhead power lines that run within the interior of the subject site. However,
there are no overhead lines within the proposed building footprint areas. The applicant is not proposing to install
any new overhead utility services to or within the site. Therefore, the requirements of SDC 4.3.125 have been
met.
Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub -criterion of Standard of Approval 6.
Electric System
Approval Standard: SDC 4.3.127(A) and (B) requires that electrical systems are available and have the capacity
to serve the proposed development.
Finding 32: SUB Electric advises that existing underground and overhead electrical service is available for the
site and there is sufficient system capacity for the proposed development. Electrical service to the proposed
buildings will be extended from existing transformers on the site.
Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub -criterion of Standard of Approval 6.
Water System and Fire Protection
Approval Standard: SDC 4.3.130(A) requires that each development area must be provided with a water system
having sufficiently sized mains and lesser lines to furnish an adequate water supply to the development with
sufficient access for maintenance.
Approval Standard: SDC 4.3.130(B) requires the developer to install fire hydrants and water mains as may be
required by the Fire Marshal.
Finding 33: SUB Water coordinates the design of the water system within Springfield City limits. SUB has
indicated that they are currently coordinating the project water system requirements with representatives of
Rosboro.
Page 9 of 16
Finding 34: SUB Water operates a 16-inch public water main that runs north -south through the middle of the
subject property. SUB Water Engineering confirms that the 16-inch main has sufficient capacity for existing and
proposed water system improvements on the subject site.
Finding 35: The public water main supplies service to the existing private water lines that run within the site
along with a network of private fire hydrants. The applicant is proposing to extend private water and fire service
lines to both the planer mill and glulam beam buildings. The proposed water lines would provide potable water
service for indoor facilities such as restrooms and sinks, and higher -capacity flows for the building sprinkler
systems.
Finding 36: The applicant is proposing to relocate an existing fire hydrant near the glulam beam building and to
install a new segment of water line for a new private fire hydrant along the east fagade of the glulam beam
building. Eugene -Springfield Fire advises that the fire hydrants on the dead-end lines must meet the minimum
flows of 1,500 gallons per minute and 20 psi in accordance with provisions of the Springfield Fire Code To meet
these requirements, 8-inch water lines are recommended for the new and relocated fire hydrants. Because the
fire suppression system will be required upon introduction of combustible material to the project area, the
applicant must install the new and relocated hydrants and confirm hydrant flow capacity prior to issuance of
building permits for the planer mill and glulam beam buildings. A condition to this effect is hereby made a part
of this decision.
Finding 37: The applicant is proposing circumferential maintenance and emergency access driveways around
the glulam beam and planer mill buildings as depicted on Sheet C200. The emergency access driveways are
necessary for ladder truck access and staging due to the heights of the proposed buildings (more than 30 feet high
at the eave line). The proposed emergency access driveways meet the aerial apparatus requirements of 2022
Springfield Fire Code Appendix D, Section D105.
Condition of Approval:
10. Prior to issuance of building permits for the planer mill or glulam beam buildings, the new and
relocated fire hydrants must be installed, functioning and flow tested to confirm minimum 1,500 gallon
per minute flow rates and 20 psi in accordance with Springfield Fire Code requirements.
Conclusion: The existing SUB Water facilities and proposed private water lines internal to the project area are
adequate to serve the site. As conditioned herein, the proposed building water services and fire hydrant network
satisfies this sub -criterion of Standard of Approval 6.
Public Easements
Aynroval Standard: SDC 4.3.140(A) states the applicant must make arrangements with the City and each utility
provider for the dedication of utility easements necessary to fully service the development or land beyond the
development area, as necessary.
Finding 38: The underground utilities within or just outside the perimeter of the site are located within public
rights -of -way or within existing public utility easements. The applicant is proposing to abandon or relocate some
of the existing private utilities within the site to accommodate the new glulam beam building as depicted on Sheet
C130. The applicant is not proposing to vacate any existing public easements or to dedicate new public utility
easements for the project, and none are specifically required by this approval. Therefore, SDC 4.3.140(A) is not
applicable to the proposal.
Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies Standard of Approval 6.
Page 10 of 16
7. The proposal complies with the applicable sections of SDC 4.4, Landscaping, Screening, and Fence
Standards.
Approval Standard: SDC 4.4.105(B)(1) requires landscaping standards for private property as specified in this
section and other sections of this code.
Anproval Standard: SDC 4.4.105(B)(2) requires street trees in the public right-of-way as specified in SDC
4.2.140.
Approval Standard: SDC 4.4.105(B)(3) requires curbside planter strips in the public right-of-way as specified in
SDC 4.2.135.
Approval Standard: SDC 4.4.105(D)(1) states that all required setback areas and other locations required by the
zoning district are to be landscaped. The required building setbacks for the Heavy Industrial district are the front,
side and rear yards of the property. For the subject site, only the portions of the property with frontage on a
public street would require landscaping.
Approval Standard: SDC 4.4.105(E) requires a minimum of two trees at least two -inches in diameter, ten 5-
gallon shrubs, and up to 25% of the area as lawn or groundcover for every 1,000 ft2 of required planting area.
poroval Standard: SDC 4.4.105(F) requires one canopy tree and four 5-gallon shrubs for each 100 ft2 of
required parking lot planting area.
Approval Standard: SDC 4.4.105(F)(2) requires that 5% of a parking lot interior must be landscaped if there are
more than 24 parking spaces between the building and a fronting collector or arterial street.
Finding 39: The applicant is not proposing to install any perimeter site landscaping for the project and the location
of the new buildings at the rear of the site and the associated site work does not trigger a requirement for frontage
landscaping.
Finding 40: With the exception of the proposed filtration planters (and any other vegetated stormwater facilities
that may be required to address water quality issues — see Condition 6) there is no new proposed landscaping on
the site and none is required.
Approval Standard: SDC 4.4.110(A)(4) requires screening for commercial trash and recycling enclosure areas.
Screening can be vegetative or structural in accordance with SDC 4.4.110(B).
Finding 41: The applicant is not proposing to install anew trash or recycling enclosure on the site. Therefore,
the requirements of SDC 4.4.110(B) are not applicable to this proposal.
Approval Standard: SDC 4.4.115 regulates the height and style of fencing in residential, commercial and
industrial districts.
Finding 42: There is no specific requirement to fence industrial properties, but fencing is typically installed to
prevent unauthorized access to work areas. The perimeter of the subject site is already fenced and the applicant
is not proposing to modify or remove the existing fencing.
Conclusion: The proposal satisfies Standard of Approval 7.
8. The proposal complies with the applicable sections of SDC 4.5, On -Site Lighting Standards.
Approval Standard: SDC 4.5.105(A) states that on -site lighting standards are established to create a safe and
secure environment during hours of darkness and reduce or prevent light pollution by minimizing glare.
Page 11 of 16
Approval Standard: SDC 4.5.105(B) states that light fixtures subject to the standards in this section are outdoor
artificial illuminating devices, outdoor fixtures, lamps, and other similar devices, permanently installed or
portable, used for flood lighting, general illumination, or advertisement.
Approval Standard: SDC 4.5.105(B)(3) identifies lighting used for parking lot and vehicle maneuvering areas as
being subject to the above Code standards.
Approval Standard: SDC 4.5.110(C)(1) states that the height of a free standing exterior light fixture must not
exceed 25 feet or the height of the principal permitted structure, whichever is less. In this case, height is measured
as the vertical distance between the paved surface or finished grade and the bottom of the light fixture.
Approval Standard: SDC 4.5.110(C)(3) limits the height of a free standing exterior light fixture within 50 feet
of any residential district, riparian zone, or wetland to a maximum of 12 feet.
Finding 43: As discussed in a previous section, the planer mill and glulam beam buildings are proposed to be
approximately 45 feet high at the roof peak. The applicant is proposing to install wall -mounted light fixtures on
the new buildings as depicted on the site lighting plan. None of the proposed light fixtures are located within 50
feet of a residential district or a natural area. Therefore, the height limitations of SDC 4.5.110(C)(3) are not
applicable.
Finding 44: The applicant has included site photometric diagrams showing illumination levels within the project
area (Sheet E003) and detailed diagrams for the individual building areas (Sheets E004 & E005). The proposed
illumination for the interior of the industrial site meets acceptable levels.
Conclusion: The proposal satisfies Standard of Approval 8.
9. The proposal complies with the applicable sections of SDC 4.6, Motor Vehicle Parking, Loading, and
Bicycle Parking Standards.
A proval Standard: In accordance with SDC 4.6.125 and Table 4.6.2, where vehicle parking is provided for
commercial and industrial sites it must meet the dimensional requirements of SDC 4.6.115.
Approval Standard: In accordance with Section 918-460-0200 of the City's adopted Building Code (i.e. Oregon
Structural Specialty Code) at least 20% of new parking spaces provided for commercial buildings must be electric
vehicle charging spaces. This requirement will be reviewed and approved in conjunction with site building
permits.
Approval Standard: In accordance with SDC 4.6.155 and Table 4.6.3, the minimum bicycle parking requirements
for industrial manufacturing facilities is 0.25 spaces per employee or one per 4,000 ft2 of floor area, whichever
is less. Of these spaces, 75% are to be covered, long-term spaces.
Finding 45: The applicant is proposing to provide 12 new vehicle parking spaces for the glulam beam building,
including two ADA accessible spaces. The proposed parking spaces meet the dimensional requirements found
in SDC 4.6.115.
Finding 46: The applicant's site plan does not indicate that any new parking spaces are to be designated for
electric vehicle charging in accordance with Section 918-460-0200 of the Building Code. A condition to this
effect is hereby made a part of this decision.
Finding 47: The proposed planer mill and glulam beam buildings are approximately 222,000 ft2 in aggregate
size according to the applicant's project narrative. This would generate a bicycle parking requirement of 56
spaces if floor area were used as the calculation variable. The applicant is proposing to install three bicycle
parking lockers in the glulam beam building and three lockers in the planer mill building for a total of six bicycle
parking spaces. No uncovered, short-term bicycle parking spaces are shown on the plan sheets or described in
Page 12 of 16
the submittal, so the applicant is proposing 100% covered, long-term bicycle parking. According to the project
narrative, additional bicycle parking spaces are to be added if there is sufficient demand. It is not clear from the
applicant's submittal how many employees will be regularly stationed at the planer mill or glulam beam building,
but the number of proposed bicycle parking spaces for each building (three) would only comply with SDC 4.6.155
if there are 12 or fewer employees in each building for any given shift. To comply with the SDC 4.6.155, the
applicant's final site plan must provide enough bicycle parking lockers within the planer mill and glulam beam
buildings to meet the requirements of 0.25 spaces per employee that will be stationed in each building. A
condition to this effect is hereby made a part of this decision.
Conditions of Approval:
11. The Final Site Plan must provide for at least two electric vehicle charging stations in the row of 12 new
parking spaces along the front of the glulam beam building.
12. The Final Site Plan must provide for at least one long-term bicycle parking space for every four (4)
employees stationed at the planer mill and glulam beam buildings. The calculated number of bicycle
parking spaces must be shown on Sheets A111 and A211 of the final site plan set.
Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies Standard of Approval 9
10. The proposal complies with the applicable sections of SDC 4.7, Specific Development Standards.
Finding 48: There are no provisions of SDC 4.7.100 that pertain to the subject site or development proposal.
Therefore, the requirements of SDC 4.7.100 are not applicable to this proposal.
Conclusion: Standard of Approval 10 is not applicable to the proposal.
11. The proposal complies with the applicable sections of SDC 4.8, Temporary Use Standards.
Finding 49: The proposed industrial manufacturing buildings are not being used as a dwelling or for a temporary
use as described in SDC 4.8.100. Therefore, the requirements of SDC 4.8.100 are not applicable to this proposal.
Conclusion: Standard of Approval 11 is not applicable to the proposal.
CONCLUSION: The Tentative Site Plan, as submitted, complies with Standards of Approval 1 - 11 of SDC
5.17.125.
WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE BY THE APPLICANT TO OBTAIN FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL?
Three 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
decision (ie. by August 29, 2024). The application form and fee information is available on the City's website here:
kap://www.sr)ringfield-or.L,ov/dpw/Permits.htm. In accordance with SDC 5.17.130(B), the Final Site Plan must
depict the proposal as approved and must incorporate all conditions of approval that the decision requires to be shown
on the Final Site Plan. The Final Site Plan otherwise must be in substantial conformity with the tentative plan
reviewed. Portions of the proposal approved as submitted during tentative review cannot be changed during final
site plan approval. Approved Final Site Plans (including Landscape Plans) must not be substantively changed during
Building Permit Review without an approved Site Plan Decision Modification.
SUMMARY OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Prior to issuance of permits for initial site grading or construction of the glulam beam building, the
applicant must obtain a Tree Felling Permit for removal of approximately 27 qualifying trees from the
site.
Page 13 of 16
2. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant must obtain a new Drinking Water Protection
Permit for the planer mill building and glulam beam building.
3. During construction the applicant must post standard wellhead protection signs at highly visible locations
within the project area.
4. Prior to issuance of Final Building Occupancy and commencement of operations the applicant must post
standard wellhead protection signs in highly visible locations at the trash enclosure and on the exterior of
the planer mill and glulam beam buildings.
5. The Final Site Plan must provide a cross-section detail and planting plan for the vegetated filtration
planters consistent with the design standards outlined in Appendix D of the Eugene Stormwater
Management Manual. The planting plan must meet the requirements of Springfield EDSPM Appendix
6A.
6. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant must provide an alternative vegetative and/or
mechanical stormwater treatment mechanism that achieves treatment for all listed pollutant types
including but not limited to total suspended solids, bacteria, mercury, and other heavy metals. The selected
treatment mechanism(s) must be depicted on the Final Site Plan.
7. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant must prepare and submit an amended Stormwater
Report that incorporates the alternative vegetative and/or mechanical treatment mechanisms for all listed
pollutant types including but not limited to total suspended solids, bacteria, mercury, and other heavy
metals.
8. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant must prepare and submit an Operations and
Maintenance Agreement for the filtration planters, water quality manhole and other vegetative and/or
mechanical treatment mechanism(s) installed within the project area. The Operations and Maintenance
Agreement must designate maintenance responsibility for operating and maintaining the system.
9. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, a Notice of Operations and Maintenance Agreement must be
recorded against the property at bane County Deeds & Records and evidence thereof provided to the City.
10. Prior to issuance of building permits for the planer mill or glulam beam buildings, the new and relocated
fire hydrants must be installed, functioning and flow tested to confirm minimum 1,500 gallon per minute
flow rates and 20 psi in accordance with Springfield Fire Code requirements.
11. The Final Site Plan must provide for at least two electric vehicle charging stations in the row of 12 new
parking spaces along the front of the glulam beam building.
12. The Final Site Plan must provide for at least one long-term bicycle parking space for every four (4)
employees stationed at the planer mill and glulam beam buildings. The calculated number of bicycle
parking spaces must be shown on Sheets All and A211 of the final site plan set.
The applicant may submit permit applications to other city departments for review prior to final site plan approval in
accordance with SDC 5.17.130 at their own risk. All concurrent submittals are subject to revision for compliance
with the final site plan. CONFLICTING PLANS CAUSE DELAYS.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The application, all documents, and evidence relied upon by the applicant, and
the applicable criteria of approval are available for free inspection and copies are available for a fee at the
Development & Public Works Department, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon.
APPEAL: This Type 2 Tentative Site Plan decision is considered a decision of the Director and as such may be
appealed to the Planning Commission. The appeal may be filed at the Development & Public Works Department by
Page 14 of 16
an affected party. Your appeal must be in accordance with SDC 5.1.800, Appeals. An Appeals application must be
submitted with a fee of $250.00. The fee will be returned to the applicant if the Planning Commission approves the
appeal application.
In accordance with SDC 5.1.800(B) which provides for a 12-day appeal period and Oregon Rules of Civil Procedures,
Rule 10(c) for service of notice by mail, the appeal period for this decision expires at 5:00 PM on June 12, 2024.
QUESTIONS: Please call Andy Limbird in the Development & Public Works Department at (541) 726-3784 or
email alimbirdru!springfield-or.gov if you have any questions regarding this process.
PREPARED BY
Andy Limbird
Senior Planner
Page 15 of 16
Please be advised that the following is provided for information only and is not a component of the
Site Plan Review decision.
FEES AND PERMITS
Systems Development Charges:
The applicant must pay Systems Development Charges when the building permits are issued for
developments within the City limits or within the Springfield Urban Growth Boundary. The cost relates to
the amount of increase in impervious surface area, transportation trip rate, and plumbing fixture units.
Systems Development Charges (SDCs) will apply to the construction of buildings and site improvements
within the subject site. The charges will be based upon the rates in effect at the time of permit submittal for
buildings or site improvements on each portion or phase of the development.
Sanitary Sewer In -Lieu -Of -Assessment Charge:
Pay a Sanitary Sewer In -Lieu -Of -Assessment charge in addition to the regular connection fees if the property
or portions of the property being developed have not previously been assessed or otherwise participated in
the cost of a public sanitary sewer. Contact the Engineering Division to determine if the In -Lieu -Of -
Assessment charge is applicable [Ord. 5584].
Public Infrastructure Fees:
It is the responsibility of the private developer to fund the public infrastructure.
Other City Permits:
Encroachment Permit or Sewer Hookup Permit (working within right-of-way or public easements). For
example, new tap to the public storm or sanitary sewer, installation or repair of public sidewalk, or adjusting
a manhole. The current rate is $369 for processing plus applicable fees and deposits.
Land and Drainage Alteration Permits (LDAP). Contact the Springfield Development & Public Works
Department at 541-726-5849 for appropriate applications/requirements.
Additional permits/approvals may be necessary
• Plumbing Permits
• Electrical Permits
• Building Permits
• Sidewalk Permits
• Paving Permits
Page 16 of 16