Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotice PLANNER 12/26/2006 I ,. . AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE STATE OF OREGON) ) ss. County of lime ) . I, Karen laFleur, being first duiy sworn, do hereby depose and say as follows: 1. I.state that I am a Program Technician for the Planning Division of the Development Services Department, City of Springfield, Oregon. . . 2. I state that in my capacity as, Program Technician, I prepared and c~used to be mailed copies of DR.c.z.oe,b-0008S Nl'i'tlu c)., ~ /"" ~ P/tuL :J.... :t- (See attachment "An) on 12../'2.h . 20~6 addressed to (see P4JJw.,"'1 ~ Attachment B"), by causing said letters to be placed in a U.S. mail box with postage fully prepaid thereon. S:xCUl-UA ~ cu1~ ".., ~JN LaFLEUR --,-- STATE OF OREGON, County of lane . Du U/'I.b)" ;{t,.> . 2006. Personally appeared the above named Karen laFleur, Program Technician, who acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary act. Before me: . ~L fj&/ . U/ .....-.-kr=."i.-s.<;;.. ~""")l, r-" - '.' . \JOFFIClALSEAL " <'. BRENDA JONES j .: ~. NOTARY PUBLIC. OREGON j , . COMMISSION NO. 379218 j , MY CO!<\~SSION EXRI!:E,; ~~2::. ~~ ~-:"-=---_.~.. ":'~ My Commission Expires: ~ 91 :Joo g " TYPE II .;rENT A TIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW, STAFF REPORT & DECISION Project Name: Parkway Center Site Plan Tentative Review Project Proposal: Construct a 24,838 square foot commercial center to include 3 separate buildings, including a Walgreens al}d acredit union. ' , Case Number: DRC2006-00085 Project Locatiou: 104 W. 'Q' Street, 17-03-27-10 TL3300 Zouing: l'vii~ed Use LMI/CC , Metro Plan Designation: Mixed Use.Up/CC . , Pre-Submittal Meeting. Date: 'October 24''',2006 InitialSubmisshlD Date: O'etober 27''', 2006 Complete Submi~sion I;late: October 27''', 2006 ' . De~ision Iss~ed Date: December 26''', 2006 . . , '. ili . Appeal Deadline Date: January 10 ,2006 . , . Associated Applications: ZON2003-00036; ZON2004~00023; PRE2004:00048; PRE2005-00020; COD2006-00731 ; PRE2006-00070; COM2006:0 1130; PRE2006-00088; DRC2006-00085 , ' " 'APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM Owner/ApplIcant: , Skyview, LLC and South Plaza II LLC 'Thomas Fox Propertles . .- -'" '-';-', >' 515 West Picket Circle, #400.' Salt Lake City, UT 8411 i ' , "... ',. ",':' . , Civil Engineer: ' ","; 'GaryReed " , . , Weber Elliott Engineers P:C. PO Box 10145' ' ;Eugene, OR 974~0 'CITYOF SfRINGFI,ELD'S DEVEU)PMENT REVIEW TEAM ~ J . POSITION I Proiect Manager I TranspOltation Planning Engineer' I Public Works Engineer I Public Works Engineer I Deputy Fire Marshal I Community Services Manager REVIEW OF Planning Transportation Utilities Sanitary & Storm Sewer I Fireanct Life Safety Building NAME David Reesor Gary McKenney Eric Walter I Eric Walter. I Gilbert Gordon Dave Puent >, PHONE I 726"3784 I 726-4585 I 736-1034 1 I 736-1034' I 1726-2293 . I 726-3668 I " H " ,. .'; Site Information: The subject site is a 95,391 square foot (2.19 acre) parcellocated,at 104 W. 'Q' Street . Assessor's Map 17-03-24-10 Tax Lot 3300. The subject site is located on the northwest comer of Pioneer , Parkway East and 'Q' Street. The site is currently vacant after having a previous structure demolished. . Zoning for the site is MU LMI/CC' according to the Springfield Zoning, Map. It is designated MU LMIicC by the Metro Plan Diagram and the Gateway Refinement Plan. Properties on allsides'of the subject site also are zoned and designated MU LMI/CC. ' The :subject site is within the Gateway Refinement Plan area, but is not adjacent to a Water Quality Limited Watercourse or within a FEMA 1 OO-year flood zone. The site is within the Zone of Contribution as related to the Drinking Water Overlay Protection Zone"and therefore is not subject to the provisions of the Drinking Water Protection (DWP) Overlay District, SDC Article 17. More detailed discussion of the DWP standards are reviewed in this document. : DECISION: This decision grant~ Tentative, Site Plan Approvai. The standards of tbe Springfield Developinent ,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 flans 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. ~I~ase read this document carefully. (SeePage 15-16 for a summary of the conditions of approval.) OTHER USES AUTHORIZED BY THE DECISION: " None.. ,Future development will be 'ill accordance with .the provisions of the Springfield DeveJopmentCode, filed easements and a~,'reements, and all applicable local, 'state and federal regulations'. REVIEW PROCESS: This application is reviewed under, Type II 'procedures listed in Springfield Development Code Section 3.080 and the si~e plan revi~w criteria of approval SDC 31,060, Procedural Findinl!: 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 Sectiqns 3.080 and 14,030). The applicant and parties submitting written comments during the notice period have appeal'rights and are mailed a copy of this decision for consideration (See,' Written Comments below and Anneals atthe end of this decision.) procedural Findinl!: On November 21",2006, the City's Devel~pment Review Co~inittee reviewed the:, proposed plans and supportirig iliformation. . C)ty , staff's review comments have been reduced to findings, and conditions only as necessaryfor'compliancewith the Site Plan Review criteria of SDC 31.060. Pr~c-"dural Findinl!: In accordance with SDC 31.080-100, theFi~al Site Plan sha)1 comply with the requIrements of the SDC and the conditions imposed by the Directorin this decision. The 'Final Site,Plan otherwise shall 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. Approved Final Site Plans (including Landscape Plans) shall not be substantively changed. during Building Permit Review w'ithout an approved Site Plarl Decision Modification. ' ". . " WRITTEN COMMENTS: Procedural Findinl!: In accordance with SDC 3.080 'and 14,030, notice was sent to 'adjacent property ~wners/occupants within 300 feet of the subject site on October 30'h, 2006. No written comments were received in response to the notification, . Page 2 of 18 CRITERIA OF SITE PLAN APPROV.~L: SDC 31,060, 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 detemlining that criteria (1) through (5) of tbis Section have been satisfied. If conditions camlot be attached to satisfy the criteria, the Director shall deny the application." (I) The.zoning is consistent with the Metro Plan diagram, andlor'the applicable Refinement Plan, diagram, Plan District map, and Conceptual Development Plan. Findinl! 1: The site' is designated MU LMI/CC in the Metro Plan diagram and the Gateway Refinement Plan. 'The current zoning for the site is MU LMI/CC which is consistent with the Metr~ Plan and the Gatev.'ay R~finement Plan designations, and there are no proposed changes to the zoning for the site. Conc.lusion: , 111is proposal satisfies Criterion 1. '(2) Capacity requirements of public improvements, ineluding but not limited to, water and electricity; sanitary sewer and storm water managemcnt facilities; and streets and traffic . safety controls shall not be exceedcdand the public improvements s!tall be available to' serve the site at tbe time of development, unless otberwise provided for by this Code and other applicable regulations.' The Public Works Director, or a utility provider shall . determine .capacity issues. Findin~ 2: Approvaf of this proposal would allow for construction of three new commercial buildilYgsconsisting ofa.totaI38,516 square feet . Findinll 3: For all public improvel;,ents, 'the applicant shall retain'~ private professional civil engineer to design the site improvements in confornlance with City codes, this decision, and the ,'current Engineering Design Stm;dards and Procedures Manual (EDSPM). ,The private civil' enginee.r also, shall be required to provide constrtlction inspection services. ' . , Finding 4; The' Development ,Review Co~mittee reviewed the,proposed'.site' plan and the surrounding public services on November ~l", 2006. City and agency staffs' review comments . have been incorporated in findings and conditions contained herein, Water and Electricity ImproveJi,ients ' ,'.";- Findinll 5: SDC 32.120(3) requires each development area to be providedwiih'a w~ter system' " .' . ' having sufficiently sized mains and lesser lines to furnish adequate supply to the development and' .' sufficient access for maintenance, Springfield Utility B'oard (SUB) coordinates the design of the water: system ~ithin Springfield city limits. '. . ..... '. , ' . ,l ._ .' . . - Findinl! 6: Water service is available to serve the site. Among other considerations, the new or , 'modified facilities will require water development 'fees for connections and metering. Bart McKee of SUB Water Department (726-2396). is the contact person, The applicant must meet SUB's construction a~d installation standards and be inspected by SUB before water ,service is provided by SUB, Please refer to'two letters dated November 16, 2006 from SUB for more detail , regarding requirements from SUR ' " ' . " ' ,'Findinll 7: Size of waterline and other facilities, including'water meters, must'meet the needs ,of the SUB Water Division and the long-range needs of the City. These needs include, but are not ;. -," " . ' , .:' Page3 of 18 limited to, meter location and access, sizes of water distribution and transmission lines, pumping facilities and communication lines, > > Finding 8: BackfJow prevention devices are required for this development, and water service will not be provided until a backfJow plan has been submitted to SUB Water 'Engineering and approved for installation, Water meters and other equipment must be lnstalled to SUB standards in public rights,o'fway or easements and are subject to inspection by SUB. , , FindinQ 9: There is electri~al power available from the adjacent public road system, Ed Head of Springfield Utility Board (SUB) Electric (726-2395) is the contact person. FindinQ 10: In order to provide electricity to the site, SUB is requesting a 10 foot PUE along 'Q' Street; a 7 foot PUE along Pioneer Parkway West; and a 10 foot wide easement centered on SUB electrical facilities after confinnation of proper location is given by SUB, Finding 11: SDC 32.120(2) indicates that all utilities shall be placed underground, including, but not limited to electric. . Conditions of Approval: I. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant shall obtairi written approval from the Springfield Utility Board ,(SUB) for all proposed utililies shown, 2. Prior to Final Site Plan approval, all new easements shall be recorded and evidence thereof provided to the City.. The Final Site Plan shall show the location of all utility easements. ,3, All utility lines to serve the development site. shall be placed under!,'found. Conc'lusion: As' conditioned herein; SUB Water' and Electric facilities are available to serve the site and the propo~al satisfies this siIb-element of the criterion. . . Sanitary Sewer and Storm water Management Facilities SanitalJ'Sewer . - - ., , . FindinQ 12: Section 32.100 of the SDC requires that sanitary sewers, shall be installed to serve 'each new development and to connect'developm'ents to existing mains: Additionally, installation: of sanitary sewers shall provi<!e suffi~ient acces~ for main~enance activities. . Finding 13:' The appiican{ has propo~ed extension of a 6 inch sanitary sewe; ~e';ice lateral 1'0 serve the subject site. The extension of the 6 inch line will be from'the existing 8 inch public line located at the south / west corner of the site, ' ' ,Stormwater Mw;~gement (Quantity) FindinQ' 14: Section 32.110 (2) of the SDC ;equires th.at the Approval Authorily shall 'grant development approval only where adequate public and/or private sionllwater management systems provisions have been made as detenllined by the, Public Works Director, consistent with the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual., -' Page 4 of 18 .. , " . ' Findinl! 15: Section 32,110 (3) of the SDC'states that a stomlwater managyment system shall accommodate potential run-off from its entire upstream drainage area,whether inside or outside of-the development. . Findinl! 16: Section 32.110 (4) of the SDC requires that !Un-off from a development shall be directed to an approved stormwater management system with sufficient capacity to accept the discharge, . Findinl! 17: Sectio~' 32, I JO (5) of the Springfield Development Code (SDC) requires new developments to employ drainage management practices, which minimize the amount and rate of surface water run-off into receiving streams, and which promote wateFquality, ' Findinl! 18: To co~ply with Sections 32.110 (4) & (5), storm water runoff from the site will be directed into a series of ~readrains, pipes, and a'vegetative water quality swale, prior to discharge. into existing 30 inch stonn pipe in existing easement along Pioneer Parkway. , 'Stormwater MaIJagemcIJt(Qualily) , , Findinl! 19: Under Federal regulation of the Clean'Water Act (CWA), Etidangered Species Act (ESA), and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), the City of Springfield is ,required to obtain, and has applied for, a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) pemlit. A 'provision of this pemlit requires the City demonstrate efforts to reduce the' pollution. in urban 'stonnwater to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP). Findinl! 20: Federal and Oregon Department of-Environmental Quality (ODEQ) rules require the City's MS4 pian address six "Minimum Control Measures," Minimum Control Measure 5, "Post-Construction Stonnwater Management .for New Development and Redevelopment," applies , to the proposed development., '. Findinl! 21: Minimum Control Measure 5 requir~s the City of Springfield to develop; implement, and enforce a prog.ram'to ensure the reduction of pollutants in stomlwater runoff to the MEP.. ' , The City must also develop and implement strategies that include a combination of structural or . non-structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) appropriated for the community. ,Findinl! 22: MininlUm Control Measure 5 require~ 'the City of Springpeld use an ordinance or ' ' , .other regulat~ry mechanism to address post .construction, runoff from 'new and re-developmevt projects to the extent . allowable under State law. RegUlatory mechanisms used bY'the City include the Springfield Development Code (SDC), the'City's Engineering Design Standards and . Procedures Manual (EDSPM) and the future Storm water Facilities Master Plan (SFMP). , Findinp- 23: As requi~ed in Section 3 i .050 (5) of the SDt, "a developme~t shallbe required to . employ drainage management practices approved by 'the Public Works Director and consistent with Metro Plan policies and the Engineering Design Standards and Procedur~s Man!,a/." Findinl! 24: SeCtion 3.02 of the City's EDSPM states the Pubic Works Department will accept, as ,interim design standards for storm water quality; water quality facilities designed pursuant to the , policies and procedures of either the City of Portland (BES), or the Clean Water Services (CWS), FtndiDl! 25: Section 3.03.3.B of the City's EDSPM states all public and private dev~lopment and , redevelopment projects shall employ a system of one or more post-developed BMPs that in combination are'designed to achieve at least a 70 percent reduction in the total suspended solids' , in the runoff generated by that development. Section 3.03.4,E. of the manual requires a minimum PageS of 18 , of 50 percent of the noncbuilding rooftop impervious area on a site shall be treated for stormwater q~ality improvement using vegetative m~thods. ' I Finding 26: To meet the requirements of the City's MS4 permit, the Springfield Development Code, and the City's EDSPM, the applicant has proposed to install a vegetative water quality swale. The swale will be planted in accordance with City standards, as shown on Sheet Ll 0 1 on the landscaping plans. , Finding 27: The vegetation proposed for use .in the swales will serve as the primary pollutant , removal mechanism for the stornlwater runoff, and will remove suspended solids and pollutants through the processes of sedimentation and filtration. Satisfactory pollutant removal will occur only when the vegetation has been fully established. Findinl! 28: The Applicant is proposing two. separate water quality swaies to ,be located on the site - one along the eastern portion of the ~ite and'the other along the westerly portion of the site. As shown on the site plan map, there is an existing building located on the adjacent western lot (TL 3400). Given the proximity of the existing building on TL 3400 in relation to the proposed westerly swale, potential structural issues could arise that may compromise the integrily of the existing foundation. . - . . , '" . . Finding 29: As set forth in the City ;fPortland's Stornl Water Manageillent Manual, a minimum 5' separationofstornl water~wales isrequired from all property lines (pg 2-71). ' Condition of Approval: ' 4. To ensure a fully functioning water quality system and meet objectives' of Springfield's MS4 penllit, the Springfield Development Code and the EDSPM, the proposed private 'vegetative water quality swale shall be fully vegetated with all vegetation species established prior to approval of Final Plat, while the grassy swale/detention pond shall be fully vegetated with all vegetation species established prior to City acceptance of the Public Improvement Project. Alternatively, if this condiiion' camlOt be met, the applicant shall provide and maintain 'additional interim erosion control/water quality measures acceptable to the Public Works " Department that will suffi,ce until such tiille, as the swak' vegetation becomes fully established, 5,Pri'or to approval ofihe Final Site Plan, th~ applicant sh~1l re,locate the'proposed water quality : 'swale shown on the \V.esterly property line to comply with cqde, The Final Site Pian shall , ,show swale'designs in 'Conforinance with the City of Portland's Storm Water Management Manual's reqllirement for a minimum of5' separation from all property lines (pg 2- ~ I). Con~lusion: As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. Streets and Traffic Safety Controls, Existing Transportation Facilities Finding 30: Pioneer Parkway abuts'the proposed development site on the east. Pioneer Parkway . is a one-way boulevard "couplet" (Pioneer Parkway East and West). The facility provides two travel lanes in each direction with traffic .signals and dedicated.turn lanes at intersections, Except for a lack of sidewalks on the 'west side, the street is fully improved to urban standards. Pioneer Parkway is designated a minor arterial street and has a posted speed of 45 MPH. Page 6 of 18 A driveway to Pioneer Plaza Shopping Center, ~hich is located on the northeast c;rner of Pioneer Parkway. and 'Q' Street, forms a Tee intersection' on the east" side, of Pioneer Parkway approximately 300 fed north of 'Q' Street. This driveway intersection is coritrolled by a multi- phase traffic signal providing protected turn movements for entering and exitingshopping'centet' traffic. . . , 'Q' Street abuts the development site on the south. In that section it is 'a fully-improved three,lane, minor arterial providing two westbound lanes and one eastbound lane, and on-street bic.ycle lanes.' ' ' The Eugene-Springfield Highway (OR l26)is a controlled- access freeway that crosses over Pioneer Parkway approximately 500 to the south of 'Q'Street.' The 'OR l26/Pioneer Parkway Interchange is a "split:fornl"configuration comprised of: . a half-diamond ramp intersection on the south' side of the freeway serving ,:"estboimd on/off movements, , , . .. a slip ramp (off~ramp) to 'Q' Street situated 300 feet east of Pioneer Parkway, and . an eastboU11d ori-ratilplocated 1,200 to the wes! of Pioneer Parkway that is fed by one of ,the 'Q' Streei' westbound lanes. ", , , ' '.- " -, -' ..' Existing bus transit service to the site is provided by. Lane Transit District Routes 18 and 19 on Pioneer Parkway, and 8X and 91 on 'Q' Street. Planned T,;ansportation Facilities r , , . . ' Lane Transit District (L TO) EmX (bus rapid transit) service is plarmed to begin' operation along the Pioneer Parkway corridor in 2010. The project's Envit;onmental Assessment (EA) contains a Locally Preferred Alternative that would construct two bus ways and a transit station within the, Pioneer Parkway median between 'Q' Street and Pioneer Plaza Driveway. This Locally Preferred Altemative has been approved by the L TO Board an~ other local agencies a~ the ~referred design. , "-. ' . , i . Site Accefs and Circulation' '"'' " , .' - ','j , . - . . ' , . . , . 'Findin~ 31: Installation' of driveo,yays 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 proqabili)y of traffic crashes include: reducing the number of driveway's, increasing distances between intersections and driveways, and establishing adequate vision cleatanc~ where, . driveways intersect streets. Each of these techniques pernlits a longer, less cluttered sight distance for the motorist, reduces the. number and difficulty of decisions drivers' must make, and' contributes tq increased traffic safety. SDC 32.080(1) (a) stipulates that each' parcel is.entitled to '''an approved ac~ess,t.o a public street." " ". ~ '. -' " FindinQ 34: Existing access to the developmEmi siie is via 'two driveways on the north side of 'Q:' Street located near the west boundary of the site. The applica'ntproposes to;' ' ' . ','reconstruct the existing'Q' Street access to,provide a 35-foot wide two-way driveway, , and ' ,. - " ", ..: . .0 " construct a ,full-access driveway to the development 'site on the we'st side of Pioneer '-', Parkway'West opposite the existing sign'alized Pioneer Plaza access, add a northbound , ' left-tumlane on Pioneer Parkway East and modify the t~ffic signal to provide protected ,tummove~ents for' entering and exiting site traffic. ' ' ," .. 'T ... " , ~'-~ Page 7 of 18 Traffic Impacts and Mitigation Findine: 3:2: The two signaiized intersections immediately adjacent to the .development site - ,Pioneer Parkway/Pioneer Plaza and Pioneer Parkway/'Q' Street ~ are parts of a system of four traffic signals, which includes Pioneer Parkway/OR 126 Eastbound Ramps'and the 'Q' Street! OR 126 Westbound Off"Ramp. To extract maximum capacity from this system during peak periods these four sih'11als are operated in a coordinated (synchronized) mode. Nonetheless, field observations show that afternoon peak period ,traffic volumes routinely exceed capacity. Queues of northbound traffic on'Pioneer Parkway East frequently extend several hundred feet south of the Pioneer Parkway/OR 126 Eastbound Ramps, producing delays of multiple signal cycles on that . . approach. Similarly, long queues and delays are observed on the westbound 'Q' Street approach to the OR 126 Westbound Off-Ramp signal, and between the Off-ramp intersection and Pioneer Parkway East. This high traffic demand constrains the signal system operation and forces compromises that sacrifice efficient movement of traffic on Pioneer P~rkway and 'Q' Street in order to avoid unsafe spillback onto the OR 126 freeway off-ramps. ,. FindinQ 34: The applicant submitted a Major Traffic Impaci Study'(TIS) dated March 2, 2005, in accordance with SDC 32.020 (c), This TIS analyzed exisiing traffic conditions and traffic impacts associated with an earlier development scenario that would generate slightly more trips than the currently proposed development. In addition, the applicant submitted a TIS dated October 6, 2006, which estimates trip generation and analy~es future-year (2018) traffic impacts associated with the currenily proposed development. . This TIS estimates PM peak hour trip generation 'for the proposed development as follows: Enterinl! Primary Trips Pass-by Trips Internal Trips' = New Trips Exitine: 97 35 (36%) 10% 52 105 ' 37 (35%) 10% 58 Findin<!: A review of th~ submitted TIS identified an error in ih~ trip generation estimate for the' proposed Drive-in Bank use. City transportation engineering staff recalculated the PM Peak-hour . trip,generation 'estimate' for the proposed development as follows: ' ' Entering Primary Trips. Pass"by Trips New Trips, Exiting 122 42 (34%) = 81 127 . '43 (34%) 84. . , ,.i', In addition to vehi~ular trips, aisumed development ma;' generaie pedestria~ and bicycle trips. " According to the "Household" survey done by LCOG in 1994, 12,6 percent of household trips are made by bicycle or walking and 1.8 percent are by transit bils.. These.trips may have their origins', , or destinations at a variety of land uses, including this site. Pedestrian and bicycle trips create the need for sidewalks, pedestrian crossing signals, ~rosswalks, bicycle parking and bicycle lanes; ..' Findin2: 35:, The submitted, TIS reviewed the three-year traffic ,crash history for the: studied intersec6ons. No consistent pattern of crashes'or Sih'11ificantly high crash rate was identified, FindinQ 36: The submitted TIS analyses include an evaluation of level of service (LOS) at the. ,four signalized intersections noted above 'under Build and No-build development scenarios. The analysis was performed using the ':Synchro" software package from Trafficware. ' Page 8 of 18 . .. " '.- ". , . . The Synchio analysis output indicates, thaf.the four studied intersections would 'operate at acceptable levels (LOS 0 or better) 'through the year 2018 with the proposed development. However, there are limitations to Synchro's ability to accurately model highly congested conditions where large.traffic "queues develop, ,such as those found in the, Pioneer Parkway/'Q' Street system. This liiniiation results from Synchro's inability to model the effects of long traffic queues which spill over into adjacent travel lanes. This effect is identified in the Syncbro' software output related to queue lengths, and is evidenced by the lack of correlation between LOS analyses results and 'observed field conditions, Trafficware's micro-simulation. analysis tool "SimTraffic" provides a.more accurate analysis method under these conditions. For this ,reason, city transportation engineering staff requested that the applicant's consultant provide detailed traffic queuing analysis using SimTraffic. Finding 37:. Typi'cal intersection desib'l1 'standards. seek 'to achieve a 20-year design life by providing lane storage for 95'" percentile queues. . However, ,given the linlitations of existing facilities achieving this standard would not be feasible without' major roadway reconfigurations ' and large capital investments, . The TIS con~ludes,that, with one exception, under 2018 conditions ",.. the'50'h percell tile queue at all illfersectiolls' is with ill the lIleasui"rjd "liiik distallce," (link distance is the distance measured between crosswalks of adjacent intefsec~ions), The TIS discussion and conclusions regarding qneue lengths are limited to "internal links" of the surrounding street 'network. However, additional infornlation presented in the SimTraffic output . confirms a signifIcant level of congestion and delay on, the street system serving the proposed deveiopment site. The following list summarizes the most significant of these queuing conditions" , under 2018 Build conditions:' . Intersection Aooroach .. Average Oueue Lengtl:! Pioneer Parkway/OR 126 Eastbound Ran;ps ' , northbound approach , Pioneer Parkway/Pioneer Plaza . southbound approach,' : " , Pioneer Parkway/'Q' Street . ' northbound lefHurn' , ",. ': 'Q' Street! OR 126 Westbound' Off-Ramp , .westbound approach " , northbound (off-ramp) approach 'Q' Street eastbound at'Site Driveway , Y.' ' ,,,\' , 430' 715' /. 515' 415' 315' 490' The ~ffects ohheselong 'traffic queues onlevels of service arb, observable using the 'graphic simulation feature' of SimTraffic, They include: ' . . . " " . . dedicated turn lanes blocked by standing queues in adjacent through, lanes, , "., through lanes blocked by spillback from adjacent turn lanes, and ., .' delays of multiple signal cycles on street links entering the'system. .: ,,". ' , t.' , , . FindirlQ 38: 'Construction of the proposed full-access site driveway, 0;" Pioneer Parkway would require two additional signal phases to control new traffic, movements for northbound left-turn, and eastbound traffic exiting'the site. The ..mount of additional traffic generated bY the proposed development would' be relatively low in comparison with existing and forecast background ,volumes: However, these new signal phases would add' interruptions to through traffic movements along Pioneer, Parkway and delay to the surrounding street 'system., Construction of . , ' , .' - , '. , ".' Page 9 of 18 ,I the proposed driveway and associated street and signal modifications would be for the sole benefit of the proposed development. ' Findin~ 39: Project #774 in the Central Lane Metropolitim Planning Organization Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is described as "Traffic control improvements" at 'Q'Street/Pioneer Parkway with a cost of $238,000; no specific improvements are identified. In addition, development of the ~site as proposed would require the developer to pay 'a, substantial transportation systems development charge (SDC), which would be used to benefit the city's collector and arterial street system. City transportation engineering staff used the revised site-trip generation estimate, and applied Synchro and SimTraffic to evaluate the potential of various mitigation measures to improve traffic flow through the system of traffic signals around the proposed development site, The following measures were evaluated: . Widening of 'Q' Street through the Pioneer Parkway intersection 'to' provide two through' lanes for westbound traffic, . Constructing a northbound right -turn-only lane on Pioneer Parkway at 'Q' Street. . Modifying the Pioneer Parkway/'Q' Street intersection to allow concurrent northbound and southbound left-turn movements. ' , , . Modifying the Pioneer Parkway/Pioneer Plaza intersection to allow concurrent. northbound and southbound lefHurn movements. " . The results of this analysis show that no cine measure would be sufficient to make an appreciable improvement to the system operation. To make appreciable improvement would require a large_ scale project directed at correcting fundamental weakness in the layout'ofthe surrounding system of roadways, intersections and freeway interchanges. It is not economically' or technically , feasible to pursuesuch a project in the context of this site plan review process. Findin~ 40: Lane Transit distnct submitted written comments to this application describing impacts that the proposed northbound left-turn lane on Pioneer Parkway would have to the planned EmX project plan. " FindinQ 4 f: As ,conditioned below transportation facilities would be adequate to accommodate , additional vehicular and pedestrian tniffic that would be generated by the proposed development. Condition of Approval: 6. Proposed 'designs for street 'and traffic' signal modifications are approved in. concept only. Design and construction details ,for these public facilities shall be established during a Public , Improvement Project (PIP) process under permit from the City Springfield Public. Works DepartmenCs E?gineering Division, ' , .. FindiDlz.42: Construction of .the 'proposed northbound left-turn lane on Pioneer Parkway at Pioneer Plaza would eliminate seven mature street trees growitig, in the Pioneer Parkway median., Mitigation of this impact is necessary to .maintain conformance with street tree standards.' contained in the SDC 32.050, , Condition of Approval: 7. Developer ~hall mitigate impacts due' to' street removals in accordance with SDC32.050. The 'replanting shall be part of the Public Improvement Project. .' . , \. - . Page 10 of 18 ' FindinQ 43: The proposed driveway onto 'Q' Street is depicted on the site plat; drawings as a full-access design'with two exiting lanes (for right and left turn movements) and one entrance lane, The SimTraffic queuing analysis in the TIS shows that average traffic queues on eastbound 'Q' Street would extend well past tlils driveway, making exiting left-turns unsafe if not impossible, Because 'Q' Street lias only a single eastbound lane at this point, any vehicles waiting to make a left-turn into the site would 'be blocking' the .only through lane, thus exacerbating an already congested condition. The TIS analysis anticipates these difficuities and assumes no vehicle trips' would enter or exit this driveway by making left-turning' movements trips. To maintain safe operations the driveway must be restricted to right-in-right-out movements only. COl}dition of Approval: , ; , ' . . 8. The proposed site driveway onto 'Q' Street shall be restricted to right-in:right-out movements only. Prior to Final Site Plan approval, a revised driveway design shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer and shown on the Final Site Plan, , Conclusion: As conditioned in this report, the propos~l saiisfiesthis sub-elem~!1t of the criterion. (3) The ~roposed development shall comply with all applicable public and p'rivate design and ~onstrllction ~tandards contained in this Code and other applicable regulations. Findinl! 44: ,Criterion 3 contains three different elements wit.h sub-elements and applicable code' standards. TIle site plan application as submitted complies with the code standards listed under each sub-element .unless otherwise noted with specific findings 'and conclusions. The ~Iements, sub-elements and code standards of Criterion 3 include but are not limited to: 3a. Public 'and Private Improvements in accordance with SDC 32 . ., Fire and Life Safety Improvements (32.120(3)) .'-Public andPrivate Easements (32.120(1) and (5)). .', .' "'''.- ,', 3b. Confo~nance with standards of SDC"31, Site Plan Revi~w a~dSDC 20 Industrial , " . ~ - . , , Zoning Districts ' . , '" , '. ..Permitted Uses (20,020)... .,', Lot Size Standards (20.030) . ' . Lot Coverage Standards (20.040j:, . Seiback Standards (20.050), . . Height Standards (20.060) " .. ,Off-Street Parking Standards (20,070 and 31.170-230) . ,...' "; , ,-' Fence Stmi.dards (20.90) " "',', . Landscaping Sta~dards (31.130-150) . Screening and Lighting 'Standards (31.160) '. ., ..... ""1- 3c. Overlay Districts and Applicable Refinement, Plan Req\lirements . " Gateway Refmement Plan ", . Drinking Water Protection Overlay District " .!, 'I: '. " , , Page 11 ofl8 ,-', 3a. 'Public and Private Improvements in accordance with SDC 32 , Fire and Life Safety Improvements (32.120(3)) Access Findinl! 45: Ali fire apparatus access routes are to be paved, aH-weather surfa2es and support an 80,000 lb. imposed load in accordance with the 2004 Springfield Fire Code (SFC) 503.2.3 and SFC Appendix 0102.1. " Findinl! 46: The proposed development. site wiH be accessed via joint:use driveways. These driveways have been reviewed by the Springfield Fire Marshal and meet Springfield Fire Code standards as proposed, Water Suoolv: Findinl! 47:- As proposed on the submitted site plan, the proposed water supply meets Springfield Fire Code requirements. Condition of Approval: 9. All fire apparatus access routes shall be shown on the Final Site Plan. They shall be paved, aH- , weather surfaces and support an 80,000 lb. imposed load in accordance with the 2004 Springfield Fire Code (SFC) 503.2.3 and SFC Appendix 0102.1. Conclusion: As conditioned, the proposal satisfies this sub-~lement'ofthe criterion. P~blic and Private Easements (32.120(1) and (5)) Finding 48: SOC 32.120(5) requires applicants proposing developments to'n:iake 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. The minimum width for public 'utility easements adjacent to street rights-of-way shall be 7 feet. The minimum width for all other . public utility easements shaH be]4 feet. ' , Findinl! 49: Utilities shall be extended underground to serve new improvements, Extending and connecting public utility facilities at property lines improves efficiency and.service to individual sites. Public utility easements shaH be provided and extended to the boundaries of the subject site to serve and' protect the subject site and surrounding properties. . Findinl! 50: , Utility easements are necessary to protect public infrastructure and serve the subject' , , site with requeskd, utilities, The facilities currently requested are standard commercial services. with connections to existing lines on the perimeter of the site.' " . . , . ,. ' '''Fi~ding 51: As shown on the Tentative Site Plan, aH utilities lines will be placed underground to service the new development'. Conclusion: Safe and efficient provision of public acce~s and utilities 'requires the provision of , corresponding access and utility easements. As proposed, the proposal satisfies this sub-element. of the criterion. ' , Page 12 of 18 ), 3b. Conformance with Standards of ,SDC 31, Site Plan Review, and Article 18, Commercial Zoning Permitted Uses (18.020) Findin~ 52: The applicant is proposing a newly constructed commercial. center with three new buildings, At this time, the applicant is proposing that one building will be leased by Walgreells as a retail drug-store, and a second building to be leased as a credit union. These uses are listed as , pemli,tted in the subject zone,' " . Finding 53: Additional uses in the third building (northwest comer of the lot) have not yet been detennined. ' ., Finding 54: All ne~ us~s on the sjte must b~ a,pemlitted use in the Mixed Use ~MI/CC Zone. Cond,ition of Approval:,' 10. Every use on the site shall be a permitted nse in the Mixed Use LMI/CC Zone. . Setback St;wdards (18.050) Finding 55.:. Section 18.050 (I) requires a niinimum building front.and street.side yard setback of 10 feet. . .. Finding' 56': As proposed on the submitted site plan, the new buildings meet the required ,front yard setback standards.. ' Findi~g 57: Section 18.050 (2) state's that additionai setbacks are required if the subje~t property' is abutting Residential Districts or th~ CI District. ' , .' . . ' , 'Findin'~58: The subject property is not 'abutting ~ny' Residential Di!;tricts or the CI " Section 18.050(2) does not apply. ' , . HeightStandards (18.060).: District. '- . " ",.' ,,'. . ..);. '. . . - ....,. .,'..' ...," Findin,; 59: "The 'pr~po'sed 'commercial buildings are not abutting any:residentialareas, Thus, ' there are nobuil,ding height limitations applicable to ihe development in .accordance with'SDC 18.060. .', c,,' .' ,.' . ,', .". .,:,'",' ,:' },,,,,..:',... ,",' ,.' , . " Off-Street Parking Standards (18.Q70 and 31.170 c:,230) ., , . .. .' ,.:,' : : . 'j' ' Finding 60: ,The minimum parking requirement for the 'site is one (I) space per 300 square feet gross .floor.area ba~ed on SDe 18.070 parking requirements, As shown on the proposed site plan, there will be 85 parking spaces, including five handicapped 'spaces. The' proposed parking allocation meets the minimum parking requirement.for ihe site in accordance!with SDC 18.070 and 31.170. ' . . , Findi~g 61 :'Ten'bicycle parking' spaces are required per SDC 3 i.22Q: As shown 6n the submitted site plan, the applicant has indicated that fourteen 'covered 1?ic.ycle 'parkil}g spaces .will be' constructed on-site. This satisfies the requirements in SDC 3).220.; , COi,clusion:, As conditioned h~re;n, the proposal 'satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. . Page 130(18 ; ',., r: :1.. Landscaping Standards (31.130-150) Findinp: 62: The Development Review Committee reviewed the submitted landscape plan in conjunction with other improvements shown on submitted site plans. . Findinll 63: The submitted site plans detail landscape ratios and numbers of trees meeting the standards of SDC 31.130-150 for required landscape areas and, except as required herein, shan not be revised without an approved Site Plan Modification. An proposed landscaping shan be instaned prior to Final Site Plan Inspection or issuance afFinal Occupancy Permit on the site. Condition of Approval: II. All proposed landscaping shall be installed prior to Final Site Plan Inspection or issuance of : Final Occupancy Permit on the site. An plant nursery tags identifying species and variety of trees and shrubs shall remain on plant specimens until the final site plan inspection, All seed containers shall be retained for inspection during Fiilal Site Plan Inspection. ' Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the submitted site landscaping plans ,detail landscape ratios and num bers of trees meeting the standards of SDC 31.130-150 for required landscape areas. 3c. Overlay Districts and Applicable Refinement Plan Requirements Finding 64: The subject development site lies within the Gateway Refinement Plan area and is consistent with MU LMI/CC development requirements of the adopted Refinement Plan, Findinll 65: The subject site i; located within the zone of coniiibution for the Drinking Water Protection Overlay District. Springfield's drinking water. aquifer is an identified and delineated GoalS natural resource subject to protection in accordance with SDC 32.11 0(4) and ~DC Article 17. The zone of contribution zone is considered outside the 20-year time of travel zone and does not require a DWP application, '- 'Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposarsatis~es this sub-element of the criterion.. 4) Parking areas and ingress-egress point~ have been 'designed to: ,facilitate vehicular'traffic, bicycle and pedestrian, safety to avoid congestion; provide connectivity. .within' tbe', 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 specified in Articles 31, 32, the appropriilte zoning and/or zoning overlay district Article and any applicable refinement plan;' and comply with the ODOr access management standards for state highways: ". '....".'.'. '. . , '. ' Findinl,' 66: This application has been 're:viewed and 'conditioned b'y the City Transportation Planning Engineer to construct and maintain driveways in accordance with the provisions of SOC' 32.070-080. The proposed site plan also provides ADA accessible pedestrian ~ccess paths ~ind~', bicycle parking in accordance with the provisions of this cod~. . Findinll 67: Findings 30 - 43 in this report provide additional discussion and conditionsrelevant to tr~nsportation issues on the site. ',' '.. Page 14 of18 I Conclusion: As conditioned in this report, ingress-egress points will fa~ilitate traffic and pedestrian safety, avoid congestion and minimize curb cuts on public streets as specified in SDC Articles 31, 32, an~ SDC Article 18' Commercial Zoning Districts: ' (5) Physical features, including but' not limited to, significant 'clusters of trees and shrubs, watercourses sbown on the Water Quality Limited Watercourse Map and their associated' riparian areas, wetlands; rock outcroppings and historic features have been evaluated and protected 'a~ specified in this Code or other applicable regulations. ' FindinQ 68: 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 significant natural features on this site, If any artifacts are , found during construction, there are state laws that could apply; ORS 97.740, ORS 358.905, ORS 390.235. 'If human 'remains are'discovered during construction, it is a Cl~ss '''C'' felony to proceed under ORS 97.740.' Conclusion: As proposed, the proposal satisfie~ criterion 5. CONCLUSION: The Tentati~e Site Plan, as submitted and condition'ed, complies with Criteria 1-5 , of SDC 31.060. ' WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE BY THE APPLICANT TO OBTAIN FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL? ';,c , " Five copies of a Final Site Plan and any additional required plans, 'documents or 'information are required to be submitted to the Planning Division within 90 days of the date ofthis letter. In accordance with SDC 31.080-100" the Final Site Plan ,shall comply, with the requirements of the SDC and the conditions imposed by th~ Director in this decision. The Final Site Plan otherwise shall bein substantiai'cOtiJonnity with the tentative plan reviewed. Portions of the proposal approved as submitted during tentatiye review ca,nnot be substantively changed during final site plan approval. Approved Final Site Plans (including 'Landscape Plans) shall 'not be substantiyely changed during Building Permit Review without an approved Site Plan Decision Modification: . , .' ,'... .', 'DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: In order to complete the,review process,'a Development '. Agreement is r~quired to ensure. that the terms and conditions of site plan review are',binding upon both . the applicant and the City, This agreement will be preparedby'Staffupon approval of the Final Site Plan ..and must be signed by the propertyowner p.rior to the iss"ance of a building pe=:it. ,,' ", ' ',CONDlTIONS OF APPROVAL:" ;.-' 1. Prior to approv~1 of the 'Final Site Plan, the applicant shall o.biain written:approval from the , Springfield Utility Board(SUB) for all proposed utilities shown,' '" , '. ' '.,2: 'Prior to Final Site Plan approval, all new easements shall be recorded and evidence thereof . . provided to the City. The Final Site Plan shall show the location of all uiility easements. ' " . ,. ,'.. . , " 3: All, utility lines 'to serve th~ de~e1opment 'site shall be placed under!7ound." 4, To ensure a fully functioning water quality system and meet objectives of Springfield's MS4 , permit, the Springfield Developnlent Code and the EDSPM, the proposed private vegetative ",~ater quality swale sh~ll be fully vegetated with all vegetation species established prior to ,." "',', . Page 15 of 18 :'- -, .... '1 . . approval of Final Plat, while 'thegrassy swale/detention pond shall be fully vegetated with all vegetation species established prior to City acceptance o(the Public Improvement Project. Alternatively, if this condition cannol be met, the applicant shall provide and maintain additional interim erosion control/water quality measures acceptable to the Public Works Department' that will suffice until such' time as the swale vegetation 'becomes' fully established. 5. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant shall re-Iocate the proposed water quality swale shown on the westerly property line to comply' with code. The Final Site Plan shall showswale designs' in conformance with the City of Portland's Storm Water Management Manual's requirement for a minimum of 5' separation from all property lines (pg 2-71). , r' , . 6, Proposed desi!,'l1s for street and traffic signal modifications are approved in concept only. Design and construction details for \hese public facilities shall.be established during a Public Improvement Project (PIP) process under pernlit from the City Springfield, Public Works , Department's Engineering Division. . 7. Developer shall mitigate impacts due to street removals in accordance with SDC 32.050. The replanting shall be part of the Public Improvement Project. 8, The proposed site driveway onto 'Q', Street shall be restric.ted'to right-in-right-out movements ,only. Prior to Final Site Plan approval, a revised driveway, design shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer and shown on the Final Site Plan. ' . ' 9.. All fire apparatus access routes shall be shown on the Final Site Plan. They shall be paved, all- weather surfac,es and support an 80,000 lb. imposed load in accordance with the 2004' Springfield Fire Code (SFC) 5Q3,2.3 and SFC Appendix 0102,1, ] 0, Every use o~ the site' shall be a pennitt~d use in the Mixed Use LMI/CC Zone. . " , ,.... . ~, '- .." ' II. All proposed landscaping shall be installed prior to Final Site Plan Inspection or issuance of , . Final Occupancy Permit on the site. All plant nursery, tags identifying species and variety of ' trees and shrubs shall' remain on plant specimens until the final site plan inspection. i~ll seed containers shall qe retained for inspection during Final Site Plan Inspectkm. SIGNS': Signs are reguiated by the Springfield City Code 'Article 9, Chapter 7, . The number and, placement of sign~ must be coordi~ated with the Community Services Division. The locations of SIgnS on a site plan do not constitute approval from the Community Services Division" A separate sign permit is required. Ka)' Wilson (726-3664) is the contact person, . ' . . -. . , The applicant may submit construction or building plans to other city departments for.review prior to final ,site plan approval in accordance with SDC 31.080 at their own risk. All concurrent submittals are subject, to' revision for compliance with the final site plan. A .development agreement in accordance with SDq "; 31.090 will not be issued until all plans submitted by the applicant have been revised, 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 Services Department, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon. " ' ' Page 160fl8, APPEAL: This Type H 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 with the Development Services Department by an affected party. Y o\lr appeal must .be in accordance with SDC, Article 15, 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 15,020 which provides for a IS-day appeal period and Oregon Rules of Civil Procedures,Rule lO(c) for service of notice by mail, the appeal period for this decision expires at 5:00 PM on January 10'", 2006. QUESTIONS: Please call' David Reesor in the Planning Division of the Development Services Department at (541) 726-3783. or email dreesor({l)ci,sDrinllfield,oLusif you have any questions regarding this process, PREPARED BY: '. '"/f/~~ David Reesor. ' . Planner II . "'. , ,'. "(,.' , . , ,; .';.' " , '-";" ~, :;""., " . ~.' , ',j - " ,<""., '. 'i:, " , .' , ,', ',...' ." " .', , . " ' '-r .'.'. ., " Page 17 of 18 ',' .' ,> '-, " , . 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 ) Svstems Develonment 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. [Springfield Code Chapter, II, Article II] . . Systems Development Charges (SDCs) will apply to the construction of buildings and site improveme~ts 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, Sanitarv 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 detemline if the In-Lieu-Of-Assessment charge is applicable lOrd. 5584]. ' , Public Infrastructure Fees: ' .. It is the responsibility of the private developer to fund the public infrastructure. . . ~ NOTE: Substantive ~evision's to approved site' and landscape plans during construction of utilities , will require decision modification and delay' occupancy. " , " Other Citv Pertnits: .. , 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, or adjusting a manhole. The current rate)s $130 for processing plus applicable fees imd deposits. . . ' . . Land and Drainage Alteration Permits (LDAP) , .' Contact, the Department at.726-5849for appropriate applications/requirements. 'Springfield' Public Works . . - . , , . " . - , .' . .' ,Additional oermits/anorovals mav be necessarv;. ' .,.' , . , . " , . Metropolitan.Wastewater Management Comri,ission (pump station, sanitary sewers 24 inches ~;.. .. or larger) . ' . Plumbing Permit, , ' , ' . ,Oregon Department of Transportation Permit' (for work in the Beltline Road right-of-way)" . ,'Division of State Lands (storm water discharge, wetlands)' '.' . .~ . Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (erosion control (5 acres or greater),pump' station, storlnwater discharge, wetlands) , " , '. US Army Corps of Engineers (stormwater discharge, wetlands) . Tree Felling .. . Drinking Water Protection .:Page 18 of 18 " '". ",.,,,,~~NGFIE.LO """,1i,~.;.w.r;u:,,,,'n<r..,'.{r~4iw.-'J;r.7'J~I,"'c~, ' ~,;J'~:.m~""\ - "'~~- ~.:Ii .... , DEVELOPMENT SE~VICES . ., ' " ;J..-Ifil~, .~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT, 225 FIFTH STREET' SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 Skyview" LLC and South Plaza II LLC Thomas Fox Properties 515 West Picket Circle, 11400 Salt,Lake City, DT ,84117 ," , ", ',; SPRINOFIELD ~'l;;;;TI"lij;r::(iI'JIl'I;I~<l'J"~~A'-' DEVELOPMENT SERVICES . ~ ~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT . '225 FIFTH STREET, ,SPRINGFIELD, OR,97477, '.'J '... ,Gary Reed ,Weber Elliott Engineers' PO Box 10145 Euge,n~ ;,' OR, 97440 " " . " " .". , .~^ .. .. .,': J.t ';'" '-,: ". (j~., '&cJ.:.~'~(Jb{rp.' ,w(lo,,~-.:Lm. '. , "'" , .,' , "', " ,.:' -,. .,', "",". ;- ,".~J3 ,1,,1 " :.. .;, ,,"', ';' ::~, " :-'...' " .. .. , , S'PRI...G ~~~~:;:;::;:~~.,.)..~~~ ~- PLANNING DEPARTMENT 225 FIFTH STREET' SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 Skyview, LLC and South Plaza II LLC Thomas Fox Properties 515 West Picket Circle, #400 Salt Lake City, DT 84117 >0;' Gary Reed Weber Elliott Engineers PO Box 10145 ; Eugene, OR 97440 , -J. "'-' . ' " ,~ ,,' -'- '. , ". " '.', ' ,.,' ,"(,\ ,.' 1'\. " '...J '. " ~ i' ,~, ,'.,..-',\