Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotice PLANNER 2/11/2009 .-. - __ -1. AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE STATE OF OREGON) )ss. County of Lane ) ~~ RECE.IVED ~ Ii. 0'\ B . St.~c1.hJ. . . y. Nn+U~ of.~ I, Karen LaFleur, being first duly 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 caused to be mailed copies ofj)R1'1.oo<1-a::;o->"" ~,l'l;9h....;~~Av ,(P~A.:h./)~ JA4. 'mod.. (See attachment nAn) on 2J \ \ . 2009 addressed to (see ~. . Attachment Bn), by causing said letters to be placed in a U.S. mail box with ~~ postage fully prepaid thereon. ':k' aNA- ~j~ , KA~~ LaFLEUR - ST~TE OF OREGON, County of Lane \ !.k.b1iWvL<Y / / , 2009. Personally appeared the above named Karen LaFleur, ~gramTechnician, who acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary act. Before me: ~..~~ q/I:;-I// . OFFICIAL SEAL DEVETTE KEllY NOTARY PUBLIC. OREGON COMMISSION NO, 420351 !If COMMISSION EXPIRES AUG, 15.2011 " My Commission Expires: Date \'{eceived: ~/t:~'I Planner: AL '; SPRlNQPJBLD ~. TYPE II MAJOR SITE PLAN MODIFICATION, STAFF REPORT & DECISION Project Name: BLM Warehouse Expansion Major Site Plan Modific~tion Project Proposal: ModifY a previously approved site plan, including building expansion and modifications to parking lot, outdoor storage yard, site landscaping and bioswales Case Number: DRC2009-00003 ' Project Location: 3100 Pierce Parkway (Assessor's Map 17-02-30-00, Tax Lot 1000) Zoning: Light Medium Industrial (LMI) Metro Plan Designation: Heavy Industrial (Ill) Pre-Submittal Meeting Date: June 13,2008 Application Submitted Date: January 20, 2009 Exnedited Review Reouested: .Jan. 28. 2009 Decision Issued Date: February 11;2009- . , Appeal Deadline Date: February 26, 2009 Associated Applications: ZON2003-00044; DRC2004-00005; DRC2005-00092; DRC2007-00026; DRC2008-00071; PRE2008-00071 ' APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM Applicant: Civil Engineer: Jim Thomas Wildish Building Co, P.O, Box 7428 Eugene, OR 97401 Architect: Matt Keenan KPFF Consulting Engineers III SW Fifth Avenue Portland, OR 97204 Mark Danielson Barrentine Bates Lee 200 North State Street Lake Oswego, OR 97034 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD.'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM I POSITION I Proi ect Manager I Transportation Plannin~ Engineer I Public Works Civil Engineer I Public Works Civil Engineer Deputy Fire Marshal . I Community Services Manager I NAME Andy Limbird Jon Driscoll Clayton McEachern Clayton McEachern I Gilbert Gordon Dave Puent ' REVIEW OF Planning Transportation Utilities Sanitu)i & Storm Sewer Fire and Life Safety Building ,~ .,.. PHONE 726-3784 726-3679 I 736-1036 I 736-1036 1726-2293 726-3668 I I ,I I I I I Date Received:_o/J/ fin/? Planner: AL Site Information: The subject development area is a 22.4 acre industrial parcel located at the eastern terminus of Pierce Parkway, east of 28~ Street and lying to the north of Marcola Road and the 'Southern Pacific Railroad line (Assessor's Map 17-02-30-00, Tax Lot 1000). Zoning for the site is Light Medium Industrial (LMI) according to the Springfield Zoning Map, and the site is designated Heavy Industrial (HI) in the Metro Plan Di~gram, Properties surrounding the development area are zoned and designated Low Density Residential (LOR) north of the site; LMI and Campus Industrial (CI) west of the site; and Hl south and e~t of the site. The subject property is adjacent to Irving Slough, which is identified on the local wetland inventory, but is not classified as a Water Quality Limited Watercourse, The development site also does not fall within a FEMA 100 year flood zone, The subject property is within the 1-5 year Time of Travel Zone (TOTZ) for the Pierce drinking water wellhead, and therefore provisions of the Drinking Water Protection Overlay District, SDC 3.3- 200 are applicable to this development. ' The property has been developed with a 150,000 ft' Anned Forces Reserve Center (AFRC) building, vehicle maintenance shop, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) office/warehouse building, parking lots, outdoor vehicle storage compounds, site landscaping, and bioswales in accordance with previous land use approvals (DRC2004-00005, DRC2005-00092 and DRC2007-00026), According to the applicant's submittal, approval of this proposal would allow modification of the existing site plan as follows: . Adding a ] 2,500 ft' two-story addition to the BLM warehouse and office building; . Adding a 70-foot high radio tower. and radio equipment structure near the southwest corner of the site; . Adding covered portico structurd to the west and south entrances to the main AFRC building; . Relocating an existing Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB) easement along the southwest edge of the site to accommodate improvements, including the radio tower and equipment shelter; and . Adjusting the fenceline of the east outdoor vehicle storage compound to scale-back the parking area and thereby reduce the amount of impervious area by approximately 5,625 ft'. DECISION: This cJecision grants Tentative Site Plan Modification Approval. The standards of the Springfield Development Code (SDC) applicable to each criterion of Site Plan Modifi!,ation 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 16 for a summary of the conditions of approvaL OTHER USES AUTHORIZED BY THE DECISION: None. Future development will be in accordance with the provisions of the Springfield Development Code, filed eaSements and agreements, and aU applicable local, state and federal regulations, ' REVIEW PROCESS: This application is reviewed under Type II procedures listed in Springfield Development Code Section 5.1-130, the site plan review criteria of approval SDC 5.17-125, and provisions for site plan modifications SDC 5,17-145. The subject application was accepted as complete on January 20, 2009, The aoolicant submitted a reouest for exnedited review alonQ: with coiresoondinQ: aoolication fees on Januarv 28., 2009. This decision is issued on the 22nd day of the 120 days mandated by the State, and 14 days following the applicant's request for expedited review. 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 Sections 5.1-130 and 5.2-115). The applicant and parties submitting written cominents during 2-;~(~/ O?t~ Received: ,Planner; AL Page 2 ofl8 the notice period have appeal rights and are mailed a copy of this decision for consideration (See Written Comments below and Anneals at the end "fthis decision). Procedural Finding: On February 10,2009, the City's Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed plans (6 Sheets - Barrentine 'Bates Lee Architects, Sheets A-IOIWA, A-I02WA, A-I03WA and A-20IWA, dated 1/12/2009 and 10/07/2008; and KPFF Consulting Engineers, Sheets C1.00 & C2.00, dated 10/21/2008) and supporting information, City staff's review comments have been reduced to findings and conditions only as necessary for compliance with the Site Plan Review criteria of SDC 5.17-125. Procedural Finding: In accordance with SDC 5.17-125 to 5.17-135, the Final Site Plan shall comply with the requirements of the SDC and the conditions imposed by the Director in this decision. The Final Site Plan otherwise shall be in substantial conformity with the tentative plan reviewed. Portions 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 without an ,approved .Site Plan Modification Decision. WRITTEN COMMENTS: Procedural Finding: In accordance with SDC 5.1-130 and 5.2-115, notice was sent to adjacent property owners/occupants within 300 feet of the subject site on January 26, 2009. No written comments were received. CRITERIA OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL: SDC 5.17-125, Site Plan Review Standards, Criteria of Site Plan Approval states, "the Director shall approve, or approve with conditions, a Type Il Site Plan Review Application upon determinirig that criteria A through E of this Section have been satisfied. If conditions cannot be attached to satisfY the criteria, the Director shall deny the application," , A. The zoning is consistent with the Metro Plan diagram, and/or the applicable Refinement Plan diagram, Plan District map, and Conceptual Development Plan. Finding I: The site is currently zoned Light Medium Industrial (LMI) according to the City's Zoning Map and is designated Heavy Industrial (HJ) on the adopted Eugene-Springfield Metro Area General . Plan ("Metro Plan"). Finding 2: The approved site development is consistent with uses listed in both the LMI District and the HI District. For this reason, rezoning of the site from LMI to ill is not necessary or desirable to achieve full development of the subject property in accordance with the approved plans. Finding 3: The applicant is not proposing to change the zoning or land use designation for the site. Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion A. B. Capacity requirements of public improvements, including but not limited to, water and electricity; sanitary sewer and stormwater management facilities; and streets and traffic safety controls shall not be exceeded and the public improvements shall be available to serve the site at the time of development, unless otherwise provided for by this Code and other applicable regulations. The Public Works Director or a utility provider shall determine capacity issues. Finding 4: Approval of this proposal would allow for construction ora 12,300 if two-story addition to the existing 13,000 if BLM warehouse and office building; construction of a 70-foot radio antenna, satellite dish and radio equipment shelter (classified as accessory structures); addition of covered portico structures over the main building entrances; adjustment to the east fenceline around the outdoor vehicle compound; and relocation of an EWEB .easement at the southwest comer of the site. The proposed two- Date Received: 2.;/I,.747;~30f18 Planner: AL -; story addition to the BLM warehouse building requires modifications to the adjacent parking lot, site landscaping, and bioswale. . Finding S: For all public improvements, the applicant shall retain a private professional civil engineer to design the site improvements in conformance with' City codes, this decision, and the current Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual (EDSPM). The private civil engineer also shall be required to provide construction inspection services. Finding 6: The Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed site plan and the surrounding public services on February 10, 2009, City and agency staff's review comments have been incorporated in findings and conditions contained herein. Water and Electricity Improvements Finding 7: SDC 4.3-130 requires each development area to be provided with a water system having sufficiently sized mains and lesser lines to furnish adequate supply to the development and sufficient access for maintenance. Springfield Utility Board (SUB) coordinates the design of the water system within Springfield city limits. . Finding 8: SDC 4.3-12S states, "Wherever possible, utility lines shall be placed III!derground." Finding 9: The developer is not proposing to change the electrical or telecommunication lines required to serve the development site, All lines are proposed to be placed underground in accordance with SDC 4.3-12S. , Finding 10: The existing water service to the site is adequate for the proposed site plan modifications. There is an existing IS-inch water main running north-south within 3lst'Street, parallel with the western boundary of the property. From the water main in 31st Street, ~ private IO-inch fire line and a private 6- inch water line have been installed to serve the interior of the site. Finding II : The proposed warehouse. building expansion will necessitate the relocation of aplJroximately 71 linear feet of existing 2-inch water line and 67 linear feet of 6-inch fire protection system water line. The, private water lines serve the BLM warehouse/office building, and will provide service to the building addition. Finding 12: There is electrical power available from the adjacent public road system, and three-phase power runs underground inside the north property line. All utilities required to serve the existing site development. arid proposed expansion area have been previously installed. SUB Electric advises the existing facilities are sufficient to serve the proposed development. Conclusion: As proposed, SUB Water and Electric facilities are available to serve the site and the proposal satisfies this 'sub-element of the criterion. Sanitary Sewer and Storm water Management Facilities Sanitarv Sp,wer Finding 13: Section 4.3-IOS.A ofthe SDC requires that sanitary sewers shall be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to existing mains. Additionally, installation of sanitary sewers shall provide sufficient access for maintenance activities. Finding 14: Section 4.3-IOS.C of the SDC requires that proposed sewer systems shall include design consideration of additional development within the area as projected by the Metro Plan. '~13t€jReceived:. ~:/..)h,! Plgjnnl;lr: AL Page 4 ofl8 Finding 15: Pursuant to Chapter 3.03.4.A of the City's EDSPM and Section 4.4 of Portland's Stormwater Management Manual, solid waste storage areas (ie, trash and recyclable enclosures) shall be covered and hydraulically isolated from potential storm water pmoff, and directed to the sanitary sewer system. " Finding 16: There is an existing private 6-inch sanitary sewer. line that'is located at the eastern edge of the proposed building addition, To accommodate the building expansion, the applicant is proposing to relocate approximately 102 linear feet of existing sanitary sewer lateral currently located within the building envelope area. The existing 6-inch sanitary sewer line and proposedlateral will be sufficient to serve: the development. area. A plumbing permit will be required to relocate existing lines and install new sanitary connections proposed within the site. Stormwater Manal!ement (Quantitv) , " Finding 17: SDC.4.3-IIO,B requires that the Approval Authority shall grant development approval only where adequate public and/or private stormwater management systems provisions have been made as determined by the Public Works Director, consistent with the EDSPt>J. , Finding 18: SDC 4.3-11 O.C states that a stormwater management system shall accommodate potential runoff from its entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside of the development. ',Finding 19: SDC 4.3-HO.D requires that runofffrom.a development shall be directed to an approved stormwater management system with sufficient capacity to accept the discharge. Finding 20: SDC 4.3-110.E requires new developments to employ drainage management'practices that . minimize the amount and rate of surface water runoff into receiving streams, and that promote water quality. Finding 21: To comply with Sections SDC 4.3-1 JO.B-E, stormwater runoff.from the site is to be directed into a private drainage system consisting of piped downspouts, catch basins and bioswales, Rooftop drainage from'the warehouse building is proposed to be piped directly to an existing lO-inch storm water line in 31 ~ Street. Plumbing permits will be required for the proposed work, and an encroachment permit will be required to complete utility connections in the public right-of-way. ',' Finding 22: The applicant is proposing to relocate approximately 120 linear feet of existing private 12- inchstormwater line that -runs beneath the building envelope area. The applicant also is proposing to install a new catch basin at the east edge of the building expansion area to serve ihe modified parking lot area, The changes proposed to the existing stormwater drainage scheIne are iimited to truncating the bioswale along the east edge of the existing BLM building, and piping rooftop runoff from the proposed building through downspouts to the adjacent public drainage system, The, .proposed changes are 'necessary to accOl:nmodate the building envelope and modified parking lot and are supported by the applicant's stormwater analysis. Finding 23:. The covered portico structures at the main walk~ay entrances \0 the AFRC building do not increase the amount of impervious surface, on the site, and therefore do not have an appreciable impact on the drainage pattern for the development area. Finding 24: The proposed site modifications do not appear to substantially change the runoff characteristics of the site and there is sufficient capacity in the,proposed on-site stormwater management system to handle the anticipated runoff from build-out ofthe site development. "f .~ '. . Dat(;j i'~aceived' . 2ji'/~1 Planner:. AL PageS of18, Stormwater Management (Oualitv) Finding 25: UndeiFederal regulation of the Clean Water Act (CW A), Endangered 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) permit A provision of this permit requires the City to demonstrate efforts to reduce the pollution in urban stormwater to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP). Finding 26: Federal and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) rules req'uire the City's MS4 plan to address six "Minimum Control Measures". Minimum Control Measure 5, "Post- Construction Stormwater Management for New: Development and Redevelopment", applies to the proposed development Finding 27: Minimum Control Measure 5 requires the City of Springfield to develop, implement and enforce a program to ensure the reduction of pollutants in stormwater runoff to the MEP. The City also must develop and implement strategies that include a combination of structural or non-structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) appropriate for the community. Finding 28: Minimum Control Measure 5 requires the City of Springfield to use an ordinance or other regulatory mechanism to address post-constniction runoff from new and re-development projects to the extent allowable under State law. Regulatory mechanisms used by the City include the SDC, the City's Engineering DeSign Standards and Procedures Manual and the future Stormwater Facilities' Master Plan (SFMP). Finding 29: As required in SDt 4.3-ll0.E, "a development shall be required, to eIl)ploy drainage management practices approved by the Public Works Director and consistent with Metro Plan policies and the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manuaf'. Finding 30: Section 3.02 of the City's EDSPM states the Public Works Department will accept, as interim design standards for stormwater quality, water quality facilities designed, pursuant to the policies and procedures of either the City of Portland (BES) or the Clean Water Services (CWS). Finding 31: Section 3.03.3.B of the City's EDSPM states' all public and private development 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 the development.' Section 3,03.4,E of the manual requires a'minimum of 50 percent of the non-building rooftop impervious area on a site shall be treated for, stormwater quality improvement using vegetative methods. Finding 32: To meet the requirements of the City's MS4 permit, the Springfield Development Code, and the City's EDSPM, the applicant has proposed to direct all non-rooftop runoff through a catch basin and bioswale. The bioswale is proposed to be adjusted slightly to accommodate the modified building envelope area, sidewalks and parking lot. An operations and maintenance plan that would ensure long- term viabilitY of the bioswales on the Armed Forces Reserve Center site was previously submitted by the applicant. Finding 33: The vegetation proposed for use in the bioswale will serve as the primary pollutant removal mechanism for the stormwater 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. , /)F.!tEl/ Received: :J--P/~, Planner: Al -, ,/.r' Page 6 of 18 Condition of Approval: 1. ,Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the proposed private vegetative water quality swale serving the development sIte shall be fully vegetated with all vegetation species established, Alternatively, if this condition cannot be met, the applicant shall provide and maintain additional interim erosion control/water quality measures acceptable to the Public Works Department until such time as the swale vegetation becomes fully established. Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. Streets and Traffic Safety Controls Finding 34: The 2237-acre AFRC site is located at the east end of Pierce ParkWay, north of Marcola Road. The original site plan was reviewed under DRC2004-00005 and modified by DRC2005-00092 and DRC2007-00026. This application proposes to add a 12,300 If office/warehouse building, and 70- foot radio antenna with small (unoccupied) equipment shelter. The proposed two-story building expansion area has a footprint of approximately 6,250 If and replaces a comparable amount of surface parking. Finding 35: The proposed two-story, 12,300 ft' building addition is primarily for warehouse storage and office use, and expected occupancy at build-out is 45 people. Finding 36: Primary access to the site is via the main entry gate at Pierce Parkway. The subject property also has frontage on 31'~ Street along the western edge of the site. South of the intersection with Pierce Parkway, 31" Street <Is classified as a local street. The street is partially developed with a 20-foot wide asphalt mat surface within a 48-foot wide right-of-way. There is no curb, gutter or sidewalk along the 31" Street frontage of the subject property. A low pressure sodium (LPS) streetlight is located along the property frontage at the southeast comer of 31" Street and Pierce Parkway, Finding 37: Near the southwest comer of the site, 31'( Street previously made an oblique (northeast to southwest direction) crossing of the Southern Pacific Railroad line. Due in part to safety considerations, and also because of intersection improvements at 28th Street and Marcola Road, 31" Street has been truncated and barricaded to public travel north of the railroad line, A lockable swing gate also has been installed at the northern end of the segment of 31" Street that abuts the site. There 'is no developed access from the site directly onto 31~t Street. the applicant previously executed and recorded an Improvement Agreement for future 31" Street improvements (Instrument #2007-055199, Lane County Deeds & Records). ' Finding 38: Street trees have been installed along the property frontage on Pierce Parkway and 31" Street in accordarice with previous Planning approvals. Finding 39: The applicant previously submitted a major traffic impact study (TIS) for the original site plan review (DRC2004-00005) in accordance with SDC 4.2-I05.AA. The TIS included an operational analysis of the intersections 'of Marcola Road/28th Street, and 28th StreetlPierce Parkway. The applicant's TIS also analyzed impacts of site trips on traffic capacity and level of service (LOS) at 28th Street/Pierce Parkway and the signalized Marcola Road/28th Street intersection. The analysis concluded that traffic at both intersections would operate with adequate capacity (LOS B or better) assuming full build-out of the development as proposed. Finding 40: As determined through review of the 2004 TIS, the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 1h Edition contains insufficient data that could be used to determine trip generation estimates for the subject site. "" Date Received' L,/;I,)hYf Planner: AL Page 7 ofJ8 Finding 41: The applicant submitted an amended TIS with a previous land use application (DRC2007- 00026) that considered the expanded principal building, additional warehouse space, and increased numbers of staff expected at the site when completed. Based on the amended TIS completed by Group MacKenzie in October, 2006, the Bureau of Land Management/US Forest Service estimated trip generation rate was 0.25 trips per employee (weekday PM peak hour), The trip generation rate for military reserve personnel was estimated to be 0.39 trips per employee (weekday PM peak hour). The proposed building addition is exclusively for BLM/Forest Service personnel; therefore, the 0.25 tripslhour generation rate will be used to calculate additional trips upon completion of the site development as follows: . Weekday PM Peak Hour Trips = 0.25 trips/employee X 45 employees = -12 trips Finding 42: Based on the traffic analysis submitted by the applicant, existing transportation facilities are adequate to accommodate the additional volume of traffic that would be generated by the proposed development. Conclusion: The transportation facilities would be adequate to accommodate the additional vehicular and pedestrian traffic that would be generated by the proposed development. The proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion, C. The proposed development shall comply with all applicable public and private design and construction standards contained in this Code and other applicable regulations. Finding 43: ' Criterion C contai!)s three different elements with sub-elements and applicable code standards. The site plan modifiootion application as submitted complies with the code standards listed under each sub-element unless otherwise noted with specific findings and conclusions, The elements, sub-elements and code standards of Criterion C include but are not limited to: 1: Infrastructure Standards in accordance with SDC 4.1-100,4.2-100 & 4.3-100 . Water Service and Fire Protection (4.3- 130) . Public and Private Easements (4.3-120 - 4.3-140) 2, Conformance with standards of SDC 5.17-100, Site Plan Review and SDC 3.2-400 Industrial Zoning Districts . . Light Medium Industrial- Perniitted Uses (3.2-410) . Minimum Setbacks for Primary Structures (3.2-420) . Specific Development Standards - Accessory Structures (4,7-105) . Height Standards (3.2-420) . Landscaping, Screening and Fence Standards (3,2-420 & 4.4-100) . On-Site Lighting Standards (4.5-100) . Vehicle Parking, Loading and Bicycle Parking Standards (4.6-100 - 4,6-155) 3. Overlay Districts and Applicable Refinement Plan Requirements . Drinking Water Protection Overlay District DelE! Received' 2-11.1d'V? PIElf!f1E!f: N- Page 8 of 18 C.l, PnbUc and Private Improvements in accordance with SDC ~.1-100, 4.2-100 & 4.3-100 Water Service and Fire Protection (4.3-130) Access finding 44: All fire apparatus access routes are proposed to be paved all-weatber surfaces and able to support an 80,000 lb, imposed load in accordance with the 2007 Springfield Fire Code (SFC) 503.2.3 and SFC Appendix Dl02.1. Finding 45: Unobstructed access and a clear space must be provided for at least three (3) feet surrounding all fire hydrarits in accordance with SFC 508,5.5, Finding 46: In accordance with SFC 508,5.5 and 912.3, immediate access to Fire Department connections must be maintained at all times, At least a three foot distance surrounding the connection points must be kept free of obstruction by fences, landscaping, walls or any other objects, , , Water Sunnlv ,. Finding 47: The development site is served by dedicated water. lines for private hydrants and building sprinkler systems. There is a dedicated fire line connection for the fire sprinkler systems at thenon;heast 'corner of the existing warehouse building, As stated previously, a segment of 6-inch fire water line is proposed to be relocated to accommodate the building addition. Relocation of private water lines shall be done in conjunction with appropriate building permits. < Finding 48: The applicant previously' installed private fire hydl-ants at strategic locations throughout the, development area to provide appropriate site coverage. The proposed fire water supply and hydrant c.overage is acceptable for the site development. . Condition of Approval: ',.' 2. Immediate access and at least three (3) feet of clear space in all directions shall be maintained for all fire hydrants and Fire Department connections in accordance with SFC 508.5.5 and SFC 912.3. Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. Public and Private Easements (4.3-120 - 4.3-140) Finding 49: SDC 4.3c120 requires appli!,ants proposing,developments to make afrangements with the City and each utility provider for the dedication of utility easements necessat}' to fuliy 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 ,f~et., . The minimum width for all other public utility easements shall be 14 feet. , , Finding' 50: 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, If necessat}', public utility easements shall be provided and extended to the boundaries of the subject site to serve and protect the subject site and surrounding properties. . . Finding 5 I: There are several eXisting public easements affecting the development site, Of particular interest for the subject application, the applicant is proposing to install a 70-foot radio antenna, satellite dish and equipment shelter at the southwest corner of the development site within an existing EWEB easement area. It appears the applicant is proposing to dedicate a utility easement along the southwest ~/;/~f ' / I. - L''''+C'' '.')"cei\leo: ~....;...... I." Planner:'AL Page 9 of] 8 boundary of the site, The site plari detail refers to the Civil sheets; however, additional; easement information is not depicted on the Civil drawings. Finding 52: Vacation or relocation of the easement will be required prior to installation of any telecommunication equipment. Vacation of a Dublic easement must be done as a Type II Application in accordance with SDC 5.20-100. If the easement is determined to be not a public easement (but held by , a public agency), the vacation action can be done through a release, quitclai1l1 deed or other mechanism, Finding 53: The applicant is not proposing any changes that would warrant additional PUEs within the site, The facilities currently requested already exist or are standard commercial services with connections to existing lines within the site. Conditions of Approval: 3. The Final Site Plan shall provide an easement detail that identifies the type and nature of the at- . grade and above-ground structures depicted in the southwest corner of the site. ,Additionally, the easement information shall clarifY if there is any utility infrastructure within the easement area. 4. Prior to installation of any telecOlllIimnications equipment as depicted on the applicant's site plan, the applicant shall vacate and/or relocate the existing EWEB easement and provide evidence thereof to the City. Conclusion: Safe and efficient provision of site'utilities requires the provision of corresponding utility easements. As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion, < C.2 Conformance with Standards of SDC 5.17-100, Site. Plan Review and SDC 3.2-400 Industrial Zoning Districts Permitted Uses (3.2-410) Finding 54: Administrative offices, organization headquarters, vehicle maintenance facilities; and warehouses are all listed as Permitted Uses in the LMl District. Minimum Setbacks for Primary Structures (3.2-420) Finding 55:, The minimum street side and rear yard setbacks for buildings in the LM! District is 10 feet. Additionally, there is a mini1l1um 5-foot landscaped .setback for parking and driving surfaces. Finding 56: The applicant's proposed site plan provides fora 15-foot building setback from the 31" Street right-of-way, which is the nearest property line. SpedficDevelopment Standards - Accessory Structures (4.7-105) Finding 57: In accordance with SDC 4.7-105.A, the proposed radio antenna, equipment shelter and satellite dish are considered accessory structures, . Accessory structures of this nature may be installed anywhere within a site and separate from a principal building, provided they are not within a required building setback area. Finding 58: The proposed radio antenna, satellite dish, and equipment shelter are proposed to be set back at least 15 feet from the southwest property line, which meets the LM! setback requirements of SDC'3.2-420, Ql;ltei'f~eGeived: . 1.//1 ~9 Planner: AL '/ :; Page 10 008 Finding,59: There is no specific heightlimitation on radio aI]tenna structures iI] accordance with SDC 4.7-105.E. Finding 60: The covered portico structures over the AFRC building entrances are considered Group A accessory stru~tures in accordance with SDC 4,7-105.A.1. The portico structures meet the requirements ofSDC 4,7,105.C for parcel coverage"relationship to primary 'structure, height and location. Height Standards (3.2-420) . Finding 61: The development site is adjacent to LOR residential areas to the north. In accordance with SDC 3.2-420, the maximum building height is no greater than that permitted in tlJe LOR District for a distance of 50 feet. The maximum building height in the LOR District is 30 feet. ' Finding 62: According to the applicant's submittal, the highest point on the proposed two-story warehouse/office building is approximately 32 feet above grade. The north edge of the proposed building addition is set back more than 150 feet from the north property line. Therefore, the proposed development meets the requirements of SDC 3.2-420 for building height. Landscaping, Screening and Fence Standards (3.2-420 & 4.4-100) Findmg 63: The applicant is proposing to modifY the landscaping at the west edge of the site to accommodate the building expansion area. Portions of the.. site formerly designated for parking lot landscaping will be removed, and a new landscaping area is proposed along the north and east edge of the building addition. The row of parking spaces'along the northem edge of the building (adjacent to the site entrance) is proposed to Ire landscaped. Finding 64: A site landscaping plan prepared by the project landscape architect was not included with the applicant's site plan submittal. The su~mitted site plan set has a sketch map that indicates three parking lot trees are proposed to be removed/relocated at the northern and eastern edges of the building addition. The trees are proposed to be replaced with four comparable site landscaping trees. , , Finding 65: The applicant is proposing to install only planter bed mulch in the landscaping areas at the northern and eastern edges of the building, In accordance wi!h SDC 4.4-1 05, parking lot landscaping areas are to contain trees, shrubs and groundcover plants in densities as specified inSDC 4.4-105.F, Bark mulch is not considered an acceptable substitute for living plant material. Finding 66: The applicant is proposing a "side" and "bottom" landscaping scheme for the bioswale, The proposed seed mix and plant materials are not described in 0e applicant's site plan, At a minimum, the bioswale plantings shall meet or exceed the specifications of the landscape plan previously approved for the site (DRC2007 -00026). . , Finding 67: The applicant's site plan set was stamped, but not signed, by the,project architect. The Final Site Plan sheets will need to be stamped and signed by the ,app<vp,;ate professional (project architect, landscape architect, or engineer of record). Finding 68: There is existing structural screening along the northern edge of the site to buffer the subject site from adjacent residential dwellings. The applicant is pot proposing to alter the existing screening fence. Finding 69: There is existing security fencing around the perimeter of the subject site. The applicant is proposing to adjust the alignment of the east fenceline to reduce the size of the adjacent outdoor storage compound. There is no requirement to place a fence exactly:on the propertY line of a parcel, provided' , ,I Date Received: J.-/tl,)n? ,.'Planner: AL Page 11 ofl8 any fence realignment is done inside the benefiting property, The height, style and location of the proposed fence is consistent with provisions ofSDC 4.4-115. Conditions of Approval: 5. The Final Site Plan shall contain a detailed landscaping plan; prepared by a certified landscaping professional, for the building addition and parking lot modification area as generally depicted in a plan detail in the applicant's site plan submittal. The landscaping plan shall provide for tree, shrub and groundcover plantings that meet or exceed the requirements of SDC 4.4-105 in the affected development area. . 6. The landscaping plan submitted with the Final Site Plan shall include a summary table of trees, shrubs and groundcover plants showing the quantities of each species to be planted in the building expansion and parking lot modification area. 7. The Final Site Plan shall provide for a permanent underground lITIgation system to serve the landscaping in the building expansion and parking lot modification area. 8. The Final Site Plan sheets shall be stamped and signed by the project architect, landscape architect, and civil engineer of record, as appropriate, On-Site Lighting Standards (4.5-100) Finding 70: The subject site directly abuts or is in close proximity to low density residential areas to the north and northeast. The developer has installed screenirig fencing along the northern perimeter of the site where it abuts residential land use. Additionally, the applicant's photometric site lighting plan 'approved with DRC2007 -00026 shows that minimal light trespass will occur beyond the property lines, Finding 71: The applicant's site plan indicates that a light pole is to be relocated slightly to accommodate the proposed building envelope area. The adjusted location should not have an appreciable effect on the site lighting plan, or increase the possibility of light glare and trespass onto adjacent properties. Vehicle Parking, Loading and Bicycle Parking Standards (4.6-100 - 4.6-155) Finding 72: The approved Final Site Plan for the Armed Forces Reserve Center provides for 606 developed parking spaces on the site, The applicant is proposing to remove, 21 parking spaces for construction of the two-story BLM warehouse expansion, In addition to displacing parking spaces, the proposed warehouse expansion generates an additional parking space requirement for the 45 expected occupants of the building. Finding 73: The proposed BLM warehouse expansion would displace 21 parking spaces, leaving 585 developed parking spaces on the site. Finding 74: The minimum parking requirement for the site is one (I) space per 300 If for office aDd organization headquarters; I space per 500 If for maintenance facilities; and'l space per 1000 If for warehouses, Parking space requirements are typically based on building gross floor areas, Based on the parking and building floor area analysis submitted by the applicant, the total off-street parking requirement generated by the site development (at build-out) would be as follows: . 129,686 If offices @1/300 If 433 spaces, . 48,886 If warehousing @11l0001f 49 spaces 17,787 If maintenance facility @1/500 If 36 soaces TOTAL REOUIRED 518 spaces '" ~j;I,?rrP! Page 12 of 18 t}E1ter Received: Pl6nner: AL Finding 75: Staff have rounded-up the parking space 'requirements for each of the uses listed above to the neares! whole number, which results in a parking requirement that slightly exceeds the applicant's numbers, . However, the calculated 'parking requirement (518 spaces) does not exceed tbe available parking provision (585 spaces). Finding 76: The applicant has designated some of the available parking spaces on the site for vehicles that meet certain. self-imposed criteria, .including car pooVvan .pool vehicles and fuel-efficient vehicles. The City's. Development Code has specific regulations pertaining to compact and handicapped parking spaces, but the Code does not regulate parking space allocation criteria that are determined by the property owner. Finding 77: The proposed :Site plan shows provision for 6 covered bicycle parking spaces to serve the BLM warehouse, which meets the requirements of SDC 4.6~ 155 for a combination warehouse/office . 'building. Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this'sub-element of the criterion. C.3 Overlay Districts and Applicable Refinement Plan Reqnire1"ents Finding 78: The subject development site does not. lie within an adopted Refinement Plan area, . , Finding 79: The subject development area is located within the 1-5 year time oftravel zone (TOTZ) for the Pierce wellhead, Springfield's drinking water aquifer is an. identified. and delineated Goal 5 natural resource subject to protection in aqcordance with SDC 4:3-115.and SDC 3.3-200,' < Finding 80: The applicant previously obtained a Drinking Water Protection permit pursuant to Planning Action DRC2008-0007J. SDC 3:3-225.A requires a Drinking Water Protection (DWP) Ove~lay District, development application be submitted to the City in conjunction with Site Plan Review when a new or expanded use includes .the introduction, expansion, storage, andlor production of hazardous materials in a time of travel zone. The subject proposal is classified as'both an expanded use and expansion of storage area; therefore, additional DWP requirements must be addressed. Finding 81: The applicant's project narrative indicates that 'the existing DWP documentation,for the BLM warehouse will be updated and re-submitted in support of the subject application, SUB Water Quality Protection has reviewed the applicant's narrative and supports a revised DWP permit for the , expanded warehouse building, The pWP documentation must be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of final occupancy, The applicant is reminded to abide by all requirements and provisions of the previous Drinking Water Protection Overlay District approval (DRC2008-00071) with this proposal. ' Finding 82: SUB Water Quality Protection advises.that additional DWP information may be required for an auxiliary power source to serve the telecommunication equipment. The applicant's project narrative does not indicate whether a supplementary power generation facility is planned for the radio equipment and satellite dish. Special containment measures ,for power generation equipment and fuel storage, etc. are required if an auxiliary power source will be used. Finding 83: SUB Water Quality Protection advises that ..final inspections for the eXlstmg BLM Warehouse have not been scheduled or completed, and will be required prior to issuance'of occupancy, " " Date Received: 2-f!Jftf Planner: AL Page 13 of 18 Conditions of Ap'proval: 9. Prior to issuance 'of occupancy for the'existing BLM warehouse building, the applicant shall 'ensure that all required inspections are performed in accordance with their DWP approval issued November 17,2008 (DRC2008-00071), 10. Prior to issuance of final occupancy for, the BLM warehouse addition, the applicant shall submit revised Drinking Water Protection Overlay District documentation for the project that is satisfactory to SUB Water Quality Protection. 11. Prior to issuance of final occupancy for the BLM warehouse addition, the applicant shall ensure that alLrequired inspections are performed in accordance with the revised DWP submittal. 12. The Final Site Plan shall identity any auxiliary power source, such as a generator, intended to serve the telecommunications equipment. If an auxiliary power source is to be used, the applicant shall provide necessary documentation and spill containment measures with the revised DWP submittal. Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies;this sub-element ofthe criterion. D. Parking areas and ingresscegress points have heen designed to: facilitate vehicular traffic, bicycle aud pedestrian safety to avoid congestion; provide connectivity within the development area and to adjacent residential areas, transit stops, neighborhood activity centers, and commercial, industrial and public areas; minimize curb cuts on arterial and collector streets as specified in this Code or other applicable regul'dions and comply.with the ODOT access management standards for State highways. ( Finding 84: Installation of driveways on ~ street increases tlie number of traffic conflict points. The greater number of conflict points' increases the probability of traffic crashes. Effective ways to reduce the probability of traffic crashes include: reducing the number of driveways; increasing distances between intersections and driveways; and establishing adequate vision clearance where driveways intersect streets. Each of these techniques permits a longer, less cluttered sight distance for the motorist, reduces the number ,and difficulty of decisions that drivers, must make, and contributes to increased traffic safety. Finding 85: SDC 42-120:A, I stipulates that each parcel is entitled to "an approved access to !! public streef'. Site access is provided to the site via: a main entry gate onto Pierce Parkway, No changes to the existing approved site access point are proposed.' , Finding 86: Ingress-egress points have been planned to facilitate traffic and pedestrian safety, avoid congestion and minimize curb cuts on public streets as specified in SDC 4.2, 4.6, 5.15 and 5,17, applicable zoning and/or overlay distrid requirements, and applicable refinement plans, Finding 87: Within the development area, the proposed'on-site parkmg'spaces'and vehicle circulation areas (including driving aisle widths) meet the requirements of the SDC. Finding 88: The nearest bus transit service serving the proposed development area is provided by Lane Transit District Routes #18 (MohawklFairview) and #19 (Fairview/Mohawk) operating in the vicinity , along 28th Street and Marcola Road. Limited bus service also is provided by Route # 13 (Centennial) operating along 28th Street and Marcola Road. Finding 89: In ,addition to vehicular trips, assumed development may generate pedestrian 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 bus. These trips may have their origins or J-1/~7 / I ' .' .: Date, Received: ~11}nner: AL. Page 14 of 18 , ' destinations at a variety of land uses, including this site, Pedestrian and bicycle trips create the need for sidewalks; pedestrian crossing signals, crosswalks, bicycle parking and bicycle lanes. Finding 90: The site is directly accessible from the public sidewalk system o~ 28th Street and Pierce Parkway, which provide connections with nearby residential and commercial areas and transit stops. In addition to internal pedestrian walkway connections between the main gated entrance and the principal buildings, the proposed development provides for several direct pedestrian connections from the private parking lots to the buildings on the site, . Conclusion: The existing facilities are adequate to meet the site access, driveway and vision clearance requirements ofSDC 4.2-120 and 4.2-130, As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies this criterion. , E. Physical features, including, but not limited to: steep slopes with unstable soil or geologic conditions; areas with susceptibility of flooding; significant clusters 'of trees and sbrubs; .watercourses sbown on the Water Quality Limited Watercourse Map and their associated riparian areas; wetlands; rock outcroppings; open spaces; and areas of historic and/or archaeological significance, as may be specified in Section 3.3-900 or ORS 97.740-760, 358.905-955 and 390.235-240, shall be protected as specified in th'is Code or in State or Federal law. Finding 91: 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, as it has been graded and partially developed with a maintenance building, outdoor storage yard, driveways and paved parking areas, Finding 92: The original site pl3n approval issued in 2005 implemented a voluntary 50-foot setback from ,the Irving Slough, an identified wetland, Th'e portion of the Irving Slough abutting the proposed development area is not designated a Water Quality Limited Watercourse (WQLW), The developer is proposing to scale-back the outdoor parking compound at the eastern end of the developinenl site, and realign the fencing away from the Irving Slough. Drainage from the parking lot is to be directed into a series of drains and bioswales before discharge into the public stonnwater system, Therefore, the proximity of the parking area to the Irving Slough should not have any adverse effect on this natural feature. Finding 93: Stonnwater from the subject site outfalls to the McKenzie River system,' The McKenzie River is listed with the State of Oregon as a "water quality limited" stream for numerous chemical and physical constituents, including temperature, Provisions have been made previously in this decision for prot~ction of stonnwater quality. ' Finding 94: Springfield's drinking water aquifer is an identified and delineated Goal 5 natural resource , subject to protection in accordance with SDC 4.3-115 and SDC 3.3-200. The subject development area is, within the mapped 1.5 year TOTZ for the Pierce wellhead, The applicant is required to submit revised Drinking Water Protection Overlay District documentation in accordance with a previous condition of this decision (Condition 9). Approval of the revised Drinking Water Protection Overlay District documentation will be required prior to issuance of final occupancy for the BLM warehouse addition. Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposed development provides stonn and ground water quality protection in accordance with SDC 3.3-200 and receiving streams have been protected in accordance with SDC 4.3-110 and 4.3-115. CONCLUSION: The Tentative Site Plan, as submitted and conditioned herein, complies with Criteria A- E ofSDC 5.17-125. ,:. .~ ....." .' ::_,........~.,dU:: z/;,j tin'! , . Page 15 of 18 Planner: AL , . WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE BY THE APPLICANT TO OBTAIN FINAL SITE PLAN APPROV AU 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 of this letter (ie. by May 12, 2009). In accordance with SDC 5.17-135 - 5.17-140, the Final Site Plan shall comply with the requirements of the SDC and the conditions imposed by the Director in this decision. The Final Site Plan otherwise shall be in substantial conformity with the tentative plan reviewed. Portions 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 durin'g Building Permit Review without an approved Site Plan Decision Modification. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: In order to complete the review process, a Development Agreement is required to ensure that the terms and conditions of site plan review are binding upon both the applicant and the City, This agreement will be prepared by Staff upon approval of the Final Site Plan and must be signed by the property owner prior tei the issuance of a building permit. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the proposed private vegetative water quality swale serving the development site shall be fully vegetated with all vegetation species established. Alternatively, if 'this condition cannot be met, the applicant shall provide and maintain additional interim erosion control/water quality measures acceptable to the, Public Works Department until such time as the swale vegetation becomes fully established. 2. Imniediate access and at least three t3) feet of clear space in all directions shall be maintained for all fire hydrants and Fire Department connections in accordance with SFC 508.5,5 and SFC 9123. 3. The Final Site Plan shall provide an easement detail that identifies the type and nature of the at-grade and above-ground structures depicted in the' southwest comer of the site, Additionally, the easement information shall clarify if there is any utility infrastructure within the easement area, , 4. Prior to installation of any telecommunications equipment as depicted on the applicant's site plan, the applicant shall vacate and/or relocate the existing EWEB easement and provide evidence thereof to the City, 5. The Final Site Plan shall contain a detailed landscaping plan, prepared by a certified landscaping professional, for the building addition and parking lot modification area as generally depicted in a plan detail in the applicant's site plan submittal. The landscaping plan shall provide for tree, shrub and groundcover plantings that meet or exceed the requirements of SDC 4.4-105 in the affected development area. 6. The landscaping plan submitted with the Final Site Plan shall include a summary table of trees, shrubs and groundcover plants showing the quantities of each species to be planted in the, building expansion and parking lot modification area.' 7. The Final Site Plan shall provide for a permanent underground irrigation system to serve the landscaping.in the building expansion and parking lot modification area. 8. The Final Site Plan sheets shall be stamped and signed by the project architect, landscape architect, and civil engineer of record, as appropriate. 9. Prior to issuance of occupancy for the existing BLM warehouse building, the applicant shall ensure that all required inspections are performed in accordance with their DWP approval issued November 17, 2008 (DRC2008-00071 ). 'D~te Received: Planner: AL . t/:/rt Page 16 of 18 , ' . ' 10. Prior to issuance of final occupancy for the BLM warehouse addition, the applicant shall submit revised Drinking Water Protection Overlay District documentation for the project that is satisfactory to SUB Water Quality Protection. 11. Prior to issuance of final occupancy for the BLM warehouse addition, the applicant shall ensure that all required inspections are 'performed in accordance with the revised DWP submittal. 12. The Final Site Plan shall identifY any auxiliary power source, such as a generator, intended to serve the telecommunications equipment. If an auxiliary power source is to be used, the applicant shall provide necessary documentation and spill containment measures with the revised DWP submittal. The applicant may submit permit applications to other city departments for review prior to fmal site plan approval in accordance with SDC 5.17" 135 at their own risk,. All concurrent submittals are subject to revision for compliance with the final site plan. A development agreement in accordance with SDC 5.17-140 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. APPEAL: This Type IT 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, Your appeal must b~ in accordance with SDC 5.3-100, 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 5.3-115.B which provides for a 15-day appeal period and Oregon Rules of Civil Procedures, Rule I O( c) for service of notice by mail, the appeal period for this decision expires at 5:00 PM on February 26, 2009. QUESTIONS: Please call Andy Limbird in the Planning Division of the Development Services Department at (541) 726-3784 or email alimbirdrmci.sDrinmeld.or.usifyou have any questions regarding this process. PREPARED~. ' V../J Date Received: Planner: AL )'/J/~f , I . 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 Develooment Charl!es: 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. Sanitarv Sewer In-Lieu-Of-Assessment Charl!e: 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 Citv 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, or adjusting a manhole. The current rate is $139.50 for processing plus applic'able fees and deposits. Land and Drainage Alteration Permits (LDAP), Contact the Springfield Public Works Department at 726-5849 for appropriate applications/requirements, Additional oermits/aoorovals mav be necessarY: . Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (pump station, sanitary sewers 24 inches or larger) . Plumbing Permit . Drinking Water Protection . ODOT Drainage Permit. Contact Lynn Detering at (541) 726-2577 for the application requirements. 013t~ Fh:!.ceived: Planner: AL 2-;/1 ;k#! , . Page 18 of 18 . . ../... . ," '.- ........ ,,, . ' . ;.'. ,', '" ", : ~. -'.. .' ....-.. '. ," ;. ~...,---...-~--.....-....,.....;...... "..,;hl--:-.",~._ . ..,.._... 1.'''.."..,''__.,....\ ""'-,:':1 ..'.,~;!:>'::':i:~;t::,i: i " . "~"4,"." L "~,,~l!f:,\,...l'fwtM ~ CITY OF SPRINGFIELDe_:;"',1;,:,~;,"(t. ~ DEVELOPMENT SERVICES' DEPARTMENT;~P;,~.:'~:\\;i1i ! 225 5th ST . ;",. ':;,iA'f,: I , ,\.3,t.t>t. ( SPRINGFIELD, OR 97m ., 'r;'",,2i\'; (,it~ti : . " :';'" ::'l. ...~~ :"i; .:i -"" ~ ~ ] . . . ", . J.._ ~ ! ! j - , .... ,""':.........,.. ~._ _. ___ ,_a.. '_ <..." -~.'" <,'.T''',.':,\t:M..,iIC.j\~.~ '. (' '.""'<1' .... ,,(,"""l,U.. '.". ,~.I"J \- _ " '-'''f,,~,!.,,-:'~'V~) . CITY OF SPRINGFI!=LD ';,,;;;,:.,;j'\,:'iij;:~~; DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT;,;":,>;::e~~ ~ ~,' , ,~ , 22?5thST., ,'" i',c';:': SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477' ..:r;.:' " . '. ~ ....' '.';' :~:~;~-__'1,1~/~ ~'l! ....._.,' Mark Danielson Barrentine Bates Lee 200 North State Street Lake Oswego, OR 97034 __-2.'___ Matt Keenan KPFF Consulting Engineers III SW Fifth Avenue Portland, OR 97204 f . , .' '.< ',:::...., :'"~} .~."t,i!;F'~~~:.~~::Vl~ '" ~ITY OFSPFlINGFIELir,J,:;':~~?-~~i~~ ! DEVELOPME~TSERVICES DEf/~W~~NT '~;~:~"',~.\:,f i . : 225 5th ST ,'., ..... '.'"'' :\;".. ".,' ". '.",<tY . . -,.!.... "'.' .' ..~~, ,f <,,; "'. 'V, SP'RINGFIELD;OR9747i<":\;~~~'~!,:f;;;: ; . '.'!~'j~~,.o:;l"~~'?,."I',"i!~~~.; 'L.'_ ../,'.;. ,',_,\"'. '- ~':_-,~--:--- \ Jim Thomas Wildish Building Co P.O. Box 7428 Eugene, OR 97401 ; ! t.-/;;/:;n1 I / Date Received: Planner:f\L '.'~~." " ,( B "., ":.