Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotice PLANNER 5/9/2008 ~ . , . . c7)~ :JJ~: 5-Cj-{)J .~~~ ". AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE STATE OF OREGON) ) ss. ) County of lane . I. 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 Te~hnician, I prepared and caused to be mailed copies of bR.t?JYl~-OO02...4 Y1&tU..u dlJ Do.(l~ - .Jib... ntod IlGaj1- -~ ,(See attachment nAn) on -5/9 , 2008 addressed to (see ~ . Attachment Bn), by causing said letters to be placed in a U.S. mail box with postage fully prepaid thereon. JJ;N/lL C4~~ KA N LaFLEUR . STATE OF OREGON, County of lane 1 2008. Personally appeared the above named Karen laFleur, Program echnician, who acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary act. Before me: ~ ~ OFFICIAL SEAL DEVETTE KELLY NOTARY PUBLIC. OREGON COMMISSION NO. 420351 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUG. 15, 2011 ~~ My Commission Expires: <?/IS-!IJ Date I'{eceived:_ .r III ~rf Planner: AL ;-1"" ~i . . .. TYPE II MAJOR SITE PLAN MODIFICATION, STAFF REPORT & DECISION Project Name: Springfield Justice Center Major Site Plan Modification Project Proposal: Add a detached ancillary building and secure parking lot for police vehicles on the north side of the Justice Center principal building Case Number: DRC2008-00024 Project Location: 320 - 332 B Street (Assessor,'s Map 17-03-35_24, TL 13800, 13900, 14000, 14100, 14300; Map 17-03-35-31, TL 1500 - 2400) Zoning: Public Land and Open Space (PLO) Metro Plan Designation: Commercial Pre-Submittal Meeting Date: N/A Application Snbmitted Date: April 10, 2008 Decision Issued Date: May 9, 2008 Appeal Deadline Date: May 24, 2008 Associated Applications: LRP2005-00026; LRP2005-00027; LRP2005-00031; LRP2006-000 19; ZON2006-00007; DRC2006-00013; DRC2006-00033; DRC2006-00090; LRP2007-00019 -i .".~_-.~~~ ~.J,it;~i~r;'L' .~. -~7street ~~"}~1~~"'"4~1.t:1~f'~ "~i . ~." ~"MORR'::'tIf >' p "'. CIo ,,!;',' '12~ j". ~i1;. {to I' !. L'\{ J fj!. ~ ~ ~, " I h: ~I l~ ~;;",:~ I '. ' , P*i: :~.' f~ rlw.~ - ~'_: -. t ~. l! ",::... -'-:'1 ~:r:" (; .~r i~ !!;.0:f#;::~~~_~:~~~\~~:( _~~?~ ..~ '~~ "'::',JNi'_'. Ii'. F:'~k~.:I~il}' .~~. G I., .. \\mil;J "."~ .,~~..:~,w.~."'''''.'''''''''' ~_ .I ~::' !~~~ ~r:r~~~',~,,,,<:,~;,...~~;;::! i~;rii1L .~.r1 .. {- i" '.. ...",~tI) ,..,:;, :~..$\.~............,,'c "I ,,'i;,, ---..:l .., ~I= ~"""=_c:-"--""==n&l' i&1 . ,< . L", -"":;f.~;i \"'".4: <. ..: ,.,. -'1~':~-.. ".--:. ....~,,:. ~J~ '~'.:-f,.... .", ~ '~.:..:..J.~==Tf: "i'r._"-~I I.' l~'~~,---:R-.~< ~---:i ... :'1 '~l:'" - -.....". ....'" ::';1; .~_ =-_ . l ,1';-. '- 'ra',,:. ':::-:-....SIT""E: _; )'o'.'J." 'j -::-- .:. MUC "'. "M"l "'~-' lD.l" '"", J-". ,~".::,. ,<> ., ". _. .. . J'o' r.t,~, \1';': ,. ::'v,:bri'~': ~11i'!'; ::1 ClI. ...... ?~... ._ _d L. ;~~';., mG:....-/~ ~+,.~Ul ,,....l?I'~(i'~i: .::.~::. ..;_ _,"~.'" ~ I =~,--' , - . .. "1: .:'i.-':-""",_.~.,;;.._ _ '.. .~""'_. -~."'U) ~-~ It,' _ " ~,... r!;!'< 'liil'i"i~ -I 'V" G~: ~l"""" ,,~ 1- ~ ": i'f~"I- .'-I~ ~,,; : (fir-'~ :.-" - ','!: .,1 ,0 l:fi-l!!lll :" 'fL -' 1="'" ~~--.:.-?- . "'~'J. ':' ':' ~ . r.;;H__~i ",I ~_~!'='~ 'j ~s '.. . .C....... ..............._~t.C-""~. ----." , ...:.?>;!....~-:--..!'-":=:./ ... I--":;:"~ ;'''':.-00;-''1 ,-<~.....~;.5f~-r:=~-;~~.~ ." ,... W \",,"," ~-- ;....".. ...- ..1'1'\<....1.-, '".A Street ''''_" ...........~~.". "'-~-I.- 'f,J..!1t.!.", =;1.,_ :-1.~1'1~'" ..._' __ _ ~::::.:c;;_l ~}- ........IJ.'..-,'-.-..w:mI._~ '., ;:---~l tii~~I~ .,- ,,-Ri>I~.,-".'. - -.'*i.,<:-'l. J. ' - '!Jl!"-- . ;1 .:} M ~ ~,bC;'J!. '~!\l\";I"I. " Iii- ;':':-0) 5'f.' 'iii . " jl-"""'="'~I_; ~,."..~,..).(tl~:. kl "h~.'v.~ '~"" ~ -r~r:.\I 'i.~'li. ..,.. . Area of project impact APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM Civil Engineer: Architect: Landscape Architect: Bnilding Contractor: Matt Keenan Carl Sherwood Brian McCarthy Rosser International Inc. KPFF Consulting Engineers Robertson Sherwood Architects Cameron McCarthy 524 West Peachtree St. NW III SW 5'" Avenue 132 East Broadway Gilbert & Scheibe Atlanta, GA 30308 Suite 2400 Suite 540 160 East Broadway Portland, OR 97204-3628 Eugene, OR 97401 Eugene, OR 97401 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM POSITION REVIEW OF NAME PHONE Project Manager Planning Andy Limbird 726-3784 Transportation Planning Engineer Transportation Garv McKenney 726-4585 Public Works ElT Utilities Jesse Jones 736-1036 Public Works ElT Sanitary &, Storm Sewer Jesse Jones 736-1036 Deputy Fire Marshal Fire and Life Safety Gilbert Gordon 726-2293 Community Services Manager Building Dave Puent 726-3668 .\ h....... .. ':; Date ~eceived:4r~f Planner: AL . , :.. . Site Information: The subject site is a one and one-half block area bounded by A Street along the southern edge, Pioneer Parkway East along the western edge, a mid-block alley south ofC Street along the northern edge, and 4th Street along the eastern edge. The area is municipally addressed as 225 Pioneer Parkway East; 308 & 344 A Street; 230 4th Street; and 320 - 332 B Street (Map 17-03-35-24, TL 13800 - 14100 & 14300; and Map 17-03-35-31, TL 1500 - 2400). Nearly two-thirds of the subject site is occupied by the existing Springfield Police and Courts building and vacant commercial lease space (fronting onto A Street) and the new Springfield Justice Center building (under construction in the middle of the site). The northern portion of the development site contains a one-block section of vacated public street (former B Street) and a City parking lot. The total site area is approximately 2.6 acres, of which 1.13 acres is affected by the proposed site plan modification. Site Plan approval for the Springfield Justice Center building and jail was issued July 25, 2006 pursuant to Planning Action DRC2006-00033. A subsequent land use action vacating the one-block segment of B Street was concluded on February 26,2008 (LRP2007-00019). " The site is zoned Public Land and Open Space (PLO) in accordance with the Springfield Zoning Map and consistent with provisions of the Metro Plan, the Downtown Refinement Plan, and the Springfield Development Code. Adjacent properties to the east, south and west of the site are zoned and designated Mixed Use Commercial (MUC). Properties north of the subject site (along the south side ofC Street) are zoned Mixed Use Residential (MUR) and Medium Density Residential (MDR). The subject site was rezoned to PLO in accordance with Planning Action ZON2006-00007, and a Discretionary Use for a Justice Center was granted pursuant to Planning Action DRC2006-00013. Approval of this proposal would allow for modification of the approved site plan for the Springfield Justice Center as follows: extension of the site plan area to include approximately 1.13 acres of land north of the Justice Center building (formerly occupied by a one-block segment of B Street and a City parking lot); construction of a secure parking lot north of the Justice Center building between 4th Street and Pioneer Parkway East; and construction of a detached ancillary building near the northeast corner of the Justice Center building. The applicant also proposes to close off public access to the northern portion of the site by installing gated access onto 4th Street and Pioneer Parkway East, and closing driveway access points into the mid-block alley south of C Street. The applicant has also submitted a Tree Felling Permit application to facilitate removal of affected parking lot and street trees (DRC2008-00028). The subject site is fully developed with paved parking and driving areas, and is not proximate to any mapped wetlands. The site is not within a FEMA 100 year flood zone. The area of project impact is outside the mapped Time of Travel Zones (TOTZs) for Springfield drinking water wellheads, and therefore is not subject to the Drinking Water Protection Overlay District, SDC 3.3-200. DECISION: This decision grants Tentative Site Plan Modification Approval. The standards of the Springfield Development Code (SDC) applicable to each criterion of Site Plan Modification 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 15 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 all 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 April 10,2008. This decision is issued on the 29th day of the 120 days mandated by the State. . Date Received: Plann~r: AL r/~o/ / Page2ofl7 '. ..~ . . i 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 comments during the notice period have appeal rights and are mailed a copy of this decision for consideration (See Written Comments below and Appeals at the end of this decision). Procedural Finding: On May 6, 2008, the CitY's Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed plans (17 Sheets - Robertson Sherwood Architects, Sheets G I, Al & A2, dated 4/7/2008; Cameron McCarthy Gilbert & Scheibe Landscape Architects, Sheets Ll, L2, L3 & L3.l, dated 4/7/2008; and KPFF Consulting Engineers, Sheets CI.O - C6.0, dated 4/7/2008) and supporting information. CitY staffs 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 April 18, 2008. 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 II Site Plan Review Application upon determining 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, PHlD District map, and Conceptual Development Plan. Finding 1: The site is designated Mixed Use Commercial (MUC) in the Metro Plan diagram and the Downtown Refinement Plan. The current zoning for the site is Public Land and Open Space (PLO) which is consistent with provisions ofthe Metro Plan, the adopted Refmement Plan, and the Springfield Development Code. There are no proposed changes to the zoning 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 2: Approval of this proposal would allow for internal modifications to the existing parking lot, incorporation of a one-block segment of vacated B Street into the development area, installation of perimeter fencing and site landscaping, and construction of a detached -4300 ff ancillary building outside the northern edge of the Justice Center building. All urban utilities are readily available to serve the development, and the proposal should not have an appreciable impact on existing utilitY infrastructure. The applicant is proposing to extend sewer, stormwater, water and electrical connections to serve the ancillary building. and secure parking lot. Datel rleceived: P.lanner: AL ~-/?/J-I'I4' I / Page 3 ofl7 ': ....1 .. . . , Finding 3: 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 4: The Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed site plan and landscaping plan on May 6, 2008. City staff's review comments have been incorporated in findings and conditions contained herein. Water and Electricity Improvements Finding 5: 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 6: The existing and proposed water services to the site are adequate for the proposed site plan modifications: The applicant's site plan proposes to connect to an existing 6-inch water line that is shown around the northern perimeter of the development site. Additionally, a new, 12-inch high pressure water line is shown extended along 4th Street to serve a fire hydrant adjacent to the Justice Center building. Finding 7: SUB Water recently installed new waterlines within Pioneer Parkway East and 4th Street to serve the development site. The water system configuration is not consistent with that shown on the tentative site phm. An updated utility plan will be required with the Final Site Plan set. Finding 8: The applicant is proposing to install a water conserving, on-site irrigation system to serve the new parking lot and site landscaping areas. Finding 9: Relocation of underground utilities will be required to accommodate' the proposed development. The applicant has identified underground gas, telecommunication and electrical lines that will be relocated to the perimeter of the site prior to construction of the ancillary building and jail. SUB Electric advises the underground electrical lines will require Public Utility Easements. Finding 10: The applicant proposes to relocate an existing above-ground electrical line along the western edge of the site. However, the new electrical connections proposed to serve the development site are not shown on the tentative site plan or discussed in the project narrative. Finding 1.1: There is an existing power pole on the western edge of the site that will not be needed upon relocation of electrical lines to serve the Justice Center. SUB Electric advises there are no current plans to remove this pole, but that it could be removed - at nominal cost - upon request. Finding 12: There is an existing overhead electrical transmission line running east-west along the northern edge of the site. The power poles are located inside the subject development area, and the pole arms supporting the electrical lines extend into the public alley right-of-way. The Site Assessment Plan does not show a Public Utility Easement (PUE) for the transmission line. Because the applicant is proposing to retain the power'line on the site it will require a suitable PUE. The configuration of the PUE will need to accommodate a pole anchor for one of the power poles located near the midpoint' of the northern site boundary. Further discussion about utility easements is found in Criterion C.1 below. Date Received: Y~frd.l Planner: AL Page 4 of17 . . Conditions of Approval: 1. The Final Site Plan shall accurately depict the locations of all existing and proposed public water lines serving the development site. 2. The Final Site Plan shall depict the locations of electrical and telecommunication systems connections required to serve the development area. Conclusion: As conditioned herein, existing SUB Water and Electric facilities are adequate to serve the site and the proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Management Facilities Sanitary Sewer Finding 13: Section 4.3-I05.A of the SDC requires that sanitary sewers shall be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to existing mains. Additionally, installation of sanitary sewers shall provide sufficient access for maintenance activities. Finding 14: The applicant proposes to. extend a sanitary sewer lateral to serve the ancillary building and an adjacent vehicle wash area. The sanitary lateral is proposed to connect with an existing l2-inch sanitary sewer line within the alley that run$ along the northern edge of the site. Details on the proposed sanitary sewer connection is depicted on plan sheet C2.0. Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-element ofthe criterion. Stormwater Management (Ouantitv) Finding IS: SDC 4.3-11 O.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 EDSPM. Finding 16: SDC 4.3-llO.D requires that runoff from a development shall be directed to an approved stormwater management system with sufficient capacity to accept the discharge. Finding 17: SDC 4.3-lI0.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 18: The proposed development area is mostly comprised of paved driving surfaces and sidewalks. Therefore, the proposed site modification should not create an appreciable increase in the amount of impervious surface within the development site. The applicant is proposing to install mechanisms to provide some on-site detention and treatment of runoff before it is discharged to the public stormwater system that outfalls to the Willamette River. Finding 19: To comply with Sections 4.3-IIO.D & E, the applicant is proposing to install two vegetated filtration basins within the parking lot to treat runoff from the site. Stormwater is proposed to be piped from the filtration basins and double-chambered catch basins to the adjacent public stormwater system in 4th Street and Pioneer Parkway East. The existing public drainage system can handle the runoff from the proposed development area without requirements for upgrades. Details on the proposed stormwater connections are depicted on plan sheet C2.0. ..,...... . " , Date l'teceived: ~h!~1 Plahner: AL PageS ofl7 . . Stormwater Management (Oualitv) Finding 20: Under Federal 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 21: Federal and Oregon Depiutment of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) rules require 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 22: 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 23: Minimum Control Measure 5 requires the City of Springfield to use an ordinance or other regulatory mechanism to address post-construction 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 ProceiJures Manual and the future Stormwater Facilities Master Plan (SFMP). Finding 24: As required in SDC 4.3-IIO.E, "a development shall be required to employ drainage management practices approved by the Public Works Director and consistent with Metro Plan policies and the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manuaf'. Finding 25: Section 3.02 of the City's EDSPM states the Public Works Depiutment 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 26: 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 27: To meet the requirements of the City's MS4 permit, the Springfield Development Code, and the City's EDSPM, the applicant has proposed installing two vegetative swales. The planting plan is consistent with the requirements ofthe Springfield Development Code. In accordance with SDC 5.17- 120, where plants are proposed as part of the stormwater management system an Oregon licensed Landscape Architect shall prepare the planting plan. Finding 28: The vegetation proposed for use in the swales 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. . ~ ...~. '.' ~ Date Received: ~1~PJ'" Planner: AL Page60f17 . . Condition of Approval: 3. To ensure a fully functioning water quality system and meet objectives of Springfield's MS4 permit, the Springfield Development Code and the EDSPM, the vegetative water quality swales shall be fully vegetated with all vegetation species established prior to issuance of building occupancy. 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 that will suffice 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 29: The existing streets abutting the development site are constructed to City standards. Modifications to these facilities will require Site Plan Review and approval by the City Engineer and/or ODOT (for Pioneer Parkway East). Finding 30: Abutting the subject site to the west, Pioneer Parkway East is a 36-foot wide asphalt paved roadway within a 66-foot wide right-of-way. The street is classified as an arterial and is fully improved with curb and gutter, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, lane striping and street lighting. Pioneer Parkway East is part of the state highway system and is under ODOT jurisdiction. Average daily traffic on Pioneer Parkway East is estin:mted to be more than 6,000 vehicle trips per day. Finding 31: Abutting the subject site to the east, 4th Street is a 32-foot wide asphalt paved roadway within a 66-foot wide right-of-way. South ofthe intersection with B Street the pavement surface on 4th Street increases to 45 feet wide. The street is classified as a local street and is fully improved with curb and gutter, sidewalks and street lighting. Average daily traffic on 4th Street is estimated to be fewer than 800 vehicle trips per day. Finding 32: The segment of vacated B Street proposed for incorporation within the site plan area will change the intersection. configuration at 4th Street and Pioneer Parl0vay East. On the east side of the subject site, west-bound traffic on B Street will be required to turn north or south onto 4th Street. A gated driveway entrance to the secure parking lot will comprise the west leg of the intersection, and is intended to be used exclusively by Justice Center personnel and police vehicles. Finding 33: A gated driveway entrance also will comprise the east leg of the intersection of B Street and Pioneer Parkway East. East-bound traffic on B Street will be required to turn northbound onto Pioneer Parkway East. Access and egress via the driveway entrance on Pioneer Parkway East is intended to be used exclusively by police vehicles. The new driveway onto Pioneer Parkway East will require ODOT Access Permits. Other ODOT permits may be required for improvements proposed within the Pioneer Parkway East right-of-way. Finding 34: The intersections of 4th Street and B Street, and B Street and Pioneer Parkway East, will have 3-way configurations requiring new or revised traffic control signage. Design details for the revised intersections will require review and approval by the City Engineer to ensure proper intersection performance and safe turning movements are maintained. Finding 35: There are no traffic signals warranted by the proposed changes to the local transportation network. The segment of vacated B Street will be closed to public travel and surrounded with perimeter . security fencing. A curbcut and driveway is proposed at both access/egress points to the secure parking lot. . '\ \1. .~. ".", ~ .' Date ReC~ived:-W...JP1 Plal1ner: AL Page 7 of) 7 . . Finding 36: The applicant previously submitted a Traffic Impact Study prepared by Access Engineerm:g that evaluated impacts of the B Street closure on adjacent intersections. The Traffic Study concluded that the proposed closure of B Street to public travel would not have an adverse effect on the safety, efficiency and performance of local streets and intersections. Affected streets and intersections are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service upon completion of the. proposed site modifications. Finding 37: The applicant is proposing .minor modifications to the public sidewalk, curb and gutter along the 4th Street and Pioneer Parkway East frontages of the site. The sidewalk is proposed to be realigned from a curbside sidewalk to a setback sidewalk along the 4th Street frontage, allowing for a planter strip between the sidewalk and the curb. The sidewalk along the Pioneer Parkway East frontage of the development area is to remain a curbside sidewalk. Conditions of Approval: 4. Prior to construction of Pioneer Parkway East improvements, the applicant shall obtain ODOT permits required for the new driveway entrance and related work in the Pioneer Parkway East right- of-way. . 5. The Final Site Plan shall contain design details acceptable to the City Engineer for the street intersections affected by the site plan (B Street and 4th Street; and B Street and Pioneer Parkway East). . Conclusion: The transportation facilities would be adequate to accommodate the existing and proposed vehicular and pedestrian traffic patterns that would be generated by the proposed development. As conditioned herein, 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 38: Criterion C contains three different elements with sub-elements and applicable code standards. The site plan 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 3.2-700 Public Land and Open Space Zoning District . Discretionary Uses (3.2-710) . Height Standards (3.2-715) . Landscaping, Screening and Fence Standards (4.4-100) . On-Site Lighting Standards (4.5-100) . Vehicle Parking, Loading and Bicycle Parking Standards (4.6-100 - 4.6-155) . Specific Development Standards (4.7-100) 3. Overlay Districts and Applicable Refinement Plan Requirements . Downtown Refinement Plan . Drinking Water Protection Overlay District "j.,;" -. Date Received:--s.1 /...'4 Planner: AL j;-=- Page 8 of 17 . . C.l Public and Private Improvements in accordance with SDC 4.1-100, 4.2-100 & 4.3-100 Water Service and Fire Protection (4.3-130) Access Finding 39: All existing fire apparatus access routes shall be paved all-weather surfaces able to support an 80,000 lb. imposed load in accordance with the 2004 Springfield Fire Code (SFC) 503.2.3 and SFC AppendixDI02.1. Finding 40: Access to the entire perimeter of the Justice Center site is provided by the existing public roads and secure parking lot driveway in accordance with SFC 503.1.1. Finding 41: The two proposed access driveways to the secure parking lot are controlled by electric gates. To facilitate emergency response by the Springfield Fire Department, "Knox Box" keyed gate switches will be required at the east and west driveway entrances in accordance with SFC 506.1.1. Finding 42: Unobstructed access and a" clear space must be provided for at least three (3) feet surrounding all fue hydrants and Fire Department connections in accordance with SFC 508.5.5 and 912.3: Water Supplv Finding 43: Fire protection for the proposed development is afforded by the existing public fue hydrants in the vicinity. Conditions of Approval: 6. The Final Site Plan shall provide for Knox Box keyed gate switches at the east and west entrance driveways to the secure parking lot. 7. In accordance with the provisions of SFC 508.5.5 and SFC 912.3, immediate access and at least three (3) feet of clear space in all directions shall be maintained for all Fire Department connections. Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. Public and Private Easements (4.3-120 - 4.3-140) Finding 44: SDC 4.3-140.A requires applicants proposing developments to make arrangements with the City and each utility provider for the dedication of utility easements necessary to fully service the development or land beyond the development area. The minimum width for all public utility easements shall be 7 feet, unless the Public Works Director determines a larger easement is required to allow for adequate maintenance. Finding 45: Existing public utilities required to serve the development area are located within the adjacent public street and alley rights-of-way. On-site service laterals that are proposed to serve the. development area do not require utility easements. Finding 46: The applicant is proposing to install approximately 72 linear feet of 4-inch water line to serve the ancillary building fue protection system. The water line is shown within a 10-foot PUE running west from 4th Street. ... ~: Date Received:~~- p'lanner: AL Page9ofI7 . . Finding 47: A 6-inch water line is proposed to be routed along the east, north and west sides of the sit~ to serve a fire hydrant at the northwest comer of the Justice Center building. As stated previously there have been recent changes to the water system configuration as constructed by SUB Water. Portions of public water line that run inside the site, if any, will require a dedicated public utility easement (PUE). Finding 48: As. noted previously, an overhead electrical transmission line runs across the northern boundary of the site. A suitable PUE to accommodate the electrical transmission line will be required along the northern boundary of the development site. Finding 49: The locations of underground electrical lines recently installed to serve the Justice Center building are not depicted on the site plan. SUB Electric advises that Public Utility Easements will be required for the underground electrical lines. Conditions of Approval: 8. Prior to or concurrent with approval of the Final Site Plan, a suitable PUE for the electrical transmission line running along the northern edge of the site shall be executed and recorded. The PUE aligrunent and dimensions shall. be satisfactory to SUB Electric. 9. Prior to or concurrent with approval of the Final Site Plan, a suitable PUE for the underground electrical lines installed to serve the development site shall be executed and recorded. The PUE aligrunents and dimensions shall be satisfactory to SUB Electric. Conclusion: Efficient provision of public 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 3.2-700, Public Land and Open Space Zoning District Discretionary Uses (3.2-710) Finding 50: A Justice Center is listed as a Discretionary Use in Section 3.2-710 of the Springfield Development Code. A Discretionary Use approval for the subject site was issued by the Springfield Planning Commission on April 18, 2006 pursuant to Planning Action DRC2006-00013. The Discretionary Use approval incorporates the entire one and one-half block area that is proposed for the Justice Center (including police/courts building, jail, secure parking lot and ancillary building). Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. Height Standards (3.2-715) Finding 51: The development site is adjacent to MDR and MUR residential areas to the north across the east-west alley. However, the proposed ancillary building is more than 50 feet from areas that are wned residential. Therefore, there is no height limitation or solar access considerations for the proposed development in accordance with SDC 3.2-715. Finding 52: The ancillary building is proposed to be about 17 feet high at the roofline, which is comparable to a one-story dwelling. Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. '/".-< :: Date Heceived:.2'1. 4,,, rl Planner: AL Page 10 of1? . . Landscaping, Scrl'ening and Fence Standards (4.4-100) Finding 53: The development site is located in the Downtown Exception Area. In accordance with SDC 3.2-715(4), there are no minimum setbacks for public uses in the Exception Area. Finding 54: The applicant is proposing to remove 35 street and parking lot trees from the development area. The applicant has submitted a Tree Felling Permit application for this proposed action (DRC2008- 00028). Finding 55: To compensate for the removed trees, the applicant's site plan proposes to replant 90 trees within the secure parking lot and around the site perimeter. Trees also are proposed within the stormwater filtration strips in the parking lot. The applicant's proposed landscaping plan meets the tree count requirements of SDC 4.4-105.E & F. However, some of the proposed landscaping trees do not meet the minimum 2-inch caliper requirements of SDC 4.4-105.E & F. Finding 56: The applicant is proposing to plant trees beneath the overhead electrical transmission line along the northern edge of the site. The proposed tree species (paperbark Maple and Eastern Redbud) are suitable for planting beneath power lines in accordance with Section 6.02.2.A of the City's EDSPM. Finding 57: The applicant proposes to plant 3588 shrubs and groWldcover plants within the landscaping areas inside the parking lot, along the street planter strips, and around pedestrian amenities near the main building entrance on 4th Street. ~ applicant also proposes to plant 1089 grasses and forbs, primarily in and aroWld the stormwater filtration strips. The applicant's' proposed landscaping plan meets the requirements ofSDC 4.4-105.E & F for quantity, size and density of shrub plantings. Finding 58: The applicant's proposed site landscaping plan meets the requirements of SDC 4.4-105.F for 5% of the parking lot interior. Finding 59: The applicant has submitted a conceptual irrigation plan that demonstrates the proposed landscaping areas can be maintained after planting. Finding 60: In accordance with SDC 4.4-110.A.1, the applicant is proposing to plant vegetation along the north boundary of the site where it is adjacent to residential properties. At maturity, the shrub and tree plantings will provide vegetative screening of the parking lot. Additionally, site fencing is proposed around the secure parking lot. The tentative site plan indicates the fencing is proposed to be "metal panel fencing". However, a fencing detail is not provided on the site plan. It is not clear if the fencing is to be screening or decorative (eg. similar to wrought-iron). If the fence is a screening fence, it will have to be non-metaJlic and a subtle color to blend with the vegetation in accordance with SDC 4.4- 110.B.3.b. . . Finding 61: The perimeter fencing is proposed to be 8 feet high, which is consistent with the provisions of SDC Table 4.4-1. Due to the height of the fence, a construction permit may be required in accordance with SDC 4.4-115.B. Conditions of Approval: 10. Prior to initiation of any tree feJling activities on the site, the applicant shall obtain a Tree Felling Permit pursuant to Planning Action DRC2008-00028. 11. The Final Site Plan shall provide for street trees and site landscaping trees that are minimum 2-inch 'caliper in accordance with SDC 4.4-105.E & F. '"\' ,- .. :'. DateReceived:4?dl Planner: AL Page II of17 . . 12. The Final Site Plan shall provide a fencing detail for the metal panel fence around the secu're parking lot. The fence style shall be consistent with provisions ofSDC 4.4-110.BJ.b. Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. On-Site Lighting Standards (4.5-100) Finding 62: The applicant is proposing to install parking lot light poles and building-mounted light fixtures. However, a lighting plan and details on proposed light fixtures are not provided with the tentative site plan. In accordance with SDC 4.5-110.B.2.b, the maximum height of pole and building- mounted light fixtures is 12 feet within 50 feet of the residential area located north of the development site. Elsewhere on the site, the maximum height of light fixtures is 25 feet in accordance with SDC 4.5- 110.B.!. Finding 63: The zoning boundary between the residential district to the north and the subject site can be reasonably determined as the mid-point of the l4-foot wide alley along the northern boundary of the development area. Therefore, the 12-foot height limitation for light fixtures extends 50 feet south of the alley midpoint, or 43 feet into the site. Finding 64: In accordance with SDC 4.5-105, light fixtures installed on the site must be shielded and full cut-off to prevent light trespass onto adjacent residential and commercial properties. Conditions of Approval: 13. Light fixtures located within 43 feet of the northern boundary of the site shall be placed no higher than 12 feet in accordance with SDC 4.5-llO.B.2.b. 14. The Final Site Plan shall provide a site and building lighting plan that is consistent with provisions of SDC 4.5-110. All lighting fixtures used on the site shall be shielded and full cut-off lenses to prevent light trespass onto adjacent properties. Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. Vehicle Parking, Loading and Bicycle Parking Standards (4.6-100 - 4.6-155) Finding 65: The subject site is located within the Downtown Exception Area. Therefore, there is no minimum vehicle parking requirement for the proposed development in accordance with SDC 4.6- 125.A. Finding 66: The applicant is proposing to diwelop 92 parking spaces on the site, including 77 standard spaces; II compact spaces; and 4 handicap spaces. Additional parking for specialized vehicles and equipment will be provided inside the ancillary building. Finding 67: Analysis performed by the City's Transportation Division indicates that driveway access and parking lot circulation will be severely constrained for vehicles that are larger than standard passenger cars. The Final Site Plan should confirm that the Springfield Police Department endorses the proposed design and that it meets the needs of expected vehicle types using the parking lot (eg. SWAT van). Finding 68: A secure loading area (sally port) was approved with the Justice Center site plan (DRC2006-00033). ~.. . .' ..'; Date Received: ;~kJ' Planner: AL Page 12 of17 . . .,' Finding 69: The ancillary building is intended primarily for storage of materials, police equipment and evidence, and therefore it should not generate a requirement for additional bicycle parking. Finding 70: Adequate bicycle parking to serve the Justice Center and jail is provided in accordance with the approved Justice Center site plan (DRC2006-00033). Condition of Approval: 15. The Final Site Plan shall provide a design detail that confirms the parking lot and driveway configuration will adequately accommodate turning movements for all Springfield Police Department vehicles expected to use the secure parking lot. Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. Specific Development Standards (4.7-100) Finding 71: In accordance with SDC 3.2-625.0 and 4.7-203, at build-out the. site will provide pedestrian amenities at the main Justice Center public entrance, along the northeast side of the secure parking lot (between the sidewalk and the fence), along the east side of the jail,and near the jail public entrance. Pedestrian amenities include decorative concrete walkways, segments of oversize sidewalks, planter strips between the sidewalk and building, and planted areas between the sidewalk and the secure parking lot. Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. C.3 Overlay Districts and Applicable Refinement Plan Requirements Finding 72: The subject development site lies within the Downtown Refinement Plan area. However, there are no specific policies that apply to the proposed Site Plan Modification. Finding 73: The subject site is located outside a time of travel zone (TOTZ) for Springfield's drinking water wells. Therefore, requirements of the Drinking Water Protection Overlay District (DWP) do not apply to the subject development. In any event, the applicant is not proposing significant site modifications that would be expected to create hazards to groundwater resources. Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. D. Parking areas and ingress-egress points have been designed to: facilitate vehicular traffic, bicycle and pedestrian safety to avoid congestion; provide connectivity within the development area and to adjacent residential areas, transit stops, neighborhood activity centers, and commercial, industrial and public areas; minimize curb cuts on arterial and collector streets as specified in this Code or other applicable regulations and comply with the ODOT access management standards for State highways. Finding 74: Installation of driveways on a street increases the number of traffic conflict points. The greater number of conflict points increase 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. SDC 4.2-120.A.1 stipulates that each parcel is entitled to "an approved access to 1! public street" . "'l."--::< ",,' '". Date, Received:41;nJ" Planner: AL Page 13 ofl7 . . .,' Finding 75: The subject site will retain access onto 4th Street and Pioneer Parkway East. Howeve~, access will be controlled by security gates, and therefore vehicle access onto 4th Street will be limited to Justice Center personnel and police vehicles. Access onto Pioneer Parkway East will be limited exclusively to police vehicles. ODOT does not have any concerns about the proposed access configuration to Pioneer Parkway East. Finding 76: As proposed, the ingress-egress points serving the development site will be planned to facilitate traffic and pedestrian safety, avoid congestion and to minimize curb cuts on public streets as specified in SDC 4.1-100 to 4.1-300,5.15-100 and 5.17-100, applicable zoning and/or overlay district Articles, and applicable refinement plans. Conclusion: 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 shrubs; watercourses shown on the Water Quality Limited Watercourse Map and their associated riparian areas; wetlands; rock outcroppings; open spaces; and areas of historic and/or archaeological significance, as may be specified in Section 3.3-900 or ORS 97.740-760, 358.905-955 and 390.235-240, shall be protected as specified in this Code or in State or Federal law. . Finding 77: 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 developed with a public street and City parking lot, curbs and sidewalks, parking lot landscaping, and tree planting strips along Pioneer Parkway East, 4th Street and (former) B Street. Finding 78: The applicant proposes to remove 35 regulated street and site landscaping trees. In accordance with SDC 5.19-11O.A, an approved Tree Felling Permit is required prior to removal of the trees (DRC2008-00028). Finding 79: Stormwater from the subject site outfalls to the Willamette River system. The Willamette 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 protection of stormwater quality. Finding 80: Springfield's drinking water aquifer is an identified and delineated Goal 5 natural resource subject to protection in accordance with SDC 3.3-200. The subject site is located outside a delineated TOTZ. As previously noted, groundwater protection will be observed during construction and operation of the site. Conclusion: As proposed and previously conditioned, the development provides storm 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 Modification, as submitted and conditioned, complies with Criteria A-E ofSDC 5.17-125. WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE BY THE APPLICANT TO OBTAIN FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL? 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 August 7, 2008). In accordance with SDC 5.17-135 - 5.17-140, the Final Site Plan shall comply with the requirements of the SDC and the conditious imposed by the Director in this decision. The Final Site Plan otherwise shall be in substantial ", Date Received: s;I~~cf Planner: AL Page 140f17 . . c~nformity 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 Decision Modification. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: A Development Agreement was previously executed for the Justice Center Site Plan (DRC2006-00033) and it will continue to apply to this site modification. Copies of the development agreement will be appended to the Final Site Plan for building permit review. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The Final Site Plan shall accurately depict the locations of all existing and proposed public water lines serving the development site. 2. The Final Site Plan shall depict the locations of electrical and telecommunication systems connections required to serve the development area. 3. To ensure a fully functioning water quality system and meet objectives of Springfield's MS4 permit, the Springfield Development Code and the EDSPM, the vegetative water quality swales shall be fully vegetated with all vegetation species established prior to issuance of building occupancy. Alternatively, if this condition cannot be met, the applicati.t shall provide and maintain additional interim erosion controVwater quality measures acceptable to the Public Works Department that will suffice until such time as the swale vegetation becomes fully established. 4. Prior to construction of Pioneer Parkway East improvements, the applicant shall obtain ODOT permits required for the new driveway entrance and related work in the Pioneer Parkway East right-of-way. 5. The Final Site Plan shall contain design details acceptable to the City Engineer for the street intersections affected by the site plan (B Street and 4th Street; and B Street and Pioneer Parkway East). 6. The Final Site Plan shall provide for Knox Box keyed gate switches at the east and west entrance driveways to the secure parking lot. 7. In accordance with the provisions of SFC 508.5.5 and SFC 912.3, immediate access and at least three (3) feet of cle~ space in all directions shall be maintained for all Fire Department connections. 8. Prior to or concurrent with approval of the Final Site Plan, a suitable PUE' for the electrical transmission line running along the northern edge of the site shall be executed and recorded. The PUE alignment and dimensions shall be satisfactory to SUB Electric. 9. Prior to or concurrent with approval of the Final Site Plan, a suitable PUE for the underground electrical lines installed to serve the development site shall be executed and recorded. The PUE alignments and dimensions shall be satisfactory to SUB Electric. 10. Prior to initiation of any tree felling activities on the site, the applicant shall obtain a Tree Felling Permit pursuant to Planning Action DRC2008-00028. 11. The Final Site Plan shall provide for street trees and site landscaping trees that are minimum 2-inch caliper in accordance with SDC 4.4-105.E & F. 12. The Final Site Plan shall provide a fencing detail for the metal panel fence around the secure parking lot. The fence style shall be consistent with provisions ofSDC 4.4-110.B.3.b. \\.... \: :~. . . Date Received: ~/ r~()t Planner: AL . Page 15 of17 " . . .. 13. Light fixtures located within 43 feet of the northern boundary of the site shall be placed no higher than 12 feet in accordance with SDC 4.5-110.B.2.b. 14. The Final Site Plan shall provide a site and building lighting plan that is consistent with provisions of SDC 4.5-110. All lighting fixtures used on the site shall be shielded and full cut-off lenses to prevent light trespass onto adjacent properties. 15. The Final Site Plan shall provide a design detail that confirms the parking lot and driveway configuration will adequately accommodate turning movements for all Springfield Police Department vehicles expected to use the secure parking lot. 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 II Tentative Site Plan decision is considered a decision of the Director and as such may be appealed to the Plarming Commission. The appeal may be filed with the Development Services Department by an affected party. Your appeal must be 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 Plarming 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 May 27, 2008. QUESTIONS: Please call Andy Limbird in the Plarming Division of the Development Services Department at (541) 726-3784 or email alimbird@cLsvringfleld.or.usifyou have any questions regarding this process. PREPARED BY djt!J Plarmer II Date f'teceived: .s;o/Ja?f' Planner: AL Page 16 of 17 . . Piease be advised that the following is provided for information only and is not a component Of the Site Plan Modification decision. FEES AND PERMITS Svstems Development Charges: N/A Sanitarv Sewer In-Lieu-Of-Assessment Charge: N/A Public Infrastructure Fees: N/A 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 $130 for processing plus applicable fees and deposits. Fence construction permit. Contact the Springfield Building Department at 726-3753 for application requirements. Land and Drainage Alteration Permits (LDAP). Contact the Springfield Public Works Department at 726-5849 for appropriate applications/requirements. Additional permits/approvals mav be necessarv: . Building Permit. . ODOT Access Permit. . ODOT Drainage Permit. Contact Lynn Stuckrath at (541) 726-2577 for the application requirements. Date. Received:-1~PI Planner: AL Page 17 of17 , . .-' . ~ l!AII.' , '. . .... . . ~ ~ . ~ - ~.~. :r~~ ~~ .'. ':"::: .' ~ Date Received:~~ Planner: AL . .. CITY OF S&GFIELD.o DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 225 5th ST SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 Rosser International roc 524 W Peachtree St NW Atlanta, GA 30308 ---- . - - ~~ - .- ------ - _.~ ._~ . __n ___. -- - - ~ - -.- . CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 225 5th ST SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 Brian McCarthy Cameron McCarthy .160 E Broadway 'Eugene, OR 97401 .. Gilbert & Sscheibe . - '-- .--- -- ---. CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 225 5th ST . SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 Carl Sherwood Robertson Sherwood Architects 132 E Broadway, Ste 540 Eugene, OR 97401 " -!:..;. --.-,\-. CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 225 5th ST SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 Matt Keenan KPFF Consulting Engineers III SW 5th Avenue Suite 2400 Portland, OR 97204-3628 ~B