HomeMy WebLinkAboutPacket, DRC PLANNER 2/28/2011
-Current Planning Staff: G. Karp, J. Donovan, Liz Miller M. Metz er, Lissa Davis,
L. Pauly, Tara Jones, Andy Limbird, Dave Reesor, Steve Hopkins, Molly Mar1<arian
-Matt Stouder, Engineering - Public Wor1<s Departmen
Brian Barnett, Traffic Engineer/PE, Public Wor1<s Department (agenda only 2/02)
-Michael Liebler, Transportation Planning Engineer, Public Wor1<s Department
-Gilbert Gordon, Deputy Fire Marshall, Fire & Life Safety Department
Melissa Fechtel, Fire Agenda only
-Ronni Price, Planner, Willamalane Par1< and Recreation District
-Ed Head, Springfield Utility Board (Electric)
"Tamara Johnson, Springfield Utilily Board (Water)
-Bart McKee, Water Engineering Supervisor - Springfield Utilily Board (Water)
Jack Foster, Springfield Utility Board (Energy Conservation)
Amy Chinitz, Springfield Utility Board (Drinking Water)
-Jim Henry, Central Lane Communications 911
Leo Lambert, US Postal Service
-Billy Elder, Northwest Natural Gas (John Radosevich, aijemate reviewer)
-Phil Fields, Lane County Transportation (Celia Barry & Steve Smllh)
Thomas Jeffreys, Emerald People's Utility District (EPUD)
George Ehlers, Lane County Sanitarian [Urban Transition Zone] (if applicable)
Jamie Porter, Rainbow Water District (Dean Hill aijemate reviewer) (- only if in the North Spfld area)
Ralph Johnston, Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority (if applicable)
Tom Henerty, ComcastCable (if applicable)
Mar1< Oberte, EWEB (electric) (property)
Dick HelgesonlMel Damewood, EWEB (water) (-If in Glenwood)
Bill Grile - Development Services Director (agenda)
John T amulonis, Economic & Communily Development Manager
-Dave Puent, Building Official
-Lisa Hopper, Building Services Representative
- Greg Ferschweiler, Keith Miyata, Brian Conlon, PW Dept.
-Craig Filzgerald, Maintenance PW Dept
George Walker, Environmental Wor1<s Dept., (agenda only)
Deanna Buckem, Engineering Assistant, Public Wor1<s Dept.
Police Chief, Jerry Smilh, Police Department (agenda)
-Will Mueller, L TD
Norm Palmer, Quest Corporation (agenda
-Scott Nelson, Planning & Development Manager, ODOT, State Highway Division
Jeff DeFranco, Springfield School District (agenda)
William Lewis III, Financial Services, Springfield School District (agenda)
Joe Leahy, CiIy Attorney
Chris Moorhead, CiIy Surveyor
CITY OF SPRINGFIEL.EVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
DISTRIBUTION DATE February 28, 2011
TO:
.
(agenda)
(agenda)
RE~ED
FEB 28 lOll
By: J)RC- f1t~
/ o~Z()2~
A request for land use action, as described on the attached agenda, has been received by the Development Services
Office. Specific concerns of your division/department/agency should be addressed. If you have comments or
requirements of this proposal, please send them in writing to the assigned planner @
Development Services Department, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, OR 97477. Your
comments may also be sent via e-mail or if you are a DRe internal user attach as
document within the Accela Automation.
If your written comments are not received by Friday, March 11, 2011 specific concerns of your
division/department/agency will not be addressed unless you attend the meeting on March 15, 2011. The Development
Review Committee holds staff review meetings on Tuesday@ 8:00 -10:00 a.m. You should also plan to attend the staff
meeting on Tuesday if you have specific concerns so that the Planning representative can discuss them prior to meeting
with the applicant. If the Planner feels II is necessary for you to participate in the public meetings he/she will let you
know on Tuesday.
- full packet
.
.
AGENDA
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMITTEE
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
225 F/FTH STREET
Conference Room 615
Staff Review: March 15, 2011 @8:00-10:00a.m.
1. SITE PLAN TENTATIVE #TYP211-00002 (PRJ11-00005) BOYLES/OBO ENTERPRISES LLC
Assessor's Map: 17-02-33-32 TL 6200,6300 8:00 - 9:00 a.m.
Address: 5175 & 5195 Main Street
Existing Use: Residential rental
Applicant submitted plans for the construction of a mixed use Commercial/Residential development to
include 11 attached dwellings and up to 6,000 square feet of commercial space. Three designs are
proposed for the commercial area (Options A, B & C). Options A and B propose two separate
structures. Option C proposes a single commercial structure. The commercial uses will be an eating
and drinking establishment with a drive-thru, retail sales, personal services, and/or small-scale offices.
Planner: Steve Hopkins
2. TREE FELLING PERMIT #TYP211-00003 (PRJ11-00005) BOYLES/OBO ENTERPRISES LLC
Assessor's Map: 17-02-33-32 TL6200, 6300 9:00 -10:00 a.m.
Address: 5175 & 5195 Main Street
Existing Use: Residential rental
Applicant submitted plans to remove approximately (9) nine trees on site for in order to create a Mixed-
Use Development - Community Commercial office/personal service/retail/restaurant multi-tenant
building development and a Medium Density Residential multiple-unit housing complex.
Planner: Steve Hopkins
The ORe informational packet for this meeting is available on-line for you to review or
print out @ www.sprinQfield-or.Qov/weblink7
1
.
.
!City of Springfield
Development Services Department
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Site Plan Review
. ..
.
.
.
, . .
.
Site Plan Review Pre-Submittal: D
Site Plan Review Submittal: r8J
. -.
A licant Name: NickBo les
Phone: 541. 954.0217
Com an :
OBO Ente rises LLC
Fax:
Address: 1390 Grosbeak Court, Redmond, Ore on 97756
:l!l"C,,,",,,,,:,;'''';)'''~'~'>i''''''1;!.k,",,,,,:"_..~,'i-~'.,.'',r_.''!~'-.,,,~'~,,,",~,,,,'i.><~fll'ii~:.,?,,,.,;trA':i'L'C.-:\Wj,,,,~.,:'^';'--,\'(:,,,,~",j~,''3'"-'''~'",;.''''i~;:>"'~,R'i'",f
fi~~,~""",,,'",,,,p''''"~~-'b~:'i&fJ':''''-,":ec:'''4",,,,":;.-:.f'::'.\o['.dl'i'iOi<~":~=!"",r,,,,=,,,,.<;1"i't",i!~N\Cct:",),;"'1?>~\:'_"",~_'"..".,_i,,"'~c~.<Ii~it:','~"JO..."1'i't'"<';'!l"'-'_'i
A licant's Re .: Kristen Ta lor
Phone: 541-687-1010 ex 15
Com an :
TBG Architects & Planners/Inc
Fax:
541-687-0625
Address:
l;<~~::""'V"","(t4r'l'~""'_'~>i'_.~-'''''''''''l.l.%'''-''''''""_''''",,,,",,,'';,,..,!'~"""""'_''''''';,H,,,.;'>,'!'t_~,'.>l"_',,,''''.:,,,,~'''=~';~~!,W,l(I.""~,%1.,"""+;"_;',%~~j",'i,,~~&:lI;'''''
h.':JM~~,<;,,;1,N,t1A~,;j.'t~~~.,.,,,.~.$",?',.'.<;_'I",~,',~"","Flh_-I'~r~';"";;,~"."";l<1."".,it!'~'/.....;.',,,~''''~'r'',,,'''''m.,,.'',,~'MM<t
Owner: Same as A licant information above
Phone:
Com an
Fax:
Address:
''{~'.lt;~"",r;.}tJ<t~''-~'.W".t;''''.~''''~f'.m~:",;!-""?j,,,~;~,~j'''t'''';'j.:"lO~;"',;;;,""''J('<~'if_\~'~['''')W";I,, ""ti.H"'~~~~~~"N'iO"-'I:;"";;""VN,%>r~:*~~'ifr".I';'~1''''''''*"..'.i:..Ji-,
,'i'!='''.~'i"~n>.w~",,,iWI("m'<'r~;~"h';';-_.'"~~."";::r..,",~~>:'-.~""'~ir~i,,,,;~-&~
ASSESSOR'S MAP NO: 17-02-33-32
TAX LOT NO S : 6300 & 6200
5175 & 5195 Main Street
(Tax Lot 6300) 29,064 & (Tax Lot 6200) 36,606
Acres D S uare Feet r8J
Pro osed Name of Pro"ect:
'-OJ',<'H"''''''':J<:;''''''L't:.U'::f;'Il'b'''>;,t'''Jll~,,: ;"'i;'i>'";"~'"""'.;~'''~-,,...#:.-._,.~..i!Jel\I'',~,,-..,",,,.~,,,.,,,',,,,,,,,,<.",,.~,c_,,,,,~,,,~{l'i'ii'.~,J<:'~"'~:;;~~"':"'G,l!iI
<!i!W"~;M-OOL"_.;,;:l''''f.'':;;_''''~?""'I[,!;":',':~ ;"':'~-"""H::""!"_t'l',"''','''''''-I,..,''''''''....n:l,<\,,,,,~;,,,,,');>!,~.^:<,-W.;;JlI;
Description of
Pro osal:
If you are filling in this form by hand, please attach 'your propo~al description to this application.
Mixed-use development: Community Commercial office/personal service/retail/restaurant multi-tenant
buildin develo ment and a Medium-Densi multi Ie-unit housin com lex.
. -.
Associated A lications::--I"
Pre-Sub Case No.:
.- OuDo g
Date:
Reviewed b : ~
Reviewed b : .+C'YZ-
Case No.:
- OOOD'L
Date:Z
i(
A Iication Fee: -rQ~~i8ft~~~ : 2 €;). I:r-- 110 ()
TOTAL FEES: FEB j 5 ailOJECT NUMBER: 'F'RSlI-OOOOS
~~"!il$~~'{~;l,~:S'J!;<1'g!'f-*i';'i?~:(1:r;'*m'c'~~~~~if~1~'i1".j;,~:if._~iW~~'-'l:~';Wrj..~:;t*,~~mE~wt(~~:;;h~~ii';'f::~fi~~~"i;~<-f,;-'~~%'~~"~,,,*~&y.if~~~,,\i\l;t1y'r*,jii;;-"!it~~f7~o.l.tr-g:;
;,*~\_~~~.:iJif'J}"~'mtt',ami-ID\!tf.i~$t:'
Revised 11/19/09
Original Submittal
1 of 11
spr_map. ... Page 10fl
TVP211-00002 Site F- .dn Review Tentative 1 1-tl,,~33-32 TL 6200, 6300
OBO Enterprises
MAIN ST
..J
a.
I-
(I)
'P'4
II)
(I)
'.""')
'.> .!;-.
,<,"
i ,~",
'. '
".
,.,t
'. MAiNST. ,.. .
..
j
. .
. .
. , ~ .
:.. ~;<;' .
\- ):
. '"f,'
N
A
Date Received:
FEB , 1 2011
http://spifs020/mapguide2009/mapviewerphp/printablepage.php?SESSION; 14e63 7aO-0000-l 000". 2/17/2011
1+
(I)
"' I
Q
,Z
." I'iI
.ui)
. I
'. '".
,.,'
Original submittal
i;! 59 9 I~
,>; is 'i ~ r gar;: ,.". Ii ~ 51 ~" '"
;~V~ ~=-~i~ WII iill!'lillll
o---~ 'lillll'I,II';'
E "*', '\ ill, iI'.j ,1,111
m _ . -~,' 11.1 .
~ \: \ I ~ S :-
~ ] : ! l '-- 11
~ ~I ~~~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~~;i ~~~~~ ~
:;;: ~ ~~~~ g ~'t~lI\C 1fIe1l1C ~~\CII:~;
~ ~;J ~~g ~ ~ h~ ~
~ . !
"
. Ii! Ii! h !l1!!nili!! .! I' i! I~ l! ~ ili ,I Ii 1mI'll liI!l; il'l'i:,"i II'; ~
.. -a"~ ~ ~ I~ i ~ ..a ~~ ,~ ~!i~!! ~~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ liB :::s sc~ ~~ ~t 'iia" ~ 1I.~2 J ~~ ~ It! m
,Ill! II! !111m, 1m! ! I-Ill! !S II II II I Iii Iii iii, I I. II ~ 11111 Ij II!!II il!h bl!lllll,i~ ~
",", HII dill iili ii'li I III; II II 1'1 ',"I i II ~ !d jl j: IjB1i gllll!l!!! 'I I; 9
. 'j!1 Ii ! i', i!!!; Ii Ii Ii ~ illli lli iilll,l II!! 111'i!I ! 'j ~
. - ! "g 0 h I, ~ l!~!. lill I.,!! ! !
~: - -.. l: l::= ;; r: .~ Z g~ '4j:>: I~!;~ h~~ I~~~ ! :
il ii lq i i i II Ii i I ~ lilH,: ,lj!i! ill, ! !II 'I ~
~j , ' ~~ -~ ~~ ~ ui~~ ~
-----.--- .
-_...~..,,-
~>
'OU'H",,"'C'
,,,
~
~
s;:
z
IilSI ~
frll
II
~~
~~
!
I
'OU'TH".."""
,
@ @@ @ 8 8 8 0 8 0 ~ 8 0 81! ):
~H~! !!!H'I'!!!ia
Hi! i iiliil~~~I!~
Z' : t ~ll"",~ ~n
, ,.! 0
i! !! ! Ii Ii; II' I: i~ Ii I!' Ill: " !! II ;;;
l_ ,~ -, ~~ !~ Q 3 ~i g~ ~8 ~ ~ ai BE ~i ~ z
!III ! II II ;i'!' !Hlii '! I! iU ~
Ii 1! I!, Ii , ,,: !! ,II"
" I','!" 0 1
o 8 8 01 @@ @ :O!
! ! ! ~ ~ H! '~i
i i i ! II n t!ti
! ! .,
*'''1 ;1'1 ji, "I ! I~i
ii!', .,i, II' !, II ",!! '" I
i!!;! iili 0'1 II < i,!l! i !Ii, ~I
'll!i II!! I' !III i!'j!" II
o !1!lil,l! ,I,! .,i I;
Dl ~-~~~ ~!~~ i" !~.' ','i I"
..... - ~a ~"'; <I _
<D
:;0
CD
~
<:-
<D
Q.
~
(Q
:i'
!!t
C/J "T1
C I'T1
cr CJ
3 -
== <.TI
!!t ~
0
-
-
,.
,.
i "II! 11z" I
I)>
r~ ~h~
.
~)<
,
i~
, z
'.
, ~
~:
" !
i'<!
"
~~
~~~
'-I ~
g~~
'I!
"
~ \l !i )>-
~ ~ i ~ !i..... /0
II '1'!li<iI i <;
I! I ,<" r;;
i!jhr F)
I!&!!; c
'! ' s;:
...,
6
z
~
--, !'.:~~
/ :/:,-,:~ ~
:y~V r_. :~/j -
I
,
,
I
! !
f i
~
,m [I n'l' >;;c"
ill! tJ ~ ~
Ii ! i 0
If'
i '
, !
I i
i
,
,
,
I
i
,
!
,
!
I
ill "
~"i P,
I!! "
Ii .
'I" I
. !
'l
"'< ~ r::" ~"to_~
~~ t~~~~~n
It;: 'tl<lll 1<1 IlIPI 'I
nB Hj
51st-52nd & MAIN STREET REDEVELOPMENT
080 ENTERPRISES LLC
SITE PLAN REVIEW - OPTION A
517S&5195w.AINSTREET
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97478
-!
OJ
C)
t~~
~ ~r\,
~ p.", $
0q;;lJJlll-"
" f ;:
"''''Q :::
ihd
~5e.~~
---.--.--....-
-_...~..,.-
.'
~),
,7<
;~
.~
s;:
z
I
II
..
r
I
UIJ
ilL N~
'!
'OUT" "., 'H'"
@ @@ @ 0 e e e 0 e '. 0 0 m s;:
~.' ~."~" ~.' ' !!!! H ~ ~ ~i6
'Ill! i ~i' 1111 ~'~il5i
~R;lll'!!: ~~~i~ 12m
i' " I! ii 8
n U ~ n ~~~ ~~~ ~! ~~ i~ U 1,1 !; ~~ !~ ~ ~
!l !I 'il " ," Ii 'I' /'!1 .! Iii 0
\1;7 li~ I i~ 2~~ II;! g 1l~ ~ ~ ~ ~~, -l
II ill II Ii !!lii !! I' ! i Ii c:
I- l , i !!! ! i'
o 0 e 01' @@
~ ! ! ~!i H
. . . ..
! I! Ii
~ ~ ',.
'jl'" 1'0' '" 'Id
jl<' iI. h. . i
!Ijli !ill'~i Ii !
i!l!i :1 i Ii iI !
ltli2~ ~ ~ ,,~_~~ a
~-~ii h~1 n ~~
~ i(~ -~::!~ ;3 e~
i Iii
ii " i
:1
"
;11' i Iii 1
\l~~~ 1) ~! ~
..j! I" !
I'" ,I .
~~~ g~
Ii ii
,.
~Ei
z
>
()
3;,
:;;:
z
()
'"
-<
~
~
~
Vi
~
~
~
,.
.
~),
, 1;1 i I
r ~<1
,II
III
~il ~
~~ ~
EB
-;~
SOU T H 5 2 N~ 5 T R E E T
""""'''''''''I
~i ; ~,. '." !Pil ..,II ""I! Ii '1 ,I I ~ IT. ~
\iJ '~! ~~J=--'-, Ii!!! iliiiBi!U ,III'il!ii 1 ~ ?Ji>,.~. ?';",:'
~1--~ e~i;f_.1 Hih j~~~i~~~~ S ~~ h H .-- ~ ~i ~i! ~~!
~ I "l:., I II"! I'!I! !P!"' I!d! 2 ! ig III !i:
" i! I, Ii!, i', I ' s;: j i," g! '!!
l'L_...J., ,i ';I'"!' ::j , i' '{ i!
~ \ } / a ~ ~ ~ _ :~ ~ ~ ;i' ~~ ;
~ U U U! H H ~i~~ H~~~!~ U~!iH ~ ~~ ~i
z ;;i! ~l ~ ~ ;; H :a H ~
() . i
o
-.
\0'
5'
'~
(..,
C
cr
3
;:;:
Qj
i Iii q ~ inHHPllil i", q I~ II ~
O II!!!h 1'1' d "." ".-1 , ~ II h ,j is i, II I' "I., .-1, ~ 11 ~
~!~~~~~ R _::I, ~~~~ ~6~~~ a ~ g~ ~~ ~ ~ ~tl ~~ Ii~" ~~ ~8~ a l\ ..Ii Cl
..., l>> !!li'S !il i!" !'i~ !'lll I ",!,!! 'I I M i' 1'1- I I' 9
~ CD lillillll i~ "'!I I! !I! iI!' I I II 1'1 II I! 112
_:::0 ,Ii; I ~ II ! I I! I~
...., CD ili! . I ., 0
g ~. j!iiiiiii! !! Ii i!l I I Iii! i i 13'
I I ~."! I ~I
I )> , z
i ~ gh~ '
<
>
z
"'~'-":''-' . 'I"'
'.-0" ,:;j. ~
~
m
Hi
",,~i ~ I
))I!i
i~ no, ~. 8'
~u .~z
., ! I i 0
~~ ~
, . I !
! i I
I ! !
! j
'(1
II! Ii! Ill! llmll illl1l' Illr!lIl1 II ~
"! , '-"I"" '" ,",11.1,' 5"
ill !i '" li,\'I;; 1:111 illllll '! II ~
'f ,~ II 'i! 'u ,li'" ,'Iii" Z
hi II ','\ Ill,:!!! illl! l!ll!!1 II II! ~
~~~ !~ ~ i~~ h~ 1lI~~~ Ih~;I8 ~. ~
!II II !i iUi.i!lllll iiWI'i " l
'! Ii oj""1 i'l !I'I '
li~ i ~ ~~~~ ~ il~ ~~i~" ~
~ ~ ~ 1 ~ f ~~ ~~ g ~
51st-52nd & MAIN STREET REDEVELOPMENT ~
OBO ENTERPRISES LLC ,j, ~ -i
SITE PLAN REVIEW - OPTION B ~li~ "i i z c;o
" I" ~
5175 & 5195 MAIN STREIT ~HJ CJ
$PRlNGFIElD,OR97478 t::;~8'" ~
-_.....-
-........-
-"'- ..
.
~>
'I.
If:\
-<
~
0;
z
~>
~1
f1-~
!I
\!
!
@ @@ @ 8 8 8 e 8 8 ~ 8 e 8~ 0;
~H~ i ~~~~~H~q6
. . i " ! i I I i 1'1 ' " ~
I I I ! 'i ! ; i, ~ n
i \ l.. l.. ,;~ ~ 0
'! !! ! Ij l!1 li.~ il 'l i~ !I ill: I: !r~. :;:
I,.,." I'" 'I!I h"' ", ,\ Z
U !I i 'I ,I." " 'I ,,~, !', 'I i 0
'I !! Ii II iI' II :1 Ii I ~ Ii ~ ;;j
!dl! i! !I !jHn.!i I ! H! v;
I' I 'I ,,' , 'I
8. 8 8 81~ @@ @. II~
! ~ ! ! F. H! ti
i i I iii ,,! I~!
''''I WI. "I ,,';.!. mIl
II'" ,. II"' ,." II'.
Ill!! !ili ,j Ij. i!li, ili I;
!!',l ,I" I' Ii ;','i i ! I
~~~h ~i;~ ~ ~~ IS gjs ~ ..~ ~
:o€!h~ 0:;0, i~ '" It ~ > ;i.-
'j:~~~ :r1~6 ~ ~& !l~~ ll'&
, ~~ ~It~~ a ~~ ~ ~ u
<
i~
j;
l~
;~'.
:;j'
!!.
Cfj
c::
tT
3
;:;:
-
!!.
L
"... :n!!~il SOUTHS2.NCSTII.EET
"""'~"""'" -~ Qi~ I.ot>..r=l
..~~
,~.,. ~...""~....
~.~ ~~~ i~ ~ /;/;I~~ Hr:~~ !iuj~l~ iJl~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ <-,ho" +
1 ~ Ii ,I I III' m!llli!!~ ! I i'ili! i S; ~>! HTI;[ ,
~ ff-)~,~;) il!111 !I! I PIII'i I!' 'Iii!' ~ ! II II,m II !
~! ::; ::;'J"; i Iii;! ! :" ~ I i! I',lii II
~ i' . . ~ ~ ~ 3 ,:> 0 Ill" ~5!~~ ~
~ ~ i- :- i h ~~~~~ ~~H -," ~~.I~ ~H ~~~iB ~ ~ ~! Ui~ e
;:; ~ I~'~ ~'t~1l1t Itlllt\l: H Il~~ :ill ~r./Ili~ ~ ~
~:;:Lo'.-L_...l ~ H ~ d~i!~ i!i~
Z
Cl
I I I n I~ in'! in! ~!I'I!!'! 11 I~ I! ~ !.J!l. ,. ~i 'i: il'lH!! II!!! llliali Ii l'l' ~
"'8"'!~ ~ I I ! , ", i','! ! e I I' .1' 'I 2S '" !, I!! 'i " , ill'! 0 'Ii ,I I '"
j!liilll:1 ill ill "ii! ll~ Ill! li ~I II II I Ii! Ii! I ~ Ii ij ill ill ,I: !1~lm 1'1" lIIi'!! il I ~
ill"':1 !il !I" !!iil! I"!; i ! II I 2,1 i'" I Ii ~ !!' ! !l hi!!!! ,!~~~ !j!!!'jiln! 6
lilli/lIb ,I,ll" I'!,! ,I j , I j U I I I! ~ j!12 iii illl! lI!UIi dll', i!llM n Ii C1
" , I! I" IS;: i'I !' "l!"I' I" !"r' ! CO!
ill ,I ~! i i I is !!i III II M~!d 1!l1 jihil I .
II .. ~ .. ~'" e: ~ s o~ Z !f~ - ~ Ill-~~ I~ ~~lij~ ~
I~.. !~..:: 0;,,:::.. ~~ ~~ ~ i i ~ ...; It ~ ~ V1 ~~! ~ ~ ~t I ajj' ~~~~ I
ll~ iUs n~ ~ ~a i~ ~ 11 ; !l ~s a ~ 5 Ii l: ~ -p _ ;a ~~ ~ i
51st-52nd & MAIN STREET REDEVELOPMENT
080 ENTERPRISES LLC
SITE PLAN REVIEW - OPTION C
~~I ~ 01. r~ ~"
t~ ~L~tIj ~
l! i ! I I 0
! i I I I
III!
I i
I 'il! I . il
)>, z
-' iil!
5175&5195 MAINSTREfT
SPRINGFIELD,OR97478
~\
\tt~
. .
_JI <:
;9 i'
~tH
~9:gJ
-l
OJ
CJ
.
.
February 15, 2011
"
\. Mr. Steve Hopkins
City of Springfield - Development Services
Planning Division
225 5th Street
,Springfield, Oregon 97477
RE:
51't_52nd & Main Street Redevelopment
Site Plan Review Application (200913/1.3)
Project Address:
Assessor's Map &
Tax lot:
Applicant:
5175 and 5195 Main Street
Daytime Phone:
Mailing Address:
17-02-33-32 Tax Lots 6200 and 6300
OBO Enterprises, LLC
Nick Boyles
541-954-0217
1390 Grosbeak Court
Redmond, Oregon 97756
q ualityapartments@q.com
E-mail Address:
Applicanfs Representative:
TBG Architects & Planners/lnc
Kristen Taylor
541-687-1010
132 East Broadway, Suite 200
Eugene, Oregon 97401
ktaylor@tbg-arch.com
Daytime Phone:
Mailing Address:
E-mail Address:
NARRATIVE
In accordance with the Site Plan Review submittal requirements, this written
statement describes the proposed development and demonstrates that the proposal
complies with the criteria under SDC 5.17-100. The proposal is subject to the Type
II application review process per SDC 5.17-11 O(B).
I. land Use Request
The present request is for approval of three possible mixed-use development options
(Site Plan Option A, B, and C). In each option, the proposed residential portion of
the development remains unchanged. There are two multiple-family residential
buildings proposed on the southern portion of the site adjacent to the neighboring
Low-Density Residential (LDR) zoned properties. Building One is a two-story
building with 11 units facing South 52nd Street. This larger Building One has three
multiple-unit structures connected together with a covered outdoor stair and corridor
system. The two structures located along the internal drive aisle facing South 52nd
Street have ground floor garages for all of the residential units and second floor one-
bedroom residential flats. The third structure located adjacent to the LDR property to
TBG
*-L1
' ,I i
,~~~~~
I"" I' [
. I" ,
__V,.,,~
ARCHITEas &
PLANNERS/INC '
132 East Broadway
Suite 200
Eugene, Oregon 97401
541-687-1010
541-687-0625 Fax
..,. .~'....
....,...,,:.'..'l"'"
John E. lawless, AlA
Principal
James F. Alberson III, AlA
Principal
Oarrell L Smith, NCARS, FAIA
Principal
.
.
City of Springfield
Site Plan Review Application
. February 15, 2011
Page 2 of 37
the south and facing South s2nd Street has two floors of two-bedroom residential flats.
Building Two is a two-story building with 4 townhouse units tucked in the back
southwest corner of the site facing Building One.
The commercial portion of the development, located on the northern portion of the
site along Main Street, slightly varies in each option due to the pending Oregon
Department of Transportation (ODOT) Right-of-Way Approach Permit application
decision for driveway access to Main Street. Option A is the preferred option with a
shared driveway access to Main Street. Option Band C are site plan options without
driveway access to Main Street in the case that ODOT denies the requested
Approach Permit application.
Site Plan Option A: The commercial portion of the development includes a 3,000-
square-foot multi-tenant commercial building and a 2,sOO-square-foot drive-through
restaurant building with a limited right-in and right-out driveway access from Main
Street in the general location of the existing driveway as well as associated site
infrastructure, parking and landscaping.
Site Plan Option B: The commercial portion of the development includes a 3,000-
square-foot multi-tenant commercial building and a 2,sOO-square-foot drive-through
restaurant building with associated site infrastructure, parking and landscaping.
Site Plan Option C: The commercial portion of the development includes a 6,000-
square-foot commercial building with associated site infrastructure, parking and
landscaping. .
Tenants and tenant uses have not yet been identified hr the commercial buildings,
therefore exterior building elevations and more accurate building footprints will be
submitted once tenants have been identified. . The applicant has presented
conservative assumptions of possible tenant uses for each option for the purposes of
the Site Plan Review process. It is likely that the commercial tenant uses will be
eating and drinking establishments and similar use categories such .as retail sales;
personal services, and small scale offices (as noted on the site plan for each option).
Per discussions with Steve Hopkins at the Presubmittal conference, if the tenant uses
and building footprints (approximate building area and basic form) remain generally
consistent with the proposed Site Plan Review plans, changes to the building
articulation (recesses and projections, entryways, patios, awnings, etc.) for instance,
will only require a Type I Site Plan Review Modification application:
Additional details regarding this proposal are provided on the Site Plan Review
drawings for each op~ion, the remainder of this written statement, and other materials
attached herein. .
.
.
City of Springfield
Site Plan Review Application
February 15, 2011
Page 3 of 37
Design Intent:
The 51"_52nd & Main Street Redevelopment project represents an effort to raise the
standard of typical commercial and medium-density residential development in the
East Mai n Street area.
. to enhance the quality of local commercial and medium-density residential
development;
. to reduce the blighted appearance of large expanses of parking along Main
Street; and
. to ensure compatibility between the Main Street commercial corridor and the
surrounding low-density residential neighborhoo~.
The proposed uses are consistent with the Springfield Development Code (SDC), the.
East Main Refinement Plan (1988) and the Eugene-Springfield Metro Plan (2004
Update). The subject properties are within the Community Commercial (eC) zoning
district, and are designated as Commercial with a Mixed-Use Area Overlay on the
Eugene-Springfield Metro Plan, Plan Diagram. The parcels are located on the Mi~ed-
Use Area #3 in the East Main Refinement Plan, Plan Diagram. Per SDC 3.2-310,
uses such as retail sales, personal services, small offices and eating and drinking
establishments are allowed in the Community Commercial zoning district. Per the
East Main Refinement Plan (Mixed-Use Element, Area #3, page 11) Medium- and
High-Density Residential uses are allowed under the Community Commercial zoning
district. Therefore, a mix of commercial and multiple-family residential uses are
allowed on the parcels subject to Site Plan Review approval.
Additionally, consistent with the applicability of the Site Plan Review process and the
Springfield Development Code, the project addresses anticipated post-development
changes in stormwater patterns to maintain the integrity of the City's watercourses by
preserving water quality. Similarly, the site and building design and orientation
minimize any possible adverse effects on surrounding property owners and the
general public. This application also addresses traffic impacts in the supplemental
Traffic Impact Study.
The project was designed with the understanding thilt its longcterm viability as an
active mixed-use development depends on the economic and ecological health of
the local community. To this end, the 51"-52nd & Main Street Redevelopment
proposal attempts to balance economic concerns with careful attention to
neighborhood compatibility and land stewardship.
This request for Site Plan Review is proposed under the general approval criteria. As
demonstrated in Section IV below, the subject request meets all applicable code
criteria and should be approved as proposed.
.... --.
::. -:'~:"c':--"2';.
.
City of Springfield
Site Plan Review Application
February 15, 2011
Page 4 of 37
Design Team:
Owner and Applicant:
OBO Enterprises, llC
1390 Grosbeak Court
Redmond, Oregon 97756
(541) 954.0217
Contact: Nick Boyles
q ualityapartments@q.com
Applicant's Representative and
Architect:
TBG Architects & Planners/lnc
. 132 East Broadway, Suite 200
Eugene, Oregon 97401
(541) 687.1010 ~ Fax (541) 687.0625
Contact: Kristen Taylor
ktaylor@tbg-arch.com
.
Civil and Transportation Engineers and
Surveyor:
Branch Engineering, Inc.
310 North 5th Street
Springfield, Oregon 97477
(541) 746.0637 . Fax (541) 746.0389
Engineer:
Contact: Damien Gilbert, PE
damien@branchengineering.com
Surveyor:
Contact: Renee Clough, PE, PLS
renee@branchengineering.com
Landscape Architect:
Schirmer + Associates, LLC
375 West 4th Street, Suite 201
Eugene, Oregon 97401
(541) 686.4540 . Fax (541) 686.4577
Contact: Carol Schirmer
carol@schirmerassociates.com
.
.
City of Springfield
Site PI'!.n Review Application
February 15, 2011
Page 5 of 37
II. Site Description
. A. Location and Site Context
This Site Plan Review request applies to Tax Lots 6200 and 6300 of Lane County
Assessor's Map 17-02-33-32. Tax Lot 6200 is about 0.84 acres (36,606 square
feet). Tax Lot 6300 is about 0.67 acres (29,064 square feet). The total OBO
Enterprises LLC development site is approximately 1.51 acres (65,670 square feet)
in size. The development site as described will be referred to in this application
as the subject site.
The subject site is located within the Springfield City limits and Urban Growth
Boundary on the south side of Main Street between South 51st Place and South
520d Street. Main Street is classified as a principal arterial. South 51 st Place and
South 52nd Street are classified as local streets.
The OBO Enterprises, LLC properties are zoned Community Commercial (CC).
Currently, Tax Lot 6300 is developed with a single-family residence with access
from South 520d Street. Tax Lot 6200 was developed with a single-family
residence that burned down a couple of years ago with access from Main Street.
The properties located on both sides of Main Street in the area of the subject site
are zoned CC developed with a mix of commercial uses such as auto-oriented
uses and eating and drinking establishment uses. The properties located to the
south of the subject site are zoned Low-Density Residential (LOR) and developed
with single-family residences. The properties located to the west of the subject
site are zoned CC; the CC property located directly adjacent to Tax Lot 6200 is
currently developed with a single family residence and the properties across
South 51 st Place are developed with an auto-oriented use. The properties located
to the east of the subject site are zoned CC and developed with a single-family
residences.
. .;.:",-
:'.J,'7~"
The development site is serviced via Lane Transit District (L TO) Route 11
(Thurston). There is a bus stop within a half a block of the subject site on either
side of Main Street for eastbound and westbound transit riders. The route is
serviced every 10 to 15 minutes throughout the day. Reference the Traffic
Impact Study, Appendix C, for the L TO route schedule.
B. Existing Conditions and Site Access
The subject parcels are relatively flat with street right-of-way frontage along Main
Street, South 51st Place and South 520d Street. Currently; South 51st Place is
unimproved to the City's public street standards. Main Street and South 52,d
Street are improved public streets with sidewalks. South 520d Street only has a
sidewalk on the east side of the street.
.
.
City of Springfield
Site Plan Review Application
February 15, 2011
Page 6 of 37
As stated above, Tax Lot 6300 is currently developed with a single-family
residence with access from South 52nd Street. Tax Lot 6200 was developed with
a single-family residence that burned down a couple of years ago with access
from Main Street. All three site plan options relocate the existing South 52nd
Street driveways and add a new full access driveway on South 51 n Place. Site
Plan Option A proposes to relocate the existing Main Street driveway. Site Plan
Option Band C remove the Main Street driveway access. The proposed
driveways provide safe access to and from the site and are consistent with the
Springfield Development Code as outlined below. The applicant has filed a
Right-of-Way Approach Permit with the Oregon Department of Transportation
(ODOT) for the proposed limited right-in and right-out shared access from Main
Street in the general location of the existing driveway as shown on Site Plan
Option A. Please reference the attached copy of the pending ODOT Right-of-
Way Approach Permit application.
There are 10 existing trees on the site, of which 9 have a diameter. breast height
of 5" or greater. Except for one 4" cedar tree located at the southwest corner of
the site, all existing trees on the site are proposed for removal to construct the
new buildings, site infrastructure and required on-site stormwater infiltration and
detention system. A Tree Felling Permit to remove these existing trees has been
submitted concurrently with the Site Plan Review application consistent with the.
required criteria under SDC 5.19-125.
III. Land Use History
As stated above, the subject site is . located within the Springfield City Limits and
Urban Growth Boundary. The subject properties are zoned Community Commercial
'(eCl on the Springfield Zoning Map and designated as Commercial with a Mixed-Use
Overlay on the Eugene-Springfield Metro Plan, Plan Diagram. The parcels are located
in the Mixed-Use Area #3 on the East Main Refinement Plan. Plan Diagram. Per
SDC 3.2-310, uses such as retail sales, personal services, small offices and eating and
drinking establishments are allowed in the Community Commercial ioning district.
Per the East Main Refinement Plan (Mixed-Use Element, Area #3, page 11) Medium-
and High-Density Residential uses are allowed under the Community Commercial
zoning district. Therefore, a mix of community commercial and multiple-family
residential uses are allowed on the parcels subject to Site Plan Review approval.
IV. Approval Criteria - Site Plan Review Supporting Facts and Findings
This section is organized by the applicable approval criteria per Article X.II.
Applicable Site Design Review approval criteria are outlined in bold below, followed
by proposed findings in normal text. Additional applicable zoning code criteria
needing to be addressed as part of the Site Design Review approval criteria are
. identified in bold italics. As noted above, the residential portion of the development
remains the same in each site plan option. Therefore, all applicable criteria to the
residential portion of the development are addressed only once for all three options.
.
.
City of Springfield
Site Plan Review Application
February 15, 2011
Page 7 of 37
Where the three options vary, findings for each option are individually addressed
under the approval criteria.
SDC 5.17-115 Site Plan Review Phased Development
A. A Phased Development Plan shall be submitted with the Site .Plan Review
application as speCified in Section 5.17-120.
SDC 5.17-120(G): A Phased Development Plan, where applicable, that
indicates any proposed phases for development, including the boundaries and
sequencing of each phase as specified in Section 5.17-115. Phasing shall
progress in a sequence that promotes street connectivity between the various
phases and accommodates other required public improvements, including but
not limited to, sanitary sewer, stormwater management, water and electricity.
Finding: A phased development plan has been schematically submitted for each
development option, including the boundaries and sequencing of each phase. In
all three options, the entire residential portion of the development will be
constructed during Phase I, which includes the residential buildings, storage,
common open space, landscaping and fences, pedestrian circulation, required 23
parking spaces (minimum 8 surface spaces and 15 individual garage spaces), and
the main drive aisle running east-west through the site from South 51 ~ Place to
South 52,d Street as well as the associated site infrastructure {consistent with the
Multi-Unit Design Standards}. The phasing boundaries for Phase I are slightly
different in each option, which are outlined below and illustrated on the attached
drawings, Sheet T1, for each option. The phasing, boundaries and sequencing for
the commercial portion of the development site also vary in the three options as
outlined below.
Site Plan Option A: In addition to the scope of Phase I noted above, Phase I also
includes the construction of the Main Street driveway and drive aisle. The
commercial portion of the development will be constructed in two phases (Phases
II and III). As noted above, the tenants for the commercial buildings have not yet
been identified. Therefore, the phasing sequence for the commercial portion of
the development will depend on the identification of tenants. Phase II and Phase
III are proposed to be the following depending on the timing of tenant
identification for the commercial buildings:
Phase II will include the construction of the 3,000-square-foot commercial
building on the earner of Main Street and South 52,d Street, 23 parking spaces
and associated trash area, on-site pedestrian walkways, landscaping and site
infrastructure. Phase III will include the construction of the 2,500-square-foot
drive-through restaurant building on the corner of Main Street and South 51~
Place, 12 parking spaces and associated on-site pedestrian walkways, landscaping
and site infrastructure.
. . ..... "-.-
. .' ,....-'....':~
.
.
City of Springfield
Site Plan Review Application
February 1S, 2011
Page 8 of 37
OR
Phase II will include the construction of the 2,SOO-square-foot drive-through
restaurant building on the corner of MainStreet and South 51st Place, 31 parking
spaces and associated on-site pedestrian walkways, landscaping and site
infrastructure. Phase III will include the construction of the 3,000-square-foot
commercial building on the corner of Main Street and South 52nd Street, trash
area, 4 parking spaces and associated on-site pedestrian walkways, landscaping
and site infrastructure.
Site Plan Option B: Phase I is described above. The commercial portion of the
development will be constructed in two phases (Phases II and III). As noted
above; the tenants for the commercial buildings have not yet been identified.
Therefore, the phasing sequence for the commercial portion of the development
will depend on the identification oftenants. Phase II and Phase III are proposed
to be the following depending on the timing of tenant identification for the
commercial buildings:
Phase II will include the construction of the 3,000-square-foot commercial
building on the corner of Main Street and South 52nd Street, trash area, 31
parking spaces and associated on-site pedestrian walkways, landscaping and site
infrastructure. Phase III will include the construction of the 2,500-square-foot
drive-through restaurant building on the corner of Main Street and South 51st
Place, 7 parking- spaces and associated on-site pedestrian walkways, landscaping
and site infrastructure.
OR
Phase II will include the construction of the 2,500-square-foot drive-through
restaurant building on the corner of Main Street and South 51 st.Place, 34 parking
spaces and associated on-site pedestrian walkways, landscaping and site
infrastructure. Phase III will include the construction of the 3,000-square-foot
commercial building on the corner of Main Street and South 52nd Street, trash
area, 4 parking spaces and associated on-site pedestrian walkways, landscaping
and site i nfrastructu re.
Site Plan Option C: In addition to the scope of Phase I noted above, Phase I also
includes the construction of 6 parking spaces on the north side of the main drive
aisle running east-west through the site from South 51st Place to South 52nd Street.
The commercial portion ofthe development will be constructed during Phase II.
Phase II includes the construction of the 6,000-square-foot commercial restaurant
building with attached trash area on the corner of Main Street and South 51st
Place, 56 parking spaces and associated on-site pedestrian walkways, landscaping
and site infrastructure.
.
.
City of Springfield
Site Plan Review Application
February 15, 2011
Page 9 of 37
The proposed phasing for all three options progresses in a sequence that
promotes street connectivity between the various phases and accommodates
other required public improvements, including but not limited to sanitary sewer,
stormwater management, water and electricity. Reference the attached drawings,
Sheet T1, for each option. Therefore, the proposed phasing for the three options
is consistent with this criterion.
B. The Director shall approve a time schedule for developing a site in phases,
but in no case shall the total time period for all phases be greater than 2
years, with a possible 1-time 1 year extension as specified in Section 5.17-
135.
,Finding: Due to the fact that tenants have not yet been identified, the applicant
does not propose a specific time schedule for developing the site. The applicant
requests flexibility to develop the site within the allowed 2 years, with a possible
1-time 1 year extension as specified in Section 5.17-135.
C. Approval of a phased Site Plan Review application shall require satisfaction of
the following approval criteria: ,
1. The public facilities required to serve each phase shall be constructed in
conjunction with or prior to each phase, unless during" the Site Plan'
Review process the Director finds that a public facility necessary for a
subsequerit phase is necessary as part of an earlier phase; and
2. The phased development shall not result in requiring the City or other
property owners to construct public facilities that were required as part of
the approved development proposal.
Finding: The public facilities required to serve each phase in all three options will
be constructed in conjunction with or prior to each phase, unless during the Site
Plan Review process the Director finds that a public facility necessary for a
subsequent phase is necessary as part of an earlier phase. In addition, the phased
development in all three options does not result in requiring the City or other
property owners to construct public facilities that were required as part of the
approved development proposal. Therefore, the three proposed development
options are consistent with these criteria.
.
.
City of Springfield
Site Plan Review Application
February 15, 2011
Page 10 of 37
SDC 5.17-125 Site Plan Review Criteria
A. The zoning is consistent with the Metro Plan diagram, and/or the applicable
Refinement Plan diagram, Plan District map, and Conceptual Development
Plan.
Findings: Per the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan, Plan
Diagram, the subject property falls within the Urban Growth Boundary and the
Metro Plan Boundary. The subject site is clearly designated Commercial with a
Mixed-Use Area Overlay on the Metro Plan Diagram, which is consistent with
site's current Community Commercial (CC) zoning district.
The subject site falls within the adopted East Main Refinement Plan area. The
panzels are located in the Mixed-Use Area #3 on the East Main Refinement Plan,
Plan Diagram. Per the East Main Refinement Plan (Mixed-Use Element, Area #3,
page 11) Medium- and High-Density Residential uses are allowed under the CC
zoning district. Therefore, the zoning is consistent with the refinement plan.
The proposed uses are consistent with the Springfield Development Code (SDC),
East Main Refinement Plan and the Eugene-Springfield Metro Plan. PerSDC 3.2-
310, uses such as retail sales, personal services, small offices and eating and
drinking establishments are allowed in the Community Commercial zoning
district. Per the East Main Refinement Plan (Mixed-Use Element, Area #3, page
11) Medium- and High-Density Residential uses are allowed under the
Community Comm~rcial zoning district. Therefore, a mix of community
commercial and multiple-family residential uses are allowed on the parcels
subject to Site Plan Review approval. Therefore, the zoning and proposed
development options are consistent with this criterion. .
B. Capacity requireme~ts of public and private facilities, 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. '.
Findings: In the three development options, the applicant is proposing to
construct single-story commercial building(s) and two two-story multiple-family
residential buildings on CC zoned land with adequate public and private facilities.
Reference the attached civil engineering drawings for each option for details on
existing and proposed facilities. Per SDC 4.3-125, all private utilities on the
proposed development site will be placed underground whenever possible.
.
.
City of Springfield
Site Plan Review Application
February 15, 2011
Page 11 of 37
The public improvements proposed in all three development options include half-
street improvements along the frontage of South 51 ~ Place, including roughly 18'.
0" of new asphalt, curb and gutter, sidewalk, a streetlight, street trees and the
proposed driveway approach. Additionally, the proposed driveway approaches
on Main Street (Site Plan Option A only) and South 52nd Street will be replaced
and will meet current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. All public
improvements will be constructed per City standards under a Public
Improvements Permit (PIP). A PIP application has been submitted at the time of
this Site Plan Review application with the understanding that Tentative Site Plan
Review Approval is required prior to the PIP application approval.
All three proposals have adequate water service available from an existing 6"
public water main located in South 51 ~ Place adjacent to the subject site's
western property line. An existing 6" public water main is also located in South
52nd Street with adequate water service. This main is located on the far side of
the right of way.
There is an existing fire hydrant located in the public right-of-way on Main Street-
to the north of the subject site at the intersection of South 52nd Street and Main
Street. All of the proposed buildings (commercial, residential and trash
enclosures) will be sprinklered. The existing fire hydrant and the addition of the
required new public fire hydrant at the entrance to the property on South 52nd
Street have an adequate flow rate to serve the site. Reference the attached civil
drawings for the approximate location of the new fire hydrant
There are existing overhead electric lines running east-west adjacent to the site's
northern property line, which provides adequate capacity to serve the three
proposed development options.
There are two existing public sanitary sewer stubs (4" stubs) located adjacent to
the subject site's western and eastern property lines conveying sewage from the
site to the 8" public sanitary sewer lines located in South 51 ~ Place and South 52nd
Street. The existing public sanitary sewer system has adequate capacity to serve
the three development options. There is an existing 4-1/2" gas line located in
Main Street. There are existing 1" gas lines located in South 51~ Place and South
5200 Street, which provide adequate capacity to serve the three proposed
development options if gas is used. The existing homes were likely connected to
gas. These existing services will be disconnected.
There is an existing 48" storm pipe located along the south side of Main Street.
An existing 12" storm main is located in South 52nd Street and an existing 12"
storm line is located.in South 51~ Place. As part of the PIP, the South 51~ Place
existing roadside ditch will be removed and a. new 12" storm line will be installed
with a stub out to provide service to the subject property and to convey the
upstream flows. In all. three Site Plan Options, a new storm lateral is proposed to
connect into the existing 12" storm line in South 52nd Street as well. No
.
.
City of Springfield
Site Plan Review Application
February 15, 2011
Page 12 of 37
connection is proposed to the 48" storm line located in Main Street at this time.
In addition, as noted. above, the owner proposes to make public sidewalk
improvements along the property's frontage on South 51 st Place as required. Due
to City Staff identified storm system requirements, all three proposed
development options include on-site retention to the fullest extent possible.
Special emphasis is placed on infiltrating the stormwater and limiting the flow rate
to the existing public storm system. See the attached Stormwater Management
System Plan for more information.
The existing public street and traffic safety control systems will not be exceeded
with the addition of any of the three proposed development options and are
available to serve the site at the time of development. Reference the attached
Traffic Impact Study (TIS) dated October 13, 2010 for details, which is adopted
and incorporated herein, In addition, as noted above, the pending ODOT Right-
. of-Way Approach Permit for the limited access driveway on Main Street is
attached for reference (Site Plan Option A only).
A geotechnical analysis was prepared for building construction. Please reference
the attached Geotechnical Investigation, dated July 19, 2010.
As demonstrated above as well as in the drawings and referenced attachments,
capacity requirements of public and private facilities, including but not limited to
water and electricity; sanitary sewer and stormwater management facilities; and
streets and traffic safety controls have not been' exceeded and the' public
improvements are available to serve the site at the time of development.
Therefore, the three. proposed development options are consistent with this
criterion.
c. The proposed development shall comply with all applicable public and
private design and construction standards contained in this Code and lither
applicable regulations.
Due to the subject parcels' Multi-Use Area designation in the East Main
Refinement Plan, SDC 4.7-210 Residential Uses in Commercial Districts and per
City Staff direction, the northern portion of the site complies \'Vith the applicable
CC Base Zone Development Standards and the 'southern portion of the site
complies with the applicable MDR Base Zone Development Standards and SDC
3.2-240 Multi-Unit Design Standards. Reference the attached Site Plans for the.
CC and MOR area boundaries. There are standards within the MDR Base Zone
Development Standards and Multi-Unit Design Standards that do not apply due to
the fact that the proposal is for a mixed-use development on a CC zoned site. As
required, this written statement addresses the provisions in the Springfield
Development Code that are applicable to the proposed mixed-use development
on CC zoned parcels as outlined below. Reference the attached Site Plans for
details.
.
.
City of Springfield
Site Plan Review Application
February 15, 2011
Page 1 3 of 37
SDC 3.2-200 MDR Base Zone Development Standards:
Findings: Per the East Main Refinement Plan (Mixed-Use Element, Area #3, page
11) Medium- and High-Density Residential uses are allowed under the CC zoning
district. Therefore, a mix of community commercial and multiple-family dwelling
uses are allowed on the CC zoned parcels within this area subject to Site Plan
Review approval. SDC 3.2-205 Establishment of Residential Zoning Districts and
SDC 3.2-215 Standard Lots/Parcels and Maximum Lot/Parcel Coverage are not
applicable because the base zone of the subject parcels is Cc.
For all three development options, there are two multiple-family residential
buildings proposed on the southern portion of the site. Building One is a two-
story building with 11 units facing South 5200 Street. This larger Building One has
three multiple-unit structures connected together with a covered outdoor stair
and corridor system. The two structures located along the internal drive aisle
facing'South 52nd Street have ground floor garages and second floor one-bedroom
residential flats. The third structure located adjacent to the LDR property to the
south and facing South 52nd Street has two floors of two-bedroom residential flats.
Building Two is a two-story building with four townhouse units tucked in the back
southwest corner of the site facing Building One. The design intent of the
residential portion of the site is to create a quiet residential community within the
proposed mixed-use development located along the busy Main Street corridor by
facing the main entrances to all of the units towards a shared internal outdoor
stair and corridor system. This outdoor central area between the residential
structures provides opportunity for landscaping, a shared common area and
increased natural daylighting and ventilation into the units.
The residential portion in' the three development options complies with the
applicable MDR Base Zone Development Standards as follows:
. SDC 3.2-215: The minimum building front yard setback for the MDR portion
of the proposed development options is 10'-0" minimum., Building One, is set
back about 12'-0" from the street frontage on South 52nd Street, which
exceeds the required front yard setback. The residential portion of the'
proposed developments does not have a street side yard. '
. SDC 3.2-215: The interior and rear yard buildirig setbacks are 5'-0" and 10'-0"
minimum respectively. Along the rear southern property line adjacent to the
adjacent LDR zoned property, the multiple-unit buildings are set back about
12'-0", which exceeds the required 10'-0" rear yard setback. Along the interior
western property line adjacent to the adjacent CC zoned property, the
multiple-unit buildings are set back about 10'-0", which exceeds the required
5'-0" setback.
. SDC ,3.2-215: The front yard setback for garages is a minimum 18'-0"
measured along the driveway from the property line fronting the street to the
far wall of the garage where the face of structure is perpendicular to the street.
The proposed garage entrances and driveways face the interior of the site with
.
.
City of Springfield
Site Plan Review Application
February 15, 2011
Page 14 of37
residential units located above the garages on the second level. Therefore,
although the garages are perpendicular to South 520d Street, the garages are
incorporated into the design of the larger multiple-family residential building ..
(Building One) and do not appear to be garages from the street-facing fa<;ade
(South 520d Street). However, the far wall of the garage, where the face of the
structure is perpendicular to South 520d Street, is set back 18'-0" in
compliance with the required minimum. Reference the Site Plans for details.
. SDC 3.2-215: The height of the proposed multiple-unit residential buildings is
no greater than about 26'-0" (at the ridge of the highest hip roof), which is less
than the required 35'-0" maximum. Reference the attached Exterior
Elevations drawings for details.
. SDC 3.2-225 Base Solar Development Standards: These criteria are not
applicable to the proposed development options because the subject parcels
are zoned CC and located on the north side of the adjacent LDR zoned
properties.
"
SDC 3.2-240 Multi-Unit Design Standards:
Findings: As noted above, there are standards within SDC 3.2-240 Multi-Unit
Design Standards that do not apply to the proposed residential portion of the
development options due to the mixed-use nature of the development proposal
located on a CC zoned site.
The residential portion of the development complies with the Multi-Unit Design
Standards as follows:
SDC 3.2-240(8) Purpose: The two two-story multiple-unit residential buildings
with private patios or balconies are compatible with the adjacent single-family
residential development to the south and provide an appropriate transition
between this single-familY residential neighborhood and the commercial
development along Main Street to the north. The MDR portion of the proposed
mixed-use development options promotes higher residential density inside the
urban growth boundary along the Main Street commercial corridor and adjacent
to low-density residential neighborhoods. The proposed medium-density
residential housing will use existing infrastructure and improve the efficiency of
public services and facilities. .
SDC 3.2-240(C) Review: This written statement and other supplementary
information describes the proposed multi-unit development options and
demo"nstrates that the proposals comply with the Site Plan Review criteria under
the Springfield Development Code (Section 5.17-100), which is subject to the
Type II application review process.
.
.
City of Springfield
Site Plan Review Application
February 15, 2011
Page 15 of 37
SDC 3.2-240(D) Design Standards, the residential portion of the development
options complies with the Design Standards as follows:
. SDC 3.2-240(D)(1)(a) Building Orientation:. The outdoor covered stair and
corridor system is the primary entrance to Building One (the larger multiple-
unit residential bui/ding), which faces South 52,d Street. Building One's
primary outdoor entrance directly connects to South 52nd Street, to the
exterior front doors of all of the residential units in both .Building One and
Two as well as to the pedestrian walkWay system throughout the site. The
street-facing outdoor entrance for Building One will be enhanced by
decorative sign age and pedestrian amenities such as a masonry seating walls
and a trellis archway. Therefore, this criterion is met.
. SDC 3.2-240(D)(1)(b) Building Orientation: The front street-facing fat;ade of
Building One is located about 12'-0" (outdoor staircase) to 18'-0" (far wall of
ground floor garage) from the front property line on South 52,d Street, which
is within the maximum 25 feet requirement. Therefore, this criterion is met.
. SDC 3.2-240(D)(1)(c) Building Orientation: Off-street parking and vehicular
circulation is not placed between the residential structures and the street-
facing fat;ade on South 52nd Street. Therefore, this criterion is met.
. SDC 3.2-240(D)(l)(d) Building Orientation: There are no wetlands
identified on the subject properties and the properties are relatively flat,
therefore, this criterion is not applicable. .
. SDC 3.2-240(D)(2)(a) Building Form: The proposed two-story residential
structures have continuous horizontal distances between about 83'-0" to about
111 '-0", which are less than the maximum 160'-0" (measured from end wall to
end wall) allowed. Therefore, this criterion is met. .
. SDC 3.2-240(D)(2)(b) Building Form: With the exception of a couple of
minor building elements outlined below, the proposed two-story residential
buildings (Building One and Two) have hip roofs with a roof pitch that is
about 5 to 15 which meets the minimum 3 to 12 pitch requirement.
Reference the attached Exterior Elevations for details..
Adjustment:The front and back porch awnings on Building Two's townhouse
units are shed roof forms and Building One's outdoor stair and corridor system
are covered by a shed and flat roof form, respectively, in order to provide
more appropriate and improved design and 'construction details for these
building elements. The proposed adjustment to these building roof forms are
discussed below under SDC 3.2-250 Multi-Unit Design Standards Variances.
. SDC 3.2-240(D)(2)(c) Building Form: The front fat;ades of both Building One
(facing South 52nd Street) and Building Two (facing Building One) contain the
minimum required 15 percent windows and doors. All proposed windows
and doors on Building One and Tw'o have 4" trim to provide shadowing as
required. Therefore, this criterion is met.
. SDC 3.2-240(D)(2)(d) Building Form: The ground floor garages in Building
One are attached to Iivi ng units above on the second floor but the garages are
not accessed from the street (front setback), so this criterion is not applicable.
.
.
City of Springfield
Site Plan Review Application
February 15, 2011
Page 16 of 37
. SDC 3.2-240(D)(2)(e), (f), (g) and (h) Building form: All of the exterior
elevations of Buildings One and Two incorporate design features including
offsets, projections, balconies, covered porches or similar elements to
preclude large expansions of uninterrupted building surfaces. Along the
vertical face of all of the residential structures, there are a minimum of two
recesses (minimum depth of 3'-0"), extensions (minimum depth of 2'-0", with
two exceptions, and minimum length of 4'-0") and/or offsets or breaks in roof
elevation (2'-0" or greater in height), which occur at a minimum of every 30
feet, and on each floor. Reference the attached Exterior Elevations for details.
Adjustment: Discussed below under SDC 3.2-250 Mufti-Unit Design
Standards Variances, the minimum depth of the proposed extensions on the
east and west exterior elevations of Building Two (townhouse units) are
proposed to be adjusted from the required minimum 2'-0" depth to 1 '-8"
depth (allowed maximum 20 percent adjustment of the requirement).
. SDC 3.2-240(D)(3)(a) Transition and Compatibility between Multi-unit and
LOR Development: The adjacent single-family residence located on the same
side of South 52nd Street and same block is located within 75'-0" south of
Building One within the multi-unit residential portion of the subject
development site. The front fac;:ade of this single-family r~sidence is located
about 16'-0" from the front property line. Building One is set back about 12'-
0" from the front. property line, which is within the permitted 5'-0" of the
setback provided by this nearest single-family residence. Therefore, this
criterion is met. Reference the attached Exterior Elevations for details.
. SDC 3.2-240(D)(3)(b)(i) Transition and Compatibility between Multi-unit
and WR Development: There is no vehicular circulation (i.e., driveways,
drive lanes, maneuvering areas and private streets) proposed within the buffer
area between the multi-unit residential development and the LDR zoned
property to the south. Therefore, this criterion is met.
. SDC 3.2-240(D)(3)(b)(ii) Transition and Compatibility between Multi-unit
and LOR Development: A site-obscuring 6'-0". high cedar fence and
landscaping are proposed along the subject property lines that abut a LDR
zoned property to the south. Therefore, this criterion is met. .
. SDC 3.2-240(D)(3)(b)(iii) Transition and Compatibility between Multi-unit
and lDR Development: There are no primary entrances to the multi-unit
residential buildings that face an abutting LDR zoned property. Except as
described below under Adjustment, Buildings One and Two comply with all
other applicable setbacks and transition area standards, as discussed
elsewhere in the narrative.
Adjustment: The minimum 15'-0" buffer area (with the allowed 10'.0"
building encroachment into the 25'-0" buffer area) between portions of the
multi-unit residential buildings (ground floor porch roofs, second floor
balconies and building extensions) and the abutting the LDR zoned property
line is proposed to be adjusted to 12'-0" and 13'-0" (allowed maximum 20
percent adjustment of the requirement). In addition, the heights of the
.
.
City of Springfield
Site Plan Review Application
February 15, 2011
Page 17 of 37
f
primary roof (per code definition) for Buildings One and Two are proposed to
. be adjusted from the maximum 21 '-0" within the buffer area to 21 '-8" height
as discussed below under SDC 3.2-250 Multi-Unit Design Standards
Variances. Reference the attached Site Plans .and Exterior Elevations for
details.
. SDC 3.2-240(D)(3)(b)(iv) Transition and Compatibility between Multi-unit
and LDR Development: The proposed active recreation area is located
outside of the 25'-0" buffer area in the center of the multi-unit residential
buildings. Therefore, this criterion is met.
. SDC 3.2-240(D)(3)(b)(v) Transition and Compatibility between Multi-unit
and LOR Development: There is no proposed parking lot lighting located
within the residential portion of the development options. The exterior
building and path lights will be proposed at the time of the building permit
.application submittal in compliance with the 12'-0" maximum height
limitation and shielded so that light does not allow direct illumination onto
adjacent LDR property or into dwelling units. Therefore, this criterion is met.
. SDC 3.2-240(D)(3)(b)(vi) Transition and Compatibility between Multi-unit
and LOR Development: Mechanical equipment will be screened from view
(i.e., as viewed from adjacent properties and street), and will be buffered so
that noise does not typically exceed 45 to 50 decibels as measured at the LDR
property line. The Mechanical equipment will be proposed at the time of the
building permit application submittal in compliance with this and all other
applicable standards. Therefore, this criterion is met.
. SDC 3.2-240(D)(3)(b)(vii) Transition and Compatibility between Multi-unit
and LOR Development: The proposed residential.portion ofthe development
options does not propose rooftop. equipment. All mechanical and electrical
equipment will be located within the residential building structures.
Mechanical and electrical equipment will be proposed at the time of the
building permit application submittal in compliance with this and all other
applicable standards. Therefore, this criterion is met. .
. SDC 3.2-240(D)(3)(c) .Transition .and Compatibility between Multi-unit and
LDR Development: The proposed buildings and portions of buildings abutting
the. LDR zoned property lines outside of the buffer area do not exceed a
building height greater than one foot for each foot distance from the LDR
property line up to about 26'-0", which is less, than the required maximum
35'-0" building height. Reference the Exterior Elevations for details.
Therefore, this criterion is met.
. . SDC 3.2-240(D)(4)(a) Storage: Adequate, accessible and secure storage
space is proposed for each dwelling unit in private garages (each
approximately 250 square feet). The garages are located on the ground floor
of Building One, adjoining all dwelling units in Buildings One and Two via the,
outdoor covered stair and corridor system. Therefore, this criterion is met.
Reference the Site Plans, Sheet A 1, and Conceptual Floor Plans, Sheet A2, for
detai Is.
.
.
City of Springfield
Site Plan Review Application
February 15, 2011
Page 18 of 37
. SDC 3.2-240(D)(4)(b) Storage: The proposed residential portion of the
development options provides an enclosed trash area attached to the west
end of Building One that is screened from view by placement of a masonry
. wall, about 6'-0" in height, and obscuring landscaping around all exposed
sides of the wall except where breaks are provided for doors. Therefore, this
criterion is met.
. SDC 3.2-240(D)(4)(c) Storage: There are no trash receptacles proposed in
any front yard setback, 'or within 25'-0" of property lines abutting LDR zoned
properties. Therefore, this criterion is met.
. SDC 3.2-240(D)(4)(d) Storage: Ground-mounted equiprpent, including
exterior transformers, utility pads, cable television and telephone boxes and
similar utility services, will be placed underground, where practicable. When
placed above ground, the .equipment will be placed to minimize visual
impact; or screened with a wall or landscaping as required by code. Ground-
mounted equipment will be proposed at the time of the building permit
application submittal. in compliance with this and 'all other applicable
standards. Therefore, this criterion is met.
. SDC 3.2-240(D)(S)(a) Open Space: The proposed medium-density
residential portion of the mixed-use development options permanently
reserves approximately 30 percent of the residential portion of the site area
only (about 26,074 square feet) as open space, which exceeds the required
minimum 15 percent or 3,912 square feet. The total required open space is
the sum of setbacks, common open space, and private open space.
Therefore, this criterion is met.
. SDC 3.2-240(D)(S)(a)(i) Open Space: The proposed residential portion of the
mixed-use development options is not proposed in mixed-use buildings,
therefore, the exemption to these standards does not apply.
. SDC 3.2-240(D)(S)(a)(ii) and (iii) Open Space: The proposed density for the
multi-unit residential portion of the site is about 25 units per acre (the
residential portion of the site area totals about 26,074 square feet or 0.60
acres), which is less than 30 units per gross acre so the development complies
with the other applicable code sections specified below.'
. SDC 3.2-240(D)(S)(b)(i) and (ii) Common Open Space: The proposed
common open space has no dimension less than 15'-0" in width. The
proposed total residential floor area (excluding garages) is about 16,964
square feet. Therefore, the required minimum common open space is 4,241
square feet. Per SDC 3.2-240(O)(5)(c)(Jii), private open space may be
deducted from the minimum common open space requirement.
0,25 x 16,964 square feet = 4,241 square feet
4,241 square feet - 1,320 square feet private open space (SDC 3.2-
240(D)(5)(c)(iii)) = 2,921 square feet
The proposed common open space for the multi-unit portion of the
development is 3,318 square feet, which exceeds this required 2,921-square-
foot minimum. Therefore, these criteria are met.
.
.
City of Springfield
Site Plan Review Application
February 15,-20ll
Page 19 of 37
. SDC 3.2-240(D)(5)(b)(iv) and (v) Common Open Space: In all options, the
proposed common open space has no dimension less than 15'-0" in width. A
natural play area composed of basalt stepping and climbing stones and
covered benches are proposed in the center of the residential buildings,
which exceeds the required minimum 250 square feet area of active
recreation area. The natural play area is not proposed in any required setback
or transition area. Therefore, these criteria are met.
. SDC 3.2-240(D)(5)(b)(vi) Common Open Space: A minimum of fifty percent
of the required common open space area is landscaping, which is consistent
with the requirement. Therefore, this criterion is met.
. SDC 3.2-240(D)(5)(b)(vii) Common Open Space: The proposals do not
. include indoor or covered recreational space, therefore, this criterion is not
applicable.
. SDC 3.2-240(D)(5)(b)(viii) Common Open Space: The exception to the
common open space standard does not apply to. the proposed project
because the development site is slightly outside the 1/4 mile distance
(measured walking distance) to a public park. However, within only 0.4
miles, there are two public active recreation areas (Bluebell Park and
Riverbend Elementary School) easily accessible by the tenants via a direct,
improved, permanent, public, ADA-accessible, lighted, maintained pedestrian
sidewalk between the site and the parks.
. SDC 3.2-240(D)(5)(b)(ix) Common Open Space: The proposed common
open space areas will be built at the time of the construction of the residential
portion of the mixed-use development during Phase I for all three
development options. Therefore, this criterion is met.
. SDC 3.2-240(D)(5)(b)(x) Common Open Space: The common open space
areas are proposed outside of the required yards or transition areas.
Therefore, this criterion is met.
. SDC 3.2-240(D)(5)(c)(i) Private Open Space: All of the proposed multi-
family units have private open spaces, which are directly accessible from the
dwelling unit through a doorway. The ground floor units have a covered front
entry and a back patio. The second floor units have a covered front entry and
. balcony. Therefore, this criterion is met.
. SDC 3.2-240(D)(5)(c)(i) Private Open Space: The seven proposed ground
floor dwelling units (three flats and four to"Vnhouses) provide about 120
square feet of patio area, which exceeds the minimum of 96 square feet of
private open space. The proposed minimum dimension for all of the ground
floor patios is about 1 0'-0", which is more than the required 6'-0". Therefore,
this criterion is met.
. SDC 3.2-240(D)(6)(a) Landscaping, Fences and Walls: About 30 percent of
the residential portion of the site (26,074 square feet total) is landscaped with
a mix of vegetative ground cover, shrubbery and trees per City standards,
which is more than the required 15 percent minimum. Therefore, this
criterion is met.
.
.
City of Springfield
Site Plan Review Application
February 15, 2011
'Page 20 of 37
. SDC 3.2-240(D)(6)(b) Landscaping, Fences and Walls: Although optional,
the proposed development will provide a planter strip along South 52nd Street,
a local street. '-
. SDC 3.2-240(D)(6)(c) Landscaping, Fences and Walls: As part of this
development, street trees selected from the City Street Tree List are proposed
to be planted in the public landscape strip along the property's frontage on
South 51" Place and South 52nd Street as required per the Citys Engineering
Design Standards and Procedures Manual and, Springfield Municipal Code.
Therefore, this criterion is met.
. SDC 3.2-240(D)(6)(d) Landscaping, Fences and Walls: The proposed
development options do not propose fences in front yards and along any
frontage used to comply with the building orientation standard. There are
pedestrian amenities and signage proposed within the front yard setback in
front of Building One in order to enhance the entrance to the residential'
buildings. The amenities include about two 20" high seating walls and a trellis
archway approximately 7'-0" high. The fences proposed in other yards
comply with the fence standards specified in Section 4A-115 and the vision
clearance standards specified in Section 4.2-130 as noted below. Therefore,
this criterion is met.
. SDC 3.2-240(D)(6)(e) Landscaping, Fences and Walls: All landscaping will
be irrigated with a permanent irrigation system unless the project's licensed
landscape architect submits written verification that the proposed plant
materials do not require irrigation. The irrigation system will be'provided at
the time of building permit application submittal in compliance with code
standards. The property owner will maintain all landscaping. Therefore, this
criterion is met.
. SDC 3.2-240(D)(7)(a), (c) and, (d) Pedestrian Circulation: The proposed
development options provide continuous internal walkways throughout the
site connecting the residential and commercial portions of the development
and all tenant primary entrances to South 51" Place, South 52nd Street and
Main Street public right-of-ways. The continuous on-site walkway system also
connects all buildings and tenant primary entrances on the site to the parking
areas, bicycle parking, garages, common areas, and existing (Main Street) and
pr6posed (South 51" Place) abutting public sidewalks. Therefore, these
criteria are met.
. SDC3.2-240(D)(7)(b) Pedestrian CirculatiOli: With the exception of the
second floor dwelling units in Building One, Structu'res Band C, the proposed
residential portion of the on-site pedestrian walkways are separated by a
minimum of 5'-0" from the dwelling units, measured from the sidewalk edge
closest to any dwelling unit. Therefore, this criterion is met.
Adjustment: The proposed second floor dwelling units in Building One,
Structures Band C, are proposed to be adjusted from being separated by a
minimum of 5'-0" to being located directly adjacent to the second floor on-site
pedestrian walkway as discussed below under SDC 3.2-250 Multi-Unit Design
Standards Variances. Reference the attached Site Plans for details.
.
.
City of Springfield
Site Plan Review Application
February 15, 2011
Page 21 of37
. SDC 3.2-240(D)(7)(e) Pedestrian Circulation: The proposed on-site
pedestrian walkways are proposed to be a combination of concrete, asphalt or
masonry pavers, at least 5'-0" wide. Reference the Site Plans for details. The
proposed asphalt emergency vehicle access (east-west drive aisle) is a
minimum of about 23'-0" wide, which exceeds the required 20'-0" width.
Therefore, this criterion is met.
. SDC 3.2-240(D)(7)(f) and (g) Pedestrian Circulation: Where the proposed
on-site pedestrian walkways cross a vehicular circulation area or parking aisle,
they are clearly marked with elevation changes or striping. There are no
proposed internal walkways that are parallel to a vehicular circulation area.
Where the proposed on-site pedestrian walkways abut a vehicular circulation
area the sidewalk is raised or separated from the vehicular circulation by a
raised curb, landscaping or other physical barrier. In the locations that a
raised sidewalk is proposed, the ends of the raised portions have curb ramps.
The proposed on-site pedestrian walkways and ramps comply with ADA
requirements. Therefore, these criteria are met. Reference the Site Plans for
details.
. SDC. 3.2-240(D)(7)(h) Pedestrian Circulation: The proposed on-site
pedestrian walkways will be lighted to a minimum of 2 foot-candles. The
exterior site and building lighting plan and details will be submitted at the
time of building permit application submittal in compliance with the code
standards. Therefore, this criterion is met.
. SDC 3.2-240(D)(8)(a) Parking: The proposed residential vehicle parking is
placed in individual unit garages and on the west side of Building One. There
is no parking proposed along the South 52nd Street frontage in front of the
multi-unit residential buildings. Therefore, this criterion is met.
. SDC 3.2-240(D)(8)(b) Parking: Proposed parking lot lighting is provided for
safety purposes, and focused/shielded to avoid glare on adjacent properties
and dwelling units as specified in Section 4.5-100 below. Therefore, this
criterion is met. .
. SDC 3.2-240(D)(8)(c) Parking: There are 23 vehicle parking spaces required
for the proposed residential portion of the mixed-use development. Fifteen of
those vehicle parking spaces are located in individual unit garages. As noted
above, the remaining 8 vehicle parking spaces are located directly west of
Building One. There is a planter island locatec;l on each side of the row of 8
spaces that is 6'-0" wide, exclusive of the curb, which meets this criterion. .
. SDC 3.2-240(D)(8)(d) Parking: The proposed residential buildings do not.
have any ground floor living area windows that front the parking area.
Therefore, this criterion is not applicable.
. SDC 3.2-240(D)(8)(e) Parking: The proposed residential parking aisle in all
options is connected to all primary building entrances on the site by means of
the continuous on-site pedestrian walkway system. Therefore, this criterion is
met.
.
.
City of Springfield
Site Plan Review Application
February 15, 2011
Page 22 of 37
. SDC 3.2-240(D)(B)(f) Parking: All proposed walkways or planters located
adjacent to parking stalls on the site have been widened by 2'-0" beyond the
minimum dimension required to allow for vehicle encroachment. The
walkways and planters are protected by a curb not less than 6 inches in height
per code standards. Therefore, this criterion is met.
. SDC 3.2-240(D)(B)(g) Parking: The proposed residential portion of the
mixed-use development options. is not located on the corner of the parcels.
Therefore, this criterion is not applicable.
. SDC 3.2-240(D)(B)(h) and (j) Parking: The proposed residential parking and
maneuvering areas that abut South 51~ Place and 52nd Street have perimeter
landscaping. The proposed perimeter landscape islands range from a
minimum of 5'-0" wide along the southern property line adjacent to Tax Lot
6203 to about 20'-0" wide along 52nd Street provide, therefore, the proposals'
either meet or exceed the required 5'-0" wide. The perimeter planting strips
will be planted with shade trees, a minimum 2 inches (dbh) in caliper, and a
low level (e.g., 30 to 40 inches) evergreen hedge. A detailed planting plan
with exact sizes and species will be provided at the time of building permit
application submittal in compliance with all applicable code standards. The
parking area landscaping on the entire site is designed to reduce stormwater
runoff (e.g., through infiltration swales and other measures), as practicable.
Reference the attached civil engineering and landscape architecture drawings
for details. Therefore, these criteria are met.
. SDC 3.2-240(D)(B)(k) Parking: The proposed bicycle parking for the
residential portion of the development is provided within the individual
dwelling unit garages located on the first floor of Building One as allowed.
under SDC 4.6-150(6). Therefore, this criterion is met.
. SDC 3.2-240(D)(9)(a) Vehicle Circulation: The on-site drive aisle and
driveway system for the proposed mixed-use development options connect
with Main Street, South 51~ Place and 5200 Street. Therefore, this criterion is
met.
. SDC 3.2-240(D)(9)(b) Vehicle Circulation:' The proposed mixed-use
development options with commercial and residential uses Cln two parcels
share either the three proposed driveways (Site Plan Option A) or two
driveways (Site Plan Option Band C) which minimize 'cross turning
movements on adjacent streets.
. SDC 3.2-240(D)(9)(c) Vehicle Circulation: The proposed residential portion
of the development site is about 0.59 acres (about 25,820 square feet), which
is less than 8 acres. Therefore, this criterion is not applicable.
. SDC 3.2-240(D)(9)(d) Vehicle Circulation: The proposed parcels do not abut
an alley so this criterion is not applicable.
.
.
City of Springfield
Site Plan Review Application
February 15, 2011
Page 23 of 37
SDC 3.2-250 Multi-Unit Desif!n Standards Variances:
SDC 3.2-250(A) Description: Adjustments of up to 20 percent to the Multi-Unit
Design Standards listed in Section 3.2-240 under Building Form; Transition and
Compatibility Between Multi-unit and LDR Development; and Parking are
proposed be/ow.
Finding: Consistent with this criterion the following adjustments are proposed:
Building Form Adjustment: SDC 3.2-240(D)(2)(b): There are two alternate roof
forms proposed on minor building elements: the front and back porch awnings
on Building Two's townhouse units are shed roof forms and Building One's
outdoor stair and the corridor system is covered, respectively, by a shed and flat
roof form.
Building Form Adjustment: SDC 3.2-240(D)(2)(g): The minimum depth of the
proposed extensions on the east and west exterior elevations of Building Two
(townhouse units) are proposed to be adjusted from the required minimum 2'-0"
depth to 1'-8" depth (allowed maximum 20 percent adjustment of the
requirement).
Transition and Compatibility. between Multi-Unit and WR Development
Adjustment: SDC 3.2-240(D)(3)(b)(iii): The minimum 15'-0" buffer area (with the
allowed 10'-0" building encroachment into the .25'-0" buffer area) between
portions of the multi-unit residential buildings (ground floor porch roofs, second
floor balconies and building extensions) and the abutting the LDR zoned property
line is proposed to be adjusted to 12'-0" and 13'-0" (allowed maximum 20 percent
adjustment of the requirement); In addition, the heights of/he primary roof (per
code definition) for Buildings One and Two are proposed to be adjusted from the
maximum 21 '-0" building height within the buffer to a maximum 21 '-8" building
height.
Pedestrian Circulation Adjustment: SDC 3.2-240(D)(7)(b): The proposed second
floor dwelling units in Building One, Structures Band C, are proposed to be
adjusted from being separated by a minimum of 5'-0" to being located directly
adjacent to the second floor on-site pedestrian walkway.
. SDC 3.2-250(B) General Criterion: The proposed adjustments are necessary
due to requirement that the CC zoned subject parcels be developed as a
mixed-use development per the East Main Refinement Plan without clear and
objective development standards, which preclude full compliance of the
Multi-Unit Design Standards. Therefore, this criterion is met.
. SDC 3.2-250(D)(1) and (2) Building Form: The adjustments to the roof forms
proposed on the minor building elements and the adjustment to the proposed
extensions on the east and west exterior .elevations of Building Two
(townhouse units) from the required minimum 2'-0" depth to 1 '-8" provide
.
.
City of Springfield
Site Plan Review App!i~ation
February 15, 2011
Page 24 of 37
equivalentneighborhood compatibility by providing similar building mass and
architecture while allowing for contrasting building form. The adjacent
structures within 300 feet have shed and flat roofs on building elements like
porches, storage structures, etc. similar to what.is proposed.
. SDC 3.2-250(F) Transition and Compatibility Between Multi-Unit and Low
Density Residential Development: The proposed development requests
. adjustments to the buffer area between portions of the multi-unit residential
buildings (ground floor porch roofs, second floor balconies and building
extensions) and the abutting the LOR zoned property line from the required
15'-0" minimum (with the allowed 10'-0" building encroachment into the 25'-
0" buffer area) to 12'-0" and 13'-0" (allowed maximum 20 percent adjustment
of the requirement); and the adjustment to the heights of the primary roof.
(per code definition) for Buildings One and Two from the maximum 21 '-0"
building height within the buffer to a 21 '-8" height. These proposed
adjustments result in minor changes that do not alter the intent of the code
and continue to provide a compatible transition between multi-unit dwellings
and the neighboring LOR properties by a reduction in noise and/or light that
would otherwise impact adjacent LOR areas; stepping down building height;
providing roof lines that compliment adjacent uses; and similar elements that
effectively accomplish the intent of the standard.
. SDC 3.2-250(1) Pedestrian Circulation: The adjustment to the pedestrian
circulation system from the required minimum 5'-0" separation from dwellings
to no separation from the second floor dwelling units in Building One,
Structures Band C, provides an equivalent degree of pedestrian circulation,
safety and comfort consistent with the pedestrian circulation standards. The
pedestrian circulation system on the second floor of Building One, Structures
Band C, is attached to Building One for structural reasons, therefore the
second floor dwelling units located in these structures are located directly off
the approximate 6'-0" wide pedestrian circulation system. The second floor
circulation system will be used exclusively for the dwelling units located on
the second floo,:, including 8 dwelling units (two units in Structure C and three
units.each in Structures A and B), which provides direct, safe and comfortable
access to these upper units from two locations on the ground level.
SDC 3.2-300 CC Base Zone Development Standards:
Findings: The tenants for the proposed multi-tenant commercial buildings in all
three options have not yet been identified. However, all uses will be consistent
with the allowed use categories listed under the CC base zone per SDC 3.2-315
at the time of tenant infill building permit submittal.
.
.
City of Springfield
Site Plan Review Application
February 15, 2011
Page 25 of 37
Specifically, the commercial portion of the development complies with the CC
Base Zone Development Standards as follows:
. SDC 3.2-315: The lot standards required under SDC 3.2-315 do not apply for
three reasons. First, the subject site was created prior to 1982. Second, the
minimum lot size and frontage standard of SDC 3.2-315 is a standard
imposed for the creation of new lots or parcels. The proposed development
options do not include partitioning or subdividing the subject property. Third,
this standard is not a "design or construction standard, and therefore not
applicable.
. SDC 3.2-315: There is no specific maximum lot coverage for CC zoned.
parcels. As noted above, the MDR base zone lot coverage is not applicable
because the proposed development options are mix~d-use projects proposed
on CC zoned properties. There are no other standards or sections in the code
that limit the lot coverage.
. SDC 3.2-315: The minimum building front yard setback in the CC zone is 10'-
0" and parking and driveway front yard s.etbacks are 5'-0". The buildings,
parking and driveways either meet or exceed the required front yard setbacks
along Main Street, South 51" Place and South 52,d Street in all three options.
Therefore, these criteria are met. Reference the Site Plans for details.
. SDC 3.2-315: The residential portion of the mixed-use development options
is located adjacent to the interior and rear yards of the subject parcels so
buildings, parking, driveway and storage are set back in compliance with the
applicable MDR and Multi-Unit standards as discussed above.
. SDC 3.2-315: As noted above, the multi-unit residential buildings in the
mixed-use development options meet the building heights per the applicable
MDR and Multi-Unit standards. The commercial buildings do not have a
building height requirement.
SDC 4.2-100 throuJ!h SDC 4.6-150 and 4.7-210 Development Standards:
SDC 4.2-105 Public Streets:
Findings: There are no public streets proposed with these development options.
Therefore, the criteria under this section are not applicable.
Main and South 52,d Streets are built to City standards with an adequate width
for the designated street classification. The public improvements proposed as
part of the three development options include half-street improvements along the
frontage of South 51" Place, including roughly 18'-0" of new asphalt, curb and
gutter, sidewalk, a streetlight, street trees and the proposed driveway approach.
Additionally, the proposed driveway approaches on Main Street (Site Plan Option
A only) and South 52,d Street will be replaced and will meet current ADA
standards. "All public improvements will be constructed per City standards under
a PIP.
.
.
City of Springfield
Site Plan Review Application
February 15, 2011
Page 26 of 37
SDC 4.2-110Private Streets:
Findings: There are no private internal streets proposed with the three
developrnent options. As outlined above and in the. attached TIS, adequate
access is already provided through the adjacent street network and the proposed
internal on-site circulation of the developrnent. Therefore, the criteria under this
section are not applicable.
SDC 4.2-115 Block Length:
Findings: There are no public or private internal streets proposed with the three
developrnent options. As outlined above and in the attached TIS, adequate
access is already provided through the adjacent street network and the proposed
internal on-site circulation of the development. Therefore, the criteria under this
section are not applicable.
In all three development options, the applicant proposes on-site drive aisles that
connect to Main Street (Site Plan Option A only),. South 51" Place and South 52nd
Street. Site Plan Option A only proposes Iirnited access to a right-in and right-out
only driveway on Main Street, which allows safe ingress and egress to and from
the development frorn this principal arterial.
SDC 4.2-120 Site Access and Driveways:
Findings:. The subject sites have street right-of-way frontage along Main Street,
South 51" Place and South 52nd Street. Currently, South 51" Place is unimproved
to the City's public street standards. Main Street and South 52nd Street are
improved public streets with sidewalks. South 52nd Street has a sidewalk on the
east side of the street. These sidewalks and the on-site pedestrian walkway
system in each option provide pedestrian connectivity to the public right-of-ways
and adjacent and nearby residential, comrnercial and industrial areas.
As noted above, the public irnprovements proposed as part of the development
options include half-street improvements along the frontage of South 51" Place,
including roughly 18'-0" of new asphalt, curb and gutter, sidewalk, a streetlight,
street trees and the proposed driveway approach. Additionally, the proposed
driveway approaches on Main Street (Site Plan Option A only) and South 52nd
Street will be replaced and will meet current ADA standards. The proposed
shared driveway approach on South 5200 Street is located approximately 88'-0"
from the Main Street intersection (measured to the start of the South 52nd Street
intersection radius curve). The proposed driveway approach on South 51" Place
is located approximately 91'-0" frorn the Main Street intersection (measured to the
start of the South 51" Place intersection radius curve). In Site Plan Option A only,
the proposed driveway approach on Main Street is located approximately 132'-0"
from the South 51st Place intersection and 118'-0" frorn the South 52nd Street
intersection (both measured to the start of the Main Street intersection radius
.
.
City of Springfield
Site Plan Review Application
February 15, 2011
Page 27 of 37
curve). All public improvements will be constructed per City standards under a
PIP. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the criteria under this
section.
As outlined above and in the attached TIS, the existing public street and traffic
safety control systems will not be exceeded with the addition of the proposed
development options and are available to serve the site at the time of
development. Reference the attached TIS dated October 13, 2010 for details,
which is adopted and incorporated herein. In addition, as noted above, the
pending ODOT Right-of-Way Approach Permit for the limited access driveway on
Main Street is attached for reference.
SDC 4.2-125 Intersections:
Findings: As stated above there are no public or private streets proposed in the
three development options, therefore, there are no street intersections proposed.
All proposed on-site drive aisle and driveway intersections are at right angles to
the intersecting streets, Main Street (Site Plan Option A only), South 51" Place
and South 52nd Street. The offsets for the proposed access points to the nearest
existing public street intersections comply with City requirements. Therefore, the
criteria under this section are met.
SDC 4.2-130 Vision Clearance:
Findings: In acco;dance with the vision clearance standards, the two corners of
the proposed development at the intersections of Main Street and South 51"
. Place, and Main Street and South 52nd Street provide adequate sight distance for
the approach traffic in all three options. Reference the attached Site Plans for
details. Considering these findings and the site plans submitted herewith, the
proposed project options are consistent with the criteria under this section.
SDC 4.2-135 Sidewalks:
Findings: There is only one public sidewalk proposed as part of the development
options, which will be constructed per the City's Engineering Design Standards
and Procedures Manual, the Public Works. Standard Construction Specifications
and Springfield Municipal Code. The proposed public sidewalk and planter strip
. will be located wholly within the public right-of-way. The sidewalk is proposed to .
be 5'-6" wide with a curb and gutter. There is also an approximate 6'-5"
landscape bed proposed between the public sidewalk and the subject western
property line, which exceeds the minimum 4'-6" width requirement per SDC 4.2-
135. Therefo"re, the criteria under this section are met.
The existing public sidewalk and bike lanes on Main Street provide access to
adjacent and nearby residential, commercial and industrial areas. The site plans
for each option show on-site circulation for pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles as
.
.
City of Springfield
Site Plan Review Application
February 15, 2011
Page 28 of 37
required by the Springfield Development Code. In the three development
options, the proposed continuous on-site pedestrian walkway system connects
the primary building entrances of each commercial and residential building to the
existing public right-of-way on Main Street, South 51st Place and South 52nd
Street, and to the adjacent residential and commercial properties. On-site
pedestrian and bicycle access is provided between the buildings and parking
areas on the site by clearly marked, either striped or raised paved walkways.
SDC 4.2-140 Street Trees:
Findings: As part of the development options, street trees selected from the City
Street Tree List are proposed to be planted in the public landscape strip along the
property's frontage on South 51st Place and South 52nd Street as required per the
City's Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual and Springfield
Municipal Code.
There are two existing street trees proposed for removal as part of this
development. In all three development options, the existing 28" cedar street tree
located at the intersection of 52nd Street and Main Street is proposed for removal
because it is located within the vision clearance area. In addition, the
commercial building proposed on this corner will significantly impact the existing
tree's critical root zone (Site Plan Options A and B). In all three development
options, the' existing 3" cedar street tree located at the southwest corner of the
Tax Lot 6200 on South 51" Place is proposed for removal because as noted
above, a new public sidewalk is proposed in this location. New street trees will
be planted to replace these existing trees per the Street Tree Replacement
Standards. The new street tree replacing the existing street tree at the intersection
of South 52nd Street and Main Street will be planted farther south on South 52nd
Street outside of the vision clearance area. Therefore, the criteria under this
section are met.
SDC 4.2-145 Street Lighting:
Findings: As noted above, there is one streetlight proposedas part of the public
improvements on South 51" Place. Reference the attached civil drawings for
details. All public improvements will be constructed per the City's Engineering
Design Standards and Procedures Manual. the Public Works Standard
Construction Specifications and Springfield Municipal Code under a PIP.
Therefore, the criteria under this section are met.
SDC 4.2-150 Bikeways, 4.2-155 Pedestrian Trails and 4.2-160 Accessways:
Findings: There are no public bikeways, pedestrian trails or accessways proposed
as part of the development options. Therefore, the criteria under these sections
are not applicable. As noted above, Main Street is classified as a principal arterial
and currently developed to City principal arterial standards including existing on-
.
.
City of Springfield
, Site Plan Review Application
February 15, 2011
Page 29 of 37
street bike lanes. All three development options for the subject site include the
provision of on-site pedestrian facilities that connect to Main Street, South 51"
Place and South 520d Street and the existing bike lanes.
SDC 4.3-105 Sanitary Sewers:
Findings: As noted above, there are two existing public sanitary sewer stubs (4"
stubs) located adjacent to the subject site's western and eastern property lines
conveying sewage from the site to the 8" public sanitary sewer lines located in
South 51" Place and South 520d Street. The existing public sanitary sewer has
adequate capacity to serve all three development options' needs. . Therefore, the
criteria under this section are met.
SDC 4.3-110 Stormwater Management:
Findings: There is an existing 48" storm pipe located along the south side of Main
Street. An existing 12" storm main is located in South 520d Street and an existing
12" storm line is located South 51" Place. As part of the PIP, the South 51" Place
existing roadside ditch will be removed and a new 12" storm line will be installed
with a stub out to provide service to the subject property and to convey the
upstream flows. In all development options a new storm lateral is proposed to
connect into the existing 12" storm line in South 520d Street as well. No
connection is proposed to the 48" storm line located in Main Street at this time.
In addition, as noted above, the owner proposes to make public sidewalk
improvements along the property's frontage on South 51" Place as required. Due
to City Staff identified storm system requirements, the proposed development
options include on-site retention to the fullest extent possible. Special emphasis is
placed on infiltrating the stormwater and limiting the flow rate to the existing
public storm system. See the attached Stormwater Management System Plan for
more information. Therefore, the criteria under this section are met.
SDC 4.3-115 Water Quality Protection:
Findings: The site is not identified on the Water Quality Limited Watercourses
(wQLW) Map, therefore, there are no identified watercourses or riparian areas
located on the site subject to specific water qualitY protection. As noted above,
the proposed development options include on-site retention to the fullest extent
possible. Special emphasis is placed on infiltrating the stormwater and limiting
the flow rate to the existi ng pu blic storm system. See the attached Stormwater
Management System Plan for more information. Therefore, the criteria under this
section are met.
.
.
City of Springfield
Site Plan Review Application
February 15, 2011
Page 30 of 37
SDC 4.3-120 Utility Provider Coordination:
Findings: All utility providers will be responsible for coordinating utility
installations with the City as required. The applicant will be responsible for the
design, installation and cost of the utility lines and facilities to the satisfaction of
the utility provider consistent with the criteria under this section.
SDC 4.3-125 Underground Placement of Utilities:
Findings: All utilities are proposed to be constructed underground in accordance
with policies of the City of Springfield, SUB, Qwest or other applicable utility
providers. See civil engineering drawings for proposed utility layout. Considering
these findings and the drawings submitted herewith, the criteria under this section'
are met.
SDC 4.3-130 Water Service and Fire Protection:
Findings: The proposed development options have adequate water service
available from an existing 6" public water main located ,in South 51" Place
adjacent to the subject site's western property line. An existing 6" public water,
main is also located in South 52nd Street with adequate water service. This main
is located on the far side of the right of way.
There is an existing fire hydrant located in the public right-of-way on Main Street
to the north of the subject site at the intersection of South 52nd ,Street and Main
Street. All of the proposed buildings (commercial, residential and trash
enclosures) will be sprinklered. The existing fire hydrant and the addition of the
required new public fire hydrant at the entrance to the property on South 52nd
Street have an adequate flow rate to serve the site. Reference the attached civil '
drawings for the approximate location of the new fire hydrant. Therefore, the
criteria under this section are met.
SDC 4.3-135 Major Electrical Power Transmission lines:
Findings: As noted above, there are existing overhead electric lines running east-
west adjacent to the site's northern property Iiile, which provide adequate
capacity to serve the proposed development options. Major electrical power
transmission lines are 'not proposed in this development. Therefore, the criteria
under these sections are not applicable.
SDC 4.3-140 Public Easements
Findings: Public easements are riot proposed in this development. Therefore, the
criteria under these sections are not applicable.
.
.
City of Springfield
SitePlan Review Application
February 15, 2011
Page 31 of 37
SDC 4.3-145 Wireless Telecommunications Systems Facilities:
Findings: There are no wireless telecommunication system facilities proposed in
the development options. Therefore, the criteria under these sections are not
applicable.
SDC 4.4-105 Landscaping:
Findings: The landscape architecture drawings for each option show landscaping
which meetS or exceeds the CC zone and parking lot landscape requirements for
the commercial portion of the-development site per SDC 4.4-105. Per SDC 4.4-
105(F)(2), the proposed development options include a minimum of 5 percent
landscaping in the interior of the parking lot because there are 24 parking spaces
located between the street side of a building and Main Street, and they are visible
from any street. Reference the attached Site Plans, Parking Calculations, for
details. The MDR portion of the site either meets or exceeds the landscape
requirements for the residential portion of the development options per SDC
4.3.2-240 and SDC 4.4-105. As noted on the landscape architecture drawings,
landscaping will be provided in all required setback areas and installed per the
applicable code standards.
As noted above, all landscaping will be irrigated with a permanent irrigation
system unless the project's licensed landscape architect submits written
verification that the proposed plant materials do not require irrigation. The exact
sizes, species and locations of plantings as well as the irrigation system will be
provided at the time of building permit application submittal in compliance with
code standards. These findings and the attached landscape architecture planting
plan, schedules and details for the three development options demonstrate that
the landscaping requirements have been met.
"." ';...
,...._.:~-
. .._,...,....
SDC 4.4-110 Screening:
Findings: Adjacent to the LDR properties to the south, cedar fence screening is
provided in all three development options because a commercial district and
multi-family buildings abut a residential district i,n accordance with SDC 4.4-
11 0(A)(1) and (6) and SDC 4.4-11 0(B)(3). the proposed outdoor trash
receptacles are screened with 6'-0" partial. height masonry walls per SDC 4.4-
110(B)(3)(c). Reference the architecture and landscape architecture drawings for
details. Therefore, the criteria under this section are met.
SDC 4.4-115 Fences:
Findings: As noted above, in all three development options, there is a screening
fence proposed along the property lines that abuts the adjacent to the LDR zoned
properties as well as the CC zoned property (Tax Lot 6203) to the south. Per
Table 4.4-1, the base height of this proposed fence shall be 6'-0". The fence
..
.
City of Springfield
Site Plan Review Application.
February 15, 2011
Page 32 of 37
details shall be proposed at the time of building permit. application submittal
consistent with the requirements outlined under SDC 4.4-115. Therefore, the
criteria under this section are met.
SDC4.5-100 On-Site Lighting Standards:
Findings: Exact outdoor building lighting will be proposed at the time of building
permit application submittal in accordance with the On-Site Lighting Standards.
All proposed site lighting will be installed in compliance with the requirements of
this code section and the applicable Multi-Unit Design. Standards as outlined
. above. In all development options, the. proposed site lighting is the minimum
illumination necessary for the on-site parking and loading areas. All proposed
exterior site and building light fixtures will be shielded so that direct glare and
reflection are contained within the boundaries of the property, and directed
downward and away from abutting properties and public rights-of-way. In all
development options, parking lot light fixtures are proposed to be a maximum
height of 20'-0", which is less than the .required maximum 25'-0" per SDC 4.5-
11 O(B)(l). There are no parking lot light fixtures proposed within 50'-0" of the
residential zoning district to the south. These findings, the Site Plans and attached
proposed Parking Lot Light Fixture Specifications demonstrate that these criteria
are met.
SDC 4.6-105 through 4.6-125 Vehicle Parking:
Findings: In each option, vehicle and bicycle parking calculations for the
commercial buildings are based on assumptions of a possible tenant mix.
Site Plan Option A: As required by the assumed commercial tenant uses (eating
and drinking establishment and retail, personal service and/or small office uses)
and the multi-family dwelling use, a minimum of 58 off-street parking spaces are
required per Table 4.6-2 (see vehicle parking calculations on Sheet A 1). The
proposed development option provides 15 individual. garages (one for each
residential dwelling unit) and 43 surface parking spaces, totaling 58 parking
spaces. The applicant proposes a parking lot design in compliance with SDC 4.6-
115; all standard stall widths are g'-O" wide and 18'-0" in length including a 2'-0"
bumper overhang over landscaping beds and walkways (reference drawings for
specific locations). The compact spaces are 8'-0" wide and 18'-0" in length
including a 2'-0" bumper overhang over landscaping beds and walkways. The
dimensions and proposed striping of the parking spaces and drive aisles meet the
parking area standards per SDC 4.6-115-120.
In this development option, there are 24 compact spaces proposed (41 percent of
the required parking spaces), which exceeds the maximum allowed 30 percent
per SDC 4.6-120(G). The Metro Plan and East Main Street Refinement Plan both
support mixed-use or nodal development to more efficiently use land. Consistent
with this objective, the increased number of compact parking spaces proposed in
.
.
City of Springfield
Site Plan Review Application
February 15, 2011
Page 33 of 37
Site Plan Option A allows efficient use of the site by meeting the number of
parking spaces required while at the same time accommodating the increased
driveway throat depth requirements for the proposed Main Street driveway,
reducing the impervious coverage of surface parking area and maintaining the
higher density of development. Note that all of the compact .spaces have a
standard length dimension and only have a compact width dimension.
Site Plan Option B: As required by the assumed commercial tenant uses (eating
and drinking establishment and retail, personal service and/or small office uses)
and the multi-family dwelling use, a minimum of 58 off-street parking spaces are
required per Table 4.6-2 (see vehicle parking calculations on Sheet A 1). The
proposed development option provides 15 individual garages (one for each
residential dwelling unit) and 46 surface parking spaces, totaling 61. parking
spaces. There are 15 compact parking spaces provided or 25. percent of the
required parking, which is less than the maximum 30 percent allowed per SDC
4.6-120(G). The applicant proposes a parking lot design in compliance with SDC
4.6-115; all standard stall widths are 9'-0" wide and 18'-0" in length including a 2'-
0" bumper overhang over landscaping beds and walkways (reference drawings for
specific locations). The compact spaces are 8'-0" wide and 18'-0" in length
including a 2'-0" bumper overhang over landscapi'ng beds and walkways. The
dimensions and proposed striping of the parking spaces and drive aisles meet the
parking area standards per SDC 4.6-115-120.
Site Plan Ootion C: As required by the assumed commercial tenant eating and
drinking establishment use and the multi-family dwelling use, a minimum of 83
off-street parking spaces are required per Table 4.6-2 (see vehicle parking
calculations on Sheet A 1). The proposed development option provides 15
individual garages (one for each residential dwelling unit) and 68 surface parking
spaces, totaling 83 parking spaces. Th,ere are 24 compact parking spaces
provided or 29 percent of the required parking, which is less than the maximum
30 percent allowed per SDC 4.6-120(G). The applicant proposes a parking lot
design in compliance with SDC 4.6-115; all standard stall widths are 9'-0" wide
and 18'-0" in length including a 2'cO" bumper overhang over landscaping beds and
walkways (reference drawings for specific locations). The compact spaces are 8'-
0" wide and 18'-0" in length including a 2'-0" bumper overhang over landscaping
beds and walkways. The dimensions and proposed striping of the parking spaces
and drive aisles meet the parking area standards per SDC 4.6-115-120.
...:;,'.~.;;:.
These findings, together with the architecture and civil engineering drawings,
demonstrate that these standards have been met.
SDC 4.6-130 through 4.6-135 Loading Areas:
Findings: In all three development options, in addition to the required parking
spaces, there is one proposed delivery and loading area provided that is located
on-site outside of the required setbacks. In all three options, the total proposed
.
.
City of Springfield
Site Plan Review Application
February 15, 2011
Page 34 of 37
on-site loading area is 250 square feet square for the approximately 5,500 square
feet (Site Plan Options A and B) and 6,000 square feet (Site Plan Option C) of
total commercial building area, which meets the minimum loading area for the
site per SDC 4.6-135(C). In all options, the loading area is a minimum 10'-0"
wide and over 25'"0" long (excluding pedestrian walkway), which meets the
required minimum dimensions (10'-0" wide by 25'-0" long). Therefore, these
criteria are met.
SDC 4.6-140 through 4.6-150 Bicycle Parking:
Findings: The proposed bicycle parking spaces, location and 'facility design
complies with SDC 4.4-145-150. As noted above, vehicle and bicycle parking
calculations are based on assumptions of a possible commercial tenant mix.
Site Plan Option A: As required by the assumed commercial tenant uses (eating
and drinking establishment and retail, personal service and/or small office uses),
the commercial short-term and long-term bicycle parking spaces provided exceed
the number required (reference Sheet A 1 for bicycle parking calculations). The
six unsheltered short-term bicycle parking spaces are located along the on-site
pedestrian walkway system with ramps that conhect to Main Street, South 51~
Place and South 520d Street. The proposed racks are hitching posts or staple
racks. The long-term bicycle parking spaces for the commercial buildings will be
located inside building tenant spaces in a secure location, which will be proposed
in compliance with SDC 4.4-145-150 at the time of individual tenant infill
building permit application submittals. The long-term bicycle parking spaces for
the 15 residential units will be located inside each individ.ual unit's garage.
Therefore, these criteria are met.
'"., .~..
':.\.:.~:;:":
Site plan Option B: As required by the assu'med commercial tenant uses (eating
and drinking establishment and retail, personal service and/or small office uses),
the commercial short-term and long-term bicycle parking spaces provided exceed
the number required (reference Sheet A 1 for bicycle parking calC'ulations). The
six unsheltered short-term bicycle parking spaces are located along the on-site
pedestrian walkway system with ramps that connect to Main Street, South 51~
Place and South 520d Street. The proposed racks are hitching posts or staple
racks. The long-term bicycle parking spaces for th~ commercial buildings will be
located inside building tenant spaces in a secure location, which will be proposed
in compliance with SDC 4.4-145-150 at the time of individual tenant infill
building permit application submittals. The long-term bicycle parking spaces for
the 15 residential units will be located inside each individual unit's garage.
Therefore, these criteria are met.
Site Plan Option C: As required by the assumed commercial tenant uses (eating
and drinking establishment), the commercial short-term and long-term bicycle
parking spaces provided exceed the number required (reference Sheet A 1 for
bicycle parking calculations). The eight unsheltered short-term bicycle parking
.
.
City of Springfield
Site Plan Review Application
February 15, 2011
Page 35 of 37
spaces are located along the on-site pedestrian walkway system with ramps that.
connect to Main Street, South 51~ Place and South 52nd Street. The proposed
racks are hitching posts or staple racks. The long-term bicycle parking spaces for
the commercial building will be located inside building tenant space in a secure
location, which will be proposed in compliance with SDC 4.4-145-150 at the
time of individual tenantinfill building permit application submittals. The long-
term bicycle parking spaces for the 15 residential units will be located inside each
individual unit's garage. Therefore, these criteria are met.
SDC 4.7-210 Residential Uses in Commercial Districts:
Findings: The proposed subject parcels are located in the Mixed-Use Area #3 on
the East Main Refinement Plan. Plan Diagram. Per the East Main Refinement Plan
(Mixed-Use Element, Area#3, page 11) Medium- and High-Density Residential
uses are allowed. under the Community Commercial zoning district. Consistent
with this criterion, the proposed multiple-family residential portion of the mixed-
use development options meets the applicable MDR Base Zone Development
Standards and Multi-Unit Design Standards contained in this code because the
refinement plan does not specify development standards for this area. As
demonstrated on the Site Plan Review drawings, the remainder of this written
statement, and other materials attached herein, this criterion has been met.
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 driveways on arterial and collector streets as specified
in this Code or other applicable regulations and comply with theODOT
access management standards for State highways.
Findings: In all three development options the orientation of the buildings,
parkingand ingress-egress points serve to maximize efficiency for access, on-site
circulation and function while minimizing impact to the adjacent properties. The
site plans are organized so that the more intensive commercial uses and
associated parking are located along Main Street and the residential portion of the
site is located adjacent to the LDR zoned properties to the south of the subject
properties. In development Option A, the driveway on Main Street is a limited
right-in and right-out access point primarily serving the commercial buildings
located along the principal arterial. In all three development options, the
proposed residential buildings are located between the LDR properties to the
south and the main east-west drive aisle running through the mixed-use
development site with access from South 51st Place and South 52nd Street. In the
development options, the proposed raised crosswalk located towards the center
of the site that crosses this main drive aisle provides safe on-site pedestrian,
bicycle and vehicular circulation between the residential arid commercial portions
of the development.
. ..
-
.
.
City af Springfield
Site Plan Review Applicatian
February 15, 2011
Page 36 af 37
As nated abave, the develapment aptian site plans shaw an-site circulatian far
pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles as required by the Springfield Develapment
Cade. In all three develapment aptians, the propased cantinuaus an-site
pedestrian walkway system connects the primary building entrances af all
cammercial and residential buildings to. the existing public sidewalk an Main
Street, Sauth 51st Place and Sauth 52,d Street, and to. the adjacent re"sidential and
cammercial praperties. The existing public sidewalk and bike lanes an Main
Street provide access to. adjacent and nearby residential, cammercial and
industrial areas as well as Bluebell Park, Riverbend Elementary Schaal and ather
neighbarhaad activity centers. Safe pedestrian and bicycle circulatian is pravided
between the buildings and parking areas throughaut the site by clearly marked
striped ar raised paved walkways.
The subject parcels are serviced via Lane Transit District (L TO) Raute 11
(Thurstan). There is a bus stap within a half a black af the subject site an either
side af Main Street far eastbaund and westbaund transit riders. The route is
serviced every 10 to. 15 minutes throughaut the day. Reference the Traffic
Impact Study, Appendix C, far the L TO route schedule.
As nated abave, the existing public street and traffic safety cantrol systems will nat
be exceeded with the additian af the prapased develapment aptians and are
available to. serve the site at the time af develapment. Reference the attached TIS
dated Octaber 13, 2010 for details. In additian, anly in develapment aptian A,
there is ane driveway prapased an the principal arterial, Main Street, which is
shared between the two. subject properties. The pending ODOT Right-af-Way
Approach Permit far the limited access driveway an Main Street is attached for
reference. In all develapment aptians, parking areas and ingress-egress paints .,~:
have been designed to. safely facilitate vehicular traffic, bicycle and pedestrian
circulatian and avaid congestian as well as pravide cannectivity within the
develapment area and to. adjacent residential and cammercial areas. Therefare,
the criteria under this sectian are met.
E. Physical features, including, but nat limited to.: steep slapes with unstable sail
ar geolagic conditians; areas with susceptibility af f1aading; significant
clusters af-trees and shrubs; watercaurses shawn an the WQLW Map and
their associated riparian areas; wetlands; rock 'autcrappings; apen spaces;
and areas af histaric and/ar archaealagical significance, as may be specified
in Sectian 3.3-900 ar ORS 97.740-760, 358.905-955 and 390.235-240, shall
be protected as specified in this Cade ar in State ar Federal law.
The subject site is flat. With the exceptian af 10 existing trees and the existing
hause an Tax Lat 6300, the site daes nat have any ather natable landscaping like
significant clusters af trees and shrubs. Additianally, the site daes nat have any
watercourses and assaciated riparian areas, wetlands, rock autcroppings, apen
spaces ar areas af histaric and/ar archaealagical significance as specified in
Sectian 3.3-900 ar ORS 97.740-760, 358.905~955 and 390.235-240.
.
.
City of Springfield
Site Plan Review Application
February 15, 2011
Page 37 of 37
Per the Soils Survey of Lane County Oregon, the site is (119) salem-urban land
complex. This soil has a highwater table depth of >6~. Based on the results of
the geotechnical investigation, no geologic or geographical hazards were
identified on the site that would prohibit the construction of the proposed
development. Reference the attached Geotechnical Investigation dated July 19,
2010, details.
Furthermore, the site is located within a shaded FEMA Zone X flood hazard zone.
(an area determined to be outside of the sOO-year flood plain). Reference the
attached FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map Number 41039C1162 F. Therefore,
the three proposed site development options will not be a significant risk to
public health and safety in terms of stormwater control or flood hazard. As the
site is flat and is located outside the sOO-year flood zone, slope failure and soil
erosion are not concerns associated with this site.
The site does not have physical features as outlined above that require protection
as specified in the Springfield Development Code or in State or Federal law,
therefore, the criteria under this section are met.
v. Conclusion
Based on the information and findings contained in this written statement, associated
attachments and .drawings, the proposed Site Plan Review meets the'criteria of
approval contained in the Springfield Development Code. Therefore, the applicant
requests that the Director approve the proposal for three development options as
presented. Both the applicant and the applicant's representative are available for,
questions as necessary.
<~
If you have any questions about the above application, please do not hesitate to
contact Kristen Taylor at TBG Architects & Planners/lnc (541.687.1010),
Sincerely,
.-..--
Kristen Taylor, CSBA
Project Manager
cc: Nick Boyles, OBO Enterprises, LLC
Damien Gilbert, Branch Engineering, Inc,
Carol Schirmer, Schirmer + Associates, LLC
Z:\PR0j\200913 OBO S1st.52nd & ~ajn\Corresp\Agency\Site Plan Review\Tentative\200913-Site Plan Review Tentative.doc
.
.
- ..... "_.-
.........,.'.......
.
.
City of Springfield - Site Plan Review Application
51"-52,d & Main Street Redevelopment
February 15, 2011
EXHIBIT A
Parking Lot Lighting Fixture Specification
& Photometric Test Report
"
.,---,.,."".........--. -.-.... .,...-.,-
fA LfTHONf'~/GHT'Nl:r
-
FEATURES & SPECIFICATIONS
INTENDED use _ Ideal for parking areas. street lighting, wall:'N!lY~ :and car lots.
tDNSTRUCTION _ ihlggelt die-~ast soft corner aluminum housing with 0.11 nominal !Nail
:hickne'Ss. Die-cast door frame has impact-resistant. temperari, giii~S. !e~'S :hat is fully J3SKetad
with one-lJiece tubular s~!cane.
FINISH. _ Standard finis;h is dark ::Iflmz:e rODBi palyes:.er ;1owcier finish, with other af::hi~i;-
tlJralc:olofsavailable.
QPTICAL SYSTEM -Ano::li::ed. :lluminum hydroformed feflect'Jfs: IES full.clftoff distn1iutioils
R2 (asymmetric\. R3 (3:S'iffimetrici. R4 (forward thr:lwl :'!nd R5S lsqu<l(a) are interchanljeable.
High.;Jerformanca anodizei1. segmanred Jluminum reflecrofs IE5 ~U '::tJtoff ::listrElutions SR2
(asymmet,ic!. SR3 {asymmetricl and SR4SC {forward mr:Jw, sharil :utoffl. Segmented reflac-
tors "ttach with tool-less fasteners and ::lre rotatable and interchangeable.
ELECTRICALSVSTEM - BallaSt: High reactance, high ;lo,,"Jer factor for 70-15GW.'Co~stant
wattage 3urotransformsr for 175-~I]OW. Meral halide 150W and helow.ar:! standard wit'
pulse-start ignitor :echnalog\,; super CWA pulse.;;rart Dallastraquired for 200W. 3Z0W ,md
350W lSCWA ~ptionl. Ballast is copper-wound and 100% fac:ory-tested.
Super CV1jA pulse :itanb~Ha~ts. g8% efficient and EISA :ompli3.1t, iI,a (S'qu;(S'!:i il)r IS140!)W
(must Draer SCWAoplionl forUS shipments only. Not available: 115M 5CWA. CSA. NOM ar INTI
required iar proDe ')tart shipments outside the US.
Sodet Porcelain, horizontally oriented medium base sackat for 70-150M. Mogul base
socket for 175M and above, and 7{J..4DDS, wiL'1 copper alloy, tli~kel-plared screw shell and
eentercontactULlisred 1500W.600V.
USTING - UL Ustl!d lst3:odardl. CSA Certified Isee Options1.lJL Iis~E!d far25"C ambient and
wet locations. IflGS tated in" ac::or~ance with standard fEe 529.
S;JO!cificalions subiect~ :hilnge without notice.
Catalog Number
Notes
Tv~e
~@
Soft Square Lighting
Specifications
EPA: 12 ft."
'Weight 35.91b5 116.28 'gl
lengih: 17-1n' 144.5 em)
Width: 17-112' {4+.5 eml
Depth: J-I/8" IIS.leml
"""Weight as: cOl1ftgured in
example b~low.
q
L4' I
110.2 em}
KAD
Mil: 70W-400W
liPS: 70W-400W
20' to 35' Mounting
J'
J-IIS'
11:C1
I
17-112'
144.5 em}
mU)iERiNG iNfORMATION
For shortest lead times. configur~ product using standard options (shown in baldI,
Example: KAD 400M R3 TB SCWA SP004 LPI
!<Ail
8
KAn;
IVai!:'
120
20B'
240'
2J7
347
480'
TB1!
23050HZ"
1-- :==:c=
Mounting. II .. Ballast I
I-m.g, lennth" {blank} Magnelic
SPD_ Square 04 4" en>> bailast
pole ffi Warm CWl C?nstant
RFO_ Round ' wattage
pol~ 09 9" ann isolated
WBO Wall 12 lZ'arm
- bracket.
WWO_ Wand
pole or
wall
Wattage J
Metal J:.!l.g,h
M.l1.illl nressurg
70M"l.3 ~I
100M' JOS'
150M' . 1005
175M' 15US'
200M' 250S
~OM i 4DUS
320M4 CeramIc
, . metal
350M halide
4GoM' 50MHC
70MHC
100MHC
150MHC
OA012P
Degree ~rm
{pnlel"
Degree arm
(waIlJ"
Decorative wall
bracket'2,13 .
Mast arm'.
extema.l fitter
Twin m.ounting
bar
DAD12WB
WBA
KMA
Distribution
Hvdroformed n~flectlJrs
R2. IES type II asymmetric;;
i~;, lES,lVpe_lIIasvrnmeirii:'1
R4 lEStype IV forward
throw'
?~B !ES J:'I/~~ v sn.lJi~rq
Senmanted reflectors
SR2 IES type II asvrnmetric6
SR3 IES type III asymmetrieS
SR4SC IES type 1'1 forward ihrow
KTMB
Optional multi-tap hallast\12D.20B,240,
znv; in Canada: 120. zn, 347Vl.
Opriuniliii'liHap\;iiJil<i5iii20,:(l:.1~C.
277,480'1).
10 Corisult factorv for available war..ages.
11 9":lrm is required when !:INO ar more
luminaires ar9 oriented on a 90" .
drilling pattern:
12 Ships separately.
13 Available with SPD04 and SP009.
14 Must specify voltage.. NfA with TH.
15 Only available with 5;:12, SR3, &. SR4SC
optics.
16 Max allowablew!lnage lamp included.
17 Maybe:>rdered3sanaccessol''1.
18 See www.1ithonia.~olYlfarcholors for
additional color options.
19 Musth9specified.
20 MuStu5!!RPOOS
~!l~ tt'.
... '_'_' \9
SCWA Super
CWA
pulse
start
ballast
NOTE For shipments
to U.s. territories.
SCWAmustbe
spec'ifi~dtocomply
wiih EISA.
Shinned inStalled in fixture
SF Single fuse 120. 277, 34JV"
OF Double fus~ '208.240, 4BOl4
PO Power tray15
PER NEMA twist-locI:. recep-
tacle only (no
photoeontroil
QRS Uuarti .restrike systeml6
tlRSTO llRS time delay"'"
WTB Terminal wiring blockl5
:, H S ,'.'1 HDuse~side 'I sh ield;
CSA CSA Certified .
INTI. Available for MH probe
stmt shipping outside the
U,S_
Shinoed. seoaratelyl1
PEl NEMA twist-lock PE 1120,
. 208'24OV1 . . . . ..>....
PEJ NEMA iwlst-Iock' PE (347V)
. PE4 NEMA twist-lock PE (480Vl
PE7 NEMA twist-lock. PE 127N) lJ" "''''''~~
SC ~~~j~~ning cap for PER ../l;""' 'A.. \.
VG Vandal guard 'l;' ,,-~.
WG Wire guard . r NIGHTnMl:
~ " . FRI.ENDlY
. t. Consi>lt1lt wi1h LEEO~ 30m
.'h & Gloal!llGlobes",ilena
:"~\." 1Qrrrg!lt~.i:Jn:-eduction ,',."
~'li:\'\_~'" ...,:.._..... :::,. . ,~;,,,,
..... ~. b.\~-::'~?:.;~,.
I
GEJ....
"--P'
--..'
- .
LPI Lamp
. '.included
W 'less
.. _lamp
Finishl~
{blank}
Dark
bronze
While
Black
, M~df~rn
bronze
Natural
aliuninum
Options
Accessories
DWH
DilL
OMB
DNA
}'
~f
O(:1~r 1$ ~Par'at2 .c..atalog: nu~b~r.
N~rnbllroffixtures
NOTES:
1 Notallailahle'NtthSCWA.
2 Not 3vailable..."ith .wJV.
3 Not 3\1ailable with'i8V.
4 MustiJe IJrdered 'Niih SCV~A.
5 Reduced jacket ED28 reQuir'ld ior
SR2, 5M3 and SR4SC 'Jories.
6 House.side shield 3vailahle.
Must specify CWI for "s~ in Canada.
Tenon Mountina Slipfitter
Tenon 0.0. . One Two@180"
2-318" T20-19O 120-280
2-718" 125-190 125-280
4' T35-190 T3S-280
KAOVG Vandal guard
KAOWG Wire guard
Two@90"_
120-290"
125-290"
T35- 290"
Three@1200
T20-320"
T25-32O
T35-320
.,'I,,,:,,....-
Three@900 Four@90o
120-390" T2O-490"
T25-390" T25-490"
T35-390" . T35-490"
Cutdoor
AL -370
Sheel iI: KAD.M-S
) 25?M ~ ~~~I~GooLPOTeL'HrtT FIXTU RErrr:PHoTorEruRICuTES-rc"REwPORT'
~ l./rHDNIA J./GHTlNS' ~cfilfyBrands.
L.;:;i'r,:~g
KAD 250M R3 (PROBE) - OUTDOOR PHOTOMETRIC REPORT
KAD 250M R3 (PROBE)
AREA LUMINAIRE, 250W MH, R3 REfLECTOR, fULL
CUTOff
MEETS THE 'NIGHTTIME fRIENDLY' CRITERIA
M250/U
ONE 2s0-WATT CLEAR BT-28 METAL HALIDE,
HORIZONTAL POSITION.
LAMP OUTPUT: 1 LAMP(S), RATED LUMENS/LAMP: 19500
II,PUT WATTAGE: 297
'LUMINOUS OPE;lING:RECTANGLE (L: hZOfT; w:'LioF'r)' i
--...........,-,.-.. ... - .-..... . .- ,-, .
CATALOG #:
LUMINAIRE:
LAMP CAT #:
LAMP:
EffiCIENCY, 67%
TER CATAGORY: AREA tt SITE LIGHT - TYPE II
TER VALUE: 26
MAX CD: 7,119,0 AT HORIZONTAL: 65", VERTICAL: 67,5'
,f.UT.O~1'; cWS: ':';,.F1JLL curQffJ
ROADWAY CLASS: SHORT, TYPE II
7.~()J
Polar Candela Distribution
1~.~ PO? ]#P 150' .14'Y
5,c/oo
DO:!
4,SOQ
no'
3.500
2.400
1,:zDJ
11!P
Iocr
ell. 0
1,200
2AfrJ
90'
SIP
70:!
3.600-
GO'
4,900
5,000
7,2OJ
Ei . 0' H
!!il - 90' H'
SO~
VA:O;:; 10' 2~ 30' 40'
i:: . lBOo H Il!l' Max Cd: 65' H
6 5 4
5
A
~
3
2
!
0
1
2
3
4
S
NIGHTTL\\E
FRIfNDlY
Produc;t Page
Specification Sheet
Isofcctcandle Plot
s 2 1 Q ! 2. .3 .;' 5
'Yo,
'-~~""
I " \'
1 . ..
, ,
{ .
J ' ,
~ "\
t '
,-
,,'
.'
-55
!ii 20 fe :'0: 1 fe r-lount height: lOft
1110 fe III OS fe Total LLF: 1
as fe 21 O.lfe Il'lSO% Max Candela
DistanCe: in un~~ of mount h:ight -.- Max Cd Value:
LUMENS PER ZONE :ZONAL LUMEN SUMMARY
..------
ZONE LUMENS % TOTAL ZONE LUMENS % TOTAL ZONE LUMENS % LAMP % LUMINAIRE
-.-----.---..-.-----.....--.--.--- ------.-
0-10 201.1 . 1.5% 90-100 0 0% 0.30 1,974.2 10.1% 15.1%
10-20 621.3 4.B% 100-110 0 0% 0-40 4,010,6 20,6% 30,7%
20-30 1,151.8 8.8% 110-120 0 0% 0-60 9,216.0 47.3% 70.5%
30-40 2,036.4 15.6% 120-130 0 0% 60-90 3,854.5 19.8% 29,5%
40-50 2,644,9 20.2% 130-140 0 0% 0-90 13,070,5 67% 100%
O'25?M R3 (PROBE) - Outdoor PhOlornetr.eport .
50-60 2,560_5
60-70 2,375.2
70-80 1,422.4
80.90 56.9
19.6% 140-150
18.2% 150-160
10.9% 160.170
0.4% 170-180
http://WWw.VlsUal-jrrools/pnorometrlc viewer! Qe[aWLaspx:lO~...
o
o
o
o
0%
90-180 0 0% 0%
0-180 13,070.5 67% 100%
.-..-.,,-.~..,,-_. ......~ .... ......-. -..-.......-.
EFFICIENCY TOTAL: 67%
0%
0%
0%
.
City of Springfield - Site Plan Review Application
51 "_52nd & Main Street Redevelopment.
February 15, 2011
.
EXHIBIT B
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
Number 41039C1162 F
,
.
.
A
,
D
.
-
_......._....__.I,OC'.t.__
-".........-.-----
-......
an OPSPROOlPJEU)
~n
,
:
i
,
,
I,
r
I
~
~
"
::
:::
LEGEND
--:;"1::-----
IilZlIJ _-:--::-___
-.. --.,.....--
"----
-.. --......--
-.-----
---......-
-- ~.._-_...-
-----
_.----
-. ........----
------
- .:.:.=.:=.:---:
/li;fjl '::.-:!'-=.-=.=-.'::
.-.---..-
,-----.
----
0':::.-=--._--
~ i:? ~
===----.-.-
==
-'-
---....
--...-
- -.-
-----
--... .....
- .
-... -...
-......--
---....
----
..--..--
-
(;}----0
--
-.
--.....-
.,.................. --.--'"
~
~~"P.:;::.::""~;:-~
=--=-......-..--.
:::-.:.:=.';';':"..:;---_......
=-.:::.:..-----..-..
-..---.---
===--:.,-::-.=.-..--=
:'-="'-;:'"==::''':.."":''::;:','='-
~':::"":.F::?'".:::..===
=::'='.?=:-='!:.:"~E
::=r,=-':?=-::;:_~::=
l:...'"'=':.:-===----
:.-=---.::=---
-..-.-...--
---
-......-....-
::':'=1:.:::";:::::.=
::.~=:.:=:~_.
..
-.......-
- . -
---
.. ....
......f
"""""'"
..t'"
..I ....
--
.
Theodore R. Kulongoski, Governor
Oepartment of Transportation
ODOT District 5
644 'A' Street
Springfield, OR 97477
(541) 744-8080
Fax: (541) 726-2509
John.DOWNING@odot.state.or.us
File Code: PMT 4-07
September 16, 2010
Damien Gilbert
. Branch Engineering, Inc
310 5th Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Subject:
Supplemental Documentation Required (Checklist) to Continue
Processing of Application for State Highway Approach
Highway Number 015, (McKenzie),
at Mile Point 5.72
Application Number 10859
Dear Damien Gilbert:
The Oregon Department of Transportation has completed an initial review of your
Application for State Highway Approach, and has determined that supplemental
documentation is required in order to properly evaluate your application. The
Department may require supplemental documentation before an application is deemed
complete. (OAR 734-051-0070(6)1. .
The supplemental documentation required for the Department to continue processing
your application is iqentified and defined below.
o
Detailed information on the type of development, including the number and . ..
square footage of buildings and units with a complete description of the proposed
land uses of the property(s) to be served by the approach (es).
Vicinity map(s) showing:
o Location on state highway by milepost, engineer's station, or other
landmarks; .
o Existing highway plan and access management controls;
o Existing land uses and zoning;
o Existing ingress or egress easements;
o . Adjoining lots showing the development footprint and all approaches, and
any other approaches onto any existing, planned, and proposed abutting
roads and streets abutting the site to show at least twice the applicable
o
1 If you would like a complete copy ofthe Chapter 734 Division 51 Rule, you may obta~ ~llI8ived:
. visiting our website at: http://www.oreoon.oovIODOTIHWYIACCESSMGTltechnicalbulletins.shtml or by
contacting ODOT's Rules Coordinator at (503) 986-3171. FEB 1 5 2011
Original Submittal
.
.
... "'
Supplemental Documentation Required to Continue Processing of Application
for State Highway Approach Additional Documentation Required
Highway Number 015, (McKenzie), al Mile PolnlS.n
Application Number 10859.
Thursday, Seplember 16, 2010
Page 2
spacing standard on both sides of the roadway along any roadway
available for ingress and egress from the property; and
'0 Structures and other features (e.g., traffic signals, drainage ditches and
pipes, streams, ponds, lakes or railroads).
o A preliminary drainage plan of the site showing impacts to the highway right-of-
way.
o A drainage study prepared by an Oregon Registered Professional Engineer.
o Map(s) showing existing and proposed, if known, utility locations b,efore and after
development in and along the highway.
o Site plan to scale, including:
o Existing and proposed approach(es) from the property to the highway as
well as to other existing, planned and proposed streets and roads;
o Existing, planned and proposed utilities, if known, including in and along
the highway;
o Right of Way survey and land donation (if applicable);
o Identification of protected resource areas such as wetland, timber, or
archeological sites, and any identified location or mitigation;
o Identification of proposed traffic mitigation measures;
o Existing and proposed buildings;
o Existing and proposed property lines;
o On-site traffic flow pattern;
o Parking, including number and arrangement of all spaces including
disabled;
o Drive through windows/gas pumps;
o Existing, planned or proposed transit facilities, such as turnouts;
o Sight clearance including landscaping;
o Existing, planned and proposed sidewalks on site or on the highway right
~~ -.
o North arrow on drawings. and
o Pedestrian and bicycle accomodations
o Grant
o Indenture
[XI Transportation Impact Study (see Attachment regarding the Technical
Memorandum Review)
o An Access Management Plan as a mitigation measure (see Attachment )
o Hazardous material collection and/or treatment system report.
o Other '
All of the above supplemental documentation must be submitted to our office by
November 15, 2010 unless you and the Department agree to a time extension before
November 15, 2010. Please note that this application will expire if the supplemental
. documentation or an extension is not received by November 15, 2010. Unless a time
extensiCiriis' agreed to, submittal of any information after the date of emt@i'Re't!~Rled'
processed as a new application. "
[' FEB 1 52011
Original Submittal
" '~
.
.
Supplemental Documentation Required h.. _ .Jntinue Processing of Application
. for State Highway Approach Additional Documentation Required
Highway Number01S, (McKenzie), at Mile Point S.72
Appilcation Number 10859.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Page 3
..,
Please contact John Downing, Permit Specialist at (541) 744-8080 if questions arise in
the process of providing the supplemental documentation.
Sincer~ .
M~~i~ Manager
ODOT istrict
c: John Downing, Permit Specialist
David Knitowski, Regional Access Management Engineer
. .
'. ,;.. " :r:'::. ,': t:~' ::., '. ,.
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
Original Submittal
.,r
. .
Oregon Department of Transportation
Application for State Highway Approach
...
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Permit Specialist
Pennit Type: New Change of Use Temporary Restricted
Modification of Existing: 0 Yes. 0 No Deviation: 0 Yes .ONo. .
NOTES:
Hwy#: Milepoint: Station: CHAMPS ID#:
I."'" ".co"'''' s"mu
I
Required Information
The applicant must submit the following information with the Application for State Highway Approach. ODOT will notify
the applicant if additional information is required.
. All attachments required by answers on the application form, including applicant signature.
. If the applicant is not the owner of the property to be served by the approach, then the property owner must authorize
the applicant as a designated agent The applicant must have the property owner complete the Authorization of
Designated Agent block on this form OR submit a signed letter from the property owner authorizing the applicant as
the designated agent.
. .Site plan and vicinity map approved or currently being reviewed by the local government
. " A Land Use Compatfbility Statement (LUCS) for a State Highway Approach (page 40f this application) must be
completed by the local government
. A copy of the current County tax lot map for the property served by the approach. Map must highlight all property that
would be served by the approach and list all owner name(s) on adjacent properties. Make a note on map if ownership
of adjacent property is same as subject property. Identify the location of the proposed approach on map. t
. A copy of the recorded easement(s), if the subject property has an existing easement(s) for access to the prope .
. A copy of any existing state or local government approach permits for th~ property.
In addition to the above submittals, the applicant may be required to place stakes or markings near the highway sho~lder
at the proposed approach location. . . I
Definitions for commonly used terms are in the attached brochure The brochure is also available on the ODOT website
located at: http://www.oreaon.Qov/ODOT!HWY/ACCESSMGT/
Applicant Information
Last Name: Gilbert
Street Address: 31 0 5th Street
City: Springfield
Mailing Address: 310 5th Street
City: Springfield
Phone Number: 541-746-063T
Cell Phone Number:
., First Name: Damien
r Company: Branch Engineering~ Inc
I State: OR
Zip Code: 97477
I County: Lane I
I State: OR
Zip Code: 97477
FAX Number:
I County: Lane
E-mail Address:damien@branchengineering.com
Is applicant working as an Agent of the Owner? YES: 100 NO: 0 f
If YES, the owner must complete the Authorization of Designated Agent section below, ORATTACH a letter from th
owner authorizing applicant to act as hislher agent ,.." _> _ "'
Approach Location ' I .
Highway Name - May be a statewide highway name such as Pacific Highway, or a local name like East~iQ 1;itrl"ek011
Route Number" The posted. highway number, e.g. 1-5 or US-B4 tttl 1 :) t.
Highway Name: McKenzie Hwy Roule Number: 15 County: Lane
Mile Point:..5. 72;.,:, . : Sid~ of Highway: North 0 South ~ East 0 West c9riginal Submittal
Is the highway iria ~a'ti'onal forest area?: Yes 0 No [~
734-2680 (810B)
Page 1 of 4
~ (Q) IFT'::;.(
'Authorization of Desi
I Nick Boyles
Damien Gilbert
my agent in the matter of this highway approach permit application.
Owner Signature:
.
(printed name of property owner) authorize
(printed name of applicant) to represent me as
A '/icarit'Si nature"
NOTiFICATiON TO APPLICANT: The ODOT District Office will contact you when your application has been reviewed. If additional
documents are required to continue the application process you will I:>e notified. When all of the necessary documents have been
received, the application will be deemed complete. If your completed application is approved, preliminary construction specifications
will be issued. A performance bond and liability insurance will be required before any construction work can begin on ihe highway right
of way. Forthe'compiete rules regarding approach permitting, see OAR Chapter 734 Division 51.
The Applicant declares, certifies, and affirms under penalty of applicable state or federal laws that all information
provided on this form and attachments are true and complete to the best of his/her knowledge.
Printed Name: Damien Gilbert
cAidClifidnalA roach Information
Application is a request for (check all that apply)
o New Approach - There is no existing permitted or grandfathered approach road at the location requested in this
application '
o Temporary Approach - The approach requested will be removed after a specified period of time
~ Existing Approach - Th is application affects, or may affect, an existing approach
o Restricted Use Approach - The approach requested is for emergency services, government, utility access or similar
s ecific uses with limited traffic'
Vehicle TiJmin Movements
Turn movements requested (check all that apply) ,
All movements: ~ OR Right In: 0 Right Out 0 Left In: 0 Left Out 0
Pro e "Owner Information (If different than applicant)
Last Name: OBO Enterprises LLC
Street Address: 1528 Ferry St #11
City: Eugene
Mailing Address: 1528 Ferry St #11
City: Eugene
Phone Number:
First Name:
State: OR
Zip Code: 97401
County: Lane
State: OR
Zip Code: 97401
FAX Number.
County: Lane
Cell Phone Number. 541-954-0217
E-maii Address:
Are there additional owners of the subject property? YES: 0 NO: ~
If YES, ATTACH the same contact information as above for each of the co-owners on a separate sheet of paper.
Pro e "Information (attach additional pagels) if space is insufficient)
Subject property address(es):#5175 & #5195 Main Street
City:Springfield ' .......- C",-, Zip Code: 97477
Township(s) 17S ~.~.~ge(s) 02W Section(s) 33
County: Lane
Tax lot(s) 06200 & 06300
Current zoning:CC Proposed zoning: CC
In the boxes below, describe the existing and proposed land use(s) on the property, includi acreage.
Existing: Proposed:
residential, Area 1.50 Ac multi-family, fast food, Area 1,50 AcfEB 1 ~ 2011
734-2680 (8/08)
Page 2 of 4
.,.fiG:,!':.
.....:,. .,'.......__..-._-.."'~._.-
.
.
.. .
. Site Plan & VfciniiyMap'Requirements
Local government site.plai) .'
.'.". '...........,
.'.~. ...,;~;...:~~.~~;;t.~;$j~~,:th:'
Has the local government approved a site plan or is the local government currently reviewing a plan for the
proposed land use?
DYes (If yes, attach a copy of the plans being reviewed by the local government)
~ No.
Submit drawing(s) no larger than 11' x 17' in size. Site plan(s) shall include all applicable information listed
below:
. :~l$1r;jf$JI.
Property location and property lines, including:
. North arrow
. Show all lots or parcels that are part of the property or development with their ~orresponding tax lot
numbers identified
. Distance from the property lines to the center of the proposed approach
Using solid lines, show:
. Proposed approaches with requested width and tuming movements shown
. Proposed & existing buildings and structures to be retained
. Proposed use of existing buildings and structures to be retained
. Other proposed equipment or facilities and their proposed use
. Proposed access or 'cross-over" easements with neighboring properties
. Nearest approaches on both sides of the highway within 500' of the proposed approach center-line
Using dashed lines, show:
. Existing approaches with width and turning movements shown
. Place an "X' on approaches to be removed
. Existing buildings and structures to be removed.
. Existing equipment or facilities to be removed
. Other existing facilities to be removed
. Existing access or "cross-over" easements with neighboring properties
Show proposed on-site circulation, including:
. Travel lanes with travel directions indicated
. Travel lane widths
. Parking spaces or parking areas
. Access locations to the parking spaces or areas
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
Show nearest landmark or cross street:
. Provide nearest cross street name
. Distance from the requested approach location to the nearest cross street
. All public streets. that abut the property(s)
Original Submittal
734-2680 (BlOB)
Page 3 of 4
.HAMPS ID #
What is a LUCS? A Land Use Compatibility Statement (LUCS) is the form ODOT uses to ensure that Highway Approach Permits are
consistent with focal land use requirements.
Why is a LUes Required? ODOT Coordination Rules, OAR 731-015, identify Highway Approach Permits as permits that affect land
use. State law requires ODOT activities that affect land use to be consistent with acknowledged local comprehensive plans...
When is a LUCS Required? An ODOT LUCS must be submitted with every ODOT Highway Approach Permit Application.
How to Compiete the LUCS: The applicant completes Section 1. Section 2 must be completed by the local jurisdiction. The
applicant then submits the completed LUes to ODOT as part of the Highway Approach Permit Application.
,SECTlON'1: Applicant & Sitelnfotmation ' ,
Print applicant name: Damien Gilbert I Applicant signature:
Property owner name: OBO Enterprises LLC
Subject property address: #5175 & #5195 Main Street, Springfield, OR
Site description:
residential lots, the house is removed from #5175, the house remains on #5195 but will be torn down for new development
Descnbe the proposed activity, use, or development, including type and volume of traffic it will generate.
multi-family use, fast food drive through restaurant
Township(s) Range(s) Section(s) Tax lot(s)
17S 02W 33 06200,06300
SECTION 2 must be filled out by a local Planning Official
SECTION 2: Detennination of Compliance with local land Use Requirements
The subject property is: 1fl'nside 0 Outside City Limits lfi. Inside 0 Outside UGB
Current comprehensiv~ Plan designation: k'\; 1\;i d lJ0e. Current zoning: C'6"1~1 vn; J I /u mmr:f ('.-" \
Is a Comprehensive Plan or zoning amendment proposed? YES 0 NO 1;&
If YES, list the proposed plan designation: proposed zoning:
Does the activity, use, or development require land use review to determine compliance will1 land use regulations? YES f;i1( NO 0
If NO, it means that no local land use review is needed. Skip to Local Planning Officiallnforrnation below., ", :".'-
If YES. what is lI1e status of the land use application: 0 Approved 0 Denied 0 Under review )Z(Notyet ~ec'ei~:'d '
Us! file number(s): Is the decision final: YES 0 NO 0
Comments:
Local Plannin Official Information Re uired :
Jurisdiction: (', ~ t' -l s .- nr,{; -c \ d
,~rint planning official's name and title: =-, t,o L' 0 I-)~, k- ? I 2-
-' '- '- L' "n S , ~ ''''f'
Date Received:
Vlailing Address: - Z .::::
G .j
::ity: f) \
'S in ",/-;' t' Ie
)..-I'.f fl,
/-'
::>
~hone:
Zip Code: 4 J -4 I Original Submittal
Fax: 5 -"\ 1- 7Zv:'-
::mail:
l' .5
- ";01 - C'
~
7'3.<1 <"lCOI'\ IO/no\
n_....-. ... _~ ...
0 ;
~ ~ ~
,
1'0 .
,RllI..-._
~
"
~
.
'"
I") Cl
I") ~
I") !:!-
"-~ Im!~
'" 0...,
0 ~CO
0:::
I'- c..~
-~.,
. ..
~ci
~%;:!
..:!ilf:: -
8~t5g 0
~ -1- ==
0 -jr
, . ~'!:l
CI)'
"
.
!:l 0
~ . ~
~
N ~ ~
0
~ ~ -
i f
0
~ ~
4 "
f-
Ik cr to Ll d'm ]3S
; g
~
.
"","" ~
...J
~~
~
- -
,
,
"0 g
I 0
~ ~
,-
:::;:
:;:: 8 0"
. .~.
: 3: ;
",'-
cq
~~,
0-'6'
I")'U
I")w
'z
~:5 '
1"1
l' HlS
~=-_-::-----~--:-:- - -----
;;..
_.~~'91':_____
,~.
--
j
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o
,g
.
~ ~ N
~ ~
-
C)
C)
i
Q"I !ii"
Ii=" '?~
C)
.q- ~.
'-.~
'":S
;;::~
1Ii~
....~
'-..
_~.T._""',___~
~
z
~Hi
~ St.
",
1'01<' 1
!d---.-_'I;
ll; _"
~
lSlS
g
~
-------.M..~..:-:;a..:;:...-- ------
~;
~
-.."'1.__
AlNQ. ,
NOll V'XV' 10NV
1N3if'lSS3SSV tJO.::l
,'"
llS
~'t
=t.
L+zrtoU<:Mt33!i
~o
~
...-.,,--
.
- .
Cl
~
w
G:
o
z
ir
c..
(f)
I ~).
- I
_.I~-'~"""",~ONZ~ _
.
,
, .
~S
.
~
~
"'J....
N
o
~
~
~
'"
:;:
>
.
-----". --
~
J;j
~
.
~
~
'.
..,.
3 ~
o
~
~-'
I
i"
lp, >;
~'!l 0-
I" 0
..
~
::!
S
!::
...--
-
~ e:.
~ . ~
~ ~
i'l GliS-
"
I 0
o
~
...1 ~;r
!!
o
I'
I
g
~
~
.
ij
o
\ .
o
g
.
.""u"
"Ill ~
~
8
~
.. .,-,~~.
~
'0
bl '~
N
z
bl,
"'.
u
:::;:
~ 11
:._~_\iI
-~=J\
, ,-
Date Received:
-L
FEB 1 5 2011
Original submittal
t
gb' I,d'
Wi
UI
<t
-11
,a..1
I
L
~
I~
('
~
,
~
!
~
I~ r
tn,
liOl
...' ~.
6<>'
.
TA.Y Vvt A? T)GTi\ l L- .
ll- D<..-;':5 ~:.:z..
.
HIGHWAY
185. U'
'I
I
6200
f
~
-.:
OBO Ente1rises
I
f. 8? "4+ 'E. I
fO'
6203 ~
,Harold &;, i., I
o . ~ ~
.. Paul1ne .. 6
..
. Mesberg ~
,'" 90.00' .r.88#'$.
~ ........44..,. /df".7"8'
~. .
I~ "0 6201 l
~.. Vidalia art z
~ & Nereo Bur 9
IS". T 3
~ 6202
~
18 s. "78':
S89"'44'C
I
. I
"'@
10:::
:In
~
,~I
7F
So ~"6 -H'E. '53.47' e
Ron & Robin Spencer (\j
q '02-33.'-31.1/-' ~
.~ s",'
. c) t'10\
~ I
ImAl'
6300
0.69 AC.
OBO Enterprises
,
~.
. ~
~..;
~;W
SEE MAP 17 02 33 34
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
Original Submittal
( r'\~"""~1iJ"8~~5~
'-.....J I!! (11-.:1 "'~'iel!l
(.)0:::' f::1 J16 ,... II,.!;
m~~ - ~J :g~:B
l5~ } ~ .'
+-~n. .~ .'.
z
w
~y:
in U
;i
022
~~
-'
<{
lL
C5 .
gzf-
e:,
W
W
ib
Ul
. Z -
<C ib
en
-
:2
.
\,
"
iz
1 02 ~
5
1 f2 tU
1- l!l 6
z
0 9 lfl
0
-- 5 ~
Z 10
W .
. . I
. . .
G . . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
W . . .
. . .
. . .
--1
BLtLS Na03~a '0l3I.:10NI~dS
133~lS NI'v'~ gSV;; ll/ ggg
<l:
i2~
. 11. -l
WIl.
U
zw
01-
UVJ
..
'C
CD ..-
> ..-
C)
'8 N .~.
on
CD ..- 'E
a:::: IJ:I .0
CD LLJ ~
.... LL. (f)
m Iii
Cl .~
~
....
0
133~lS
Jll S3SI~d~31N3 080
NI'v'~ PUGS; ...~ tS lS;
OJ
d~
CJ.;J;oos l'v'JOlJ
g
a
~~
6::;"
g 9~
~!.a .' .1.1
I ~.\.~
:::!;
OtU
~>
U:)a:l
IO<{
-~
~~
133
tJ 1 SON
z
l!l "-
-'2 U)
~~~~
10 (1)
-..- .....~ --.
. I' ") . () E . . . . . . . .
~:- .a-'ye _ .>>~ :>/.~'I ~:':':':':':':':~It
- r~---+-~ .......~
~ · ..... N1t"l'
r - "" -. · ... ·
I ~ I I. .! . · .:::!; O-p
"' -., I I;: ... 8 f-. · . .1
LJ' - - .. .-_J ~ ~ . . · . · . .1
{ l . ... 0-.., I ' .. tU ~ ...
. - - -.~ ' .. IOC\J <I; ...\
> CL . I +. (L ...
itS 02 <{ N 0 C r-.J · · · · ·
!5:i I~ :::!; '7 g ~-., \.. · · · · · · · · ·
o Ull")lD J · ...
~ ~ ~ '7 ~ .. ~=, -: -: I-J' · >1
<.!l Ul~...J I ..:::!; . .
. ~,x" ..._.J I' . ..I 0 . . .1
. Ul r-- <( ... ~-., ~ ~ .....~.
. Ul~1- I U:)ll'\ ...
.... · <{ .. .-_.J c.. IOC\J !;;; ...
· .. L ... ~
~ .o-,YG:O: Jo-'~G,. -,~~ · . · . . . 6
..]- l._ .. . .. I l-
· · F}U)
~ 11,./., ~ ~ ~ . · .1 5 - ~
I IUOO . :::!;<.!l::>
_.J C\I 10 I- :r: · . .1 ~ ~h~
0:- · · :::!; 5 ~
.. )-, :r: ll'\
. · 0< IlJ
.. o~<.!l~
. . 1---
. U)~
· · C\J lL <..!>
. . .\
i~.:. ':',
. ;;.
. . .
. 1::::
. .
r' · .1
. .
. . .1
. . .
. . .1
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
:'2: · · ·
. . .
o . . .1
~ . . .
() . . .
tU ~ ,-,.d)t I
c. E f~::: ~ ~ ~ .:~,~.
...j. .. . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
..........cs ...
".II I. · · · · · · · · _c! · · · ·
O+J.........._ ...
~lIA · · .:.. ~. · · · .~ p...t .- ~
;;::r-
"."
/"'-..
...,-. . . . ...~-
~./ . . . . . . . .
. -.........
-............
~~I
ZO:'
. .
. . .
. .
I. · ·
. .
. . .
1 . ·
. . .
. .
. . .
. .
. . .
>-
$:
I
r--I'-
I
l . . .
o 1. · · ·
~ ...
~ /:......
113 · .... ~
O' ~ Qlz
I- > :;:tU
~ Id! ~ ln~
~ ,~ id ~ ~ r
02 a- :;: U)U)I-
a. <>! 12lO
[J ... <.!l ou
~~ .......~ ~~
.....\ t..
'f- 1'-.." ~'" .~.. ~.,:" UC\NI .~~"
~ ~ "''''~~~~\~~ -~~~~--
~'I/ ~ ~ -' ~ ~~ ~~'\.-J
llZ<3saa -1~"it'"J 8~ l
u n 2 -.: . "".. .-_.J
u:: <{ ..., -. I'~ a
. V' ~... 0-..., - _ .
t :: :@: : :~. .~~: .:. ~.~ ~ ."~ I '~~ "'~~ l:~:~" :
, . . . .. :r: C ~_~
I.... ~ .......... ~I- i
r: ; :::: · ~7~-"
(< : :::: ,/~M~ ~ ~~~
I .. j=, .. ~ lz u.. ~""",,'\:t Ul N ...J
.. .. ~;;ZU) '\ UlO
I~.': : :::: ~~~ :.~ ~~~.
~ .. a .o-,~ ,1 .a.,VG I
~.. '('~'\ ..> OJ
. . .
t... ...
S<:::-. ~D CC ~
. . . . . . . '. 9 . .. .. . . . . to
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. a
................. J
................. c...o
~... . ... ... . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . -
. L._....&&.......
w
.6
.6
-10-
N
~
'<t
C\J
,
aU)
tUU)~
\\l~<(
oZU$:
,
..., ,f....
.~~.....
.. . .. . . .
-.t. .....
.. '\.......
:::!;
o
~
a
.~~
.
-~
-, '"
I Ci ~ ~
---J, tU 0 0
i:'I C\l101-:r:
.....iJ~,'i}?,..
. . . .
.....
. . . .
\. .... '.
_ .. _\ t
- - - 't
\. ....,.
· · tIP
-
\. ~ '""
. It .
. . I. .
. .
.- t' ..
. .
... ..
~'.~
:::!;
o
~
aU)
~~
0::::
I-
IJ)
.
. ,
~
.1 ~
· itS
OJ : II .~
. . . ~
. . t .
..81-
.. . .. ..
. . .
. . .' .
--.
--
o
(1)
I-
0~2
82<(
g~~
~
~
~~
za
CJ.;J;ooS l'v'JOlJ
Vld 15
:3
J
-'
()
1
1
~
~~l;~
I~~
s .:
~ ffi
, ~
hb
LL
a
<0
Z
<(
--.J
D- o
I")
W
f- in
~
-
(f)
0
--.J
<(
~
f-
D-
W
U ,
0
I
:z: .0
l"\
0 /I
U ,
~
,--
~
z(~
lOlOlO
u~u
<0....0:
frjlfllfl
LO(1)<O
_'<tu)
Ul
Z
o
f-
<(
~
~
CO
<(
f-
<!l II
Z l!l
~ ~I/
~lIo...~
ll'llOljo
o l!l <{I-
~~.~
o...l!lU)
G
Z
~
Ct:
<(
(l.
G
~lIJlIJilJlIJ
UUUU
C\J<<{<<
.J..o...o....n...n...
~lfllfllflll)
'<to LO(1) <0
~_C\JC\Jlfl
~
l1:i II II
~80
l!l(1)01l
2_-111
~lj-":
o...n:~X
~lfl::>iQ
U=<2
;E~in::>1I
>otot~;i
0"-"-::l5
:lilfllfl~1"-
5880
lijo."'-Ifl
Cl!Cf)N_
~ ~II
f' I ~II
III BOf:lW '
-----+.-"c--::--coiiP -.y----r -- ~5"s;C- --""" -;;, I: 1 k!
"'" ". ~.~ (i I /1'1
___-:-~,~51st--PL-~~---B" ~'~~:~~4~i~ I f --1-6" w-~ I.:r
-4950, : I B 4~~.o-' 6~, -496) -6' W P> ~ I~ ~ I I -/ : I I
's I 11 I I t I
I ... I t:
'I ' I
. ',,,I ,I
. L" '"
IID,,)I,~.; I \
. '.11 I II
)1: I II
",<II", I ~ II
1'-' I~' I
"JI~ I l' I
. I '" I
;111 I .~."';I.: I
>'111 I I l
~lll I II,
.11 I ~ III
, I ~ I
I '
~\ll I II
D 't~ I I l:Q" I
g~l.}. ~ ~ 11:1
<0 ~1.; - ~ II.
;i11"'~C'J [1'1';:,; /::fj li'l
. '0'
\.,:<:~~ ~~>.: >:',: ,..~ 7'"'\. _I: : II', (
\...:.. -'.. -.:.~ ':':"soo'. '0"'~41'~W '. . .', ,..' . '-,.: 7.~:-'- -:- .-.1""."11: I' ,I !,' I'
217.BO,-- -' ~:"":':' :"'" .. f'
'II I I /I,:
" I I'
I I' I
. ~1J II II. \
]1fP,f1>~ '" I ( ,
HI.;..... II,'
~ I - Till
~ it I ';:,; I
/'1 '" II I
1+-1--- -ii, 'I
." I I _ .
.I~ I "'. .
.I~ I ,.1:
.1' I. ": I
" I' I II
....: II I <0 II, I
:: " ,'. I: I ," II: I
\:.. '... I ~.:~. ~S<;';lq . - I 1 II.
. ..' '. . . . '''" ''''' c;; {;- 7~ . I
NO 00'54'[.. <'0% <;'<;'~OH" I' I I C' I
l!:----OHP - OHP- 1'.f>'i-; 98. ,,' I I I I 'I
-- ---- '- --~ -- ---Ai-1!lID - 6 II I I I.,
=- --:.. -=-=..''l'' ST- - ="'- "f1-<,,__ - - - - ~ - - - __-=-=-," G- _:P I _../,.,----; I
-----~9-:" ww--52nd-= ST---~====12"Sr-B' WW -@--=-j.j"--rJltl
.~ I -----6"W----'ITI-L- -6'W--'L I
-----' ~~~~~-"--:--:'iJ~,-:-lC~""7.--:~y-:-~~\.MI I II II,
...... DTI II'
Z .. "11li1 I II.
';1 I I r
...., I I
N _ -I
I "'I I
I fl:
I ! ~ I
~
~
"
I
13
I
l::
I
~
s
l;
VI
~
8
..
'"
8
[H"!
'"
C')i!'j
"'0
o
1-
~
0/
;:qo:
~ ~~
t "'8
c5
'"
~
8:
;."
"
NOO'OJ' I'f
~;:: 14.36
;;j~
~
.....>
,
1-~
{Q \t~
0/ ,
i.{.
12
'"
t
Q
'"
~
8
~
~
c g
. - ~
c
~ ~
s
rr1
x
-0
=;'
CD
Pl
~
:J
Cb
""
,0
'"
9
~
,
SOO'01'41'W
152.16
1-
~
0..,.
'"
~
...
...
Q
. '"
~"'. ~
C'):!;
"'''' '"
'" 9
o
'"
c:o: r~
~C"') to
'" ij: :->
'" ~-~1 "-197,
SOO'01'41'W
1-
~
00
~
~
'0
'u'
U',
~
1-
'tt
to
,A
//
//
//
//
//
//
/ {.r.I
Ar:J/
//
jr
~%
~'"
III : [ : : ! I I
@@ 8 H 8 ~Il + ~ ~ I ~; ~ H r I t t t t i I j i
llUUllllllllllllllUllllllllUpUllU~llpE;j
~~~,~~~ ~ ~~i~~~~~~~i~i~i~~~~~~i~~~
n~n~ 1J H~qHUI~p~~q~~~~~~~tl
~~a! 2~g\l..!:iL!llLi!i i\l~"r:!ll~~\1~" "'"
~~~ ~nnq~H~ ~n~"~Lf'l \1 ~
~h ~q;j 2"'!il1q ~~~ U~ ~
~ !iI i:I ~.~ U l!
~ ~ ~ ~
-
.
~
I
N ~~;g ~ I:) 1II ~ Branch Engineering, 1:0. PROJECT TITLE: REVISIONS
~ ;r;:e ~~ C'l ~~ Q ~ OBO ENTERPRISES, LLC DATE: REVISION OESCRIPTlON: BY:
0 ~I'l ~ ~ ~ I;; ;;! 5175 & 5195 MAIN STREET
...
:z:'" ., IIudqumlm 8alum OftiCB I :~\" SPRINGFIELD, OR
"'~!" g
- a :110 PUUl Bbut H7 Commlll'1lll! at. liB,
0 Sprinllleld,Oroa:ODV14T1 lluitolO
.. . ~ DESCRIPTION:
'" , 0 0 ,. II (6U) 74G-013'1 S.:iem, DreloD mOl
" ~ " " ~ .. :- {!03)770-'U>7I ODOT DRIVEWAY
'"
.9. 0, '" PERMIT APPLlCA nON
Q lrW'lr.BranchEnginellrlDI.oom
.<'l ~ - - ,..,..,.....,...,1'\ I'\l'\ll~I""'^ll'-
.
.
@
Branch Engineering,
Inc.
Corporate Headquarters
(541) 746-0637
310 5th Street
Springfield. OR 97477
Salem Engineering Office
(503) 779-2577
4310 'Cherry Avenue N
Salem, OR 97303
Principals
. M. Lane Branch, PE
Damien Gilbert. PE
Renee D. Clough, PE, PeS
Rene' Fabrican~ PE. SE
Ronald J. Derrick. PE, GE
www.BranchEngineering.com
July 19, 2010
Mr. Nick Boyles, Manager
. OBO Enterprises, Inc.
1528 Ferry Street, #11
Eugene, Oregon 97401
RE: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
5175 & 5195 MAIN STREET
SPRINGFIELD, OREGON
Branch Engineering IDe. Project No. 09-159
Branch Engineering Inc. (BEl) has performed a geotechnical engineering investigation of the subject sites for
development oftownhomes and commercial buildings at 5175 & 5195 I\1ai.n Street in Springfield, Oregon. The
accompanying report presents the results of our site research, field exploration, field and Jaborato:ry testing, data
analyses, and our conclusions and recommended geotechnical design parameters for the project
Based on the results of our study, no geologic or. geotechnical hazards were identified on the site that would
prohibit the planned development, provided that the recommendations of this report are implemented in the
design and construction of the project. .
Please contact the nndersigned if you have any questions regarding this report.
Sincerely,
. Branch Engineering Inc.
..".--
\br/
Expires: December 31. 2011
Richard Walker, E.LT.
Staff Engineer
Ronald J. Derrick, P.E., G.~i'"'I", . d"
Principal Geotechnical En~te Receive .
FEB 1 5 2011
CIVIL
STRUCTURES
TRANSPORTATION
GEOTECHNICALOriginaSGlBbmi\tQll~
.' _ I .0.'
':.' .""'~p-~Ji/-; i Q, I I ~
.
.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INJRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................1
1.1 Project and Site Description ..............................................................................................................1
1.2 Scope ofW ork...:............................................................................................................................ .....1
1.3 Site Information Resources ...............................................................................................................1 .
2.0 SITE SUBSURFACECONDffiONS .............:................................................................................2
2.1 Ground Water ....................................................................................................................................2
3.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING ................:....................................................................................................2
3.1 Regional Geology.. .............................. ..... .................... ......... ....... ................ ................. ............ ........3
3.2 Site Geology ................ ........ .......................... ............. ............... .................... ......... ....... ....................3
4.0 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................3
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ...............................................................................:..................................4
5.1 Site Preparation and Earthwork.........................................................................................................4
5.1.1 Fill . ........... ...... ............... ........... ........ ............ .......... ................. ......... ......... ......... .....:......... ....4
5.2 Fill Slopes... .................. ................. ............ ......................:........ ........... ....... .......... ................... ...... ....6
5.3 Cnt Slopes .... .............. ............... ................. ....... ....................... .................. .................................... ...6
5.4 Utility Excavations ........................... .................... ............................ ...... ...; ........................ ....... .........6
5.5 DralI!!lge ........................................... .......... ..................... ....... .......... .....:......................... ..... .:.;..;........6
5.6 Soil Bearing Capacity....... .............. ............. ..... ........... ............ ........ ................. .............. .................... 6
5.7 Slabs-On-Grade ........................ ................................. .................... ........... ...................... ........ ........... 6
5.8 SettJement................. .................... ............... ................. ................................... ............. ..................... 6
5.9 Friction Coefficient and Lateral Earth Pressnres..............................................:................................ 7 .
5.10 Pavement Desigil Recommendations ................................................................................................ 7
5.11 Seismic Site Classification ................................................................................................................ 7
6.0 REPORT SUMMARY AND LIMITA110NS..................................................................................7
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 20\1 .
original submittal
.
.
5175 & 5195Main street
Springfield, Oregon
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results and findings of Branch Engineering, Inc. (BEl) field observations, testing,
and research for the subject site. Our investigation included the evaluation of the subsurface soil
conditions at the site and provides geotechnical recommendations for the design and construction of the
proposed building foundations, utilities, and pavement design. Our work was performed in accordance
with the generally accepted practices of this area
1.1 Project and Site Description
The subject site consists of two parcels located at 5175 and 5195 Main Street. Both addresses are located
south of Main Street between 51 ,t Place and 52nd Avenue in Springfield, Oregon. Currently, 5175 Main
Street is a vacant lot with a gravel driveway and home foundation remnants from a previous home that
burned down several years ago. The remainder of the property is overgrown by tall grass and blackberry
bushes. 5195 Main Street is an occupied single family residence with an existing garage, driveway,
garden area, burn pile and maintained grass field. In total, both sites comprise approximately 1.5 acres
and are designated as Tax Lots 6203 and 6300 on Tax Map 17-02-33-32. The property is located at.
Latitude 44002'43"N, Longitude 122056'27"W. Both lots are relatively fIat at approximate elevation of
+497 feet above mean sea level based on a recent topographic map. It was raining at the time of our field
investigation on June 2, 2010, but no surface water ponding was observed on the properties.
The project proposal, as described to BEl, is to construct 2-stOlY townhome structures along the south site
boundary, and two single-stOlY office commercial buildings adjacent to Main Street, with parking
facilities in between. Construction will include complete demolition of the existing buildings, driveways,
and remnant building foundation. Anticipated foundation loads, are not expected to exceed 3 kips per
foot on linear footings and 20 kips on individllll1 column footings.
1.2 Scope of Work
Our scope of work included a site visit. and subsurface investigation on June 2, 2010. Seven exploratory
test pits were advanced to a maximum depth of six feet at the approximate site locations shown on Figure
1. Dynamic cone penetrometer and in-situ vane shear testing were conducted TP-7. All test pits were
logged by a BEL field engineer and backfilled with the excavated material immediately after completion
of logging. Soils were visually classified in. accordance with the American Society of Testing and .
Materials (ASTM) Method D-2488. Field log summaries of the site test pits are presented in Appendix
A, along with copies of nearby well logs from the Oregon Department of Water Resources on-line
database and area soil survey. Representative samples were .collected from the test pits fot laboratory in-
situ moisture (ASTM D-4643), Atterberg limits (D-4318) testing, and shrink/swell potential (IS 2720).
1.3 Site Information ResrJlm:f!S
The following site investigation activities were performed and literature resources were reviewed for
pertinent site information:
.
Review. of the United States Department of the Interior Geological Survey (USGS) op.-line
Quadrangle Map, 7/111973.
.
Review of on-line aerial photograph of site area on 7/24/2000.
.
Seven exploratory test pits were excavated on site at the approximate locations as shown on
Figure 1.
Date Received:
Branch Engineering, Inc.
Page 1 of8
FEB 1 5 20\1.
Original submittal
.
.
5175 & 5195 Main Street
Springfield, Oregon
. Review of the Lane County area Web Soil Survey, United States Department of Agricultural
(USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
. Review of the USGS Geologic Map of Oregon, USGS 1991
. Review of Oregon Department of Water Resources Well Logs
2.0 SIlE SUBSURFACE CONDmONS .
Our analyses, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions as
they presently exist and assume the exploratory test pits, listed herein, are representative of the subsurface
conditions throughout the site. If, during construction, subsurface conditions differ from those described
in the test pit logs; BEl shall be informed and if necessary review site conditions and revise
recommendations herein.
The surface soils in the project area are mapped as Pleistocene age, semi-consolidated, lacustrine and
fluvial deposits of clay, silt, sand, and gravel. These alluvial terrace deposits are expected to be several
hundred feet deep with various aquifer zones. Observed on our test pits, the upper stratum of the site
subsurface stratigraphy consists of 1.5. to 2- feet of soft, wet, dark, organic, topsoiL Beneath the surficial
topsoillfilllayer, site stratigraphy generally consists of brown and gray Clayey Silt (ML) with traces of
fine sand to depths ranging between 3- to 5.5 feet below the ground surface. The Clayey Silt overlies
brown and grey rounded gravel in a sandy silty matrix, commonly known as Bar-Run down to the extents
of our excavations. ill general, depths to Bar-Run tend to increase toward the northwest being shallowest
at the southeast comer of the property. Additionally, organic topsoil tends to be thickest toward the
southeast portion of our exploration.
Nearby well logs from the Oregon Water Resources Department online well log query document silt,
sand, gravel, and siltstone to depfus around 20 feet below ground surface. The NRCS Web Soil Survey
maps the site along the Salem.Urban. land .comp tex, which is .descnoed as well-drained,. alluvial terrace
soil. This soil description and those of nearby well logs ate consistent with the observed field conditions.
2.1 Ground Water
Ground water seepage was not encountered within our test pit excavations on June 2,2010. Nearby wen
logs indicate groundwater levels ranging from 9-feet below ground surface in January 1999, to l2-feet in..
October 1994. We anticipate that groundwater level in both the regional and perched water tables will
f1uctoate with the seasons and should be anticipated to be at the highest level in late winter or spring when
rainstotnis are more intense and more frequent and at the lowest level in late summer or fall when rainfall
is less frequent. The regional ground water level is also expected to be influenced by the level of the
McKenzie River, approximately I-mile to the northwest, and the Willamette River, approximately I Y,
mile to the south.
3.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING
The following sectiollS described the regional and local site geology. Our field findings are consistent
with the geologic mapping of the site area by the Oregon Department of Geology and Minerallndnstries
(Walker & MacLeod, 1991).
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
Branch Engineering; Inc.
Page 20f8
Original submit':~ '.--
.
.
5175 & 5195 Main Street
Springfield, Oregon
3.1 Regional Geology
The subject site lies within the southern portion of the Willamette Valley Geomorphic Province rwv GP),
east of the Coast Range and west of the Cascade Mountains Provinces. The WVGP is regional lowland
that extends fromjust south of Eugene, Oregon to Vancouver, British Columbia. In Oregon, this alluvial
plain is approximiltely 130 miles long and 20- to 40-miles wide (Orr and Orr, 1996), and is drained by the
north flowing WilIamette River.
Willamette River Valley in the area of the subject site is believed to have been formed in the Quartrnary
epoch from lacustrine and fluvial deposits of silt and clay. These Quarternary deposits within the subject
site are believed to be underlain by Tertiary sedimentary and volcaniclastic rocks and undifferentiated
tuffaceous sedimentary rocks, tuffs, and basalt from the Miocene and Oligocene ~pochs.
Deposits of sand, silt and clay from fluvial and lacustrine environments covered the bedrock to various
depths dun.ng the presence of low energy streams and lakes in the southern Willamette Valley.
Compression forces, along with upliftiilg of the Cascade and Coast Range Mountains, during the Miocene
and Pliocene epochs depressed the Willamette River Valley. Rapid uplift of the Cascade and Coast
Range mountains steepened stream gradients causing increased erosion of the mountains and resulting
deposition of gravel layers incised within the fluvial and lacustrine deposits.
Approximately 13,500 years ago the Willamette Valley was cyclically flooded by catastrophic breaks in
the ice dams of Lake Missoula. These flood events filled the valley to a depth of about 350 feet before'
retreating, causing sequences of upward fining deposits of silt and clay.
3.2 Site Geology .
The observed site conditions are generally consistent with the mapped geology of the site and that of the
general geologic setting described above. Generally, the upper 1.5- to 2- feet of site is organic topsoil.
Below the topsoil are native alluvia1 terrace deposits of clay, silt, sand, and gravel to depths over lOO-feet.
There are several:~1ll(ll.ID,:lPP~9. Whm.JQ-to..2Qcmiles.ofthesite to the east, west and south; none of
these fuults are not known to be active; however, seismic activity has been felt in the area as evidence by
the 1993, 5.7 Richter magnitude Scotts Mills earthquake and the 1993, 6.0 Richter magnitude Klamath
Falls earthquake.' .
4.0 CONCLUSIONS
Based on our field observations, subsurface explorations, and data analyses, we conclude that .the site is
geotechnically suitable for the proposed development provided that the recommendations of the report are
incorporated into the design and construction of the project. 'The aooroximatelv 2-foot toosoil zone at the
site is thicker than normal for the area and will reouire comolete removal under building foundations and
structural oavements.. The clavev silt that covers the Bar-Run is comoressible and is susceotible to
settlement under load. The subject 'site will require additional excavation and subgrade preparation that
is typically not required for the area, but there are no specific site features or subsurfuce conditions
observed that will impede the proposed site development.
, '.
It is our understanding that there are no significant grade changes plauned fOr the site, cut and fill. depths
are not expected to exceed two feet. Due to the fine-grain soils on site, earthwork is reco=ended to be
performed dUring the dry season, genera1Iy May through October; however, we' understand construction
time conslTaints and have provided alternatives for wet weather conditions.
Date Received:
..,"" .'
FEB 1 5 2011
Branch Engineering, Inc.
Page 3 of 8
Original submittal
,.,-",..
.
.
5175 & 5195 Main street
Springfield, Oregon
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
The following sections present BEl's recommendations for anticipated geotechnical aspects of the site
development. Site specific specifications are presented below.
5.1 Site Preparation and Earthwork.
The following recommendations are for earthwork in the building foundation areas. Earthwork shall be
performed in general accordance with the standard of practice as generally described in Appendix J of the
2007 International Building Code and the recommendations herein. The site grading is expected to be
minimal for the area; ho:wever, any fill placed below structures or pavements shall be observed,
documented, and tested for compliance with project specifications by competent, trained personnel.
Q Strioping: All areas intended to directly or laterally support structures, road/parking areas,
reta,ining walls,or fills in excess of I-foot in thickness shall be stripped of vegetation, organic or
soft soil,. existing fill, and/or any other deleterious material. These strippings shall either be
removed from the site or used in nonstructural areas approved by the Geotechnicaf Engineer of
Record (GER).
· Sub grade Approval: Once and area is stripped, the GER shall observe and approve the subgrade
prior to placement of any fill, separation fabric, base rock,. or foundation forms. Based on the
conditions observed, additional excavation, placement of subdrains, or other mitigation measures
may be required by the GER. The site soils are very moist, which may cause soft subgrade
conditions. The site work contractor should be cautioned when excavating for foundations or
pavements and minimize heavy truck traffic on site.
Q Drv-Season Earthwork The in-situ moisture contents of the site soils within about 6 feet of the
existing ground surface are 10% to 15% over their optimum moisture content for compaction.
Earthwork is recommended to be performed during the dry seasbn;gelietallyH May throiigh
October, so that moisture contents of native fill soils can be reduced by spreading and turning the
soils, if necessary. The options for moisture control of fill soils during the dry season are more
cost effective and generally do not require any specialized equipment other than a water-truck or
a plow device.
· Wet-Season Earthwork Fine-grained site soils are moisture sensitive and soften with prolonged .
exposure to rainfall, particularly when uncompacted. Should wet season earthwork be required to
meet project deadlines, specialized processes would likely be required to control soil moisture
contents, . such as lime or cement treatment of the soils, soil drying kilns, or use of imported
granular materials. These methods can be expensive, time consuming, and would reqnire
additional fill control oversight and testing. .
5.1.1 Fill
BEL anticipates that on-site native soils will be used for structural fills if necessary, although use of
imported granular material may be mOre cost effective for minor fills due to the ease of moisture control
aiJd compaction effort Native soils are suitable for use as structural fill provided our recommendations
are incorporated into the design and construction of the project
. . Recommended Soil Compaction: After subgrade is approved by the GER, soil subgrade shall be
scarified to a depth of 4 inches, moisture conditioned to within 2% of the optimum moisture
content of the soil, and blended with the :first lift of fill material. The fill placemen! ane!..
compaction eqUipment shall be appropriate for fill material type, required df)"atlf Re_\l,ifjl.
Branch Engineering, Inc.
Page 4 of8
F1=~ ~ ~ ~-,\
__ ,.,,1 I . i,." ~
. r- 'r ~.~\...______.___
Cr~~'. "'11- ..:,1......}..1 l> \.'.
.
.
5175 & 5195 Main Street
Springfield, Oregon
uncompacted lift thiclmess. Assuming proper eqilipment selection, the total uncompacted
thickness of the scarified subgrade and first fill lift shall not exceed 8-inches; subsequent lifts of
uncompacted fill shall not exceed 8-inches unless otheIWise approved by the GER. Fine-grain
soil fill is generally most effectively compacted using a Imeading style compactor, such as a
sheeps-foot roller. Structural fill shall be compacted to at least 90% of the materials maximum
dry density as determined by ASTM Method D-1557{or equivalent) and the soil moisture content
shall be within +/-2% of the optimum moisture content for compaction .
· Imported Structural Fill: All imported material to be used for structural fill shall be approved by
the GER prior to the material's delivery to the site. Most commonly, imported structural fill
material is granular and shall not contain more than 5% passing the No. 200 sieve. Aggregate fill
shall be angular (surface fracture of at least 70%) and well-graded, and shall be compacted to at
least 95% of the materials maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Method D-1557 (or
. equivalent).
.. Soil Shrink/Swell Potential: Representative samples of the clayey silt soil were tested for their
free swell potential (IS 2720) and found to range from 20% to 30%, which is considered to be
low to.moderate. The Plasticity Index of the soil is 9.4, based on Liquid and Plastic Limits
moisture contents of 43.7% and 34.3%, respectively. The shrink/swell of the soil will not
adversely affect these structures; however, the soils should still be protected from soil moisture
fluctuations by providing positive surface drainage and covering with aggregate soon after
exposure of the subgrade. The shrink/swell potential of the Bar-Run is low.
Periodic site observations by the GER are recommended during the construction of .the project; the
specific phases of construction that should be observed are described below in Table 1:
Table 1:
RECOMMENDED CONSTRUCTION PHASES TO BE OBSERVED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEER OF RECORD
At completion of site stripping and foundation Subgrade observation by the geotechnical
excavation engineer before placement of geotextiIe fabric or
fill
Imported fill material Observation of material or information on
. material type and source
Placement or Compaction offill material Observation by geotechnical engineer or test
results by qnalified testing agency
Date Received:
,.!, ,"
: -c', ~ ,.-, :
FEB 1 5 2011
Branch Engineering, Inc.
Page 50t8
Original Submittal
.
.
5175 & 5195 Main Street
Springfield, Oregon
5.2 Fill Slopes
Site fill slopes in excess of2-feet in height are not expected for this project.
5.3 Cut Slopes
Permanent cut slopes are not expected for this site.
5.4 Utility Excavations
Utility excavations within the Clayey Silt site soils should stand near vertical to at least 4 feet io depth;
some surface sloughing and sidewall caviog may occur due to perched ground water lenses or areas of
non-cohesive soil.
Utility excavations through the Bar-Run may incur sidewall caving due to the non-cohesiv,e gravels.
Heavy equipment should not be placed within 10 feet of an open trench. Site soils are classified as
OSHA Type B.
5.5 Drainage
A complete site drainage system is expected to be engineered for this project; alteration of existing grades
for this 'project willlike]y change drainage patterns but should not adversely impact adjacent properties.
Perimeter landscape and hardscape grades shall be sloped away froni the foundations and water shall not
be allowed to pond adjacent to footings during or after construction.
5.6 Soil Bearing Capadty
Based upon our site observations and testing, the clayey silt soil beginning at a depth of ]8- to 24-ioches '
below the ground surface has an allowable bearing capacity of ] ,200 psf and the Bar-Run material found
in our test pits at 3- to 6-feet below the ground surface has an allowab]e bearing capacity of 3,500 psf. '
The respective bearing capacity of each of thesemateriaIscanbemcreased byl/3 fcif shilifteim ]oiuliiig;
such as wind and seismic events. The clayey silt is compressible and due to the varymg thickness of this
soil over the site, BEI recommends that all building foundations bear on the Bar-Run material to mitigate
the potential for differential settlement to occur. The estimated settlement potential of the clayey silt is
presented io a Section 5.8 of this report. '
5.7 Slabs.On-Grade
After preparation of the subgrade as described m Section 5.], those areas to be overlaiIi by load bearing
concrete slabs or beam sbaII beunderlaiIi by a geotextile separation fabric and a minimum of 8- mches of
compacted granular material. A clean, free draioiIig, crushed aggregate is recommended beneath
structural slabs. The modulus of subgrade reaction (1<:) of the soil at is ]00 ]b1in'. Under floor draiIiage
should be addressed by the designer.
5.8 Settlement
BEl estimates that with an allowable bearing capacity of ],200 psfthat foundations bearing on the clayey
silt soil between 1.5- to 5.5-feet below the ground surface may mcur total settlements of 1- to 2.5-inches
and differential settlements up to 1.5-ioch dependiIig on 10adiIig and the thickness of the clayey silt below
the foundation. Therefore, it is recommended that all foundations either bear directly on the dense Bar-
Run material or atop crushed aggregate fill compacted in lifts to at least 95% of the materials maximum
dry density 'as deteI1l1iIied by ASTM Method D-1557. Structural fills shall be tested for compliance with
this compaction specification. R 'ved"
Date ecel "
, . ~, .. '.\
Branch Engineering, Inc.
Page 6 of 8
I"!"D 1 ~ "''''1
rcr;; :: {'j;
\("'> .....-':1.\J.-J....;
Oro.-,l-,"1 .;,:Iif)ll.l.(.:,.__._.._..__..__
1_;.);.--: ',..
.
.
5175 & 5195 Main Street
Springfield, Oregon
If necessary, settlement mitigation measures in the clayey silt may include preloading and settlement
monitoring, modifications to building pad grading to create a uniform subsurface, or underpinning of
foundationS. BEl can further discuss the settlement issues with the design team upon review of detailed
grading and foundation plans.
5.9 Friction Coefficient and Lateral Earth Pressures
Although retaining wall structures are not anticipated for this project, the following design parameters are
provided. The coefficient ofmction of the native clayey silt soil is 0.30, and for the Bar-Run it is 0.45 for
concrete poured neat against these materials with no disturbance of the exposed material face.
The passive earth pressure of the clayey silt soil within6.feet of the existing ground swface is 200 pcf
equivalent fluid pressure (EFP). However, the upper I-foot of the native site soil should be neglected for
design purposes unless covered by structural fill or pavements. Passive pressure of the Bar-Run is 400
pcfEFP.
Active earth pressure for a cantilever wall capable of movement of at least 0.2% of the wall height at the
top of wall is 40 pcf EFP; the at-rest or top restrained wall EFP is 50 pcf. A lateral load increase of 6H2
(H = wall height) is recommend to be applied to the wall for seismic conditions. The EFP active earth
pressure in the Bar-Rmi is 28 pcf and 38 pcfforat-rest conditions.
The EFP earth pressures stated above assilme a !fivel backfill with no surcharge loads and a free-draining,
well compacted, crushed aggregate backfill with no hydrostatic pressure applied to the walL
5.10 Pavement Design Recommendations
The correlated Califoruia Bearing Ratio (CBR) for the near surface clayey silt found below the topsoil
zone is 3, thereby placing the soil in the poor subgrade class. The parking lot areas are generally expected
to have light vehicle traffic while the site access roads will be subject to delivery and garabage trucks.
Using the guidance of the 2(j03.revised. .A.!;pJl"lt:J'llye,lll,egtPesign Gllide,published by .the .Asphalt
Pavement ASsoClatIono{oregon Based, a calculated Structural Number of 2.4, and based On the criteria
of a 20-year design life with up to 75% reliability, the recommended pavement section in parking areas is
3 inches of asphalt concrete (AC) over 10 inches of aggregate base for the native soil. The accessways
are recommended to be 4 inches of AC over 10 inches of base rock. Pavement subgrades shall be
observed.and proof-rolled prior to placement of base rock; the base rock shall be crushed with a fractured'
surface area of at least 70%, and compacted to at least 95% of the material's maximum dry density as
determined by AS1M Method PI557 or equivalent. BEl recommends using a geotextile separation
fabric (Appendix C) between the subgrade and base rock. The base rock shall be tested to measure
compliance with this compaction standard prior to placement of asphalt concrete.
5.11 Seismic Site Classification
Based on the soil properties encountered in our site test pits, field test results, and nearby well log
information to depths of over 50 feet, a Site Class P is recommended for design in accordance with
Tables 1613.5.2 and 1613.5.5 of the 2007 Oregon Structural Specialty Code.
. .
6.0 REPORT SUMMARY AND LIMITATIONS
This report has presented BEl's site observations and research, subsurface explorations, geotechnical
engineering analyses, and recommendations for the proposed site development. The conclusions in this
report are based on the conditions described in this report and are intended for the exclusive use of OBO
Enterprises, Inc. and their representatives for use in design and construction of the development described
herein. The analysis and recommendations may not be suitable for other structures or purposes. Services
performed by the geotechnical engineer for this project have been conducted with the level o~ . d
.LltlLtf~eCeIVe :
Branch Engineering, Inc.
Page 7 of 8 FEB , 520ft .
Original Submittal '
.
.
5175 & 5195 Main Street
Springfield, Oregon
skiU exercised by other current geotechnical professionals in this area under- similar budget and time
constraints. No warranty is herein expressed or implied.
Conclusions in this report are based on the site conditions as they currently exist and it is assumed that the
limited site locations that were physically investigated generally represent the subsurface conditions at the
site. Should site development or site conditions change, or if a substantial amount. of time goes by
between our site investigation and site development, we reserve the right to review this report for its
applicability. If you have any questions regarding the contents of this report please contact our office.
Date Received'.
fEe' 5 20\1
" "oa\ SubmittaL
On91
Branch Engineering, Inc.
Page 80f8
APPENDIX
A
TEST PIT LOG
SUMMARIES, WilL LQGS, & ON-LINE
'. SOIL SURVEY
Date Received:},
I,
..,
,I
<
FEB f 520ft
Original Submittal
. .
[ .
SOIL CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA AND TERMINOLOGY
..
.'
Classification ofTerrns and Content. USCS Grain Size i
NAME: MINOR Constituents (12-50%); MAJOR Rnes . <11200 (.075 mm)
.'
Consfiluents (>50%); Slighfiy (5-12%) Sand F.ina #200 - #40 (.425 mm
Relative Density or ConsistencY Medium #40. #10 (2 mm)
Color Coarse #10.. #4 (4.75)'
Molslure Conlent Gravel Roe #4 .0.75 nch
PlaSticity Coarse 0.75 Inch ~ 3 inches
Trace C'.onstillJents ([}-S"'{;) Cobbles 3 10 12 inches;
Olher: Grain Shape, Appro:dmale gradalion, scattered <15% esl,
Organics. Cement. Sbutt~re. Odor_n _ .' numerous >15% est I
Geologic Name or F-onnafion: {Fill. ~lametre Silt.. Till, Bould"", :> 12 inches
A/luvium;_l I
Relative Densitv or Consistency
Granular Material Fine-Grained Icohesive\ Materials II
SPT .SPT Torvane tst Pocket Pen Isf . C~nslsten~ Manual Penetration Test
N-Value Densitv N-Value Shear Slrennth Unconfined
<2 <0.13 >0.25 VerY Soft . Ea~ several inches bv fist .. j
. 0-4 VervLnos" 2-4 0.13 "0.25 0.25 - 0.50 Soft Easv several Inches bv thumb
'4-10 Loose 4-8 0.2S - 0.50 0.50 -1.00 Medium.Stlff Moderate. several inches bv thumb'
10 -30 Medium Dense B -15 0.50 -1.00 1.00 - 2.00 Stiff -Readil iridented bv thumb I
30 -50 Dense 15.30 1.00 -2.00 2.0D -4.00 VerY Stiff Readilv indented bv thumbnail
>50 Verv Dense >30 >2.00 >4.00 Han:l DITficult bv thumbnail I
Moisture Co1'1tent Structure
Dry: Absence of roolslI!re. d.u~~, dry to !he touch . . Slratilied: Allemating layers of malerial or ""lor >6 roni thick. .
Damp: Some moisbJre. bull~ves no moislure on hand . laminated: A1temaflng layers < 6 mm lhick
Moist. leaves molsl:1Jre.on hand _ Fl;>Sure{l: Breaks along defin.ate fiacture planes
Wet visible free Water. fikelY mini below wafer !able Slickensided:' Strialed, perIShed, ()l'g!ossy fiaciure pIa,,;" ..
Plasticity DIY strength Dilatancy .. Toughness. Biocky: Cohesive Sou ulat tan be broken'down into sman
angular lumps which resist Further breakdown' .
ML Non to Low Nbn 10 Low Slow to Rapid lD(<, can't roil ~: .Has small pockets ofdifferenf soils, note thickness
CL Low to Mod.. Mediuri1 to High None to Slow Medium Homogeneous: ~ color and appearance throughout .
MH Med to High Low to Medium None to Slow low 10 Medium
CH Med to Hiah f1roh toV. Hiah None f1lOh ..
Unified Soil C1assificatiGn Chart Nisual-Manual Procedurel (Similar to ASTfil Desionation 0-248g\
Major Divisions ~~p. TypIcal Names
bols
, Coarse Gravels: 50% Clean .GW Well nraded ~eJs and'nravel-sand mixbJres little or no rtnes
Grained or.more Gravels GP Poorlv..[]raded aravels and nravel-sand mixlures, little or no fines
Salls: retained on Gravels GM sg-ravel-sand-Slltrobdures .
More than "the No_4sieve With Fines GC ravel--sand-da mixh.rres
50% retained Sands: more Clean SW . We1i-grad sands and rave sands.litl1e or no fines
on No. 200 than 50% Sands SP PoOOv:DfClded sands and ravelly sands, fiUle or no fines
sieve passing the Sands SM Sntv sands, sand-sBf mixtures I
No.4 Sieve .with Fines. SC Clayey sands, sand.:.clay mixtures
Fme-Grained Slit and Clays ML lno nie silts rode flour:. da ev silts
sons: CL Inornanic c1a1lS of low to medium olasticilv, oravellv days. sandY c1avs, lean da"" I
,50% or more Low Plasticity Rnes OL. Omanic sUt and oroanicsiltv daVS' of low nlasticitv.
Passes No_ SHI and Clays 'MH Inorganic silts. dayey sills I
200 Sieve CH InolJjanic days of high plasticily. fal clays
High Piastidty Fines OH Omanic. days of medium to hiQh nlastidtv I
HiQhlV Oraanic Solis PT Peal, muck.. and other hiahl.., omanic soils
.-'. Date Rece\\led',
.
fEe \ S 20\\
. . \ submtttaL..----..-
0Ii9\oa .
"ii
"
~
;:- >.
..
..
f ..
~
" 0
'"
u:
.
" .
C ~
0 1l
z ..0
m Q.
~ {g
Iii ~a
C U}
Oi
:E
'"
...
~
'" C
iii
0::
:g
,g ~
.. ~ ..
-" .Q ~
.... ~ m
"<3 ~ s:
'"
... ...
-
'" '"
...
"l
..
0
-' u
-' .
II:: ~
Ii 0 '-'
... .,;
Ul '"
'I: iii '"
Co ...
... ;;: . ...
S Cl '" ;:
C 0 ~ '" .
C ';: C
w Co ..
...,
0 0 ....
m
0
c
~
c
".
0<
..
<: l.: "
"
.2: .. ...,
.... J:l
.. E
"
0 ::l
-' 2:
- - - -go.QQ1i
" " "
.. .. GI 1V ......~E
.- ,- ,- Cl)~~~5-s
2 2 2
n. n. n. oro'a:!CDrl:jXw
.
.
OUl ~~
21- ",0
<l:Ul .'"
UlW '" "
"'~
~I- ~~
0::0::
<l:W ~.a~
::;;:I: Zi.~ €
WI- , a",
0:: O. , ,"" ::;; U) , , I I I
" "
" .r:; ;;; .!'!
g ~ IE ~
;5 0> '"
2: -'"0 -<>
E 0.. C " "
0 1;; C) .. .*~
i= '" -c
n. C. Ul3: ~~
ii:: E ..J 0 .E
w ~
0 .2..... > .0, U
CIl "0 " rB -<>"
" 3: .- a
W !g-
0 E;;; C) '"
-'''' oE 'Om
-' ..J- w,f;' "''''
< :;:0> _.l!!
ii:: _"0 O.w' '" '"
C I- c: "(2 ~c "E
W ..J '" .l!!'b
!;: !::!. _ c C) @ :J .!i!.
..J Ul3: >-",0:: ~l
:;: >-0
0 w.15 ..J ,- a. '"
" m m ~ ~
Ul >- ' o:C@. .- .
0.. <l:"O 1}..,
0 ..JC o -g.1P
. '" ~~
I- 0", 0.." 3:
JaqwnN aldwes I I I I . , , I
-
N adAl aldUJ"S
0 ~
. <l!
n.
I- (y)llldaa I ~ ~ I I I I ~
- c - ... ... '" ...
ii:
- ~ ~ i'J ~ 1/ N ~ g lil
Ul (y)uoYeMlB Q Q T Q Q
.. T T T T T T T T
I-
..~ U)
<Iii
UlW
~I-
0::0::
<w
::;;:I:
wI-
0::0 I I I I ,. I ,
" " .I..c,,,.
" ~ ..
IE E ~
- 3: '" 0
;5 -''' '"
2: -<>
:Q 0.. c: 'li"
0 1;; C) III
~ '" -" 't:)~
15. UJ 3: ..!i!
"'Cl.
ii:: E ..Jg .E
W.o .. 0
0 ::> . > ",0
CIl 'C'a) ~..~ -<>"
'" 3: - 0
W E;;; 1ii !%
0 C) E
-' -' '" filg 'Om
..J - pj"a;
< :;:'"
ii:: _"0 C"fi.i 1010
'" I- c: ~?;-- "E
W ...I'" .J!!"l)
!;: ~ - c (!J ffi 5 -[-!
...I UJ3: >-"'0::
:;: >-g .E"
0 ...J" fir .... a"
W.o 0:: " '" u ~
Ul >- ' -00 ".
0.. ::i-g o.o~ 1}",
0 0.0-
I- o lJl o..8~ ~~
JaqUJnN a)dUJes .' I I I 0' R' . I d
ate ecelve
...
0 adAl aldwes
.
n.
I- CIlJllldaa I ~ I. I I ~FEB 1 5 2011
.... '" - ... ... ...
ii: ,.',
.... ~ ~ i'l ;!; 1/ ~gin~ sub~ittal lil
Ul (lI)uOYeMlB
.. Q Q "
l- T T T T T
;;
~
- ~
..
~ l!!
5
'" Cl
ii:
"
" !
<:
0 'Gl
:z ~i
l!!
iii ~"
<: ~
1ij
:iE
..
..
-
.. <:
1ij
II:
.
0
.2
.. c l;;
-~ " =
~~ j;; !l
~c3 0
0 S:
~
..
.. ..
n '"
- ...
..
..
0 {j
~ 0 II
() o~
..J :g~
..J 0:: ~& Wx
iii ow
0
., -a
In en
';:: OJ Il;J
Q. ~
~ ;;:: . ..
., el en ~
- .5 Cl ~ ..
c 0
IJJ ~ '"
Q. ..,
0 U) . ....
m
0
c 1f
rn o~
:56; ;;;
~& ~~ .ll8
~
c
" . '"
..
.. ~
<:
C i..: ."
.2 '" ..,
- ""
.. E
u
'0 '"
..J Z' ......
,j'; - - ~ log c_
u u u. oc
'" '" '" '0 =0
1ii f€.g' . E
'0' '0' '0' > ~.~
,*l'l ern
~ ~ ~ co h::'i&:
c. c. c. ~~ OX
W
.
OU)
21-
<(t/)
",W
:.:1-
0::0::
<(W
:;::I:
WI-
0::0
z
o
i=
c.
i2
()
U)
W
o
..J
<(
1;:
IJJ
I-
et
:;;
~
Cl
.
c.
I-
-
ii:
-
In
.,
I-
JaqwnN Oldw"S
odAlaldw"S
(Y)lJIdao '"
fil) uo~,,^al3 ~
. ~ UJ
<(~
",W
:.:1-
0::0::
<(W
:;;:I:
WI-
0::0
z
o
i=
c.
i2
()
<J)
IJJ
o
..J
et
i2
w
I-
et
:;;
...
Cl
.
D..
.'"
-
ii:
-
In
.,
I-
JaqwnN OidweS
adAla,dwes
(Y)lJIdaO '"
(y) uo~,,^al3 ~
io
:c
..J
o
t/)
a.
o
I-
-
o
!l!.
..J
5
t/)
a.
o
I-
I
"
"
g
I
ii
"
'!il..,
-[~
E6f
=>~
=at>>
""0
E_ffi
-c
..J ~.
:;;0
~~
1-.0
-' .
-~
U) "
>-0
w-
>- .0.
:s-g
ul)l
,
'"
I
~
l
~
i!:
'i
:g
i
I
I
~
"
g
I
ii
"
+>
U>
'"
C.
E
.:2 +1
'0 "
" ~
E .
.-:;~
..J~
:;:el
~'O
I- <:
=~
U) ~
>- 0
wli
>- .
S-g
ul)l
I
I
~
~
c
T
:g
~.
i
'" ..
~~t"i
<0"'....
~~~
" :!J E
e ::I.
:E~g~
(Jj.....UJ:::,
,i;; ~ a::3"
05>'
"3 ~
""'::-0
a. <:
l.!l '"
~c
'" ~
-' 0
Wli
~~
l.!l '"
oE
W~
oUi
~€c
(!)~::l
'). U) cr.
..J - ~
~j~
0.0-
0.0.,
a..8~
I
~
1:
i
. I
I
~
1:
i
.
I .
I
"
;!!
~
m
-"
~c:
~~
~!
.E
&8
-""
-0
.eg.
~~
'" m
151;
"OE
.e"
~.s
~~
g ~
1S.0
"'l/i
~s
I
~
~
11
'i
~
'i
,
I
j~
""'::-0
a.,;:
Cl '"
-<:
'" ~
..J 0
W ~
> .0.
iB1
Cl '"
o E
W~
OUi
~~c
offi::J
>-..0::
..J .~
~~~
o.o~
o..cw
a. 0 .>_ .
I ,_.....
I
I
I
~
~
9
I
I
I
I
"0
m
~
o
m
-""
11;:,g
.f!.m
~l
o
.; "
"'''
-"0
-Q.
~ "
~ftj
",,,
_.l'l
.. m
"'2 E.
-"
le,s
~~
om
" "
=t;:~
[l-",
..
I
I
~
~
R
i
Q
T
I
i"ed:
I
FEB \ 5 20"
I I ~. ~
10 CC) ~"'>~; _---
noig;f\P,' s:.~hrrl".r.\-_I_--
""u Q 'R go
i' i ~, i
I
...
11
i
0
..1
..1 0::
Ii 0
..
III ." 0>
.;: iii 10
C. ....
. ;;:: .
.. '" .0>
- " CI
c 1:
UJ C.
0 U)
m
0
" ;.:
0 ..
;:; .c
CO E
u
0 ::l
..1 Z
.;.: - '-
u u U
GI .. GI
'0' '0' '0'
.' . .
D.. D.. D..
.
e.
. c 00
21-
<(00
U)11J
~I-
0::0::
<(11J
:2:1:
I1JI-
0::0 I I I I I 1 I
" "
0 ,.:; "
~ oS '" ~
;i 'j; 1>> 0
...-." "
Z ..,
" o.c .."
0 ., C) '" %~
",""
i= '" " -c
D.. 0.;: U) ;: ~~
it: E:>: ..J " .~
I1J -
:J l" > .0_ .. 0
0 0,"
U) =00> iH "'"
"'" -0
w . E c C) '" !g.
0 '"
..1 "'-c o E "'..
..J;: 11J,i;' "'''
<( _.e
it: - SE 0,"00 .. ..
b 1-.0 ~-(;'c "12
W ..J - ,s"'O
!;( !::!. -2 C) ai ::J '!~
..l Ul " >-we::: 12 ~
:a: 5 >- 0 ..l -- 8 ~
11J1i ex: m (lJ
00 >- - _ffi
0. :s-g 0.0- 'Ii"
0 0.010 ....,
l- t) g:. n.83: ~~
JaqwnN aidwes I I I I I' I ,
'"
CI adil.la,dwes
.
0.
I- (u)l1ldaa , .!. .!. I I I , ~
- a ~ ... '" .. ...
ii: ,
'lij (jj)uo!Jll^as ~ !;l ~ ll; ~ III ;;; 0 ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ..
GI T T T T T T T i T
I-
,.~ en
<(Iii
U)11J
~I-
0::0::
<(11J
:2:r::
I1JI-
0::0 I I I , r I I
" " :':'.'
" oS ,.:; oS!
~ '" 'i:1
;i "j; a 0
...-." ..
Z ..,
0 a. c t..c::
0 'ijl..., Cl '" "tj,g
i= '" " -c
1S.;: U) ;: ..4'1
D.. ~~
it: 12:>: ..l 0
I1J -
::J.f!: >.0 .. 0
0 0,.0
l/) '00> ~x "'"
"'" :s - 0
W E c C) '" .eg-
o '"
..1 ::fc o E "'..
<( :2;: 11J,i;' ~~
it: - ~E! C"(ii " ..
.. 1-.0 ~.>- " 12
W .,,- .E!"
..l - (!)~3
!;( !::!. -2 ~.!!
..l Ul " >-wo:: ~~
:a: 5 >- 0 Date Receiv
11J1i ..l -- " 1l
Ul >- - o::j~ ~~ .
0. :s-g 0.0- ~.., .
0 0.0-
- _,' o. I- olJl n.8~ ~~ I ffrT, 5 2011
JaqwnN a,dwes I I .1
I()
CI adilla,dwes - I c>.
.
D..
I- (jj)l1ldaa I .!. .!. I I ! ~
- a ~ ... '" '"
ii:
ti '.! ~
(Ill uogllJ\a'3 ~ ~ i'l ll; !;l !:: 0; is
~ ~ ~
.. T. T T T T T T i i
I-
j
;::- ,;;
'"
! '"
..
:> i5
'"
il:
"
" !
"
0 Ql
;Z 11
!
en .g
:>0
C !!LS'
;;;
::;;
'"
'"
~
'" c
~
~
C
.Q
'" C ~
-" .Q ..,
i*'" '" 0;
mJ'l ~ ..
0 ;:
=
'"
~ ...
'"
...
'"
..;
J
c ~r1'
15 .......Q
00; .- "
:g ..,> Jj
B'" 1i~
'" x
ow
~ " ~
'" 0
-,
I-
c ~1
OJ .......Q
00;
..,>
~di - .. 110
"0
~rlj .ria
'"
~
'"
N
.. :;
""lD "
C
:J
...,
" o~ c'_
Oc
.., ='"
m ~.~ U
>
~B ells
~.ri ~~
a;
>
.!!
,;;
- ~
f ~
E
" CI
'"
u:
"
" "
c .!!!,
0 1;; ~E
z
f
1il ~-g
~ D
C ~
;;
:;;
..,
'"
-
.., c
';;
'"
w
c
.2
ro c ;;;
-" .2 =
h'!l" 1 ro
~6 ~
~ $:
.., ...
'" ~
. "
. c ~J
~ 0
0 o1ij .- "
...J => ~.f
...J 0:: ~& !~ 8:~
Ii 0 .,,,,,
" -a-
III '"
.;: Gi ...
Co ~
- :;: . ;
.. C> '"
- l: C> ~ .., E
l: .;:
w Co .. C
0 rJ) ...,
?-
m I
0
c U
fg 0
15'E
it =6~
~
0 I:E ill ,lj8
C>
- I. "
'"
..
..
"
l: ;.: C
"
0 'Ill ...,
:;::: .c
.. E
U
0 '" {
...J 2:
... _. ..- ~~ c-
U' U u il DC
III III III ="
ro ~.~ g!E
"e- .~ we- >
~ -~ l~
0. 0. 0. l"1,lj ~Ji
.
Orn C>
-
21- Co"
<(rn .., .."
('.l(l)(IlClE
",W L::9:9..el e
:.:1- m , , c:: CI:J
0::0:: WJt:'q:::::J-I:::
<(W tij~~8~e-
:;;:I: . ~ lQ.f'o:. ~ co:::.'='
wI- ro"'t~QElq
0::0 > 1.0 mJJ3 0"""
..
0
~
2: ~
0 ~ .
j::: W1D
0. -K~
i2 E'"
0 :J f:!
Ul :::a: OJ"
"'0
W Ec
C - "
...J -c
...J,.
<( ~e
i2 -
w 0 1-.0
...J -
I- ~ -~
<( ...J Ul 0
:2 0 >- 0
w:o
rn >- -
0. <t'O
0 ...JC
l- t) ill
.!OqUInN aldUles
....
C> acL\PldUles
.
.0.
. t.1- M41daQ
- <> ... .. ... '"
c::
-
III MUo!ll'^"B il: ~
III ~
.1- ~ ~
.
..c:6f
jOJ
...'0
c.. C
Cl "
-c::
rn3
...J 0
wi>
~~
Cl '"
oE
wE
C "00
~~'2
C)f6:::J
>-wC::
-I rD ro
a:~OJ
0.0-
o.cli)
a. 8 ~
]....;.....,...;i
"
i
u
..
.Q "
s~
"'-
~e-
o
u; u
.,."
.Q 0
Qig.
.~ 'ib
~]j
" ..
"1:
.e"
.!!! "
~l
o "
u ~
'" "
ii}",
~~
..,
...
...
...
..t 1_
~OrigitrJ.\ s~~~-nl\'~~'T
..----
.
.
~
v
'"
v
v
.9~SS.zzl
if
.
;
i
,
,
,
l.
.oc ,gg .tz~
'-
.v
'"
;;
009.,..
FEB 1 5 2011
~
'"
'riginal subrri"ittal
"
M
"
;;
.9~.9S_ZU
..
~
..
,"0.
~
.. 0
. ~ .52
..
.
'"
e.
.
N
..
<
Ii
~
.
"
"
~
0..,
~-
00
~~
-"
~'"
"'"
"-
;;
.
"-0
o
~
>>
"
<:
"
W
~~
<:w
""
w'"
:=10
o~
oo!
.00
,,0
$'-'
"ii
co
.Q
1ii
z
o
o
v
0
0
N
0
~
0
~ .,
N B
m1:
B"
SW
0 0 o c.
11,g
0:'"
-<:
~'~
Eco
"'0
z'-'
~~,
o
~
o
<:f
"
jj
"'
i
c
o
'"
~
0-
.m
..~
" ~
<00
,.,"
-..
5:;;
0",
0",
~~
c<o
~iO
,"
g.e
:;;
<5
U)
.
.
0,"
~-
ci '0 '" 00
0 a. " c ~N
0 .. it; ~ ~
E " f :c ~'"
<5 "
<:'! .l!! '" 1ii . '~-g ~ ..."
1j 0 0-
~ ~ '" -0 tJl::lO
m a; " 2'; -0 wo};
" " ~ .5 OJ E
~ -0 " ,,-0 ~ <0
" ~ .. u)'" 'E' 0 -~
a. " 0 -(,),0)
c . " olUE
a. .E ge ~
z ~ " " "'" 0
0 E 1il .. c U) c " IV (D'(,l)
X " 2 .", ~ 0 <Xl ~:; .
i= f ~ II), i)'m "'0 :'.;E:S
ro " .. ",,0 Z i!!~ " "
oCt e. '" a. c,,< .;: 00 ;; :cee
0 .. o"z .N " ~......cu-:
2 " E o:sz 0 .. . ~ .c::~CI)C
N <( U) "m a.
~ "iO ~ ..m tIIO ::> -.a ~ O&<(~
;; " ".a~ <"
0 <( .. ~"" " ,.,l1. '" fi:O & ~
0 B
c ,., " ~L~ a ~ c .
u. 0 " c -,. ,,'" 0 E.2:0cum
0 :8i:iN Eo ~ Q)~ E.c
~ "" .!!1 0- 0 c a.
" C. " .o:::f:2 ~" 0.2 i!! 0.om>-
:E .. - .a "e mol1lal
E - I- ."." ~:s.~ E
11. " ~ ::> ~~ ~
c. 0 " 2"
oCt ." ~ ".. ..- dl-o- rn
- ~...J ...J " :5 i1J t:.!!:!
.. "", _.!!1
2 0 1ii .a z::>E ,,- " ONO....
:; c- .. m .'" .- ..
'" " . >>..!! ,,~ .. "'=='"0'1:1
0 '" ,s. "''' ..- J; OtnG>c:
.~ '-ID UJ " .. 01:5>'::1
,., c,s 0. _~ >. ",- -0 o-oSo
" .- " <( .. .~
2 oc ",,(I) '5"" ...c:c:o...c
;,; " ,.," :;;U)" " c ~~ ;;; c..1II'~~
-E
.. '" e2? o="m -0.2 2< .. o ." c
8&5-:6 e e .c'O ~::J
" "0 " " ",., g ~.!! 0.
U) '" " ., a." U)" o'C..Q)m
a. " .. m :;.c 0 .,'" =2 .l!! a) E gt E
.. " " o~ 0 - " 0" ..
~ ~~ t:8~o
:;; l- ii: E U) 0 1-- U)U) 0
c
:z
w
C)
W
--I
11.
oCt
2
m
" m
a. c
a 0 ..
a. Uj "
U) m a. ~
~ e " c
m
0 ;; .a m "
Uj m
1); a. m c E
'" :;; " " :;; . . m ..
'" ~ .. -'" 0 e " " ~
~ ~ " '" ~ ~ .a = " Q
is c C> '" is <3 e 0 ii5
:; m .i!
"
;; .. "
r~~:, ~t,~i W.1. ;; "
€ .. . u ..
. 1~.'. ~ ~ II (
a. <1> .fl
'" '0 m
.. S
.!!1
g~
i!
~~; \ ,
f! (I, 't 1\
...
.
"
'5
o
'"
'"
=>
" "
-0 ~
m m
0 0
'" '"
l; 'Ii
... c
:; ~
Z;~~ f:K
~.: <
m'
I
o
:c
"
;;
e
."
:E
anglnal,;,W;""',,,:
,.,
"
2
"
m
,.,=
" 0
2m
" "
-"
@I
ig8
J;5:O
..
c
.2
m
z
"
"
~
U
'l'''
-<:
j~
" 0
zo
~I
.
.
Soil Map-Lane County Area, Oregon
5175/5195 Main Street
Map Unit Legend
.>) /.' ~'(::';~:')~';';;:.~}\:<:~:i)\}/':i~~:;~~~:;/~.}}~:?/n.:;J8~~5\\~~~~';F~.?:~:?~:'~r~:.:qf.~~~~i:{9..~~.~hX;}~'H;;:: ~!.:;;i::;;f/.~~> ~{~~;t:i ~~~~)\X\~.1:f~;<.:;:;r}n~',;;i!;~}~
"', ; :.'~.~:~~p\i.~~~-.~~'~pt': ~~. ;?'/;~' ~~/~;~i:~;.;r~ftM~p::~H~';~,~m'~.~'::_!:.h\~<:~~.:; .j'?(;'!}A## lb:~Q(;~~'{::{{ .':~:/:;;'l ~tA}.p.~.~~:~ AfAo(\\";;.Yf,::'::,:},-'
32 Coburg-Urban land complex 1.6 7.2%
101
119
OxIey-Uiban land complex
Salem-Urban land complex
0.4
19.9
21.9
1.9%
Totals for Area of Interest
90.9%
100.0%
"
..'
:.1'
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
Original Submittal
USDA
~
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
7/21/2010
Page 3 of 3
.
Map Unit Description: Salem-Urban land complex-Lane County Area. Oregon
Lane County Area, Oregon
119-Salem-Urban land complex
Map Unit Setting
Elevation: 300 to 800 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 60 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 52 to 54 degrees F
Frost-free period: 165 to 210 days
Map Unit Composition
Urban iand: 45 percent
Salem and similar soils: 45 percent
Description of Salem
Setting
Landform: Stream terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear -
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Gravelly mixed alluvium
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 3 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water
(Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1_98 inlhr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency off/ooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None.
Available water capacity: Low (about 4_8 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 2s
Land capability (nonirrigated): 2s
Typical profile
o to 7 inches: Gravelly silt loam
7 to 26 inches: Gravelly. clay loam
26 to 60 inches: Very gravelly sand
'...."..",.;.'.
Description of Urban Land
Interpretive groups
Land capability (nlinirrigated): 8
. DatElsollrce Information
Sbil Survey Area: Lane County Area, Oregon
Survey Area Data: Version 8, Feb 9, 2010
USDA
=;
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web SoU Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
.
5175/5195 Main Street
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
Original Submittal
7/21/2010
Page10f1
, STATEO:FORE~ . 7---.
iIONITO:ltING WELLREPO~
IS required by ORS 537.765 & OAR 690-240.(95)
fustrodions Cor com . this are on tbe last
StJl!e
jj ~ew co!l5~tion
o Conversion
.,~/If~ :E(E'~'~!} ,~_ ZW 3}NV.~4U
f:J.::Y OV 1 1994StartCard# W 71440.
-1 NAT-R .ESC6! ~CA.1'!.Q~.OFWELLBy legal description
M. V@~Pl County Lane
10wnship T17S tNo@Ran&e R2W (Ern@) SeoDon ::l::l
I. NE Jl40f SW 1/4ofabovesection.
2. Eilher SIIeel address ofwellloc8lion 5251 Ma i n Si:rppt
Springfiplrl, OR Q7a77
or Thxlotnnmher of well loca1ion Unknown
3. ATn\.CH MAPWlTH LOCATION IDENTIFIED. Map shall inclnde
apprunm..te seale ""d norlh arrow.
(7) STATIC WATER LEVEL:
15 FL belowllmdsmface.
Artesian Press= Iblsq. in.
Dr
0' Alt=Jion (Rcp_airlR=ndition) ,"_
. --..----- ~'-
.0 D~~ . 0 Aba.I1d~nment
3) DRILLING METHOD
o RolaIyAi! , .,0 ~~Mnd_
[1! Hollow StemjWger 0 .Qlha '..
.BOREHO~C~~~U~?N
L Stmdaxds 0 . KJ Depth ~r e~5'1ered w:.ll
\!wIt {"
o it. .
t7" '
-Lit. :.
Seal
-LfL
ro
.3... fL
.
FIltf:r
Pl~k
~ft..
TO
~fL
Vkter-tight cover
Somu:e nosh vault
LoCking Ollp
Casing , (9) WELLLOG:
diameter 2 iJ1,
mareri& Sch. 40 PVC
\\\:Ided Thteaded Glned
o IXJ.O
Liner
~ m.
mareri&
\\\:Ide<! Threaded Glned
. tJd qtJ -
VkIl seat
Material Bentoni te
Amoont 3/8" (150 lb
Grontweight 14.1 1 bsj
Bm~mem~' gal.
12 in.
~tn~plug at least 3 ft. thick
S=
nmrertaI Sch. 40 PVC
interval(s):
From~Th 201
From--=-=--To --
Slot_ .020 in.
Filtor pack:
'M~riaI Silica sand
Size 10-20 In..,
OCable:. ..' ,
._~"7: or. .;....:. ._
20 . fL
Land_
Dale
Dale
lO-lll-qa
(8) WATERBEARINGZONF'$: _
J:lepth ~t which water was first ~ound 1 &:\ I
From Th Est. Flow Rate SWL
151 20' 1 nnm --
.
Gronnd elevation
49<jI
Material From 10 SWL
Fine sandv fill O. "l'
materirll
.
Rounded rivf'r rn"k 11 ?O'
w/minnr ~"nrlv dltv
cl"v m"t..i,,_..nr~
size ..,I
deoth -
,
. .
_Dare .!tarted
] 011 RIGa
lO/lR/94
Compleled
(rinboncfed) MOnitor Vwbll Conslmctor Certification:
I certify !hat the worli: I perfumted OIl the COllStrOctiOIl, alteration, or
- abandonment of this weD is in compliance v4th ~tI9~~fjP-._..a.
standards. Materials nsed and information ~'V>DlU.
" . knDwledgeandbelief. ' MWCNmnhcr __
;) WELLTES1L.. _
o Pump . -DB,ail",-:... .:..D.Air
Permeability , ., , Yield-
Coodnc1ivity PH
'Thmper.t!tIreofwatcr 55 .~ j)eplhart<:sianflowfoond
Was water ;malysis done'! m...~ O~o.. _ _
By whom? Un knoWl\
Depthofslr.ltattll!e~yped..~m "5
Remarks:
.0 F1owing~es!an
GPM .
fLto
20
Signed
f;QW S'. 20ff-,.
It.
(bonded) MOn!tot Well ConstrnctorCertificauou::
Iacceptresponsibilityfoi:the~oS~ent
work performed OD. this wen dm:iDg the constifCtiO;datesreported above. All
ft. work performed . this time is in compliance with Oregon well constIUcUon
standatds. ' Itis tIllelothe ofmyknowledgeandbelieE
MWCNumber 1021313
NameofsnpervisingTIeologistlEngineer Robert. Goodfe 11 ow
ORlGlNAL& FIR&1'COPY.WATERRESOURCES DEPARTMENT
TIlIRD COPY.CIlSTOMER
,
,
fl lW',
\..
~
\4
I'
(,
, \\
\\
II \;.-,
:\ .
.-
\
I
,
Q ~
, .
r\ ll:~,.
r* '
,
\
i
nmr.
'i': ,. . l!3',c,;':;."
~ ~
.,~,.. .
.
\
~
" .
.
.
"
.. ..~TATEOFOREGON .oM";1 JGGOlISC.98C
. .wjNITORlNG WELLREPOm" _!/~
(')j'required.by OKS 537.765 & OAR 690-24O-ll9S) ~
/.!!tstructions for comnletinp. this reoort are on the last nft_ of this fonn.
(1) OWNERlPROJECT: WELL NO. MW-1
Name John J s : Gas &. Groced es
Address 5390 Main St.
Oty Springfield SMe Oregon Zio 97478
(2) TYPE OF WORK:
o New construcllon
o Conve~ion
U Alter.nioD (Repair/Recondition)
o Deepening 0 Ab,:mdonmenl
(3) DRllUNG METHOD
o Rotary Air 0 Rotary Mud
J[] Hollow Stem Auger 0 Other
o Cable
w.
i ~
.J. TO
L23776
111080
Start Cml #
(6) LOCATION OF WELLBylegal description
Wen Location: County. Lane
TOWnsbip T 17 5(N or 5) Range R 2 WE or W) Section 33
I. NW 114 of S E 1/4 of above section_
2. Either Street addre.~s of we111ocatioD
5390 Main St.. Springfield. OR
or Ton lot numberofwelllocarlon fp603
3. ATrACH MAPWITIl WCATION IDENTIFIED. Map shall include
approximate 5CII1e aad north arrow.
(7) STATIC WATER LEVEL:
10 ' ft. below land surface. Dale
Artesian Pressure Jbfsq. in. Dale
9/2/98
. '1t I BORE HOLE CONSTRUCTION
. i . Ye.o; No
. ~ial Smndanlo; 0 13 Depth of completed well
. "";~t fi{ '.~
I TO .
. .
'~ft. :.
Seal
~fi.
TO
-4-!... ft.
1I1~
Filter
pack
!41 fc
II 1-
TO'
-20-' ft.
20'
ft.
(8) WATER BEARING ZONES:
Depth at which water was first found 1 n I
. From To E,..L Flow RlIte SWL
10' 70' 1 DDm,
(9) WELL LOG:
Ground elevation 505 I .
. Land surface
Water.tight cover
Surface flu~h vault
Locking ca~
Casing
diameter 211 in.
materialSch. 40 PVC
Welded Threaded Glued
o
Uner
diameter
o
Matenal
From :To
0' :5'
.5'
in.
00
materia!
\\I:lded Threaded Glued
o
o
o
\\1:11 seal:
Malerial Bentonite 3/8
Amount 1 "i0 1 bs
Grout weight 14.1 lbs.f
Borehole diameter
12" in.
Bento~ plug at least 3 ft thick
Screen
inarerial Sch 40 PVt..
- intc:rval(s);
From---1i.'..- To 70 '
From To
Slot size O?O in.
Filter pack:
Material Silicil Silnd
Size 10-70 in.
SWL'
S n&'sil t e
irie.5
'10'
10'
Gravel in silt matri 10'
wet ravel- in
fine sand ravel in
coarse sand
20'
WATER RESOURCES DEPT.
9/2/98
DatestaIted
Complered
(unhanded) Monitor well Constructor Certification: .
1 certify lhat the work I performed on the conslruction, w[eration, or
nbandonmeot of this well is in ~ompli<lnce with" Oregon well constrUction
Slandards. Materials us d inti alion reported above are true to [he best
knowledge lief.
.~ WELL TEST:
o Pump 0 Bailer . 0 Air
Permeability Yield
Conductivity PH
. . Temperarure of wa1er. . fi'5U oF/C Depth artesian flow fouod
Was warer analy~is done? [lYes 0 No
By whnm? PNI
Depth of strata to be analyzed. From
Remark5:
o Aowing Artesian
- - GPM
"i'
ft..o
70'
Name of supervising GeologisrlEngineer Milcp Onrling! RRP.A
ORIGINAL& FIRST COPY.WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
ft.
Sign
MWC Nnmber
ft.
,
j
i
j
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
I
i
I
;
j
I
i
i
i
i
j
;
11
I
;
;
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
j"
i
t
II "
~undeveloP8d
i lot
i
i
j
i
i
i
"MW-l
8: 3.000
T: 27
Eo 73
X: 380"
..
N MW-3
0-
8: 2.5
T: 2.3
E: NO
X: 1.7
2.,."2
500 Gollon
MW-2. Woste Oil UST
o
e: 25.000
T: 27.000
E: 2.100
X: 10.000
.
'.
Apartment
Complex
RECEIVED
o
I""'l..... -
DEe 11 7998
WATER RESOURCES DE?1
SALEM, OREGON
10
RECEIVED (FID")
OCT 2 8 1998
WATER RESOURCES DEPT.
SAlEM, OREGON '
r-,
,
L__--'
2_2
~- --- -~ .
I 6.000 Gallon : i 6.000 Galion l
rUST II UST. r
'-----......- -...
, ---......-- ,
: 6.000 Gallon Ii 6.000 Gallon I
lUST IIUST I
...-- -- ---... ...-- ...
2-2
~
Monitoring Wen
Location and
Identification Number
Benzene (ug/L)
Toluene (Ug/L~)'.'_',
" ": Elhylbenzene ug/L)
Xylenes (ugIL
~.- Property: Liner
-_, ,_ " -,co_ , ;, <~," .
(
)
Canopy
ICRlI.N:lWA'II!l't
PLOW~.ARI
(
)
ConC1'ete-
Date Received:
MAIN ~
FEB 1 5 2011
" "UlY-l
Original Submitu@: "
B: 3.000
T: 27
E: "73
X: 380
FlGUI'E 1
JOHN'S GAS &: GROCERY. 5390 Main
SITE PLAN
Street, Springfield. Oregon
. Bergeson-Boese &: Associotes~
Environmental Engineering
65 Centenniol Loop
"Eugene. Oregon 97401
(541) 484-9484
Inc. Job, COO.: JGG01CON.9BC
C-'OO File: JGGOI.DWC
Scalo: ," = W'
Drawn: ROBERT ROBIMSON
Chedted: RONALD BERGESON
Data: 9/1:5/98
~O
.
STATE OF OREGON .
GEOTECHNICAL HOLE REPORT
'(a;> required by OAR 690-240-035)
LANt:
00675
~ ~ CJ/1.AJ.;z~(/~ Od.~
.....
G/'--3
(I) OWNERlPRO.lECTl
Ie mber
~
(9) LOCATION OF HOLE by/ego/ description:
County ..L~ Latitude - Longitude
TownshiP. ""7/-rS N ~ge ~ ~ E <@.vM.
Section J3 N.t<.J"1I4 Sw.r-1/4 .
Tax Lot LOl Block Subdivision
Slicel Address of Well (or lJearest address
Name'
Address
Cl
(2) TYPE F Wi .
ll'TNew 0 Deepening 0 Alteration ('"Pairlreconditi~bandoomeol
J'(3)CONSTRUCTION:
o Rotary Air DHandAuger DHollowStemAuger
DRoraryMud o Cahle Tool NPusbProbe DOther
(4) TYPE OF HOLE: .
~Uncased TempoIaI)' 0 Cased Pennanent
o Uncascd pennanent 0 Slope Stability 0 Other
(5) USE OF HOLE:
"
..
State
.
Zi
(6) BORE HOLE CONSTRUCTION: i
Special Construction approval 0 Yes k"o. Depth of Completed Hole /6' fL
(10) STATIC WATER LEVEL:
~;
h fl below land surface.
~ianpressurc .-- Ib,pCrsquareinclt.
(11) SUBSURFACE LOG:
Date e2 -/-.3 c:;
Date
Ground Elevation
7";1.1'/
Malerial Descri tion
From
To
'SWL
ROLE
SEAL
From To
at
-
.
'~
,
'-
Date Started
Dale Completed
/-
Backfill placed from ..--rc- to
Filler Pack placed from it. to
.-rc: Material
fL - 'Size of pack .
(U) ABANDONMENT LOG:
(7) CASINGIS
Diameter
From
o
Material Descrl tion
From
To Sacks or Founds
Slot .
Date started
.
Casing'
Screen:
(8) WELL TEST:
o Pump o Bailer 0 Air
Permeability . Yield
Conductivity PH or
Temperature of water -.5*""" ~~ Depth artesian flow found::::=:=::fL
WasWaler analysis done? JC1Yes 0 No
By whom'! ~::L46rM... ""
Depth of slrilI:a analyzed.. From /-2 "" fL to
Remarks: . '" e,.
/~".
o
Professional Certification
(to be .~jgned by a licensed water supply or moniloring well construclor. IIr Oregon
regi."1ered geologist or civil engineer).
[ accept responsibility for the comaruction. a1lerntion. or abandonment w(~rk
per!D~ ~~g ~e cons~criun dates reported above. All work. performetl
during nus ti~e IS In CC?mphance with Oregon's georechnical hole construction
standards.. This report IS true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
gistrationNumbe'c rh~
o Flowing Artesian
GPM -
fL
Da..,,2 ;,.y-C>e:
'b
ORIGINAL n WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FIRST COPY - CONSTRUCTOR
SECONDCOPY_~Y~ 2011
_.___t_ _~ I':::', ,"",...,..-,~.P4oJ
! Geological Survey
Oregon
-.:
r~
. ;.
from aeri;J!
1967
J*ON ~"
'~.[,L I ~
/
-.----
OriWA1.e1 f.~~:013&t21
o
I
:F23.::::::~
1000 0 u ~.. .........
2(}{){)
3000
:an datum
ate system.
r-I~~
1000
~--
>--;-:.:,.
1 .,
t7""""""'1.._.r-:-1....~~o-:lh
o
'-;="1 _=__...._
':-
4000
STATE OF OREGON
WATER SUPPLY WELL REPORT
(as required by ORS 537.765 & OAR 690-205-11210)
.
LANE 69549
04-21-2009
.
Page 1 ofl
WELL LABEL # L 1101202
START CARD # 11006620
(1) LAND OWNER
Owner WeIlI.D.
FirstNameBRUCE
Company
Address 4] 8 52ND PLACE
City SPRlNGFIELD State OR Zip 97478
(2) TYPE OF WORK ~NewWell DDeepening D Conversion
o Alteration'(repairlrecondition) OAbandonment
Last Name PETERSEN"
(9) LOCATION OF WELL (legal description)
County r ,;me Twp 17 no ~ N/S Range? 00 W
See --11..--- ~ 1/4 of the SW 1/4 Tax Lot 2400
Tax Map Number Lot
La!: ., "or
LOD -"-'-lIor
g---
(0. Street addn:ss of well ~ Nearest address
rI8 52ND~LACE SPRlNGFIELD; OR 9;478 .
ElW WM
DMS or DD
DMS or DD
How was seal placed:
[]other
BacldiU placed from ft. to
Filter pack from -rtio
Explosivesused: Oes Type-
ill DRILL METHOD
~RotaryAir DRotaryMud DCable DAuger DCahleMud
DRoverseRotary DOtber (lO)STATICWATERLEVELDalI: SWL(psij + SWL{ft)
(4)PROPOSEDUSE~Dnmestic Dlrrigation DCommunily ~:~;':'::l;reoeepening !n...,"-,onQ I .1 BIOI
Dlndustriall Conunericial D Livestock DDewatering Flowing Artesian? 0 Dry Hole? D
DThennal DInjcction DOther WAlERBEARlNGZONES Oepthwaterwasfirstfound 19
~:;;~;!~~;?nNS~~~CT~N S::tand>I:oD:~~;) I::"':. I ~I TO'81'"~I'M""1 ~
~ 71 'i: II~ I ':"1 ., ~(n)WELLWG. · . a
Method OA DB lZIc OD DE Material
OP SOlL
LOAM
GRAVEL WIlli SOME CLAY
Ground Elevation
It. Material
It. MalI:rial
Size
From
o
1
,
To
,
,
'<0
Amount
(6) CASlNGILINE;R'
~I~"
Fror;t
2
To
58
Gauge
25
sa PI"" WId Thrd
I~~
Shoe ~ Inside DOutside 0 Other Location of shoe(s) -ljR
Temp casing Dyes Dia From To
(7) PERFORATIONS/SCREENS
. Perforatiom Method Holte Air
Screens Type
Material
PerflS Casing! Screen
creen Liner Din
Amount I~
,
Date Started 04-?O-700Q Completed 04-?O_?OOQ
(un banded) WaterWcU Constructor Certification
I certify that the work I performed on the construction, deepening. alterntion. or
abandonment of this well is in compliance with Oregon water supply we-II
conslructiori standards. Materials used and information reported above are true to
the best army knowledge and belief
License Number 177fl Date 04-?1_?OOQ
Electronically Filed
Signed DOTJaT A~ n TIlrJCPR fF._filerfl
(bonded) Water WeD Constructor Certificatioo
I accept responsibility for the construction. deepening,. alteration, or abandonment
work performed on this well dwingthe construction dates reported above. All work
perfonned during this time is in compliance with ,Oregon .water supply wen
construction stand>Ids. This report is true to the DtffW R'l!IC:~tf~~!ef
LlcenseNumber 1"i41 Date 04-? 1-700Q
Electronically Filed
Signed CASEY TON>'< TR (F-fiI.dl EEB-l 5 20U--
Contact Info (optional)
ORIGINAL- WATER RESOURCES DEPARIMENT . _"^". _ '"' '- ..
:HlS REPORT MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT WITInN 30 DAYS OF COMFLET16'I'1f€li!IWi:lRRulJm,f.tal
. Fonn Version: 0.89
.
.
Geotechnical & Construction Services
September 21 , 2010
Ms. Janet Lobue
University of Oregon
1276 University of Oregon
Eugene, Oregon 97403
Project No.: 2107120
Report No.: E-26687
Re: UO Allen Hall Material Testing
. University of Oregon Campus
Eugene, Oregon
Dear Ms. Lobue,
Attached are the results of the testing performed by our representatives on the existing wall materials at the
above referenced project on September .14 & 15, 2010.
The testing progrem included brick mortar shear strength and epoxy anchor tension testing in the 1922
building and laboratory compression testing on fifteen (15) concrete cores obtained from the walls of the
1954 building, as outlined in emailletters from kpffEngineers dated July 20 and August 17, 2010.
We trust the attached information meets your current needs. If you have any questions, please feel free to
contact our office at 541-$84-3849. .
Sincerely,
11.7(.11w -
Michael L.' ~e~r-
Vice-President
. \
Attachments: brick shear tests - 1 page
anchor tension tests - 1 page
. compression tests - 1 page
floor plans - 3 pages
hydraulic ram calibrations - 2 pages
pictures - separate PDF attachment
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
c:
TBG Architects - John Lawless (email)
Kpff Engineers - Josh Richards (email)
Original Submittal
MLM:sc
This report and/or enclosed test data is the confidential property of the client to whom it is addressed and pertains to the
specific _process and/or material evaluated, As such, information contained herein shall not be reproduced in part or. full
and/or any part thereof be dIsclosed without FEI Testing & Inspection. Inc.'s wrItten authorization.
700 NVVCorreIIAveru! .ClJMjis, Oregon 9733:1'ph:Jre 154117574698'fax 15411757-2991
Z9540BAijxJrt Poo:j~. Oregon 97402 'ph:Jre(541) I384;J849 fax (541) 68'hl651
62979 NE Plateau Drive, Suite 3' Bend, Oregon 97701 . phone (541) 382-4844 . fax (541) 382-4846
~
CD
,
><....
GlN
'C'C
C...
-tU
..c:'C
...c
g'.J9
Glen
...
"'0
en III
"':J
tU_
~Ill
en'C
"'0
.=..c:
0'"
..,Gl
...:!!
tUl
t::",
00
:!!'
...
~'"
C~
00
Ul
tU:!!
:!!I-
en
<c
...
m.c-l
.c~><
enCGl
...Gl'C
C ... C
.-...-
oen
..,
E 0
::S'C'C
E la C
.- 0 ::s
~....I ~
:!! .
G)
Gl ..
e>ijl:=
::s II>.eUl
tUG)
" ...
c..
...
0.l!l0
la r:: Gl
e.- ..c:
<cot.)
-,c
Ul .-
Ul "t:I ..;
o G) :::
"ID.,!!!
...
'c
:JII>
U;Scn
Gl '-'Gl
I- en..c:
CJ,1 ; g
e> E'-
ra __-
;0
>
<c
- .
11>0
t!z
.
COl'N co co co M...,..CO
Mt--Moot"')(OOt--O
.,....,....N ,...,....
LDCDaJ('l'),....NV(\')V
('J""1'-.::tWC'\IOOCOW
COCOr--.q-LONO......1.O
CO~~L!)N'VI'-'VCO
g8~gogggg
,....00 0 (J) g.lt)L() t--(")
('l') ("l') to 'II"""" ....... ("Il'l"'"" C\I
vovtOOCOOOV
momcooroaoQ)
ct:icici"':u:i~ro~ci
t.OCOtDtD<OW(QWtD
f!? ~!22 ~ ~
.MvMMCOMN M
"';:NNMN;::0JN
XNXXNXN;::X
co'x:t::t X;S: XC'l:;t
j::::-ctMMV(Y)v)(M
('l')C1>MMXMX-.;tM
X(l')XX~X~)(X
~><E2~"":S:T'""CO~
,...00,....,....00_00 ,....
co row 0) co
.;,)
T-C\IM"ltl.t)CDI'-COm
(fJ(f)(fJ(fJ(fJ(f)(fJ(fJ(fJ
Oi
E
~
o
c:
"0
Ol
rn
E
:;;
Ol
"0
c:
tU
c:
.Q
'0
:E
...
o
~
c:
Ol
'0
IE
Ol
o
o
C)
c:
'0;
:J
"0
Ol
c:
'0;
15
o
Gl
.0
"0
'S
o
;::~
~N
~ci
~...
Ol c:
:JO
"'ffi+:l'
> ffi
>,en
.0..
-
"0<1)
~-=-
:Jen
"0 en
Ol ~
~~
_en
0<1)
t:>
m-w
,. en
,. ~
><0.
Ol E
"00
Eo
.
VI
C
o
:;::;
tU
U
o
...J
...
..
Gl
I-
.
.
C
o
:;::;
tU
t.)
o
...J
'"
Ol .
. E 5:
~ en
-Ol
;::.!:
0-
, -g ro
.- t:
_ ;::E
'" ;:::J
> 0-
~2_Q)8
"'OQlW.a-
c: '- >= 0
::sg.5Qcocn
e 0 "0'('\1 en
C) o. c"O CI)
Q) Q):J ffi=
>. e; e O>~
O.cC)c:
.D ro Q)'_ "'0
co: > "'0 c:
" c.., 0 c CD
r--.v.o!QQ)
'" "'OlE
-g-gCoc.~
lO"'",rl-
"'I... Q.;"c en 5;
c C C Q) 0
,-'-coO)"O
o 81O~'!:
o . ;::
01 ~m (; L-
e._ 00
'5"'0001;:0
:== 0)'1:1 r;:
:J :J Cc:: "l:I '- '- L...
.o.o=NC 000'-
_,",,"__NODOO
o o QOQ)q::q:::t;:: 0
_..c.....->Q)IDQ)'+=
. f/}..... (/) en 0 > > > 1l)
m:J(I3Q)..oooo>
Q) ~ Q) 3: C1J.c..Q.c 0
== ' == ::: == ro m co.c
"'::: ..q 0 f' == (tl
N~(Y)LDNm"--M=
I I I I I..-N..-~
lD <(<(<(III
...,.OlOLD..--wCIl-q-1
(I')"l:t("l')~.......~co~'V
.......("I')~.N(I')N~('I')..--
-r-E N ('I')
EEoEEEEEE
.googgo.ooo
....o............eoeo
-'-=-- .... \...
ro=carom~=~=
;::g!;::;::;::;::"';::lO
..c~.r::...c.c. 3: 3:
tUi'5t:t:::E't):E1;)
oroOOO~Ql~.Q)
C:(J)U)c:c:g~g;.:
\... ......... I- I-
000001-'-'-'-
.;:: "C "i::; "C 'i:: .Q .2 ,2,9
m Q) Ql Q) Ql .... .... .... '-
xxxxx$222
wwwwwE.EEE
ci
z
en
c:
'"
a.
~
o
o
'"
"0
Q)
.c
o
'"
:I:'
'"
Ol
Ol
"'
.
... ..;:;,~-
...
..
Gl
I-
..--C\lM.q-lO<Df'-.COm
(fJ(fJ(fJ(fJ(fJ(fJ(fJ(fJ(fJ
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
c> '-'~::i Submittal
ex>
ex>
'<I'
W
:!;
I-
1Il
<I:
I
III
-
III
ell
I-
'C
nl
o
..J
-
"0
III
'C
:!"iil
..J'C
c
'C::l
~~"
<I:
..
o
.c
<.l
r::
<I:
e
::l
III
III
e:::-
~~
Cl
::l
III
Cl
-
III .
III 0
I-Z
.
"
w
_ _.0
(5 0.;3
.0 .oc
;: ;: Cll
o .Q ~
Q3 mo
.0 .0'"
Cll wE
"0"0"0 'l:J "0"0 0"0 U 0-0"
222222~jB~.l:;2
o 0 0 0 0 0 ~ o.:o.e:: 0)'0
c c c c ceO c 0 c C
cccc:c:c~c~tsc
.Q.Q.Q.Q.Q.Q c.Q.c ~.Q
10 ro ro m 10 ro'- ro .-.~ 10
E E E E E"E ~ E ~ Cll E
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~. 0 ~
.e.e.gS.E.E:mJ2cac.,e
Q.)Q)Q)Q}(J)Q)L..Q)....coQ.)
-0 "0 -0 "'0 -0 "C () "'C 0 5P"'O
'-,-'-L..L..r...CDL..Q).c'-
oooooo.~O.5_o
55a5a6:f:a~oa
._._._._._._ ro._ ctI~._
ootit5t5uL:t>..c1o
~~~~ttlr:!'<<II.:!:~
x-x-~_-o~-oo-
Cl)~Q.)ii'iQ.)~JBQ).s.c~
o 0;:
000 000 c 0 coo
ZZZZZZcZc-Z
Q.. 0 Q)
:p -:.;::;..0
g g~
~ ~ 0
x >< I-
W Cll .0
o 0 t5
z z.t:
aJ
III
.la::
..
'"
E
ell
D:
00000000080
000000000('\10
LOLOlOlOLOLOLOLOLO("')LO
MMM("')("I)(f)C":lC"?C"')+1M
00000000'0 go
LOLOLOLOLOlOlOlOl.O LO
co(O<o<ococo<ococo~c.o
'l""""C\I('I') V 1.0 "'''' CO en 0.....
co co OJ .co CD r!Hn co ell IIi ([j
w
~
Cl
Cll
-0
~
~--'-
N~
N~
_0
mN
wM
wO
-gjB
-m
e"
We
~.Q
0-
IIl~
-g'o..
m ~
S<'S<'
00
0-0-
W W
o-
N'"
, ~
>-<0
J:'<t
""ell
=0)
J:",
ClCO
eN
"we::
:ou)
OW
"0 en
:!W
eJ,1
au
eU
o'=-
m:5
og-
.<::"
-o-
We
~ Q)"
o E
0"
.= <1>
-0 .oE
Cll
=W
.l!l.
~~
._~
" ~
O~"
~+l
"e
W m
-0.<::
gJ:t:
J:;;:
-Q)
cO>
Cll e
.om
. -0
....~
~m
x;:
e
. ;:
:::to
"'"
:=
-
o
z
III
r::
o
:;::l
III
<.l
o
..J
1A
III
I-
.
.
C
o
:;::l
nl
<.l
o
..J
Cl
e
:a
e
.!!!
w
0-
m
o
III
Cll
E!
'" "
~ 0 ;:
o '" 0
o "E -0
(i) '+= M.S
~ Q) ~ c ~
-oQ)(jj-. (1)0
.C: L.. > 0 (,) 0
~ 0 Q}....... .~;:;::
c:- U') "Cv
e. 0-0 Q) als:;
C)Oc:3: -""
(1) Q}::1" 0-
>>00 mO
o 0'- 'I"""" en a.
.o.om wO>-c co 0
ro >c ..0......
.. in 0 m :: 3=
0>, ...0 Q) o..Q
~omE 0;]
"'O~" m ..o~
ffi -g ~ .!:: u,i--
Ci5 m"C 3: ....."0
~cO ~c
c: CD ('IJ"C m- m
~ e e
8L..1O-- cC
0".; i: E E
C) Ow L.. :J..=!
.50l 0 -0
:g.~m8C5L-oL-L-oO
.--Oc 000000_
.E=S="g -.::.g[t::g 0'0 0
_..o_N <!) <!) <1l Q)!O= '- Qj.
o_o3':>>>>G>ID.-
t)ou.iooo..8o>"'EC:
m.cma;:..o.cm..co(1)<<>
wt W.Q"M _cc= _m~ u..;:
" g~" lO""O'lLo:: niCtl
f'- Ma>~oc-T"""~CO I
"d":: N I I '" I
I ~ I J J I I C")<t:.
<( ocomv .T'""
a:lILD<(ll)T"""CO..--...tf'-T'""
VmMlOoc-C\IT'""('t)T'""(9M
~(I')T"""NC\lEC\lEC0VJE
'-~E EoEoE"o
~ E 0 E 0 0 0 0 o.s 0
googe~e.::e=.::
....OL-"-_o_o_mo
-'-=-0 .0 oc-
~~!~~~~~~~~
..c..........J:::>..s:: ..c 0 J::
1:: fI)::Jt......-1i).....ooot:
ornoorFJ::Ja):Jm_o
c;Q.)(t)c:mg::~::oc
'- L.. L- L... L. L-
.g .g .g .g .Q .2 .9 .Q .2 .g .g
Q)Q)Q,)Q)L...L-L-L-lo...Q)Q)
xxxx~22J~L~xx
wwww.E:E.E:EEww
"
E
,Jg
i:
o
"
e
"j:
ci
Z
-
III
Gl
I-
~N"''<t'''_~e;'
CO rn CO CD m C&.IGIlDlIWOi .. iI
~Er~ \
,.. , ..1 ~
r;:: f) /'1
.t
en
e
m
C.
~
o
o
'"
-0
W
.<::
<.l
.l!l
ro
""ill-
'..,.11(/)"
.
Origin a; Subj\..J~jI~_~.__--_._.
-0
Gl
....
"ii)
ec..
...
o
o
e
o ...
~.so
",0:J
... III
ou.
o
N
'It
U
:s
1-.
Ul
<C
I
....
III
CII
l-
e
o
III
III
l!!
Co
E
o
U.
.s
l!!
u
e
o
U
'"
>.c
'e;; ..
CI) OJ::-
e c ~
c..~..::::
E;<;:
OW
o
E Iii
~-o"'O
'" III e
.- 0 ::l
~..I~
l!!
o.c-
o..,:g
-0 l:ll.c
Gl c 0
o..lIlc
0....1 :::;
III
o
III
...
o
o.i::Iii
-0"" III
CD C).oI:
.... C "
" III e
f..l:::;
....
><
w
...-.,:.
G)Scn
.. III CII
OE..c
0",0
._ c
0::::
e 0
GlO;Z
""'+:;
o '" E
o ". 0
o 0
..10::
o
~
'"
'"
a 0 0 0
M -.:- <J) 'l""""
0) r-- ("l') co
N ("l') ("') ('I")
o
'"
'"
ci
o 0 LO (:)
t- (J) ~ CD
en Q) (J) en
ci ci ci ci
o
o
N
"
co 'l"""" N lO
~ ro Q) to
o r-- I!) ......
M cr> ("l') (V')
'"
~
co
"
'"
10 LO 0 l.()
o 'V co "t"""
o (I') r-- N
LO T'"" Q) 'l""""
N crJ N C")
'"
~
..;:
co o. 0 It)
M 0 1.0 ~
l() cO -.::i CD
o
'"
..;:
10 0 o. co
t- 0 1.0 ('l')
to ID ~ cO
'"
N
..,M
LO to LO 1.0
N N N N
(") ~ M M
;..;: i '~<j) 2,:~:j :;.~, ..:
~
,
~
o
~
N
,
~
o
~
~ N
, ,
'" OJ
~ .~
> :;:
N
o
~
o
o
'"
N
o
"
'"
ci
<D
'"
<D
N
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
co
C')
to
'"
N
to
o
o
..;:
~
,
CD
N
~
o
t--
t--
N
'"
~
'"
ci
N
'"
o
'"
o
co
o
co
C')
'"
t--
..;:
'"
t--
..;:
o
o
..;:
~
CD
N
~
o
co
N
C')
o
co
'"
ci
t--
"
'"
'"
'"
"
t--
t--
N
'"
CD
.n
'"
t--
.n
'"
N
'"
'"
o
N
o
o
"
'"
o
t--
'"
c:i
o
o
'"
C')
'"
CD
'"
C')
"
o
'"
cO
'"
N
r-.:
o
o
..;:
1;;
'"
ill
~
N
N
o
.N
CD
N
o
o
'"
~
o
N
CD
N
o
N
t--
~
N
co
'"
cO
'"
N
cO
'"
N
M
.c
-
"
o
U)
~
N
N
o
co
~
C')
o
o
o
.~
o
co
~
C')
o
co
'"
'"
C')
o
o
co
o
'"
ai
.0
'"
"
~
N
N
:c
.
o
Cl)
t--
N
o
Cl)
Cl)
o
N
N
co
N
'"
'"
'"
C')
N
C')
~
cci
co
'"
r-.:
'"
N
M
.c
:5
o
(f)
~
o
C')
:c
o
t--
o
"
o.
t--
'"
c:i
co
OJ
~
"
o
o
co
"
C')
'"
N
to
o
'"
to
'"
N
M
.c
to:
o
Z
~
o
'"
:c
o
'"
t--
N
o
o
o
~
o
'"
t--
N
'"
"
o
'"
'"
o
o
cO
'"
N
ai.
o
o
..;:
'"
~
'"
o
N
.N
C')
'"
CD
CJ)
c:i
c:i
~
,
o
N
,
'"
o
c
o
"
2
III
Ci
E
8
en
~
0>
,~
1ii
2
c
o
'iii
en
'"
~
0-
E
o
u
"
c
'"
N
....
o
:;;
I-
,(f)
<t:
.c
-
'j: <D
Ill;::!
u"
c c
{'j",
o~
u~
16>
c .
~a
"'~
~ :; en
" ~ u E
o '0-8
t.q'VT'"'i-
('I') I I C
t U) LO.-
. - T'"'-o
~camQ)
!J! ~ o,~
;>:: 'c co
" 0 015
t--."C""""Oo
cCQ)Q)
00 c: L-
lo... L.'- Q)
22jg;:
Q) cu..D en
E E 0 III
ro m ~ 0
:O~Q.)(J
:t::!:~N
..c-Ocn_
~~~~
8881-
c,;
~
Z
N
'"
C')
'"
'"
"
co
~
"
co
'"
to
'"
~
cO
o
o
..;:
Date Received:
co
~
'"
FEB 1 5 2011
vnginal Submittal
.
1ll7.l3llQlO.uI~II!AINnfO
owe: '4H~ eunr
uIiJS9CJ ~lleWaLPS
H9A+D8.1
.
/
.......
lilpOl.Ul'lllPUlI
UOfSI.lBGx3lFHualf'lf
uciialolO~SJa.\!un
'~"'.9~fl. :n!i!OS
NVid 01'1130 ~ 131\31
C>
<(
" h ZEfj
z I:
w
"'
~
z ' ,
:5 ,
~ , i
,
" ,
, I
~. ,
w I";
0
~ .~ W
W W
" ."
, " 0 , ~"
~ 0 W 0 "0
0 0" . 0 <0
'" ~ "l.ll:: '" Wo ""
z. l::~ i1i ""
w ~, ~~. ".
;OW " "
" -" < ~13o
>- ~~ ~~ m !;(i:
0 '" SEe ~~
Z w ~~ ~ffi ~ w,,~
> m~:< 50
. W ii.ifil tg I- o~ I!! ~~~~ ~~
C9 [j!!i -.... CI)_..... c5
,,0 t;~;]~~~ 0 r"< ""
w .!l;~ ILj:; lL ..J 'W~ ~o
...J ~;;!n::O:o~ tt c::;lG Islr
8~ ~WOI-Z _ "w~ ,<
C9 a:: >::r: <1)0 :r 85" ~1i
l:i ffi ~;~ ~ mo>
or Z I"~ "<5
:I;tt:;:: 0<( Q~ w@ ~~b 0'
f" w. zw
,,~ ~~O?C~I- ~n:: @Q~ffi .~
(f) ",0 2~8o~~ ~8 5~5~ ~"
w zo ~~
0 ,,~ W
I- " Cl w oe:: ~w~~
C> I I
I ,
l
"
."
<
""'('
,",
ecei ed:
FEe 1 ~ zsa
f'"' . ~~. ~ 'j.", r
Original &\.:0.,,,,,.,;..
.
.
II'ro3'llDJO,u/S'1IUltUI I 0
I-lElJ..-+E)aJ.
O~Ol" 'Ifi~ ~ BUnr
u5JS8a~eWlllpS
IgpOl1r.ll:l~
UOIsuedlgl[t!/-l UlIlI\f
uo6eJQjoAl!SJlIfl!Un
,~=..!nl~ :6Je:lS
NVld oraa i: 13113l
N
o
<(
\!\
\1)
Q I.. <f ,. 9
T1 I I
-~'*<'-n-""""-''''='''' '"'~.'--'" --
~r ..... ' '~. '~
lJ i! D~ '-'
_' l~~_,._~,/l ..;; JJJ. ~
Ii aM L~, -'\.J, ---111- \t)
~\~-" _.,:~' I U, ti' -:;-
~-.:I -i!- t I I r1l
'I'~-~-a;~~ 7 "~~~1'~: -~
"'-o:"rn'Tf'ltrf' II
I: !ttt1tHl'lli ,!II
_J f~;=~--" -=.~
Ii I Ir' - r--
,. ......1I}llt I
!l.if-~--'--~-" c~. _I U', i'J'\ ~
"Ii 1-,., to""*' i '"
-l~~=--=--~f/ ~- "\=r~ ---CO-
";" _~. (~ \..I}!l il .
I -~Ih\~~-~t -<~:t.Er:t'~74 I I I
I ,I: 1 iJ ~E !~ \II 1 I ..........,,:~~jl~ I -~.:4 \_-J_ '~-:J J I I
II' \1 i~ ' j,' !,; ! ~ 11 ~~~ I! I ,I Hi I ' ' !i'm<mo'
~Ij j j i :1, ; II iE' Ji:::rl:, II' "1' I ~~q:iiil:: I
I 1'1 11 - ii' J ~ ~ i;!"\J. ii' , 'I ;~=11 J'
l . I I,] ...... "'':;--,,",' I I i!n ~~:'1ltll
" II .-- - =--1 ----;::;- _ I :~, . ;~I<A ">II!
00. Ii Ii 1~---'J~l'0~1~( ~~I!I - ':-~ 1': Ii - I'll:; !i) l:'~" .~ r,
~-.~~-I=-~____';' Ii '," '. ,'Dj --, i" ' :---~I' ..lili!:,,, 'II ,:rr,)L~roI6:t4f';:--~
~t\l{~- Il 7~ ~~ ! ~ I ..JPT.... I ....U I --~.idff"'t~
. :(Y :i:L ;1.' 1[" l/~,' r ~> ~!' '.' ,II'~; ! I'~' ~ i, n ),iF~ _Fi.~~ij
U ~ ~ Ii ~! Qi J i~ I i I i I ~! J:I = :l!j fl-
>1----, . ': ':_lJ !J-- -___liiil-----iJ
<( , --'r"'f=='~r-'-:cccr---=-~I-- ':l-,.::.~;4=~A~~~-Y-=~ tl~' 1f
i i i j i i! ! i '!! ii 'i i ij
1 i ' , '~~""I t...!
~ ~ ~,. ~ 0ck~~ G '
o
g ! I
,
'EB
!:
9
z
:s
<L
o
~
w
--'
':}
~
i!'
G
z
w
ti ~
z ~
w gj~
C) ~~
W <Lw
---' ~~
(!) 8~
z Ul~
i= Iii w
rJ) 5~
w zoo
f- 8
~ tl!
~ ~
u ffi
~ ~~
Il:: "'0
~ ~~
~~ ~o
u- ...Js.!
~~ ~~
Z...1 1-0-'
--' CJJ. -'
t:;~(j It!~~
W....l~a:::~~
~~~~ffi~
<5~. u""
:C[[:!:~~~
~QG S<~~
2g;gol!!~
'" <L
m W
w
."
g ~~
1;;9 g~
:~QJ Z...J
~ffio -<{
oF=o <<?:
~B~ ~~
~Lt~ ~~
~.,,~ ~.
!f~f1l~ .:<l!i
<(-ita .....
~~tl!~ 15!f
1lI:;!!!::< :<::11.
:::!~~~ 91-
[i;~t:i5 5~
!(o~1: J:ll.l
~~lu QJ~
m~~~ m~
"j-
'(\
I I I
"-
u
; , ~
.
.
_ FEB 1 5 2011
Original Submittal
.
.
No:lUaliO,U.lSU...um I 0
HE>A + D81
o~oz '4l~~ oonr
uSISlIO:JIJeWBI.PS
IBpowe~plJE
UOfS'UBdlC31JeHUGU'v'
uo5aj010~!UWllun
'.~=.9J.1~ :ole:lS
NVld Ol^l3a E:13A31
C")
o
<C
c ! I 'EEl
z ~;
w
c
~
j , ,
9 9 9 9 "-
'"
'"
w
C
-'
~I,~=~==-
--;r- ;.
~. p.
h 1.;1;;,
II II'
'~=4f- '~1"--
, >-1
I >tf 1
r-~'II iI;; j,
..... II
, "
c.? ----.. .)1
>. ij~ Ii
--- I.. "\. ,~
~~ !L ~
./' IL/ l:
J:
..
Cl
z
w
u:
o in
w
m ~fil
~ m~.
UJ fCg
--' ::!"
(!) 8~
z w~
- Iii"
I- c::Jl:!
en 00
w zo
I- 8
~. ~ z
o w 0
~ ~~ ~[J
2i ~2 ~~'"
~_ E~ :::;:V)-
.0. "'0 ow8
~g ~Q oE;t:
:51-: W w-'lij
ro.g ~w ~~:::;:
';j t;~~ ~!::~~
t;;~<3 ~~~ ~~fu:5
.~~ffia:\5~ ~~~.~
a:>> Ot;z w~o:<
;1j~ffi ~\!!~ ~;~~
;I;!l::::;: <(~::l li:o:btj
in ~~~ nn
"~
ig
~~
~~
;::;~
0"
~~
~~
>-0
15~
<.
9>-
00
0<
"W
..
~~
~~
tn
I/)
I II
"
df"'~-
I~ '~I
~ III .~'
,~ I III r I I
---6,--;-,,= ~ . I 1
r=~~, =fco>-'t:, -' c~ 1;' }fil -I i -. ~,--- ,
~ la.! I + I \'>, ~t'il ~1 i' 'I I, ~ I
I' ~ I .. ' '. !j ~re~~~TT'!'; ,I I, ~
I Iii I' '~'1' <",'''' 'tt-H+ " I' , .. "" ----, I
~l _ __ 51" 'J:l I , I ' r ~l I
I ~ I i I ...... 1--- J ~='"t"'..........- -I' I ---L__~ I
t- , ~~ - '''f - rr"~-'al ,-.1,' ~ ii', "l/ ~, - J~~l ).
~~~I,() l! . !' ~ ~?J !i ! ! J i Ii , ! :l) 10- .~Jl
l~~';~~}i I r II ,~l. ' ! i'I' 'III. I : - 'f~$1
If! 1 ' , "fj I I ,~': . jl
<( ~----1;o=.J..J ..J~..~_+~__~+..J.._'___~~~ ~--~~
! ! ! ! ! ,'1' i ,. II' 'II ! ! ! !
I I I I I I,' I.', " I I I ~
ii' , , ~-T- I r
~ ~ ~ ~ c16MeceWed:
<n
,!
,I,','
., I SUbITl"'" I .
Onglna ,,,~ --:--..-...
.
.
12000
11000
10000
9000
8000
E
ctl
0:
u ,7000
::l g
ctl
....
"0 6000 "C
>- '"
J: 0
...J
....
0 5000
l:
0
..
ctl 4000
....
J:l
iij
U
ctl
....
ctl
o
l:
.2 Cl
....
ctl
...
..c
'ctl "C
U
:...
o
o
'"
...
o
o
LD
'"
000 0
000 a
o ID 0 to
(I') ('\I N ..-
(!sd) BJnssaJd B6ne~
o
o
o
.~
o
o
o
"
..
~
"
rn
rn
111 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
a. 0 0 0 0
N ... CD co 0 N " CD co 0 N " co co 0 N " co co 0
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N N N N '" '" '" '" '" ...
"
ell
LD co co '" LD LD '" LD in '" LD co LD 0 LD '" 0 "'0
ell '" '" ~ ~ N " 0 ~ N '" C() N C() '" C() C() '" co ,...co
0 ,... N C() ... '" ... 0 co ~ ,... N C() '" '" LD 0 co ~ ,...'"
CD ~ ~ N N '" " ... LD LD CD CD ,... ,... C() '" '" 0 o~
~ ~ ~
...J
<l:
.~ ON 0 'en ~
~ c
I.......ooo~
c I"- C\I 0 1-.
lDar:::ON~
~Nm~"-~
a.
:c
'It
- -
~~ ~ Co
._.~!:JEE
e e ctI ~ rc ::J
a. a.,a Cl 0: a.
2000
1000
o
o
LD
..
~
..
:c
'0
ell
o
...J
'0
Q)
'ino
Q)
o
~
..
c
w
eceived:
ae
FEB 1 5 2011
Original Submittal
E
III
c:::
o
::l
III
...
'tl
>-
:I:
.....
o
r::
o
:;:;
III
...
.c
(ij
U
III
-
III
C
c:
o
;:i'
III
...
..c
III
U
.
.
28000
27000
26000
25000
24000
23000
22000
21000
20000
19000
18000
17000
16000
~
15000 g
. 14000 "
III
13000 .3
12000
11000
10000
9000
8000
.7000
6000
5000
4000.
3000
2000
1000
o
o
o
o
<D
co
co
co
'"
co co 0
000
o 0 co
... '" N
f!sd) amsS9Jd aBm:i~
g
o
co
~
:0
l/l
l/l 0 co co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
... 0 co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.. 0 0 0 0 0 N ... <D '" 0 N ... <D '" 0 N ... <<> '" 0 N ... <<> '" 0
~ N .... <<> '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N N N N '" '" '" '" '" ... ... ... ... .... LO
:0
III
<D
" '" 0 '" '" '" 0 0 LO 0 '" '" '" 0 0 0 '" LO 0 0
0 '" 0 '" 0 '" '" ... .... 0 '" ~ .... ~ .... LO 0 <<> .... ... LO LO
III '" .... '" .... 0 '" <<> 0> ... .... .... .... '" '" 0 0 ~ N '" <<> <<> <<> <<> <<> <<>
0 ~ ~ ~ '" ... '" ... ... <<> 0 ~ N '" .... <<> .... '" 0> 0 ~ N '" ... LO <<>
...J ~ N '" ... '" <D .... '" '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N N N N N N
...J
- .- ~
ro~~C/)cm
I~.ool-Og:
cf'-..NO
0)0;:::00
=~-OC'\l
<(NO>T'""
'"
"
:r:
0..
:r:
'It
.'0 (J ell c..
......ClEE
0'0'-::1
... ... ca ('C ctI :3
o..o..C<DQ:o..
I
.
\
.
, .
,
STORMWATERMANAGEMENT
PLAN AND DRAINAGE STUDY
FOR
51st-52nd & Mai et Redevelopment
OPTION A
Springfiel ,
February 15, 2011
Prepared For:
TBG Architects
132 E. Broadway, Suite 200
Eugene. OR 97401
Branch Engineering, Inc.
310 5'h Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Phone (541) 746-0637
Fax (541) 746-0389
,~ Branch Engineering, Inc.
Branch Project # 09-159
'-.. ~
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
Original Submittal
11/17/2010 12:09 FAX 541.
21
\
CITY OF SPRINGFIEL~
I4J 002
6PR1NG~II:L.D r," L'
~~--1~
~,~t~~~.
~~~'VjI{,1'
PUBLIC WORJ(S DEPARTMENT / Engineering Division Phone: (541) 726-3753 Fax: (541) 736-} 021
STORMW A TER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM SCOPE OF WORK
.. ~ (Area below this line filled out by AppllclPlt) - .~
(pieasererum to Matt Stoudl!l'@CityofSpringfieldPublic Work. Engineering; Fax # 736-1021, Phone #73~/03S.)
Project Name: OBO Enterprises, LLC
Assessors Parcel #: 17-02-33-32 TL 6200 & 6300
Land Use(s): Community Commercial (CCl
Project Size (Acres): 1.5 acres
Appr()~ln1~~~.OU81\rea: ] .07 acres
Applicant:
Date:
Phone #:
Fax#:
Email:
Branch Engine'nng
J ]103/]0
541-746-0637
541-746-0389
greg(a1branehenl!ineering.com
Project Description (Include a copy of Assessor's map):
1.5 acres site with two commercial buildings near Main Street and n ] 5 unit aportment building to the south of the
com,mercjal huildings with associated landscaping and parking facilities.
Drainage Proposal (Public connection(s), diseJJarge loc.rion(s), ere, Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary:
West side of tile site will drain toward 51<< Pla"c and connect 10 the existing storm line in the street. The east side of tile
site wi II drain toward 52"" Stieet and connect to U,e existing storm line in the strceL
Proposed Stormwater Best Management Practices: Infiltration basins and planters will be used on-site with
overflows and trapped catch basins.
.' ..:- (A':"a Tie10w this ltne tilled out bvtl.e City and Returnedio t"eApplicant)~.. .'.. :.'. ....
. : .(Al a m(nf,?11ll11, all Qoi~i c~ecked by the City on thefronr and back ofthis:;s.h:eei sheil! he iu.b.m]tted. ".
":::.;fqr.:rm"qpplicatiOfTIO b~ COT!lp1ete.!or submittal, although.other reqmrem?n!s.may be ne~e~s~ry.)(;' ,.:~:~",
Drainage Study TvJ>e (EDSPM Section 4.03.2): (Note. un may be substituted for Rational Method)
o Small Site Study ~ (uge Rational Me!hod for calculations)
~ Mid-Level Development Study - (usiVni! Hydro graph Method forcaJculations)
o Full Drainage Development Study - (US" U!,it Hydrograph Method for calculations)
Environmental Considerations:
It,;! Wellhead Zone: Cf\ '<t:..--R:,
@ WetlandfRiparian:
IG Soil Type: 11'1 - ~ ~M ~.MO
DO"Vllstream Analvsis: ~
~ N/A
o Flow line for 5tarting waler swface elevation:
o . Design HGL to use for starting water surface elevation:
o Manhole/Junction to take analysis to:
i Hillside Development;
FJoodwaylFloodplain:
. Other Jurisdictions;
t;
01)77'\
Date Received:
EER-t 5 2011
Return to Matt Stouder (jiJ City of Springfield, email, mstouderrmcl.snrinl!field,or.ug, FAX, (541) 736-1021
RF'vlc::~rt l' 11Q/f1Q
9 of 10
111i7l2010 12:09 FAX 541 .:: '1
,
CITY OF SPRINGFIEL~
@003
COM:PLETE STUDY ITEMS I Fo,OffioialUseOnly: /Y1-A<:
r Based upon the infarmadon provided On thefronl a/this ,.helll, the/ollowing rep.,.esenfS a minimum a/what is neededfor an
application (0 be compfe-fejoT submil!al with respect 10 drainage; however, this!is( shauld nol be used in lieu afthe Springfield
De:v'dopmenr Code (SDC).or the City's Engineering Design MotnJal. Complicmce. wifh these. requirements does not consWute siZe
approval; Additional site specific informCltion may be required Note.: Upon seoping sheer suomittal, e11sure completedform has
been signed in the space provided below:
~
.ID
10
~
~
Interim Design StandardslW.tcr Quality (EDSPM Chapter 3)
Req'd N/A
fjI 0 All non-building rooftop (NBR) impervious surfaces shall he pre-treated (e,g. multi-chambered catehbasin w/oi!
filtration media) for stoll11watcr quality, Additionally, a minimum uf 50% of the NBR impervious surfac~ shaJl be
(re.:lted by vegetated methods.
o Where required. vegetRtive stonnwater design shall be: consistent with inkrirn design standards (EDSPM Section 3.02))
set forth hy the Bureau of Environmental Services (BES) or Clean Water Services (CWS).
o For new NBR impervious area Jess than 15,000 squllre fett, a simplified design approach may be followed as specified
by ale BES for veget.tivo treatmenl.
o If D stonnwater trea.tment swale is proposed. submit calculations/spec.ificarions for sizing, velocity, flow, side slopes.
bottom slope. and seed mix consistent with either BES or CWS requirements.
o Water Quality calculations as required in Section 3.03.1 ofthe EDSPM
o All building rooftop mo,mted equipment, or other fluid containing equipment located out,ide of the building, shall
be provided with secondary contai~ment OT weather resistant enclosure.
General Study Requirements (EDSPM Section 4.03)
Ii 0 Drainage study prepared by a Professional Cjvil Engineer licensed in the state: of Oregon.
o 0 A complete drainage study, as required in EDSPM Section 4.03.1, including a hydrological study map.
~ 0 Calculations showing system capacity for a 2-year storm event and overflow effects of a 25-year storm event.
Ii] 0 The time of concentration (Tc:) shall be: determined u~ing B 10 minute start time for developed basins.
Review of Downstream System (EDSPM Sectiou 4.03.4.C)
o ~ A downstream drainage analysis as described in EDSPM Soction 4.03A.C. On-site drainage shall be governed by the
Oregon Plumbing Specialty Code (OPSC),
o [j'. Elevations of the HGL and flow lines for both city and private systems where applicable.
D""ign of Storm Systems (EDSPM Section 4.04)
~. 0 Flow lines, slopes) rim elevations. pipe type and sizes clearly indicated on the plan set.
o [ii Minimum pipe cover shaH be, 18 inches for reinforced pipe and 36 inches for plajn concrete and plastic pipe materials,
or proper engineering calcu)ations shall be provided when Jess. The cover sh.ll be sul'fieient to suppOrt an 80,OOO.lb
load withom failure of the pipe struct!J,rc. . . >' .-", --
o ~ MElI1Iling's un" values for pipes sball be consistent with TAble 4-1 of the EDSP. All storm p.ipes snail be designed to
achieve a minimum velocity oftfm::c (3) fcetper se,,?od atO.S pipe full based on Table 4-} as welL
OtherlMisc
W' 0 Existing and proposed contours, located at one foot interval. Include spot elevations and site grades showing how site
drains
ti 0 PrivBte stonnwater easements shaH be dearly depicted On plans when private stormwater fJov:.s from one property to
another
o l1i D.rywells shaJl not recelve runoff from any surfa.ce w/o being treated by one or more BMPs. with the exception of
residenti.1 building roofs (EbSP Section 3,03.4.A), Additional provisions apply to this", required by the DEQ. Refer
to me website: www.deo.state.or.uslwo/Q:roundwalllichome.hcm for more infomlation:
~ 0 Detention ponds shall be designed to limit runoff to pre-dtvelopment mtes for tho 2 through 25-year storm events
"Thisfarm .IIa/l be includedll$ an attachment, inside Illefront cover, of II Ie .tormwaler study
* IMPORTANT: ENGINEER PLEASE READ BELOW AND SIGN!
As the engineer of record, I hereby c:crtify the a.bove required ite.ms are cornplete and included with th
plfu, seL
Signature: Dale:
.ldy and
FEB 1 5 20ll
Original Submittal
Revised 11/19/09
10 of 10
.
Storm Drainage Evaluation
S1"-52"d ft Main Street Redevelopment - Option A
.
Introduction
This evaluation was prepared to summarize the drainage system proposed for the 51 st - 52nd & Main
Street Redevelopment Option A. This storm drainage evaluation will determine the type and size of
water quality/quantity facilities that are acceptable to the City of Springfield. The 5lst-52nd & Main
Street Redevelopment is located on the south side of Main Street and east of 51 Sl Place and west of
52nd Street in Springfield, Oregon. The proposed project site is comprised of two tax lots,
TMI7023332 TL 6200 and TL 6300.
Existing Conditions
The existing site is bounded by Main Street to the north, 51 Sl place to the west, 52nd Street to the east
and residential to the south. The site consists of an existing building, a bumed down existing building,
driveways and landscaping. The impervious surfaces consist of roofs. The pervious surfaces consist
of landscaping.
According to the Soils Survey of Lane County. Oregon, by the Natural Resource Conservation Service,
the soil at the site is Salem Urban Land Complex (Soil Number: 119, Hydrologic Group: B). Refer to
Appendix Afar soils map information.
Proposed Site Conditions
The proposed project includes two new commercial buildings, three buildings with townhomes with
associated parking, sidewalks and landscaping. The parking and drive aisles will consist of asphalt
pavement and the sidewalks will be concrete.
Water Quality Treatment and Storm Water Conveyance System
The City of Springfield is encouraging as much infiltration on this site as possible. Therefore, the site
is proposed to have drainage basins which will flow to infiltration basins located across the site. The
infiltration basins will be landscaped with appropriate vegetation and topsoil to allow treatment and
infiltration of storm water. Infiltration testing was conducted and the site was determined to have
adequate infiltration rates to serve the proposed improvements. See the table below for infiltration
results and information.'
Test Test Location Test Test Soils Measured . .. ..
..
Depth infiltration Rate
I Northwest corner 48" 0-12" Topsoil
of site 12-36" light brown clayey silt moist 4.5 incheslhour
36"-42" light brown clayey silt
42"-48" Bar Run
See Appendix B for the infiltration testing data. There are three proposed infiltration basins proposed
on the site. Each is primarily treating parking areas however one is also infiltrating runoff from one of
the proposed buildings roof. See Appendix C for the proposed Drainage Basin Map far location of
infiltration basins and the areas they are treating and infiltrating. Below is a brief description of each.
Infiltration Basin A
Infiltration Basin A is located on the west side of the site and east of the proposed drive-thru
restaurant. Infiltration Basin A will have asphalt parking, building rooftop and IaIDSte:>A&eefviWl:
to it. The basin draining to Infiltration Basin A is 0.43 acres. One side has a 3:1 side slope and the
FEB t 5 2011
Original Submittai
Storm Drainage Evaluation
51".52"" ft Main Street Redevelopment - Option A
other has a short retaining waIL Infiltration Basin A has approximately 1,685 cubic feet of storage.
Infiltration Basin A is bisected by a concrete sidewalk and a 6" storm pipe is proposed to go under the
concrete sidewalk to allow Infiltration Basin A to act as one basin. Infiltration Basin A is two feet
deep from the top of the growing medium to the overflow. This depth was required because the
overflow for Infiltration Basin B is piped to Infiltration Basin A and the invert of the overflow pipe.
from Infiltration Basin B required this depth. The overflow for Infiltration A is connected to a
proposed curb inlet in 51st Place that will be constructed under a Public Improvement Permit.
.
.
Infiltration Basin B
Infiltration Basin B is located on the north side of the site along Main Street and west of the proposed
aD aT driveway approach. Infiltration Basin B will have asphalt parking and landscaping draining to
it. The basin draining to Infiltration Basin B is 0.15 acres. Infiltration Basin B is one foot deep from
the top of the growing medium to the overflow and has 3: I side slopes. Infiltration Basin B has
approximately 473 cubic feet of storage. Infiltration Basin B is bisected by a concrete sidewalk and a
6" storm pipe is proposed to go under the concrete sidewalk to allow Infiltration Basin B to act as one
basin. The overflow for Infiltration Basin B is piped to Infiltration Basin A.
Infiltration Basin C
Infiltration Basin C is located on the north side of the site along Main Street and west of the proposed
commercial building. Infiltration Basin C will have asphalt parking and landscaping draining to it.
The basin draining to Infiltration Basin C is 0.09 acres. Infiltration Basin C is one foot deep from the
top of the growing medium to the overflow and has 3:1 side slopes. Infiltration Basin C has
approximately 172 cubic feet of storage. The overflow for Infiltration Basin C is directed to a nearby
private storm line to be conveyed offsite to the existing 12" storm line in 52nd Street.
Other drainage basins on the site will be treated by double chambered catch basins with filter inserts
and conveyed through storm pipes to the public storm system.
Stormwater Runoff
Peak discharge rates for the post development conditions were generated using the Santa Barbara Unit
Hydrograph method. The King County Department of Public Works, Surface Water Management
Division, Hydrographs Programs, Version 4.21B computer program was used to assist in the.
hydrologic calculations. See Appendix D for the stormwater runoff results. Below is a summary of
the results for each drainage basin.
Proposed Conditions Peak Discharge Rates (cfs)
Storm Basin A Basin B Basin C
WQ (0.83 inches/24 hours) 0.06 0.02 0.01
2 Year (3.3 inches/24 hours) 0.26 0.09 0.05
10 Year (4.3 inches/24 hours) 0.35 0.12 0.07
25 Year (4.8 inches/24 hours) 0.40 0.13 0.08
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
OrIginal Submittal
.
Storm Drainage Evaluation
51"-52od ft Main Street Redevelopment - Option A
.
IniIltration Basin Sizing
Each infil1ration basin is charac1erized in a spreadsheet to be used with the King County Department of
Public Works, Surface Water Management Division, Hydrographs Programs, Version 4.21B computer
program for routing the developed storm through the infiltration basin. The routing data can be found
in Appendix D as well as the infil1ration v<;>lumes and the required storage for each infil1ration basin.
Below is a summary of each infiltration basin.
Infiltration Basin A
Below is a summary of the peak flow rates and the peak elevation the stormwater will get in
Infiltration Basin A during the 2 year and 25 year storms.
Proposed Infiltration Basin A
Storm Peak inflow (cfs) Peak outflow (cfs) Water Elevation (feet)
WQ 0.06 0.02 494.30
2 Year 0.26 0.05 495.61
10 Year 0.35 0.08 496.01
25 Year 0.40 0.14 496.04
Infil1ration Basin A has approximately 1,578 cubic feet of storage. The overflow is set at an elevation
of 496.00. The resul1s show that the 10 year storm just begins to overflow and during the 10 year
storm it gets to elevation 496.0 I. During the 25 year storm, the water begins to overflow and gets a
half inch above the overflow. The infiltration basin will be landscaped in accordance with the City of
Springfield requirements.
Infiltration Basin B
Below is a summary of the peak flow rates and the peak elevation the stormwater will get in
Infiltration Basin B during the 2 year and.25 year storm.
Proposed Infil1ration Basin B
Storm Peak inflow (cfs) Peak outflow (cfs) Water Elevation (feet)
WQ 0.02 0.01 496.12 ..
2 Year 0.09 0.02 496.61
10 Year 0.12 0.03 496.83
25 Year 0.13 0.04 496.91
Infiltration Basin B has approximately 473 cubic feet of storage. The overflow is set at an elevation of
497.00. The resul1s show that even during the 25 year storm, the water does not reach the overflow.
This will maximize infiltration opportunity and provide an additional factor of safety. The infiltration
basin will be landscaped in accordance with the City of Springfield requirements.
Date Received:
FEB t 5 2011
Original Submittal
.
Storm Drainage Evaluation
51 "-52'd 8: Main Street Redevelopment - Option A
.
Infiltration Basin C
Below is a summary of the peak flow rates and the peak elevation the storm water will get in
Infiltration Basin C during the 2 year and 25 year storm.
Pro osed Infiltration Basin C
Storm Peak inflow (cfs) Peak outflow (cfs) Water Elevation (feet)
WQ 0.01 0.0] 495.90
2 Year 0.05 0.01 496.71
10 Year 0.07 0.07 496.79
25 Year 0.08 0.08 496.80
Infiltration Basin C has approximately 172 cubic feet of storage. The overflow is set at an elevation of
496.75_ The results show that the 2 year storm is completely contained within Infiltration Basin C but
during the ] 0 and 25 year storms, the storm water will reach the overflow and the storm water will get
a half inch above the overflow elevation. The overflow is connected to an on-site private storm line
that eventually flows to the public storm. system in 52nd Street. The infiltration basin will be
landscaped in accordance with the City of Springfield requirements.
The rest ofthe site will drain to double chambered catch basins with filter inserts located in the parking
areas and roof drains from the east commercial building and the townhouses will be directed to on-site
private storm line that eventually flows to the public storm system in 52'd Street.
See Appendix D for stormwater runoff, routing and infiltration basin stage-storage-outflow
calculations. See Appendix E for Infiltration swale section and double chamber catch basin with filter
insert.
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
Original Submittal
.
Storm Drainage Evaluation
51"-52od & Main Street Redevelopment - Option A
.
Appendix A
Soil Maps and Soil Data
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
Original Submittal
. .
, ~
~ ~
N N
~ "
~ ~
Ov69lBv GE6BLal>' OZ69LBv m69tB\7 0069LSI>' 06SSLSt< OB89LBtr 0'
~"
~I>"l .9" .ZZ~ .t>z .9S oZZl 0'
~,
"=,
0'"
~,
,
g
~
~
0
~
~
<I
~
g
~
.
0
~
0 0
~ ~
~ ~
~
0
~
cf='
Oz
g'w 0 0
~2 ;:: ~
OeL ~ ~
,,0 iil <I
,,--' ~
~w
<(>
~w
cO
~w 0 0
80:: M M ;;; ~'
" ~ . ~,
,,>- 0 ~ ~o
0
cW ~ ~ '" ~
mW ""
--'0::
1>- .0
a.'" (f)
~z :<: .D
0_ 0 "
~<( ~
~2 ~ 5:'
.
0 0
'o~ ~ ~
"'0
.~z
0>0"
0<0
e~ ~ 0 g
-0'" ~ ~
~~ . <I
I~ iil ~
.
~
.....:a;.-
-"~'o
;;; M
8 8 .
~ 3 "
5l ~ :=
in
"- a
. N
0 N 0
m g 0; ~
~ ~ -<
51 51 c
0
~
.
.<
"- '"
- 0
0 ~ M
0 0
~ ~ '"
'!i ~
0 <I . ~
~ ~ 11 ~.
'" 1l
0 3'
.
" 0 0 0
'"
~ 0 ".
~ ~ 0::
. ~ E
Iil <I
~ ~
z-<;( ;;
Z,
HOf':.9S.ZZL ,9; .u;~ ~\l
DE6BLa\:> OZ69LBv Ol69LBv DOGBLIlI>' 0689L8v DBBBLa\>' OLBSLat;> ~I:.
~ FEB t 5 2Q!t
~
N
~ ;,
~
Original Submittal
c~
oz
O>UJ
~:<
0,,-
.0
"'-,
~UJ
<{>
>-UJ
-0
5UJ
00::
01-
"UJ
cUJ
"'0::
-'I-
.!coo
1lz
c'34:
-:<
'006
~O
.- Z
O>N
.2",
o '
~I-
Uu)
>-~
I':?
.
..
0<
0 '0 0> c"
0 C. c '::!<
'" ~ :e
D. E '" "
0 '" "'U :E N
'" " > 1ii ~
~ " 0 ~ c "
" 0> U ~ ~
1ii ~ '2' U o .~
;; " '" "
"U " c ",E
U u '" '"
" " '" 00 ~ 'E 0 =.::.;: "
.c c. ~ 0 "
~ c. .2 c ,,; " N '0 '" E
Z '" .Q " u :;;0 ~.o 0
. E ;; ro 00 c " ~
0 ~ c ;0 "
~ " i:: .", u 0 J:;.~....;
" .c ID i> Q) 0:: 0>0 ~......."S
l- X "'
~ ~i::0 z ~~ -5 E III
<( '" ~ c. c~<{ -i: 00 U i:e~
is '" O~z N " 3:-:;; ro....;
:!!: e E UOZ 0 '" . ~
" <{ ffJ ,,'" c. c '- Ul c
0:: .c ~~O '" ~.o '" o Q) 0::{ Q)
N ~ " ~.a"-- <{ " '" a.~ .~
.~ '"
0 0 " ~ " " " >-LL 0 ro: "0 :i Q)
<{ >- ~ ~ c oS " C . "0 E2-ctl(l)
lL " c 0::::: 0 ~"'
c 0 :3 i:iN E 0 .c v-gE.o
Z 0 ~ 0 C Q.
U -~ " 0::"':< E(ij 0.9 " U)..c (!) >.
ro _.cl- - .0 " i" ClI 0 (/) co
" E " l" '" Uu "' ..c L.. Q) E
a. c 8 ~ 2 " c" ~ ~ c.~
~ ."l> "u- ~
<( .~ :;; .......:,j ~~ ~ "
'ro "'0:: " :5 Q) C 'C
:!!: - .0 Z'" E ,,- O.t:! 0 ro
f; c- oo rn 0>
<- " >-2 ,,~ '" '---~-c"O
0 ~ f; '"" "'- s 001 ID C
<0 >- c2 .. Q) to ro " '" 0:0>-::1
" c.i::>- ~ ~o on.E!:!o
i:: 0 c ~:J(/) :'::-0 <{'" ~ J;: C 0...0
0; ~ >-" " c >-" "' a. ro.~ ~
-E .....UJ2 ~ " ~
ro ~ ~ " o=ro u.Q i::<{ '" ~-o"03
" ~ ~~:5 o ~ t..!E ~ a.
'0 " o..:U ~ >- -;;;
00 ~ ~ ~ 00 " m- 0"0.. a> ro
c. '" '" ~ .0 ~ ~ > i:: Q)E~E
'" " " " ~ " 0 .- Q)' '0 ~ 1ii
.c ~$:8 ~.c .c 0 E.....
:< l- ii: E 1-- 0000 0 l- U __ 0
>-'
"''-
i::
~
00 .
"
00
.0
'"
S:
0 0
".
Z " ..
W "
:;; 'c
C> E ::>
is 0-
W a '"
....I ". '" '"
.. " '0
a. E ~ ffJ
<( ~
E
:!!: '0
'" ..
" '0
:t '"
"
:0
'"
'm
>
'"
<5
c
"
~
"
-,.;
Cl 0 Cl (5
~O<{;;;:QJmOUClZ
:E
'"
~DD~DDIiIDD
'"
~ ~
.. ~ .........
c '"
'" .
U .c
~ ~ ~ ~
c I . ~ ~
'" . . '" '"
~ "5 0 0
~ .. "'
c E 0 "'
~ ,~ '" '" " " 0:: 0 ..
E ~ " E :;;
. u c m '" 'm- u
0 i3 '" ii5 E 0
.. , 0 .2 "' ::> '" ~
. .. ..
~ . "
;; ~ 0
E 0- t ~ ~
" '" ~ (
c
"0 .. '"
Q. ~ ;:
",'
'"
"
~ ,
"
o
'"
'"
0::
ro
~
"
ro
z'
Date Received:
2\1
....;~;,
.
FEB 15 2011
Original Submittal
HYdr~IOgiC Soil Gro~p-Lane County An.re""n
. ..' '
;1 ST-52ND & MAIN STREET REDEVELOPMENT
Hydrologic Soil Group
Hydrologic Soil Grou~ Summary by Map Unlt - Lane County Area, Oregon
Map unit symbol I Map unit name T Rating I Acres in AOI I Percent of-AQI
119 I Salem-Urban land complex .8 1.5 : 100.0%
Totals for Area of Interest
,
1.5 !
100.0%
Description
Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are
assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the
soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation
from long-duration sto'rms.
The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and
three dual classes (NO, BID, and C/O). The groups are defined as follows:
Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly
wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or
gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission.
Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These
consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained
soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils
have a moderate rate of water transmission.
Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist
chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or
soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water
transmission.
Group O. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when
thoroughly wet. These consist chiefiy of clays that have a high shrink-swell
potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a clay pan or clay layer
at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material.
These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission.
If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (NO, BID, or CID), the first letter is
for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their
natural condition are in group 0 are assigned to dual classes.
Rating Options
Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition
ComponentPercent Cutoff: None Specified
Tie-break Rule: Lower
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
USDA
'C_~
Original Submittal
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
12/112010
Page3of3.
.
.
Storm Drainage Evaluation
51"-52od Ii Main Street Redevelopment - Option A
Appendix B
Infiltration Testing Report
Date Received:
FEB , 5 2011
OrIginal Submittal
.
.
Project Name: Oe, 0 vt-.Ulf\ 3~c~ 'SiK
. Project No.: o"i -1<;"'1
Project Location: S I~ Plv.c( j <;f';ACIt:-rclC,\
Date ofField Work: 11(';/1.0
C I . LC .
omments: b<A-u...t..~~-i'\ ((Lw1VK Nt.uL\~ . t1lt't_f:r
"" I" . ,,- li
oii C,D'r.O", .\ 1.,0" ,,, 11M
{,,_ I"
^
....
l(.v,<-f b'fn4~d,'b:'a, "':J Uvd
(~'ft" htioc,0 hp 01- f'r'<-)
'-:to ~ r
, ,
. . ".J iii,
.;, ....c.
l t11-~(f{l
~1
w"fv (
LtV'V
Infiltration Test No. 0 Depth '+ Diameter J Vol. of Pres at. I ~~L
Soil Description: ..,,:' foJP'S. p.
~II. & ''-1+'' @I'\"""" 0.."'.... $11.:1; '~'S.7.
11.. - TV
&.1 ~,tt r
,..1. OI\-l\. t.wI
Time Time EI~sed
Z;%
~
Depth to Water
t. ?/~ t'
.6.-=-0
Vol. of Water Added
'"--
Infiltration Test No.
Soil Description:
Depth
Diameter
Vol. of Presat.
Time Time Ela sed
1,Ad Pi" IOln~n
De th to Water
'3n
"
b -:-O,(p~\
Vol. ofiWater Added
5/11\
"-- If /
. [~ f ,pc
, ,h{--
\;)~OV~.
.5Z 'c
T'
,I
-'L ",It
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
Original Submittal
(/3
.
.
Project Name: 080 f~'\i/c;f1 Sh'~'-'r- C,!-t-<'
Project No.: OC:-It;'q '.
P. L . ~ q- (i' I "t, ,,_, . _ r r: I i:
rOJect ocatlon: ~7 ('.......- .ti.~(..(.. l' ~\v; 11'! :;'f' \0
Date ofField Work: i {(Silo
Comments: S-u.. P'i 1
Infiltration Test No. Z Depth
Soil Description:
Diameter
Vol. 'of Pres at.
Time Time Elapsed
P .. -
~ -co" "~\ '" oJ\., (F;
S'.,'............... -f"", ",v
;l -',"" :0.
Depth to Water
'2 l t"" i'~
J - J'( i
i\ - ...,.:-<1
t-> -- 0 \ /-.
VoL of Water Added C',
}'...._~ ~.}<{~,l -. .), I
, ~~ h. .'.'. "T-d:_ B&f ..1"
! :" ~
OI'S"'"
~ <;, L "/&"
bk>l-<1ht-
Infiltration TestNo. 5 Depth
Soil Description:
Diameter
Vol. of Pres at.
Time Time Elapsed
L. toO Q' ^ \ i\ v'" ~ h
.4 ~y\' _tV
Depth to Water
VoL of Water Added
. ,- i ,.- ~'
'-J t't,
_'. $,j-i,f.....
Pl ~-);'-'!.' ~\ II'
. -"jf
t,. ., \:,~ /
"
b:.. O()<;
i'l"'- -
(i) l'S" I" p~r,(. 6wvqh.\-- V
to
? 'S/g"
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
Original Submittal
.il
.
... <;"+ ~ ~te
Project Name: 0&0 1'1/\0 '" ,.
Project No.: e;/?;-IS-Oj r
Project Location: S- I s~ P !t-Gl.. i S i?f (0
Date ofField Work: 11 I? Ii 0
Comments: s..u. pq I
Infiltration Test No. 1-
Soil Description:
Time Time Elapsed
""): d) iOw-\'r'
Depth
-,
Depth to Water
":.: f l;'( lit
n
.6>::0,')
CA. V.RJrifJ'll- '
C1)
r9 ,"lS tver~
, 0,
10 rM\I\V"~ ~
Diameter
.
Vol. of Presat.
VoL of Water Added
(1
~
4 ,c;; I-n G-~ ) VI"
--------
Infiltration Test No.
Soil Description:
Time Time Elapsed
Depth
Depth to Water
Diameter - Vol. of Presat.
VoL of Water Added
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
Original Submittal
.. r'>-t '
In. ,1 Tn;-- t
{Lv'c~
" ..'H"
3/
.
..
Storm Drainage Evaluation
51 "-52"d & Main Street Redevelopment - Option A
Appendix C
Proposed Drainage Basin Map
Date Received:
FEB 1 520ft
Original Submittal
Z
'~E-4 z
~~~ c~
~ ~ ~ ~~o
z -~ ~ c, C":l
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ="
~~oo~>-~
~ ..,: !'-=i ~ ~ ~ ~
~~~E-i~~;;!
:"'l: ..\[ ~ l"\ ~ ~ u
2:; to ~ o~ ~ CI)
~ I ~ ~~
Cl~~ CI)
rt.)~
""'"4
to -
I: i ,.~--r-I-~~'-"T-~1i';;g-,~, _ _,~ . " , ' ~~~~:~,_~-~~-=~~: ~I-~'~_~~c -~=-----~ ~'~~-r- ,
'! If"" ,.I .LS_~ ~~ __ _"'-.', _." ,_ _ . ' ~'
I",,/, C------ __' __ , / /
","(-,Y",- ~- / / ~ // < /V///'/'VI/ ///////,;> //
I if ,\~ /~ 4.. {-{V ~ //.: ~ ~ i'"' ")?f- / // Jfi /~ / /, .r>.///-::
'I il;~/~~(~/~~//;~ %;i*,0~<0~~;
III ,{/I. /~ 't'i:: /lVV////-1pv/// /~~////
)11'1 ~'/ , 1~""j,.i-,/ <,,""V / / V .. < /'/ //vv/
: :Ikr . / / //V1~-- /-)17// / //(<"';'0 / / /,<'//
-, I ~ v;/ / / , 1: / // /.. / // / / / /
Iii, / ',- " ';/ / / I ('0 / /1/ / ' / / / / / / / / ",/
,\.,. ~ ~ ",M"" Y.hL". / V // (<<:: / . / 0! / .' '</?
--, --I + ~I' ," - - ;i:\\; / % /r/v)V V 0<)\71/ <-> /'// /' /:~~if / / / /~_
!f Ii ~~~J~, '.I),' /V')'/~I'l/~/1~i:~~~~~ /7 ///// // /~<; I
I~ ~ 1'- l']\.'\,::--~y,,1 "'//v// //~//..-~V'/itlQ f;:j/./// // //'/ / ~t!
' ,<-> 'iii)\:, / / /// ,// / / / / / 7" ~ e 0 /.{/ / / / / / / / ",e
I 'If :'1~. '\.~~ ~<->>:(~~'// //,// // / ~::-)i/ 't:l~ II' / 7/ ~ // // ///
: ,J "11l'\::~~e~<o:",:X-'// /..-~J%SP /7~ / / :~~gs~ /' / /, /,,~/ /,/ /
'I ,'~'.. ~ ~'-.o / /'. ,/ // '0/... ~~~../ / / /WA //'~
" Ili/'I ::~~U~~'?'~~~'%9f?;///~~~mif? ~!
I '''-:,,- ~~a ~, /v;V #/ u /. / / / '" .1" /., . /. . / /1
' I ,kG ~"" ~ '''~T//;lZ7L / / L .-'j // /. / / '"' X/ /. ,..//// ~' '. , ..
"~ ~"" ,,"' '''''''".d u /. /~ .. /..L .'. . / /. /LZ.iliJ' // / "'-;"'..
" ' "J7';''''' /11 / "-~~,,"'It"." I," "- "~:/;0/L '''-~ Z//""/> /L~/X//
. " / /.^ ~.:, ,'~,>'V /. '"t" /. / 'I'u
i I J /C ///!-'-'t:l<: ...-.", ~ :\~ '% /" -/ / /^'~" / /[)
i i t! il:~~~~~:~,..... I,,~~~;.;~L!~/~.~~:~/~,<
t i V ri~o:: ~'<1'''':'1-. "" 12\.'-' //1/ 1/ N / / ~V"- (;J. /
I / ~~ ~ ~:)' ~~l~::':~ ~~:vi(;;;;j~~~/::~:"
.. , if;/./ '/ /':/ Ui4<rx,u.n.Y l,," ,~" /-0 /17 ~ @'iYV /:/ ..
~i 11'/,/ '~;/ij~~&~~0~:~/~1<"';/~,f:;
!;i. IJ I /. tw/b//LL-"/'~I""::\ .",)~. . ~/////"/~/';
, ,~ /. ~~ ~!!" ~~,,~;;.; l;:<:~:--.:~ :-;::;//,. ;; .. f.-:; ;:;/ .0d1;'; ,r~ /
I ,I <y\.b~ .~ \:::::~t\, ,~,',^,~" '"-,, 1'. , /:>;' / /..-: );~" L// J~e/ / 8";, ,/
~, I ~ 'i' V/y;' ~,~~ ~~j :\,-"; ~ "-:~;.'~ ',{; j/0'.0/V;; ;/;///).
;j. ~ I .J' //' v'/ i k":- '\ ' "~ ~ ,1."~ ::>~\"" ,:/'.> V; .
! T' I ~ / /V / . ~ "" ~ ~ "V ,~~, , "" _'ij " '-
- . " I : ~., ~~ ' ~ '-.<~ e ~ ~":~ ~~<~';~ ~<'''-:'''-.'' '-, -<, J , ~ ~t!
~ · ~; : ~~~~E~i~~~~;j~~~~h~ ~ .,
<: i '! I ~' ":\:~, ~"-" ,~~ ~ ,:~ ~~~~0 '\'~"'.;; ~ '
~ i I !,.~ I , ~ '" "',Q ~ -,; dl~~~ r~i\-0, "',' ,~I '"
.99 f:: . I, ~ r---I~ X' l~, ~ - ,-Pi} ~'-..;~ s, '- -:\'(~'-.:_'-._" I'i"- :--.
G'! ' ~)i;l: ",1- I h~~ "-,"'~ , " " "- "'",~ :I~ ",~,,-" ~~\~,,-'\~~'~>'
C :::'1 'i ~ ""~"1, "":::-"",,'<'~2
~ 11-: ::~ '" "- '" "-"-,,- "<>\~~:~~'<''->~\.~~ ~ <
' Ii ~ ,~>,~"I:;" '\ "- ,,>, '-. "-,,, ,'", ~ '-. '", ~ ",'~ *' i:'\
II f-"- I :... "" -" "',' ISI ~ " ~ '\ \, ,,'- L ~ z.
~
,.
~
~
0 ..
(j) c.> ~ ~ ,~
.::: ,~ z
..... ., u
..... u '" ~
...... o =.,
), =r-
.... u 0> '"
Q1J lU .:; " f:
" 0 on "
,- !:" '"
>=: ., U J u
:::.::l ou.... ~ S .-
~ ..... ............ a 0 t- o ~
0 ~ El ' r- U u
<l: W '" ill l1.lo~C;;- bil"'O
OJ .-J ill ""; c::; "; ~ .9 ~
<t .::: cn"Ot'CIl_
l!J U ~ .
en f-- ,.... V =
w QD - 'v 0
~ It) w '0= -;;l
u - "- >=: m6Di!_
<l: '.......... I 1; I'Ll r: ~ 8.CS
0:: D-
C <t i! .~ ~N
0:: ~ 0> U .
~ I <D 0 c.> ~ Cl)ii~""
I >=: .. ~ -
~ l) f'- :.l
t5 I Ctl ~ u.5" '~m
I ~ .... 13 ."
I o:l ~cn.a9 ti
~ I ~:9]~ .5
I crj;'I;; 0 '"
@1J "" ,~ =;- .
~ ;:: c..~ ~
t::t:I Mtn_ U
a,
ll)
-
I
a,
a
"""
!---
U
CJ
--,
a
ct:
Cl.
~
- 'E
..c.:.l
-;
ih
7d
r;:
'51
.t::
o
'0"
.9
~
:..:,
"
"
,.".L
: i ,
II : I
",' '-
,
~
.
Storm Drainage Evaluation
51"-520' Ii Main Street Redevelopment - Option A
.....
Appendix D
Stormwater Runoff & Infiltration Basin Sizing Calculations
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
Original Submittal
.
.
Storm Drainage Evaluation
51".52od a Main Street Redevelopment - Option A
IniIltration Basin A - Water Quality Storm
******************** s.c.s. TYPE-IA DISTRIBUTION *******************
********* I-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** .83" TOTAL PREelP. *******
ENTER: A(PERV), CN(PERV), A(IMPERV), CN(IMPERV), TC FOR .BASIN NO. 1
0.09,61,0.34,98,10
DATA PRINT-OUT:
AREA (ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES)
A CN A CN
.4 .1 61. 0 .3 98.0 10.0
PEAK-Q (CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL (CU-FT)
.06 7.83 773
ENTER [do] [path]fi1enarne[.ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-wqaa.dev
RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE
SPECIFY [do] [path]fi1enarne[.ext] OF ROUTING DATA
09159aa.rd
DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N)?
y
ROUTING DATA:
STAGE(FT)
494.00
494.25
494.50
494.75
495.00
495 .25
4 95 . 5.0
495.75
496.00
496.25
496.50
DISCHARGE (CFS)
.00
.02
.03
.03
.04
.04
.05
.05
.06
.59
1.56
AVERAGE PERM-RATE:
STORAGE (CU-FT)
. .0
106.0
242.0
410.0
611.0
843.0
1098.0
1377 . 0
1685.0
2023.0
2392.0
PERM-AREA (SQ-FT)
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
r
.0 MINUTES/INCH
INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS:
ENTER [do] [path]fi1enarne[.ext] OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-wqaa.dev
PEAK-INFLOW (CFS) PEAK-OUTFLOW (CFS)
.06 .02
OUTFLOW-VOL (CU-FT)
830
INITIAL-STAGE (FT) TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS)
.00 8.33
PEAK-STAGE-ELEV(FT)
494.30
PEAK STORAGE: 130 CU-FT
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
Original Submittal
.
.
Inmtration Basin A - 2 Year Storm
Storm Drainage Evaluation
51st-52" & Main Street Redevelopment - Option A
******************** 5.C.5._ TYPE-IA DISTRIBUTION *******************
********* 2-YEAR 24-HOOR STORM **** 3.30" TOTAL PRECIP. "'f******
ENTER: A(PERV), CN(PERV), A(IMPERV), CN(IMPERV), TC FOR BASIN NO. 1
0.09,61,0.34,98,10
DATA PRINT-OUT:
AREA (ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES)
A CN A CN
.4 .1 61. 0 .3 98.0 10.0
PEA!(-Q (CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL (CU-FT)
.26 7.83 3942
ENTER Ed:] [path]fi1enarne[.ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-2aa.dev
RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE
SPECIFY [do] [path]fi1enarne[.ext] OF ROUTING DATA
09159aa.rd
DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N)?
y
ROUTING DATA:
STAGE (FT)
494.00
494.25
494.50
494.75
495.00
495.25
495.50
495.75
496.00
496.25
496.50
DISCHARGE (CFS)
.00
.02
.03
.03
..04.
.04
.05
.05
.06
.59
1. 55
STORAGE (CU-FT)
.0
97.0
223.0
379.0
568.0
786.0
1026.0
1290.0
1578.0
1891.0
2229.0
AVERAGE PERM-RATE:
.0 MINUTES!INCH
PERM-AREA (SQ-FT)
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
ENTER Cd:] [path]filenarne[.ext] OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-2aa.dev
INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS:
PEA!(- INFLOW (CFS) PEAK-OUTFLOW (CFS)
.26 .05
INITIAL-STAGE (FT) TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS)
.00 10.83
PEAK STORAGE: 1140 CU-FT
OUTFLOW-VOL (CU-FT)
3903
PEAK-STAGE-ELEV(FT)
495 . 61
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
O'"i~b "tll
ng!n~. ,..1.1. ml a
.
Storm Drainage Evaluation
51"-52od a Main Street Redevelopment - Option A
.
InfIltration Basin A - 10 Year Storm
******************** S.C.5. TYPE-IA DISTRIBUTION *******************
********* IO-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** 4.30" TOTAL PRECIP. *******
ENTER: A(PERV), CN(PERV), A(IMPERV), CN(IMPERV.I, TC FOR BASIN NO. 1
0.09,61,0.34,98,10
DATA PRINT-OUT:
AREA (ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES)
A CN A CN
.4 .1 61.0 .3 98.0 10.0
PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT)
.35 7.83 5330
ENTER [d:] [path] filename [.ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-10aa.dev
RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE
SPECIFY [do] [path]filename[.ext] OF ROUTING DATA
09159aa.rd
DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N)?
y
ROUTING DATA:
STAGE (FT)
494.00
494.25
494.50
494.75
495 . 00
495. 25
495.50
495.75
496.00
496.25
496.50
DISCHARGE (CFS)
.00
.02
.03
.03
.04
.04
.05
.05
.06
.59
1.55
STORAGE (CU-FT)
.0
97.0
223.0
379.0
568.0
786.0
1026.0
1290.0
1578.0
1891.0
2229.0
PERM-AREA (SQ-FT)
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
AVERAGE PERM-RATE:
.0 MINUTES !INCH
ENTER [do] [path]fi1ename[.ext] OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-10aa.dev
INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS:
PEAK-INFLOW (CFS) PEAK-OUTFLOW (CFS)
.35 .08
OUTFLOW-VOL (CU-FT)
5322
INITIAL-STAGE (FT) TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS)
.00 10.67
PEAK-STAGE-ELEV(FT)
496.01
PEAK STORAGE: 1690 CU-FT
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
,
Original Submittal
.
Storm Drainage Evaluation
51"-52,d &: Main Street Redevelopment - Option A
.
IniIltration Basin A - 25 Year Storm
******************** 5.C.5. TYPE-1A DISTRIBUTION *******************
********* 25-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** 4.80" TOTAL PRECIP. *******
ENTER: A(PERV), CN(PERV), A(IMPERV), CN(IMPERV), TC FOR BASIN NO. 1
0.09,61,0.34,98,10
DATA PRINT-OUT:
AREA (ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS. TC(MINUTES)
A CN A CN
.4 .1 61. 0 .3 98.0 10.0
PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL (CU-FT)
.40 7.83 6037
ENTER Ed:] [path]fi1ename[.ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-25aa.dev
RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE
SPECIFY Ed:] [path]fi1ename[.ext] OF ROUTING DATA
09159aa. rd
DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N)?
Y
ROUTING DATA:
STAGE(FT)
494.00
494.25
494.50
494.75
495.00
495.25
495.50
495.75
496.00
496.25
496_ 50
DISCHARGE (CFS)
.00
.02
.03
.03
.04
.04
.05
.05
.06
.59
1. 55
STORAGE (CU-FT) .
.0
97.0
223.0
379.0
5.68.0
786.0
1026.0
1290.0
1578.0
1891.0
2229.0
PERM-AREA (SQ-FT)
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
AVERAGE PERM-RATE:
.0 MINUTES/INCH
ENTER Ed:] [path]fi1ename[.ext] OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-25aa.dev
INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS:
PEAK-INFLQW(CFS) PEAK-QUTFLOW(CFS)
.40 .14
OUTFLOW-VOL (CU-FT)
6041
INITIAL-STAGE(FT) TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS)
.00 8.67
PEAK-STAGE-ELEV (FT)
496.04
PEAK STORAGE: 1730 CU-FT
Date Received:
FEB 1" 5 2011
Orlgina! Submittal
.
Storm Drainage Evaluation
51"-52od a Main Street Redevelopment - Option A
.
IniIltration Basin B - Water Quality Storm
******************** S.C.S. TYPE-IA DISTRIBUTION *******************
***.****** I-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** .83" TOTAL PRECIP. *******
ENTER: A(PERV), CN(PERV), A(IMPERV), CN(IMPERV), TC FOR BASIN NO. 1
0.04,61,0.11,98,10
DATA PRINT-OUT:
AREA (ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES)
A CN A CN
.2 .0 61. 0 .1 98.0 10.0
PEAK-Q (CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL (CU-FT)
.02 7.83 250
ENTER [do] [path]filename[.ext] FOR $TORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-wqab.dev
RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE
SPECIFY [do] [path]filename[.ext] OF ROUTING DATA
09159AB.RD
.DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N)?
Y
ROUTING DATA:
STAGE(FT)
496.00
496.25
496.50
496.75
497.00
497.25
DISCHARGE (CFS)
.00
.02
.02
.03
.04
.57
STORAGE (CU- FT)
.0
80.0
183.0
314.0
473.0
661.0
PERM-AREA (SQ-FT)
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
AVERAGE PERM-RATE:
.0 MINUTES/INCH
ENTER [do] [path]filename[.ext] OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-WQAB.DEV
INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS:
PEAK-INFLOW (CFS) PEAK-QUTFLOW(CFS)
.02 .01
OUTFLOW-VOL (CU-FT)
77
INITIAL-STAGE (FT) TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS)
.00 8.67
PEAK-STAGE-ELEV(FT)
.496.12
PEAK. STORAGE:
30 CU-FT
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
Original Submittal
.
.
Storm Drainage Evaluation
51st_52od'& Main Street Redevelopment - Option A
InfIltration Basin B-2 Year Storm
******************** S.C.S. TYPE-IA DISTRIBUTION *******************
********* 2-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** 3.30" TOTAL PRECIP. *******
ENTER: A(PERV), CN(PERV), A(IMPERV), CN(IMPERV), TC FOR BASIN NO. 1
0.04,61,.0.11,98,10
DATA PRINT-OUT:
AREA (ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS. TC (MINUTES)
A CN A CN
.2 .0 61.0 .1 98.0 10.0
PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL (CU-FT)
.09 7.83 1294
ENTER Ed:] [path]filename[.ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-2ab.dev
RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE
SPECIFY Ed:] [path]filename[.ext] OF ROUTING DATA
09159AB.RD
DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N)?
Y
ROUTING DATA:
STAGE(FT)
496.00
496.25
496.50
496.75
497.00
497.25
DISCHARGE (CFS)
.00
.02
.02
.03
.04
.57
STORAGE (CU-FT)
.0
80.0
183.0
314.0
473.0
661.0
PERM-AREA (SQ-FT)
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
AVERAGE PERM-RATE:
.0 MINUTES/INCH
ENTER Ed:] [path] filename [.ext] OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-2AB.DEV
INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS:
,PEAK-INFLOW (CFS) PEAK-OUTFLOW (CFS)
.09 .02
OUTFLOW-VOL (CU-FT)
1263
INITIAL-STAGE (FT) TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS)
.DO 8.83
PEAK-STAGE-ELEV(FT)
'496.61
PEAK STORAGE:
240 CU-FT
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
Original submittal,
.
.
Storm Drainage Evaluation
51".52od 8: Main Street Redevelopment - Option A
Infiltration Basin B -10 Year Storm
******~************* 5.C.5. TYPE-IA DISTRIBUTION *******************
********* IO-YEAR 24-HOOR STORM **** 4.30" TOTAL PREelP. *******
ENTER: A(PERV), CN(PERV), A(IMPERV)," CN(IMPERV), TC FOR BASIN NO. 1
0.04,61,0.11,98,10
DATA PRINT-OUT:
AREA (ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES)
A CN A CN
.2 .0 61. 0 .1 98.0 10'.0
PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL (CU-FT)
.12 7.83 1762
ENTER Ed:] (path]filename[.ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-,10ab.dev
RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE
SPECIFY [d:] [path] filename [. ext] OF ROUTING DATA
09159AB.RD
DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N)?
Y
ROUTING DATA:
STAGE(FT)
496.00
496.25
496.50
496.75
497.00
497.25
DI SCHARGE (CFS)
.00
.02
.02
.03
.04
.57
STORAGE (CU-FT)
.0
80.0
183.0
314.0
473.0
661.0
PERM-AREA (SQ-FT)
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
AVERAGE "PERM-RATE:
.0 MINUTES/INCH
ENTER Ed:] [path]filename[.ext] OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-10AB.DEV
INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS:
PEAK-INFLOW (CFS) PEAK-OUTFLOW (CFS)
.12 .03
OUTFLOW-VOL (CU-FT)
1700
INITIAL-STAGE (FT) TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS)
.00 8.83
PEAK-STAGE-ELEV (FT)
'496.83
PEAK STORAGE:
360 CU-FT
Date Received:
FEe I 5 2011
Original Submittal
.
Storm Drainage Evaluation
51st_52od & Main Street Redevelopment - Option A
.
IniIltration Basin B - 25 Year Storm
******************** 5.C.5. TYPE-IA prSTRIBUTION *******************
********* 25-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** 4.80" TOTAL PRECIP. *******
ENTER: A(PERV), CN(PERV), A(IMPERV), CN(IMPERV), TC FOR BASIN NO. 1
0.04,61,0_11, 9S, 10
DATA PRINT-OUT:
AREA (ACRES) " PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES)
A CN A CN
.2 .0 61. 0 .1 98.0 10.0
PEAK-Q (CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL (CU-FT)
.13 7.S3 2002
ENTER [do] [path] filename [.ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-25AB.DEV
RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE
SPECIFY [do] [path]fi1ename[.ext] OF ROUTING DATA
09159AB.RD
DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N)?
Y ,
ROUTING DATA:
STAGE (FT)
496.00
496.25
496.50
496.75
497.00
497 . 25
DISCHARGE (CFS)
.00
.02
.02
.03
.04
.57
STORAGE (CU-FT)
_0
SO.O
1S3.0
314.0
473.0
661.0
PERM-AREA (SQ-FT)
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
_ 0
AVERAGE PERM-RATE:
.0 MINUTES/INCH
ENTER [do] [path]filename[.ext] OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-"2 5AB. DEV
INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS:'
PE1\K-INFLOW(CFS) PEAK-OUTFLOW (CFS)
.13 .04
OUTFLOW-VOL (CU-FT)
2112
INITIAL-STAGE (FT) TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS)
.00 8.67
PEAK-STAGE-ELEV (FT)
496.91
PEAK STORAGE:
410 CU-FT
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
Original Submittal
.
Storm Drainage Evaluation
51"-52nd Et Main Street Redevelopment - Option A
.
Inmtration Basin C - Water Quality Storm
******************** 3.C.5. TYPE-IA DISTRIBUTION *******************
********* I-YEAR 24-HOOR STORM **** .83" TOTAL PRECIP. *******
ENTER: A(PERV), CN(PERV), A(IMPERV), CN(IMPERV), TC FOR BASIN NO. 1
0.02,61,0.07,98,10
DATA PRINT-OUT:
AREA (ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES)
A CN A CN
.1 .0 61. 0 .1 98.0 10.0
PEAK-Q (CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT)
.01 7.83 . 159
ENTER Ed:] [path]filename[.ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-wqac.dev
RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE
SPECIFY Ed:] [path]filename[.ext] OF ROUTING DATA
09159AC.RD
OISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N)?
Y
ROUTING DATA:
STAGE (FT)
495.75
496.00
496.25
496.50.
496.75
497.00
DISCHARGE (CFS)
.00
.01
.01
.01
.01
.36
STORAGE (CU-FT)
.0
30.0
67.0
115.0
172.0
240.0
PERM-AREA (SQ-FT)
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
AVERAGE PERM-RATE:
.0 MINUTES/INCH .
ENTER Ed:] [path]filename[.extj OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-WQAC.DEV
INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS:
PEAK- INFLOW (CFS) PEAK-OUTFLOW (CFS)
.01 .01
OUTFLOW-VOL (CU-FT)
29
INITIAL-STAGE (FT) TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS)
.00 8.17
PEAK-STAGE-ELEV(FT)
495.90
PEAK STORAGE:
10 CU-FT
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
Original Submittal
e.
Storm Drainage EvaLuation
51"-52od 8: Main Street RedeveLopment - Option A
.
InfIltration Basin C - 2 Year Storm
******************** S.C.S. TYPE-IA DISTRIBUTION *******************
********* 2-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** 3-.30" TOTAL PREelP. *******
ENTER: A(PERV), CN(PERV), A (IMPERV), CN(IMPERV), TC FOR BASIN NO. 1
0.02,61,0.07,98,10
DATA PRINT-OUT:
AREA (ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES)
A CN A CN
.1 .0 61. 0 .1 98.0 10.0
PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT)
:05 7.83 814
ENTER [d:] [path] filename [.ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-2ac.dev
RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE
.SPECIFY Ed:] [path]fi1ename[.ext] OF ROUTING DATA
09159AC.RD
DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N)?
Y
ROUTING DATA:
STAGE (FT)
495.75
496.00
496.25
496.50
496.75
497.00
DISCHARGE (CFS)
.00
.01
.01
.01
.01
.36
STORAGE (CU-FT)
.0
30.0
67.0
115.0
172.0
240.0
PERM-AREA (SQ-FT)
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
AVERAGE PERM-RATE:
.0 MINUTES/INCH
ENTER Ed:] [path]fi1ename[.ext] OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-2AC.DEV
INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS:
PEAK-INFLOW (CFS) PEAK-QUTFLOW(CFS)
.05 .01
OUTFLOW-VOL (CU-FT)
886
INITIAL-STAGE (FT) TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS)
.00 8~83.
PEAK-STAGE-ELEV(FT)
. 496.71
PEAK STORAGE:
160 CU-FT
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
Original Submittal
.
Storm Drainage Evaluation
51"-5iod & Main Street Redevelopment - Option A
.
Inf"Iltration Basin C - 10 Year Storm
******************** S.C.5. TYPE-IA DISTRIBUTION *******************
********-* lO-YEAR .24-HOUR STORM **** 4.30" TOTAL PRECIP. *******
ENTER: A(PERV), CN(PERV), A(IMPERV), CN(IMPERV), TC FOR BASIN NO. 1
0.02,61,0.07,98;10
DATA PRINT-OUT:
AREA (ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVI9US TC(MINUTES)
A CN A CN
.1 .0. 61. 0 .1 98.0 10.0
PEl\K-Q (CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL (CU-FT)
.07 7.83 1102
ENTER [do] [path]fi1ename[.extJ FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-10ac.dev
RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE
SPECIFY [do] [path]fi1ename[.ext] OF ROUTING DATA
09159AC.RD
DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N)?
Y
ROUTING DATA:
STAGE (FT)
495.75
496.00
496.25
496.50
496.75
497.00
DISCHARGE (CFS)
.00
.01
.01
.01
.01
.36
STORAGE (CU-FT)
.0
30.0
67.0
115.0
172.0
240.0
PERM-AREA (SQ- FT)
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
AVERAGE PERM-RATE:
.0 MINUTES/INCH
ENTER [do] [path]fi1ename[.ext] OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-10AC.DEV
INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS:
PEAK-INFLOW (CFS) PEAK-OUTFLOW (CFS)
.07 .07
OUTFLOW-VOL (CU-FT)
1103
INITIAL-STAGE (FT) TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS)
.00 8.00
PEAK-STAGE-ELEV (FT)
496.79
PEAK STORAGE:
180 CU-FT
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
Original submittal
.
Storm Drainage Evaluation
51".520d & Main Street Redevelopment - Option A
.
Infiltration Basin C - 25 Year Storm
******************** 5.C.5. TYPE-IA DISTRIBUTION *******************
********* 25-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** 4.80" TOTAL PRECIP. *******
ENTER: A(PERV), CN(PERV), A(IMPERV), CN(IMPERV), TC FOR BASIN NO. 1
0.02,61,0.07,98,10
DATA PRINT-OUT:
AREA (ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS' TC(MINUTES)
A CN A eN
.1 .0 61. 0 .1 98.0 10.0
PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL (CU-FT) ,
.08 7.83 1249
ENTER Cd:] [path]filename[.ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-25ac.dev
RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE
SPECIFY Cd:] [path]filename[.ext] OF ROUTING DATA
09159AC.RD
DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N)?
Y
ROUTING DATA:
STAGE(FT)
495.75
496.00
496.25
496.50
496.75
497.00
DISCHARGE (CFS)
.00
.01
.01
.01
.01
.36
STORAGE (CU-FT)
.0
30.0
67:0
115.0
172. O.
240.0
PERM-AREA (SQ-FT)
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
AVERAGE PERM-RATE:
.0 MINUTESIINCH
ENTER [d:] [path]filename[.ext] OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-25AC.DEV
INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS:
PEAK-INFLOW (CFS) PEAK-QUTFLOW(CFS)
.08 .08
OUTFLOW-VOL (CU-FT)
1242
INITIAL-STAGE (FT) TIME-OF-PEAK(HRSJ
.00 7.83
PEAK-STAGE-ELEV(FT)
.496.80
PEAK STORAGE:
180 CU-FT
Date Received:
FEB f 520ft
Original Submittal
.
.
Storm Drainage Evaluation
51"-52od &: Main Street Redevelopment - Option A
Appendix E
Vegetated Infiltration Basin and
Double Chambered Catch Basins with Fossil Filter Insert
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
. Original Submittal
--
f
9 n MINIMUM
)1
FOR PARKING LOTS.
TIRE STOPS OR
CURBS wlcUTS
12~xt2~ CLEAR flOW
AREA AT CUTOUTS
2"
3:1 MAX.
SIDE SLOPES
(1YP.)
~
2 n
FLAT BOTIOM---?i
OVERflOW
ELEVATION
g"-lS-
(SEE NOTE 28)
,," (SEE NOTE 6)
J.
:.~.
.~~~ < ,
:;.;:,\~\(; " ) y.<',
-<'<//" , \\'", , ,,/._/,',\~ v, ..
,"\'~-"I/\'}.\\''''''\\ ,_." \ \' ___ ~ ~\ _\\ ,,', ,...-'.;/~'\'..,\\'
\';--::)J)"""'-'\X'";"':.\y\. ,/((",<: r ,'\\\~_/.':">",' ,,\,,\\.,,~ y/\
~~.~).;~V~\ ,5\\ ,,,;':-. >}\V' :,~;:(,~\?\\~ ,:
,:: ""\\;"~0"::\\\~~~'~\ ~-:~'5~~~~~<~~~\-~0\i<>~~
" .)(- ~V'\\'>\\\::<\"'~\>- ......'~,/y\\/,\// ,
"- f ./....\ "\\\/\('" _ ,\'\\" /\ /\ \' J'\..-
Q -~ ,I ....<\\ <: '.,,,<~.\~', ',,_ - )e"::?-
ib', t i j ~<. r' >J. )c"",
,\ ~. iLA'. <__'-'. .,f.....'--..,-(_ T\_,_, ~
. ...' \r.......;. 'c""', 'c'=-'-''''''
-/\fI--../~K-~'---"", \7:<'>:-/O-RA~:RoC-K-\~'~ ~~ .
'--~ _!)-3 ;>~~ '~1 ~.
. . '._~:" :~~' i._..J-~~-A-< f'... .
18"
,
,
, '
FILTER FABRIC,
SEE NOTE 7
SEE SW-150 FOR PIPING J
CONFlGURATlON.
. EXrSflNG SUBGRAOE
1. Provide protection from all vehicle traffic, equipment staging,
and foot traffic in proposed infiltration areas prior to, during,
and after construction.
6. Drain rock:
a. Size for infiltration basin: 1~~ ~ 0/.." washed
b. Size for flow-through basin: %B washed
c. Depth for Simplified: 12"
d. Depth for Presumptive: 0-48n, see cales.
2. Dimensions:
a. Width of basin: 9' minimum.
b. Depth of basin (from top of growing medium to
overilow elevation); Simplified: 12ll, Presumptive:
9"-18".
c: Flat bottom width: 2' min.
d. Side slopes of basin: 3: 1 maximum.
7. Separation between drain rock and growing medium:
Use filter fabric (see SWMM Exhibit 2-5) or
a gravel lens (y,. - '/.. inch washed, crushed rock 2 to 3 inches
deep).
3. Setbacks (from midpoint of facility):
a. Infiltration basins must be 10' from foundations and
5' from property lines.
b. Flow-through swales must be lined with connection
to approved discharge point according to SWMM
Section 1.3.
8. Growing medium:
a. 18n minimum
b. See Appendix F.3 for specification or use
sand/loam/compost 3-way mix.
4. Overflow:
a. Overflow required for Simplified Approach.
b. Inlet elevation must allow for 2n of freeboard,
minimum.
c. Protect from debris and sediment with strainer or
grate. .
9. Vegetation: Follow landscape plans otherwise refer'fo.pfBnt
list in SWMM Appendix F. Minimum container size is '1
gallon. # of plantings per 1DDsf of facility area):
a. Zone A (wet): 115 herbaceous plants OR 100
herbaceous plants and 4 shrubs
b. Zone B (moderate to dry): 1 tree AND 3 large
shrubs AND 4 medium to small shrubs.
The delineation betw~.en Zone A and B shall be either at the
outlet elevation or the check dam elevation, whichever is
lowest.
5. Piping: shall be ABS SchAD, cast iron, or PVC SchAD. 3~
pipe required for up to 1,500 sq ft of impervious area,
otherwise 4" min. Piping must have 1% grade and follow the
Uniform Plumbing Code.
10. Install washed pea gravel or river rock to transition from
, inlets and splash pad to growing medium.
11. Inspections: Call BOS IVDatetiReeeJiqe!(f.3-7000,
for appropnate inspections.
.; \
FEB 1 5 2011
~
-
-
- Simplified I Presumptive Design Approach c
Basin
NUMBER
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MANUAL TYPIC
SW-140
Bureau of Environmental Services
I'Ll
P
~
. .q
C\1
OUTLET
''ilS
53"
L dRD ™
FILTER INSERT
(MODEL FGP-24F)
WOVEN MESH
FILTER BODY
NOTES:
..
;,
: f rx:=.~ -.
"
; .
Ii i'
i ;
BOX FABRICATED FROM
,10 GA MATERIAL
NEOPRENE GASKET
(TWO SIDES)
DUCTILE IRON SOLID LID
DUCTILE IRON GRATE
BIKE PROOF, HEAVY
DUTY TRAFFIC GRATE
SUPPORTS AASHTO
H25 LOADS
I,
i..
48" LONG
...:
;
PLAN VIEW,
SILT & DEBRIS
CONTAINMENT AREA
L2~x2~x~
FRAME
'.q ~t
~~
OUTLET
z
:i
.q
C\1
HIGH
FLOW
BYPASS,
53"
-,..
;
,
,
,
I
,
,
,
r-_
cO
::.'"
..;-
..;-
I
__ I
~ SEDIMENT TRAt -l-'
lw/ HINGED ,
LlD : SEDIMENT
: TRAP
,
lu
REPLACEABLE
ABSORBENT
POUCHES ISOMETRIC
48"
..
,
SIDE VIEW
SEDIMENT & HYDROCARBONS FILTRATION SYSTEM
STATE APPROVED - ASPHALT DIPPEl[l)ate Received:
24"x42" - 6"0 OUTLET FEB 152011
SAND COLLECTOR CATCH BASIN Original Submittal DWG #
PROJ. MAN. DOUG P. DWN. PAUL G. SCALE NONE F 5
DATE: JAN. 23, 06 MODEL: SCBF'J0-42HB-6
Gibson Steel Basins
SINCE 1972
247 Wosh;ngton St. Eugene, Or. 97401 ph:(541) 687 - 8672 lox:344-0207
.
.
STORMWATERMANAGEMENT
PLAN AND DRAINAGE STUDY
FOR
51st-52"d & M~tRedevelopment
\Q?TION B J
Springfield, OR
February 15, 2011
Prepared For:
TBG Architects
132 E. Broadway, Suite 200
Eugene, OR 97401
Branch Engineering, Inc.
310 5th Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Phone (541) 746-0637
Fax (541) 746-0389
Engineering, Inc.
Branch Project # 09-159
Date Received:
FES 1 5 2011
Original submittal
(
.11/17/2010 12:09 FAX 541~ . 21
CITY OF SPRINGFIEL~~
i4J 002
5P"R1:,C,F1"CDii-
~~~~(l!~~~~
. ~.~~.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT! Engineeri11g Division Phone: (541) 726-3753 Fax: (541) 736-1021
STORMW A TER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM SCOPE OF WORK
r
- (Area below this lbtefllled Qut by App/lCtult) -:- .,.
(please,etum to Matt S(ouder.@City of Springfield Public Work. En~ineeriJ.g; Fax If 736-1021, Phone tf]Jf-;'O:H.)
Project Name: OBO Enterprises, LLC Applicant: Branch Engineoring
As~e880rS Parcel #: 17-02-33-32 TL 6200 & 6300 Date: 11/03/10
Land Use(s): Community Commercial (CC) Phone #: 541-746-0637
Project Size (Acres): 1.5 acres FlU #: 541-746-0389 .
Appr()x.I~~eT.~u~ ,yea: . ] .07 acres Email: .' gre~0lbranchengineeringc~D1..
Project Description (Include a copy of Assessor's map):
1.5 acres site: with two commercial buildings near1\1ain Street and a 15 unit apartment building to the south of the
commercial buildings with associated landscaping 3Jld parking facilities.
Drainage Proposal (public conneclion(s), discharge Jocation(s), etc. Artach additional sheet(s) if necessary:
West side ofthe site will drainloward 51" Place and connect to the existing storm line in the streel. The east side ofthe
site w111 drain toward 52"0 Street and connect to the, existing storm line in the ,treet.
Proposed Stormwater Best Management Practices: Infiltration basins and planters will be used on-site with
overflows and trapped catch basins.
/:;'c
Drainage Study Tvve (EDSPM Section 4.03.2): (Note. UH may be su bstituted for Rational Method)
o Small Site Study - (u6e Rational Method for calculations)
~ Mid-Level Development Study - (use Unit HydrDgraph Method for calculation,)
o Full Drainage Development Study - (use Unit HydrDgraph Method for calculatinns)
Environmental Considerations:
IY Wellhead Zone: '91 "<i;:.,,-..(_ '
@ WetlandJRiparian:
I() Soil Type: 11'1 - ~ ~M ~~ ~\IJ
Downstream Analvsis: (~n.:=..
~ N/A -, ~--. '
o Flow line for starting water surfa.ce elevatjon:
o Design HGL to use tar starting WaleI' surfac'e elevation:
o Manhole/Junction to take analysis to:
Return to Matt Stouder Iii>. City of Suringfield, eman: m6toude\"liil.d..nrinl!aPJ1b~~J5~~ttal.
'.':"'- /Area Tielow this tine filfed out hv the City and Returned io the Avo/ieant) . '. ".. . :'. "':'. ..
. ,'.{Ar a mi!1l1?lUl11, all QOi.~.f c(7ecked by the City on lhefronr and backoji/Jfs:;sh'eeisha.ll besiJ}J.mlrie4. ".-:"
":::.)Qt.;{1fJ cpplication io bf! cOTflplete/or submitral, although.other J-equir..~~n~s.may be ne~e~s~ry;).:";<';:,:'
i Hillside Development: ~
. FloodwaylFloodplain: ;iff
Other Jurisdictions: OD~
Date Received:
EEB-t 520ft
,n~'
()"l',f\
11/17/2010 12:09 FAX 541~8
21
CITY OF SPRlNGFlEL~~
I4J 003
COMPLETE STUDY ITEMS I Fo,Oilic;al Use Only: tv'tA<::
% Based up01'J the. information provided on the Fonl of this Shf!!!.l~ the following represents a minimum of what is needed for an
appliCOTion 10 be complete/or submittal with respect fo drainage; however, this list shauld not be used-in lieu ofT-he Springfield
Development Code. (SDC) or the City:.s Engim:ering Design Manual. Compliance with these requiremems does not constitute site
approval; Additional site. sp,!cific ;nfOrmC1!ion may be required. Note: Upon scoping sheet submiltal, ensure completedfarm has
bee.n signed in the space pro\lided below:
3?i
a
~
~
~
Interim Design StandardslWatcr Qnality (EDSPM Chapter 3)
Req'd N/A
Iil 0 All non-building rooftop (NBR) impervious SUIfuces shall be pr....treated (e.g. multi-chamb,ered catch basin w/oi!
filtration media) for slonnwatcr qualilY. AdditiOllal1y, a minimum of 50% of the NBR impervious surface shall be
treated by vegetated methods.
o Where ;required, vegetAtive stonnwater design shall be consistent with intairn design standards (EbSPM Section 3.02)~
set forth by the Bureau of Environmcntal Services (BES) or Clean Water Services (CWS).
o For new NBR impervious area Jess than 15,000 square feet, a simplified design approach may be followed as specified
by the BES for vegetativl: treatment.
o If a stonnwater treatment swale is proposed, submit calculatioDs/spec.ificarions for sizing, ve]odry, flow~ side slopes~
bottom slopc) and geed mix consistent with either BES or CWS requirements.
o Water Quality calculations as required in Section 3.03.1 of the EDSPM
o A 11 building rooftop mO\ll1ted equipment, or other fluid containing equipment located ours ide of the building, shall
be provided with secondary containment OT weather Tesisr.mt enclosure.
Genera) Study Requirements (EDSPM Section 4,03)
Ii 0 Drainage study prepared by a Professional Civil Engineer licensed in the statf: of Oregon.
o 0 A complete drainage study, as required in EDSPM Section 4.03.1, including a hydrological study map.
~ 0 Calculations showing system capacity for (} 2vyear storm event and overflow effects ofa 25-year storm ev~nt.
1i1 D The time of concentration (Tc) shall be determined tl~ing e 10 minute start time for developed basins.
Review ofDowustream System (EDSPM Section 4.03.4.C)
o Ill- A downstreum drainage analysis as described in EDSPM Section 4.03.4.C. On-site drainage shall be governed by the
Oregon Plumbing Specialty Code (OPSC).
o ~. Elevations of the HGL and flow lines for both city and private systems where applicable.
Design of Storm System. (EDSPM Section 4.04)
~- 0 Flow lines> slopes) rim elevations. pipe type and sizes clewly indicated on the plan set.
o [iJ. Minimum pipe cover shall be 18 inches for reinforced pipe and 36 incnes for pJa;n concre.te 'and plastic: pipe materials>
or proper cngineering calculations shall be provided when less. The Covcr sh.ll be sufficient to support an &O,OOO'lb<-:~
load wjtbOUl failure of the pipe structure. .
o li;i! Manning's un" values for pipes shall be consistent with Tab!e 4-1 of the EDSP. All stonn p.ipes shall be designed to
achieve a m.inimum velocity oftllrec (3) feet per second at 0.5 pipe full based on Table 4-1 as well.
OtherlMisc
W' 0 Existing and proposed contours, located at one foot interval. Include spot elevations and site grades showing how site
drains
~ 0 Private stormwater easements shall be clearly depicted On plans when private slormwater flows from one property to
another
o Iii Drywells shall not receive runoff from any surface w/o being treated by one or more B:tv1Ps, with the exception of
residential building roofs (EDSP Section 3.03.4.A). Additional pmvisions apply to this as required by the DEQ. Refer
to the websire: www_dea.state_or.uslwQ!~oundwa/uichome.hcm for more infomlatloll.
15I 0 Detention ponds shall be designed to limit runoff to pre-dtvelopment mles for the 2 through 25-year stonn events
~Thisform s!tall be induded as an attachment. inside tllefrmlt COYeT, oft/Ie Sfonnwater,study
* IMPORTAN.T: ENGINEER PLEASe Jl.Eol1J BeLOW A.N:D SIGN!
AS the engineer of record> 1 hereby certifY the above required items are complete and included witOa&
pl<il"'l set.
Signature:
EEB 1 5 2011
Date:
OrIginal submittal
Revise:d 11/1910Q
1n nf' 1('\
.
Storm Drainage Evaluation
51st-52"d & Main Street Redevelopment - Option B
.
Introduction
This evaluation was prepared to summarize the drainage system proposed for the 51st-52nd & Main
Street Redevelopment Option B. This storm drainage evaluation will determine the type and size of
water quality/quantity facilities that are acceptable to the City of Springfield. The 51 st-52nd & Main
Street Redevelopment is located on the south side of Main Street and east of 51 51 Place and west of
52nd Street in Springfield, Oregon. The proposed project site is comprised of two tax lots,
TMI7023332 TL 6200 and TL 6300.
Existing Conditions
The existing site is bounded by Main Street to the north, 51st place to the west, 52nd Street to the east
and residential to the south. The site consists of an existing building, a burned down existing building,
driveways and landscaping. The impervious surfaces consist of roofs. The pervious surfaces consist
oflandscaping.
According to the Soils Survey of Lane County, Oregon, by the Natural Resource Conservation Service,
the soil at the site is Salem Urban Land Complex (Soil Number: 119, Hydrologic Group: B). Refer to
Appendix A for soils map information.
Proposed Site Conditions
The proposed project includes two new commercial buildings, three buildings with townhomes with
associated parking, sidewalks and landscaping. The parking and drive aisles will consist of asphalt
pavement and the sidewalks will be concrete.
Water Quality Treatment and Storm Water Conveyance System
The City of Springfield is encouraging as much infiltration on this site as possible. Therefore, the site
is proposed to have drainage basins which will flow to infiltration basins located across the site. The
infiltration basins will be landscaped with appropriate vegetation and topsoil to allow treatment and
infiltration of storm water. Infiltration testing was conducted and the site was determined to have
adequate infiltration rates to serve the proposed improvements. See the table below for infiltration
results and information.
Test Test Location Test Test Soils Measured' ---
Depth infiltration Rate
1 Northwest corner 48" 0-12" Topsoil
of site 12-36"-light brown clayey silt moist 4.5 inches/hour
36"-42" light brown clayey silt
42"-48" Bar Run
See Appendix B for the infiltration testing data. There are three proposed infiltration basins proposed
on the site. Each is primarily treating parking areas however one is also infiltrating runoff from one of
the proposed buildings roof. See Appendix C for the proposed Drainage Basin Map for location of
infiltration basins and the areas they are treating and infiltrating. Below is a brief description of each.
Infiltration Basin A
Infiltration Basin A is located on the west side of the site and east of the proposed drive-thru
restaurant. Infiltration Basin A will have asphalt parking, building roof top and k1l.4~:m~t\~rtet\1,g
to it. The basin draining to Infiltration Basin A is 0.43 acres. One side has a 3:K'fcfe slope and the
FEB 1 5 2011
Original submittal
Storm Drainage Evaluation
51 "-520' & Main Street Redevelopment - Option B
other has a short retaining wall. InfiltrationBasin A has approximately 1,685 cubic fee1 of storage.
Infiltra1ion Basin A is bisected by a concrete sidewalk and a 6" storm pipe is pr6posed to go under the
concrete sidewalk to allow Infiltration Basin A to act as one basin. Infiltration Basin A is two feet
deep from the top ofthe growing medium to the overflow. This depth was required because the
overflow for Infiltration Basin B is piped to Infiltration Basin A and the invert of the overflow pipe
from Infiltration Basin B required this depth. The overflow for Infiltration A is connected to a
proposed curb inlet in 51st Place that will be constructed under a Public Improvement Permit.
.
.
Infiltration Basin B
Infiltration Basin B is located on the north side ofthe site along Main Street and,west of the proposed
ODOT driveway approach. Infiltration Basin B will have asphalt parking and landscaping draining to
it. The basin draining to Infiltration Basin B is 0.13 acres. Infiltration Basin B is one foot deep from
the top of the growing medium to the overflow and has 3:1 side slopes. Infiltration Basin B has
approximately 473 cubic feet of storage. Infiltration Basin B is bisected by a concrete sidewalk and a
6" storm pipe is proposed to go under the concrete sidewalk to allow Infiltration Basin B to act as one
basin. The overflow for Infiltration Basin B is piped to Infiltration Basin A.
Infiltration Basin C
Infiltration Basin C is located on the north side ofthe site along Main Street and west of the proposed
commercial building. Infiltration Basin C will have asphalt parking and landscaping draining to it.
The basin draining to Infiltration Basin C is 0.08 acres. Infiltration Basin C is one foot deep from the
top of the growing medium to the overflow and has 3: I side slopes. Infiltration Basin C has
approximately] 72 cubic feet of storage. The overflow for Infiltration Basin C is directed to a nearby
private storm line to be conveyed offsite to the existing 12" storm line in 52nd Street.
Other drainage basins on the site will be treated by double chambered catch basins with filter inserts
and conveyed through storm pipes to the publicstorm system.
Stormwater Runoff
Peak discharge rates for the post development conditions were generated using the Santa Barbara Unit
Hydrograph method. The King County Department of Public Works, Surface Water Management
Division, Hydrographs Programs, Version 4.21B computer program was used to assist in the. .
hydrologic calculations. See Appendix D for the stormwater runoff results. Below is a summary of
the results for each drainage basin.
Proposed Conditions Peak Discharge Rates (cfs)
Storm Basin A Basin B Basin C
WQ (0.83 inches/24 hours) . 0.06. . 0.01 0.01
2 Year (3.3 inches/24 hours) 0.26 .0.07 0.05
10 Year (4.3 inches/24 hours) 0.35 0.10 0.07
25 Year (4.8 inches/24 hours) 0.40 0.11 0.08
Date Received:
FEB t 5 2011
Original Submittal
.
Storm Drainage Evaluation
51"-52od &: Main Street Redevelopment - Option B
.
InfIltration Basin Sizine
Each infiltration basin is characterized in a spreadsheet to be used with the King County Department of
Public Works, Surface Water Management Division, Hydrographs Programs, Version 4.21B computer
program for routing the developed storm through the infiltration basin. The routing data can be found
in Appendix D as well as the infiltration volumes and the required storage for each infiltration basin..
Below is a summary of each infiltration basin.
Infiltration Basin A
Below is a summary of the peak flow rates and the peak elevation the stormwater will get in
Infiltration Basin A during the 2 year and 25 year storms.
. Pror osed Infiltration Basin A
Storm Peak inflow (cfs) Peak outflow (cfs) Water Elevation (feet)
WQ 0.06 0.02 494.32
2 Year 0.26 0.05 495.61
10 Year 0.35 0.08 496.01
25 Year 0.40 0.14 496.04
Infiltration Basin A has approximately 2,200 cubic feet of storage. The overflow is set at an elevation
of 496.00. The results show that the i 0 year storm just begins to overflow and during the 10 year
storm it gets to elevation 496.01. During the 25 year storm, the water begins to overflow and gets a
half inch above the overflow. This will maximize infiltration opportunity and provide an additional
factor of safety. The infiltration basin will be landscaped in accordance with the' City of Springfield
requirements.
Infiltration Basin B
Below is a summary of the peak now rates and the peak elevation the stormwater will get in
Infiltration Basin B during the 2 year and 25 year storm.
Pror osed Infiltration Basin B
Storm Peak inflow (cfs) Peak outflow (cfs) Water Elevation (feet)
WQ 0.01 0.01 496.13
2 Year 0.07 0.02 496.73
10 Year 0.10 0.02 496.99
25 Year 0.11 0.04 497.01
Infiltration Basin B has approximately 475 cubic feet of storage. The overflow is set at an elevation of
497.00. The results show that the 10 year storm does not reach the overflow but during the 25 year
storm, the water does reach the overflow. This will maximize infiltration opportunity and provide an
additional factor of safety. The infiltration basin will be landscaped in accordance with the City of
Springfield requirements.
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
Original submittal
.
Storm Drainage Evaluation
51st_52od & Main Street Redevelopment - Option B
.
Infiltration Basin C
Below is a summary of the peak flow rates and the peak elevation the stormwater will get in
Infiltration Basin C during the 2 year and 25 year storm.
Pro Dosed Infiltration Basin C
Storm Peak inflow (cfS) Peak outflow (cfs) Water Elevation (feet)
WQ 0.01 0.00 495.87
2 Year 0.05 0.01 496.58
10 Year 0.07 0.05 496.78
25 Year 0.08 0.07 496.79
Infiltration Basin C has approximately 218 cubic feet of storage. The overflow is set at an elevation of
496.75. The results show that the 2 year storm is completely contained within Infiltration Basin C but
during the 10 and 25 year storms, the storm water will reach the overflow and the storm water will get
a half inch above the overflow elevation. The overflow is connected to an on-site private storm line
that eventually flows to the public storm system in 52nd Street. The infiltration basin will be
landscaped in accordance with the City of Springfield requirements.
The rest of the site will drain to double chambered catch basins with filter inserts located in the parking
areas and roof drains from the east commercial building and the townhouses will be directed to on-site
private storm line that eventually flows to the public storm system in 52nd Street.
See Appendix D for stormwater runoff, routing and infiltration basin stage-storage-outflow
calculations. See Appendix E for Infiltration swale section and double chamber. catch basin with filter
insert.
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
Original Submittal
.
.
Storm Drainage Evaluation
51"-52nd 8: Main Street Redevelopment - Option B
Appendix A
Soil Maps and Soil Data
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
Original Submittal.
.\1'1: ,9<> .Z'"l ~
co;=-
Oz
Z'w \I
-~
0,,- ~
roO
W~
-w
">
>-w
cO
ow 0
0", M
Of- \;
0
Ww ~
:i;w
~'"
If-
o.lf)
Oz 0
0_
~" N
~~ 2;
'Oc6 ~
If)0
.~Z
O>N
.2lf
E'f- ~
-elf) 2;
>-~
I~ ~
~
51
g
~
g
0
00
~
~
Ii!
R
00
3
~
.0C.9S .1:1:l
~
N
"
~
.
.
~
N
~
~
N
v
v
Otr69L9tr
01:69L9tr
01:69L9\1
OL69L9tr
0069L9t>
0699L9\1
0999L9tr
OL99Lllt>
FEB J 5 2011
~
Original Subrflittal
.trZ ,9~ .ZZL
o~
OC
<::!'
"=,
N<
~<
o
"
.
~o
00
>-'
~,
o
If),
.0
If)
.0
'"
5:'
~
.
.~
-'.:._-",--
'-'.~'g
..
.
..
"
x
~
'" 0
. N
N 0
" 00
~
c
0
n
.
,~
'-
E' 0
~ M
0
'"
" ~
~
'"
0
:1i 0 0
'"
@
o
o
'"
'"
'"
rn
"
;;
z
z~
eceived:
~QI: ,$ .a:L
9~
:::n
N
C':-
oz
"'W
~:;;
On.
.0
m-O
~W
<(>
>-W
-0
Sill
0<<
01-
~W
cill
"'<<
-01-
",-",
gz
(54:
-:;;
'0 ~
~O
,- Z
"'N
.2",
o '
~I-
-0",
>-~
"e
.
.
0<
~,
,,; '0 '" 0'
0 "- 00 C [:!<
0 '" i'
E m ~
ci m 0;-0 :c N
N " > ro 00
"@ .~ 0 ~ C "
'" u 00 ~
ro ~ i: m u " o .!:
0; 0 "u .2? C o,E
-0 0 '"
" " '" U) 00 t' 0 =.:;.!: "
~ "- ~ 0 0
00 "- ..2 c ,,; " N '0 m E
Z '" g 10' 0 ;; m.n 0
. E 0; ro '" " 00
0 :: c c ro "
" i: ,<<> 0 0 :5:5:!:i"
i= x e ~ IV ~o;) 0:: "'0 -uE;;
" 00 00 ,,0 Z e_
<l: '" " "- c~<( J: 00 ~ :ce~
e 0 m OmZ .N " ~ - m ~
~ E UoZ 0 m . ~
" <( '" ,,'" "- .c ~ U'J ~
0::: ~ 00000 '" ~.n i" O&o;{:Q
N 3 0 ~..c .-- <( ~
';;; m '" lij-:a ~ ii)
0 0 ~ " " " >-"- 0
<( >- " 5 ~ 5 ., c . 15
U. " C ~ ~'" E~rolO
c 0 ~ i:iN E 0 ~ Q)~E..o
Z 0 00 0 c "-
.~ " <<":;; 0- U .Q 11)..0 Q) >-
u ~ " ~
ro -~I- ~-" 00 Cll 0 tI) ro
" E 0 i" '" -0-0 " 0; " ..c '- Q) E
a. c 0 00 2 " c ~ ~ "-~
<l: .~ 0 rn ~ " m- .3> "-0 - 00
---' 00 "
ro "'0:: L.. .~ ~ :SlOe 'C
~ .n E ~- o.~ 0 ro
,- ., z'" c- '"
'" ~ ,,~ " '" m L..;!:::"O"U
0 00 ., >-2 "'~ "'- ,S 00'1 Q) C
\" >- ,,; .. Q) t/l .!!! to ~ m o i5 >-::J
" C C "-i:>- ~o o""O-E..Z
i: 0 "'~'" _-0 <( m ro
'" >-" :<CI)" 0 c >-" .~ ~~.!!!~
3 -E ~ " ~
00 o=rn -a .Q o -0 c
ro ~ ~ ,,<( '" :e ~ c-- ~
0 o C om
CI) '0 " ~ 8(1)::0 c..tt; 3 >- -;;;
00 00 00 CI) ~ 0;- 0"0.. ID ro
"- m '" ~-"~ 00 > i: Q.lE~E
" 3" 0
'" ~ " " gs8 E~ 0 ~ ro .cOE_
:;; I- 0: E 1-- CI)'" 0 I-'- U ._ 0
>-'
~,
3
CI),
.0
<f)
.a
'"
s'
0 6
~
Z ;;; '"
W "
" 'c
c.:> E ::l
6 0-
W 15 m
...J ~ m "
;;; . "
a. e ;C U)
<l: 2
-=
~ '0
'" -"
. <5
;C U)
.
:0
-"
'. m m
> m >-
m C m
<5 '" .
t) ~
C U ~ m m
" C f m u U
u m . . m m
00 '3 0 0
. m .. << <<
;;; m m c E " 0
m m -" << " ..
15 ~ .og m . ~ . '" u
0 <3 e 0 1i5 C '. E U) 0
Z ;; 0 ~ << ::l " ~
0
. ;; m
u- . "
.. u- 0
U 0- f ~ ~
" ., . m
C ,
<5 ;; m
0- s: >=
00'
'"
o
5'
o
ill
0::
./'C.
<0 <0 <0
~ot::~CIlC3uuo
C
..
m
~DDGillDDIQ
U)
'"
~
=>
ro
z'
dll~
~\
-,'
Date Received
FEB 1 5 2011
Original Submittal,
. .
Hydrologic Soil Group-lane County Area, Oregon
.
S1ST-52ND & MAIN STREET REDEVELOPMENT
Hydrologic Soil Group
Hydrologic Soil Group- Summary by Map Unit - Lane County Area, Oregon
Map unit symbol -I Map unit name I Rating I Acres in ACt 1 Percent of AD I
119 ) Salem-Urban land complex : B 1.5 ! 100.0%
Totals for Area of Interest
1.5 i
100.0%
Description
Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are
assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the
soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation
from long-duration storms.
The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and
three dual classes (AID, BID, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows:
Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly
wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or
gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission.
Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These
consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained
soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils
have a moderate rate of water transmission.
Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist
chiefty of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or
soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water
transmission.
Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff.potential) when
thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell
potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer
at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material.
These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission.
If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (AID, BID, or CID), the first letter is
for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their
natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes.
Rating Options
Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition
Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified
Tie-break Rule: Lower
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
USDA
""--
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
Original Submittal
12/1/2010
PaDf~ 3 of3.
.
.
Storm Drainage Evaluation
51"-52'd 8: Main Street Redevelopment - Option B
Appendix B
Infiltration Testing Report
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
Original Submittal
.
.
Project Name: 013 0 Yl-to. fn 5l-"4-b- C> 'K
Project No.: 0D( -1>'1 _
Project Location: S IU Pfc-,U2. j <;f,;ncl[fclC).
Date ofField Work: !'({sIIO
Comments: tx...~k. r'n.ulSvK..o/u..Y\.rS WHr:r
r I" t I' - [,
o~ ~D 'frO}\li 6,,\ lx>.\ /r"'t t# \(..e:
,-
r. ':ool\-
"
lev't.i bvn,-qht b"d,- w , [0,4-1 ~-,el--':(f(!
(~~ig;) hdovJ -f-vp of-. f;-{l<-) ~r
,,', ','" "JI1'l--u-ttv'V(
If i :~. I /:_. ",
, ,
".' ,.),
IniIltration Test No. 0 Depth If Diameter J Vol.ofPresat. I t:-~L
Soil Description: ,.,; fll P,. ~
U1- & ,rr-tt" O~...., c>"", SILl> ~/S/'T.
11.- TV
to, ~tt r
,.f. ~ ~i'\. t.PAI
7'?-.-
"-...)"V
~
Depth to Water
"2 'J,/~ .!
'.
-6:=- ()
Vol. of Water Added
Time Time El&j3Sed
'--
Inmtration Test No.
Soil Description:
Depth
Diameter
Vol. of Presat.
Time Time EJa sed
'2- :40 Pi''> 101"1' n
De th to Water
~n
'"' "
jJ-;'OJ/1--r;
Vol. ol/Water Added
5N11)
./ .
!'h. f" pc
D~ Du~h {---
XT"
,I
'7- ",It
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
Original Submittal
II
. .
B r!.... r ""-
Project Narne: 0 'v iV\Cf,;'f' ",h.~,-.\ ",.-C
Project No.: OV,-I,Cj
Project Location: ::; I'';' '{l(v.<.<.. f rV,C-"f', Sf f!d\
Date ofField Work: ! i ('3 {Io
Comments: 5,u. DC{ I
\ ,
Infiltration Test No. Z. Depth
Soil Description:
Diameter
Vol. of Pres at.
Time Time Elapsed
"..., =~,;,. ~M 1 () llJ\"; ~
1. ~':;;.""T i- ....
Depth to Water
'2. I in },!
__i !~
A - ....,,,.-"
~ __ O.!
VoJ. of Water Added ,'\.
(~(~ ~r\F'? _ 7~!:t!~"-)
\
0'" S-H
JZ:.
brovqht-
Infiltration Test No. 3 Depth
Soil Description:
Diameter
Vol. of Presat.
Time Time Elapsed
;. t 00 ~l"i" . to ,'If, ;r,
Depth to Water
VoL of Water Added
,...../~;". '~/f~" t?"1 ...e~ &--i .~ \ \.
- . ~~ -- l q#~; }
; "~,,.: ...
. i .
.. t I
-J f't;
I'
b:. D'le;
v1~ ""
Ot"l\; I" p'(.f. broul\....\-- 'l
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
Original submittal
t-c. L "J/€{f
-k>
, -<!v.l.l
'2. 7 r,
'2 /<
.0
.
Project Name: OlD 111\.-;" C;'t.<;:;~
Project No.: (')1l;-fS-~ I
Project Location: "I S.... P \'-.t~ ) S i?f 10'
Date ofField Work: \ 1/3' {(a
Comments: ~ pq I
Infiltration Test No. tf Depth
Soil Description:
Diameter
Vol. of Pres at.
....(,: U)
."
~ - -.
\O"^.\f'.
. Depth to Water
":. ~ j::i V
"
b;::'O,I)
Vol. of Water Added
43-.
Time Time Elapsed
!_;..
"
0\.\.;lL~
o "S"') tverlj
Ii) fM ~n,)"c5 - 4 s 1-'" c-~ hI.'" I ~ +\ l'tn;.. \
{l..v'''~
----------
Infiltration Test No.
Soil Description:
Depth
Diameter
Vol. of Pres at.
Time Time Elapsed
Depth to Water
Vol. of Water Added
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
Origlnal,submittal
3/
.
.
Storm Drainage Evaluation
51 st_52nd ft Main Street Redevelopment - Option B
Appendix C
Proposed Drainage Basin Map
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
Original submittal
~ ~
~E-t ~
Q.,~~ o~
~ ~CQ~~o
;2;-~~ 0 ~t";)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ="
Q:q~OOS>-~
~~~~~~~
~~~E-f~~;;il
:"l: '"\L ~ t"I ~ ~ Cj
~lO~C~~CI)
~ I ~ ~~
~E-c~ CI)
t"J)~
-t
lO
~.
~
0
l!J .
c.J
>=i
). ......
b.O
< >=i
Cii ......
<l w 0 ....
(J) -.J r0 C1)
UJ <t C1)
'" u >=i
~ (fJ ......
Lf) b.O
<l "-" .U - >=i
a: I """
a 0..
~ <t ..c::
I a:: 0
(') c.J
I ~
ts I
I ~
I ....
~ I IJ:l
~ I
~
(J)
l()
-
" .;
.~ :z:
:::: 4J g
o = M
=....
.... ~ co
~ .:; = f:::
'0) ~ ~~ ~
~ I.:: e:: I 8 .~
,~o~ o~
~US_. ~.s
c;;;.;t] ~~
en ~ en ~ 'C=
.2: ~~
Q) ~<1l -
o '~" ~.
!::Q) ~o' E
S; a:: ~if! ~
= Q) ::l
o ... . en
~:f~ Q:l~ cu
~ b c581 =' 8 c
~ CI').,; I c::: '0
1~~~ ~ (5
1J~ -::;- .
~ ~ p.,;{I; ~
=MCI')_ Q
..
.~
~
'"
I
01
o
"*'"
f-..
~
...,
o
Q::
Q
-\
i I i ,j l .LS pflZg ~ ~ ~ eJ _...".....
. ~"; "" , I ._~ /."'.. '. ".'_n. -"S" t-
o " .... '1 _ -..':3....
Ii. . .,. __ _....._,.... I._,~.~..~..," .
ii, . .... . 7 !....:: ~"'" . ---:-. -.. . !,.,.. ... __>"-,' _ "
I J "w// V// (/V///v'/'~V/7//////'l
1.- W~f/////Y/;;1. "X';<V//J/,//~//,{,f/LL/;
Ii. 1'$// 'i 8 ??~v0//~~; J-/;/' .~;~/~~.j /w;:%:;
I! i l ////;~0////"//d/(."/j // v~ '~/h
H -;V/ ";0. >AW;;jv~~'i~/,~ /~~I~'/~
:il~ / ~ / //;// /J/]7W~ /;% 0~1)/ /
'1,1._111,.." ~~,>~Z:'X~///.u ;L ~L;././, ~ / . /:t; / / V~t'/0.~"/
. ............. . . t- -" w. ..::.. / / v/./ U /"/7 -/?~/ r / /
,0 IT
> -"'-'" :<:: :<:: j,,1I // /~1/ /J"~C/)c:iV~ /~.(/ / '"
i II ~ "'- '\.,~a~~h. /' / /.1', v ~~::!: II /V~ / /U~I/ / /
i I i j~:~:~'Y;; /7//:-/@V:;7~U~~~0~~~~
· II ~"'i~~~~%kt~:,/~'-7~~~> ~,
! ~Q ~ '~NI/;~~J0~t;'l///6' ////It)~ / / /; ~~ .
I II \.\\~~'-.. >P'777-f/7':;/:/:/ / / /I/~,/ 7/ /JS / /./ / // ~'.
II U. ... J ./ /." '\, " " " ,,'-.. ~ '-...~ 7/ / ///r// /.0'6'// / /-:,.r<//,
j. / ~./ V / / / A"-"- " "- ,,~ "- '-.. ">~...l // H / / fl7.7/7//. . ~ ,/ ^</
II 'LL~%///' CO '//i:i"'-.."'-~~~~~~7(~1'~;~/~6'i/,~~
~ 2:a~~'lA~~~\~,,\..'h ////I'/'X' -:Y/!W~.// /
'II/,/, 0 ~.~0i~'-::"~~~///~/>:/Ld///"'L//)
.! I: i ' ';~M~~~~~~~;~~~~!!
I :~, / I'"" .l../.. .,c_-:::/.../~ 1'\111"-", "" ~~ '\ ~ ' / /IV, ..( / //'.,./
~ j I ~>> ~ X ::::;: " IJF V ". V / 7 / ~ /
:!. . ~~!'~~~~ ~ ~r/R/.0&//j0/%
~: TI' <<~~~ 2:~~~,,>','~~~~~'~~ , 'I
"- ! Ii' l"'- '-...10-: \.. ~~ ~ co ~ ,,~ '\Q"; ~~ ~ __ ~~I" ~~ r-
~ I ' I~ '" I~." ~ '\~~ ~ ~ ~ ">~F~:'-..~ [~ ~,,~ "~ ~
~ 1j 0\ ::-.:~: :0; 1 ~ ~ F~~~ ,," ;~'\:~;;$~, '
~ : !; il~ ~,' '..J "- ~ ~~~o ~ 2 f0~~~ ~~ ~ "- \;I~I~
~: i 10' ~""-~, "<",- ">,'" , :~1~~'".' -\,-~,,, ~::~;>.;,,'\,
~ :': ~ "- '.. '.'" ~ "'''''l "~' ~,,> '<~___ "I~'-..
!----M (\ '~"~," " <- "-,'< ,"<:"><~ ~<:\ ~~~':,~ I'N"
' ~&:" '\ "<'0~~' h), ;."~ !:;:',,> ' ~~"'&~ J<'
! I j ,. '1-.. ,,~"'::"". '" I' ;....4~ "'~ >,> " "" '
' ~"- ~~~itJ, ">~ ~ ... [,<~",<,,~ Z ", ~ ~
I I. ~. . , , ". \. ~.~. . ~. '.
'.'. I ~ '. <"' .... on ..... ..: ~~6..': ':N'-" ,; ." 'Iii .
... ; I' ...,..........:.. ....... . .... ...... .... . Q
[ Ii ; \'\1'\'>",~, -'c'" . ._.~ .:~~ 7d~:_1=-__ .........,'::~.~~_:.~,:~.',~:..~.;".,.,..,:..'"' '"--' '.
( . ,:I 'I'-~--............ '-'-"'-'. '-'. I... _._. . ......,..'...'.___.._".,..,,_._,-.; -.X" " .. ."'-.:::.."
[ -I .;+r-==- -!---. -; w.J--=-- . ,"'7' \-\''''''':''''':.:D''''''"''Y'''-~:'''\-<:--l'~ 'S::::; ',",', . . . . , ""':- \
'\-
'b
~
<?
----
~
.
Storm Drainage Evaluation
51"-52"d ft Main Street Redevelopment - Option B
.
Appendix D
Stormwater Runoff & Infiltration Basin Sizing Calculations
Date Received:
FEB 1 5. 2011
Original Submittal
.
.
Storm Drainage Evaluation
51".52od 8: Main Street Redevelopment - Option B
Infiltration Basin A - Water Quality Storm
******************** 5.C.5. TYPE-IA DISTRIBUTION *******************
** * *** *** I-YEAR 24 -HOUR STORM * *** .83" TOTAL PREel P. * * ** * * *
ENTER: A(PERV), CN(PERV), A(IMPERV), CN(IMPERV), TC FOR BASIN NO. ~
0.09,61,0.34,98,10
DATA PRINT-OUT:
AREA (ACRES) . PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES)
A CN A CN
.4 .1 61. 0 .3 98.0 10.0
PEAK-Q (CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL (CU-FT)
.06 7.83 773
ENTER [do] [path]fi1ename[.ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-wqaa.dev
RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE
SPECIFY Cd:] [path]fi1ename[.extJ OF ROUTING DATA
09159aa.rd
DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N)?
y
ROUTING DATA:
STAGE (FT)
494.00
494.25
"494.50
494.75
495.00
495.25
495.50
495.75
496. DO
496.25
496.50
DISCHARGE (CFS)'
.00
.02
.03
.03
.04
.04
.05
.05
.06
.59
1. 56
AVERAGE PERM-RATE:
STORAGE (CU-FT)
.0
106.0
242.0
410.0
611.0
843.0
1098.0
1377.0
1685.0
2023.0
2392.0
.0 MINUTES !INCH
PERM-AREA (SQ-FT)
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
ENTER [d:] [path] filename [ . ext] OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-wqaa.dev
INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS:
PEAK-INFLOW (CFS) PEAK-OUTFLQW(CFS)
.06 .02
INITIAL-STAGE (FT) TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS)
.00 8.33
PEAK STORAGE: 130 CU-FT
OUTFLOW-VOL (CU-FT)
830
PEAK-STAGE-ELEV(FT)
494.30
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
Original submittal
.
.
Infiltration Basin A - 2 Year Storm
Storm Drainage Evaluation
51st-52"d fi: Main Street Redevelopment - Option B
******************** 3.C.5. TYPE-IA DISTRIBUTION ******~************
********* 2-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** 3.30" TOTAL PRECIP. *******
ENTER: A(PERV), CN(PERV), A(IMPERV), CN(IMPERV), TC FOR BASIN NO. 1
0.09,61,0.34,98,10
DATA PRINT-OUT:
AREA (ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES)
A CN A CN
.4 .1 61.0 _3 98.0 10.0
PEAK-Q (CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL (CU-FT)
.26 7.83 3942
ENTER [do] [path]filename[.ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-2aa.dev
RESERVOIR ROOTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE
SPECIFY [do ] [path] filename [.ext] OF" ROUTING DATA
09159aa.rd
DISPLAY ROOTING DATA (Y or N)?
y
ROOTING DATA:
STAGE(FT)
494.00
494_25
494.50
494.75
495.00
495.25
495.50
495.75
496.00
496.25
496.50
DISCHARGE (CFS)
.00
_02
.03
.03
.04
.04
.05
.05
.06
.59
1. 55
STORAGE (CO-FT)
.0
97.0
223.0
379.0
5'68.0
786.0
1026.0
1290.0
1578.0
1891. 0
2229.0
AVERAGE PERM-RATE:
.0 MINOTES/INCH
PERM-AREA (SQ-FT)
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
. ".','."".,
ENTER [d:] [path] filename [.ext] OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-2aa.dev
INFLOW/OOTFLOW ANALYSIS:
PEAK- INFLOW (CFS) " PEAK-OUTFLOW (CFS)
.26 .05
INITIAL-STAGE (FT) TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS)
.00 10.83
PEAK STORAGE: 1140 CO-FT
OUTFLOW-VOL (CO-FT)
3903
PEAK-STAGE-ELEVIFT)
495.61
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
Original Submittal
.
Storm Drainage Evaluation
51 "_52od fr Main Street Redevelopment - Option B
.
Inmtration Basin A -10 Year Storm
******************** S.C.S. TYPE-1A DISTRIBUTION *******************
* ** * ** * * * lO-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM * * * * 4.30" TOTAL PRECI P. * * **** *
ENTER: A(PERV), CN(PERV), A(IMPERV), CN(IMPERV), TC FOR BASIN NO. 1
0.09,61,0.34,98,10
DATA PRINT-OUT:
AREA (ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES)
A CN A CN
.4 .1 61.0 .3 98.0 10.0
PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT)
.35 7.83 5330
ENTER [d:] [path]filename[.ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-10aa.dev
RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE
SPECIFY [do] [path]filename[.ext] OF ROUTING DATA
09159aa.rd .
DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N)?
y
ROUTING DATA:
STAGE(FT)
494.00
494.25
494.50
494.75
495.00
495.25
495.50
495.75
496.00
496.25
496.50
DISCHARGE (CFS)
.00
.02
.03
.03
.04
.04
.05
.05
.06
.59
1. 55
STORAGE (CU-FT)
.0
97.0
223.0
379.0
568.0
786.0
1026.0
1290.0
1578.0
1891. 0
2229.0
PERM-AREA (SQ-FT)
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
AVERAGE PERM-RATE:
.0 MINUTES !INCH
ENTER [do] [path]filename[.ext] OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-10aa.dev
INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS:
.PEAK-INFLOW(CFS) PEAK-OUTFLOW (CFS)
.35 .08
OUTFLOW-VOL (CU-FT).
5322
INITIAL-STAGE (FT) TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS)
.00 10.67
PEAK-STAGE-ELEV(FT)
496.01
PEAK STORAGE: 1690 CU-FT
Date Received:
FEB 1 52011
Original submittal
.
.
Storm Drainage Evaluation
51"-52od a Main Street Redevelopment - Option B
InfIltration Basin A - 25 Year Storm
******************** 5.C.8. TYPE-1A DISTRIBUTION *******************
********* 25-YEAR 24-HODR STORM **** 4.80" TOTAL PRECIP. *******
ENTER: A(PERV), CN(PERV), A(IMPERV), CN(IMPERV), TC FOR BASIN NO. 1
0.09,61,0.34,98,10
DATA PRINT-OUT:
AREA (ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES)
A CN A CN
.4 .1 61.0 .3 98.0 10.0
PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK (HRS) VOL (CU-FT)
.40 7.83 6037
ENTER Cd:] [path]filename[.ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-25aa.dev
RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE
SPECIFY [do] [path]filename[.ext] OF ROUTING DATA
09159aa.rd
DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N)?
y
ROUTING DATA:
STAGE (FT)
494.00
494.25
494.50
494.75
495.00
495.25
495.50
495.75
496.00
496.25
496.50
DI SCHARGE (CFS)
.00
.02
.03
.03
.04
.04
.05
.05
.06
.59
1.55
STORAGE (CU-FT)
.0
97.0
223.0
379.0
568.0
786.0
1026.0
1290.0
1578.0
1891.0
2229.0
AVERAGE PERM-RATE:
.0 MINUTES/INCH
PERM-AREA (SQ-FT)
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
ENTER [do] [path]filename[.ext] OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-25aa.dev
INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS:
PEAK-INFLOW (CFS) PEAK-OUTFLOW (CFS)
.40 .14
INITIAL-STAGE (FT) TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS)
.00 8.67
PEAK STORAGE: 1730 CU-FT
OUTFLOW-VOL (CU-FT)
6041
PEAK-STAGE-ELEV(FT)
496.04
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
Original Submittal
.
Storm Drainage Evaluation
51"-52"d ft Main Street Redevelopment - Option B
.
Inmtration Basin B - Water Quality Storm
******************** s.c.s. TYPE-IA DISTRIBUTION *******************
********* I-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** .83" TOTAL PRECIP. *******
ENTER: A(PERV), CN(PERV), A(IMPERV), CN(IMPERV), TC FOR BASIN NO. 1
0.04,61,0.09,98,10
DATA PRINT-OUT:
. AREA (ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES)
A CN A CN
.1 .0 61. 0 .1 98.0 10.0
PEAK-Q (CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL (CU-FT)
.01 7.83 204
ENTER Cd:] [path]filename[.ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-WQBB.DEV
RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE
SPECIFY [do] [path]filename[.ext] OF ROUTING DATA
09159BB.RD
DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N)?
Y
ROUTING DATA:
STAGE (FT)'
496.00
496.25
496.50
496.75
497.00
497.25
DISCHARGE (CFS)
.00
.01
.02
.02
.02
.55
STORAGE (CU-FT)
.0
63.0
141. 0
235.0
345.0
472.0
PERM-AREA (SQ-FT)
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
AVERAGE PERM-RATE:
.0 MINUTES/INCH
ENTER [do] [path]filename[.ext] OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-WQBB.DEV
INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS:
PEAK-INFLQW(CFS) PEAK-QUTFLOW(CFS)
.01 .01
OUTFLOW-VOL (CU-FT)
47
INITIAL-STAGE (FT) TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS)
.00 '8.50
PEAK-STAGE-ELEV (FT)
, 496.13
PEAK STORAGE:
30 CU-FT
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
Original Submittal
.
.
Storm Drainage Evaluation
51"-52"d 8: Main Street Redevelopment - Option B
Inmtration Basin cB - 2 Year Storm
******************** $.C.5. TYPE-IA DISTRIBUTION *******************
********* 2-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** 3.30" TOTAL PRECIP. *******
ENTER: A(PERV), CN(PERV), A(IMPERV), CN(IMPERV), TC FOR BASIN NO. 1
0.04,61,0.09,98,10
DATA PRINT-OUT:
AREA (ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES)
A CN A CN
.1 .0 61. 0 .1 98.0 10.0
PEAK-Q(CFS) T- PEAK (HRS) VOL (CU-FT)
.07 7.83 1071
ENTER [do] [path]fi1ename[.ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-2BB.DEV
RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE
SPECIFY [do] [path]fi1ename[.ext] OF ROUTING DATA
09159BB.RD
DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N)?
Y
ROUTING DATA:
STAGE(FT)
496.00
496.25
496.50
496.75
497.00
497.25
DISCHARGE (CFS)
.00
.01
.02
.02
.c02
.55
STORAGE (CU-FT)
.0
63.0
141.0
235.0
345.0
472.0
PERM-AREA (SQ-FT)
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
AVERAGE PERM-RATE:
.0 MINUTES/INCH
ENTER [d:] [path] filename [ . ext] OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-2BB.DEV
INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS:
PEAK-INFLOW (CFS) PEAK-OUTFLOW (CFS)
.07 .02
OUTFLOW-VOL (CU-FT)
1079
INITIAL-STAGE (FT) TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS)
.00 8.67
PEAK-STAGE-ELEV(FT)
496.73
PEAK STORAGE:
220 CU-FT
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
Original Submittal
.
Storm Drainage Evaluation
51st_52od 8: Main Street Redevelopment - Option B
.
Infiltration Basin B-1 0 Year Storm
******************** 8.C.8. TYPE-IA DISTRIBUTION *******************
* * * * * * *** IO-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM ** * * 4.30" TOTAL PRECIP. * * ** ** *
ENTER: A(PERV), CN(PERV), A(IMPERV), CN(IMPERV), TC FOR BASIN NO. 1
0.04,61,0.09,98,10
DATA PRINT-OUT:
AREA (ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES)
A CN A CN
.1 .0 61. 0 .1 98.0' 10.0
PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL (CU-FT)
.10 7.83 1~ 67
ENTER.[d:] [path]filename[.ext] FOR STORAGE OF ,COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-10BB.DEV
RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE
SPECIFY [do] [path]filename[.ext] OF ROUTING DATA
09159BB.RD
DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N)?
Y
ROUTING DATA:
STAGE (FT)
496.00
496.25
496.50
496.75
497.00
497.25
DISCHARGE (CFS)
.00
.01
.02
.02
.02
.55
STORAGE (CU-FT)
.0
63.0
141. 0
235.0
345.0
472.0
PERM-AREA (SQ-FT)
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
AVERAGE PERM-RATE:
.0 MINUTES/INCH
"..,.,.
ENTER Ed:] [path]filename[.ext] OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-10BB.DEV
INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS:
PEAK-INFLow (CFS) PEAK-OUTFLOW (CFS)
.10 .02
OUTFLOW-VOL (CU-FT)
1386
INITIAL-STAGE (FT) TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS)
.00 9.00
PEAK-STAGE-ELEV(FT)
'496.99
PEAK STORAGE:
330 CU-FT
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
Original Submittal
.
.
Storm Drainage Evaluation
51"-52od ft Main Street Redevelopment - Option B
Inrdtration Basin B - 25 Year Storm
******************** 5.C.8. TYPE-IA DISTRIBUTION *******************
********* 25-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** 4.80" TOTAL PRECIP. *******
ENTER: A(PERV), CN(PERV), A(IMPERV), CN(IMPERV), TC FOR BASIN NO. 1
0.04,61,0.09,98,10
DATA PRINT-OUT:
AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES)
A CN A CN
.1 .0 61. 0 .1 98.0 10.0
PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL (CU-FT)
.11 7.83 1671
ENTER [do] [path] filename [.ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-25BB.DEV
RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE
SPECIFY [do] [path]fi1ename[.ext] OF ROUTING DATA
09159BB.RD
DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N)?
Y
ROUTING DATA:
STAGE(FT)
496.00
496.25
496.50
496.75
497.00
497.25
DISCHARGE (CFS)
.00
.01
.02
.02
.02
.55
STORAGEICU-FT)
.0
63.0
141.0
235.0
345.0
472.0
PERM-AREA (SQ-FT)
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
AVERAGE PERM-RATE:
.0 MINUTES/INCH
ENTER [d:] [path] filename [ . ext] OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-25BB.DEV
INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS:
PEAK-I~(CFS) PEAK-OUTFLOW (CFS)
.11 .04
OUTFLOW-VOL (CU-FT)
1597
INITIAL-STAGE (FT) TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS)
.00 8.50
PEAK-STAGE-ELEV(FT)
. 497.01
PEAK STORAGE:
340 CU-FT
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
Original Submittal
.
Storm Drainage Evaluation
51".52"d &: Main Street Redevelopment - Option B
.
Infiltration Basin C - Water Quality Storm
******************** S.C.S. TYPE-1A DISTRIBUTION *******************
********* I-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** .83" TOTAL PRECIP. *******
ENTER: A(PERV), CN (PERV), .A(IMPERV), CN (IMPERV), TC FOR BASIN NO. 1
0.01,61,0.07,98,10
DATA PRINT-OUT:
AREA (ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES)
A CN A CN
.1 .0 61. 0 .1 98.0 10.0
PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL (CU-FT)
.01 7.83 159
ENTER [d:] [path]fi1ename[.ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-wqbc.dev
RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE
SPECIFY [d:] [path]fi1ename[.ext] OF ROUTING DATA
09159bc.rd
DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N)?
y
ROUTING DATA:
STAGE(FT)
495.75
496.00
496.25
496.50
496.75
497.00
DISCHARGE (CFS)
.00
.01
.01
.01
.01
.37
STORAGE (CU-FT)
.0
39.0
88.0
147.0
218.0
301. 0
PERM-AREA (SQ-FT)
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
",.-.;-'-".-
AVERAGE PERM-RATE:
. 0 MINUTES/INCH
ENTER [d:] [path]fi1ename[.ext] OF COMPUTEO HYDROGRAPH:
159-wqbc.dev
INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS:
PEAK-INFLQW(CFS) PEAK-OUTFLOW (CFS)
.01 .00
OUTFLOW-VOL (CU-FT)
29
INITIAL-STAGE (FT) TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS)
.00 8.33
PEAK-STAGE-ELEV(FT)
495. B7
PEAK STORAGE:
10 CU-FT
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
Original.Submittal
.
Storm Drainage Evaluation
51"-52"d & Main Street Redevelopment - Option B
.
InfIltration Basin C - 2 Year Storm
******************** S.C.S. TYPE-1A DISTRIBUTION *******************
********* 2-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** 3.30" TOTAL PRECIP, *******
ENTER: A(PERV), CN(PERV), A (IMPERV), CN(IMPERV), TC FOR BASIN NO. 1
0.01,61,0.07,98,10
DATA PRINT-OUT:
AREA (ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC (MINUTES)
A CN A CN
.1 _0 61. 0 .1 98.0. 10.0
PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL (CU-FT)
.05 7.83 796
ENTER [d:] [path] filename [.ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
l59-2bc.dev
RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE
SPECIFY [d:] [path]filename[.ext] OF ROUTING DATA
09159bc.rd
DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N)?
y
ROUTING DATA:
STAGE (FT)
495.75
496.00
496,25
496.50
496.75
497.00
DISCHARGE (CFS)
.00
.01
.01
.01
.01
.37
STORAGE (CU-FT)
.0
39.0
88.0
14.7.0
218.0
301. 0
PERM-AREA (SQ-FT)
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
AVERAGE PERM-RATE:
.0 MINUTES/INCH
ENTER [d:] [path]fi1ename[.ext] OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-2bc.dev
INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS:
PEAK,- INFLOW (CFS) PEAK-OUTFLOW (CFS)
.05 .01
OUTFLOW-VOL (CU-FT)
882
INITIAL-STAGE (FT) TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS)
.00 8.83
PEAK-STAGE-ELEV(FT)
.496.56
PEAK STORAGE:
170 CU-FT
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
Original Submittal
.
Storm Drainage Evaluation
51st_52od tt Main Street Redevelopment - Option B
.
InfIltration Basin C -10 Year Storm
******************** 5.C.5. TYPE-IA DISTRIBUTION *******************
********* IO-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** 4.301t TOTAL PRECIP. *******
ENTER: A(PERV), CN(PERV), A(IMPERV), CN(IMPERV), TC FOR BASIN NO. 1
0.01,61,0.07,98,10
DATA PRINT-OUT:
AREA (ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES)
A CN A CN
.1 .0 61. 0 .1 98.0 10.0
PEAK-Q (CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL (CU-FT)
.07 7.83 1067
ENTER [do] [path]filename[.ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-10bc.dev
RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE
SPECIFY Cd:] [path] filename [.ext] OF ROUTING DATA
09159bc.rd
DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N)?
y
ROUTING DATA:
STAGE(FT)
495.75
496.00
496.25
496.50
496.75
497.00
DISCHARGE (CFS)
.00
.01
.01
.01
.01
.37
STORAGE (CU-FT)
.0
39.0
88.0
147.0
218.0
301.0
PERM-AREA (SQ-FT)
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
AVERAGE PERM-RATE:
.0 MINUTES/INCH
ENTER Cd:] [path]filename[.ext] OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-10bc.dev
INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS:
PEAK-INFLOW (CFS) PEAK-OUTFLOW (CFS)
.07 .05
OUTFLOW-VOL (CU-FT)
1098
INITIAL-STAGE (FT) TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS)
.00 8.17
PEAK-STAGE-ELEV(FT)
.496.78
PEAK STORAGE:
220 CU-FT
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
Original submittal
.
Storm Drainage Evaluation
51".52"d &; Main Street Redevelopment. Option B
.
IntIItration Basin C - 25 Year Storm
******************** S.C.S. TYPE-1A DISTRIBUTION *******************
********* 25-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** 4.80" TOTAL PRECIP. *******
ENTER: A(PERV), CN(PERV), A(IMPERV), CN(IMPERV), TC FOR BASIN NO. 1
0.01,61,0.07,98,10
DATA PRINT-OUT:
AREA (ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES)
A CN A CN
.1 .0 61.0 .1 98.0 10.0
PEAK-Q (CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL (CU-FT)
.08 7.83 1204
ENTER [do] [path] filename [.ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-25bc.dev
RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE
SPECIfY [do] [path]fi1ename[.ext] OF ROUTING DATA
09159bc.rd
DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N)?
y
ROUTING DATA:
STAGE(FT)
495.75
496.00
496.25
496.50
496.75
497.00
DISCHARGE (CFS)
.00
.01
.01
.01
.01
.37
STORAGE (CU-fT)
.0
39.0
88.0
147.0
218.0
301. 0
PERM-AREA (SQ-FT)
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
AVERAGE PERM-RATE:
.0 MINUTES !INCH
ENTER [do] [path]fi1ename[.extJ OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-25bc.dev
INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS:
PEAK-INFLOW (CFS) PEAK-OUTFLOW (CFS)
.08 . .07
OUTFLOW-VOL (CU-FT)
1236
INITIAL-STAGE (FT) TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS)
.00 8.00
PEAK-STAGE-ELEV(FT)
.496.79
PEAK. STORAGE:
230 CU-FT
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
Original submittal
.
Storm Drainage Evaluation
51 "_52od ft Main Street Redevelopment - Option B
.
Appendix E
Vegetated Infiltration Basin and
Double Chambered Catch Basins with Fossil Filter Insert
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
Origin,al Submittal
.
I(
9 F1 1.11NIMUM
1
FOR PARKING LOTS
TIRE STOPS. OR .
CURBS W/CVTS
12~x12w CLEAR FLOW
AREA AT CUTOlITS
2"
3:1 MAX.
SIDE SLOPES
(lYP.)
~
2 n
FLAT BOTTOM
OVERFLOW
ElEVAT10i'l
SEE SW-'50 FOR PIPING J
CONFlGURATION.
\,$.~):')>~\ \:>- .
g"-18-
(SEE NOTE 28)
.,
'8"
12" (SEE NOTE 6)
1
FILlER FABRIC,
SEE NOTE 7
EXISTING 'SUBGRADE
1. Provide protection from all vehicle traffic, equipment staging,
and foot traffic in proposed infiltration areas prior to, during,
and after construction.
2. Dimensions:
a. Width of basin: g' minimum.
b. Depth of basin (from top of growing medium to
overtlow elevation); Simplified: 12", Presumptive:
9".18".
c. Flat bottom width: 2' min.
d. Side slopes of basin: 3: 1 maximum.
6. Drain rock:
8. Size for infiltration basin: 1}12" -:lj." washed
b. Size for flow-through basin: :X" washed
c. Depth for Simplified: 12-
d. Depth for Presumptive: 0-48d, see calcs.
7. Separation between drain rock and growing medium:
Use filter fabric (see SWMM'Exhibit 2-5) or
a gravel lens (~- % inch washed, crushed rock 2 to 3 inches
deep).
3. Setbacks (from midpoint of facility):
a. Infiltration basins must be 10' from foundations and
5' from property lines.
b. Flow-through swales must be lined with connection
to approved discharge point according to SWMM
Section 1.3.
8. Growing medium:
a. 18d minimum
b. See Appendix F.3 for specification or use
sand/loam/compost 3-way mix.
4_ Overflow:
a. Overflow required for Simplified Approach.
b, Inlet elevation must allow for 2" of freeboard,
minimum.
c. Protect from debris and sediment with strainer or
grate.
9. Vegetation: Follow landscape plans otherwise refer to'.piant
list in SV\fMM Appendix F. ~inimum container size is 1
gallon. # of plantings per 1 OOsf of facility area):
a. Zone A (wet); 115 herbaceous plants OR 100
herbaceous plants and 4 shrubs
b. Zone B (moderate,to dry): 1 tree AND 3 large
shrubs AND 4 medium to small shrubs.
The delineation between Zone A and B shall be either at the
outlet elevation or the check'dam elevation, Whichever is
lowest.
5. Piping: shall be ABS SchAD, cast iron, or PVC SchAD. 3n
pipe required for up to 1,500 sq ft of impervious area,
otherwise 4. min. Piping must have 1% grade andfoltow the
Uniform Plumbing C?de.
10. Install washed pea gravel or river rock to transition from
, inlets a~d splash pad to growing medium.
11. Inspections: .Call BOS IVR,lnspection line, (503) 823-7000,
for appropriate inspectionSDate Received:
'-.:',;
.',
~
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MANUAL TYPICAL DETAILS
. Simplified I Presumptive Design Approach. Original Su mittal
NUMBER
Basin
SW-140
- Bureau of Environmental Services
.
53"
..
I'Ll
o
~
"
; ._.~
;; j
i,
; .
Ii'
i ,
~
C\l
ji
I] .
;
If.
aUTLET
48" LONG
.Ill :
I-
PLAN VIEW
SILT & DEBRIS
CaNTAINMENT AREA
L2~x2~x&
FRAME
53"
HIGH
FLaw
BYP ASS
'zf
~~
-:::;;
-,..
OUTLET
r-_
...",
~
~
z
~
:::;;
[
. I
f -SEDIMENT TRAf -l-' .
lw/ HINGED I
UD : SEDIMENT
: TRAP
I
~
N
I..
REPLACEABLE
ABsaRBENT
Po.UCHES ISOMETRIC
48"
..
SIDE VIEW
...
.
FLaGARD ™
FILTER INSERT
(MaDEL FGP-24F)
waVEN MESH
FILTER Bo.DY
NOTES:
m
C\l
Bax FABRICATED FROM
10. G A. MA TERrAL
NEaPRENE GASKET
(TWO. SIDES)
DUCTILE IRaN So.UD LID
DUCTILE IRON GRATE
BIKE PROOF, HEAVY
DUTY TRAFFIC GRATE
SUPPo.RTS AASHTa
H25 LOADS
cO
SEDIMENT & HYDROCARBONS FILTRATION SYSTEM
STATE APPROVED - ASPHALT DIPPEJDate Received:
24"x42" - 6"0 OUTLET FEB 152011
SAND COLLECTOR CATCH BASIN Original submittal
PROJ. MAN. DOUG P. DWN. PAUL G. SCALE NONE
DATE: JAN. 23. 06 MODEL: SCBFlo-42HB-6
#
FS
Gibson Steel 'Basins
SINCE 1972
247 Woshington St. Eugene. Or. 97401 ph:(541) 687 - 8672 lox:344-o207
.....
.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
PLAN AND DRAINAGE STUDY
FOR
51st-52nd & Ma . t edeveJopment
OPTION C
February 15, 2011
Prepared For:
TBG Architects
132 E.Broadway, Suite 200
Eugene, OR 97401
Branch Engineering, Inc.
310 5th Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Phone (541) 746-0637
Fax (541) 746-0389
Inc.
Branch Project # 09-159
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
Original submittal
.11/17.(2010 12:09 FAX 541.
II
CITY OF SPRINGFIEL~
@002
. _ . SP."'NGFI.e:L.Dr.;.I,"","'''''.'~
~~ .
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT / Engineering Division Phone: (541) 726-3753 Fax: (541) 736-1021
STORMW A TER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM SCOPE OF WORK
. .. . . - (Area below this line filled out by Appllc(llJt) - ......
(P;easer:eturn to Matt S(o,!der.@City of Springfield Pwblic Works Engineering; Fax # 736-1021, Phone fr73f:/03S.)
Project Name: OBO Enterp.rises, LLC Applicant: Branch Engine<rin~
Assessors Parcel #: 17-02-33-32 TL 6200 & 6300 .Date: 11/03/I0
Laud Use(s): Community Commercial (CC) Phone #: 541-746-0637
Project Size (Acres): 1.5 acres Fax Ii: 541-746-0389
Appro:J.~~exyi~~8 o/_~~: . 1.07 acres Email:
.. .....h.
Project .Descriptiou (Include a copy of Assessor's map):
1.5 acres site with two commercial buildings near Main Street and 8 15 unit apartment building to the south of the
commercial buildings wjth associated landscaping and parking facilities.
.com
:,:...,..:'.:.:,;..-.....
Drainage Proposal (Public connection(s), discharge loeation(s), etc. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary:
West side of the site will drain toward 51" Place and conneetto the existing storm line in the street. The east side of the
site will dniintoward 52"" StIeet and connect to U1e existing storm line in the ,treeL
Proposed Stormwater Best Management Practices: Infiltration basins and planters wilt be used on-site with
overflows and trapped catch basins.
.. ..:.....- u;.:.~ bii.w this line filled out bv I"e Citv and Rerumed io I"e A.Ddliean;) . .. , .... ..
:' .{Ar a m/!1t1?ntm. all qoi.~i clJecked by the City on Jhefront and back ofi.b~:/~h~ee; shqll be iu.b,mitred. "<.'
":./jqi;:{l~ cpplication Co b~ cOl!lpletefor slIbminal. although ,other "~qttir..e'?1'Fn!s.may be ne~e~s~~)..'\. .
.Drainage Study Tvve (E.DSPM Section 4.03.2): INote. VB may be substituted for Rational Method)
o Small Site Study - (u,e Rational Method for calculations)
~ Mid-Level Development Study - (use Unit Hydrograph Method for calculatiDn,)
o Full Drainage Development Study - (use Unit Hydrograph Method for calculatiDns)
Environmental Considerations:
~ Wellhead Zone: 9\ '<tl.....t.,
@ WetlandlRiparian:
I() Soil Type: 11l1- ~ i',,^ ~.,,)()
DO"VIIstream Analvsis: ~
~
o
o
o
~ Hillside Development:
FloodwaylFloodplain:
. Other Jurisdictions:
OD~
N/A
Flow line for starting water surface elevation:
Design HGL to use for starting water surface elevation:
Manhole/Junction to take analysis to:
Qate.-Recei\IArl"
Return to Matt Stooder
736-1021
Original Submittal
~,:::,,~lc.Q.r1 l' "QII"\O
Q "f lt1
.11/17/,2010 12:09 FAX 541 ~
21
CITY OF SPRINGFIE~
~OOJ
COMPLETE STUDY ITEMS I Fo,Offici,1 Use Only: fV1-A'S:
% Based upon the ;nfonnar;on provided on the front Oflhis shf!l!.t. (he. following represents a mini1Jt1!Tn of what is needed for an
application [0 be complete for submittal wilh respeCl to dl-oinage; howfNer. this/is' should not be used in lie" of the Springfield
Developmenl Code (SDC) or the City's Engineering Design Manual. Compliance with these requirements does not constitute sile
approval; Additional sile specific information may be required Note: Upon seoping sheet submittal, e11sure completedform has
been signed in the space provided below: .
~
$
~.
~
~
Interim De.ign StaodardslWatcr Quality (EDSPM Chapter 3)
~~~ .
Iii 0 All non-buildblg rooftop (NBR) impervious surfuces shan be pre-treated (e.g. multi-chambered catchb..,jn w/oi!
filtration media) for stonn"'ater quality. Additionally, a minimum of50% oflbe NBR impervious surface shall be
. treated by vegetated methods.
o \Vhere required, vegetAtive stonnwater design shall be consistent with intcirn design standanis (EDSPM Section 3.02).
set forth by the Bureau of Environmcntal Sorvicos (BES) or Clean Water Services (CWS).
o For new NBR impervious area less than 15,000 squan: feet, a simplified design approach may be followed as specified
by d,. BES for vegetativo treatment
o If a stonnwater treatment swale is propo3ed~ submit calculationslspec.ifications for sizing. velocity, flow. side slopes,
bottom stope, and seed mix consistent with either BES or CWS reqllirtmlenrs.
o Water Quality calculations os required in Section 3.03.1 oIthe EDSPM
o All building rooftop mounted equipment, or otber. fluid containing equipment located outside of the building, shalJ
be provided with secondary containment OT weather resistant enclosure.
GeDeral Study R"'IuiremeDts (EDSPM Section 4.03)
Iii 0 Drainage study prepared by a Protessional Civil Engineer licensed in the stale of Oregon.
o 0 A complete drainage study, as required in EDSPM Section 4.03.1, including a hydmlogical study map.
~ 0 Calculations showing system capacity for a 2-year storm event and overflow effecl3 ofa 25-year storm event.
ljJ 0 The time of conceno'ation (Tc) shall be detennined using R 10 minute start time for developed basins.
llilvtew of Downstream System (EDSPM Section 4.03.4.q
o 1m- A downstream drainage analysi? as described in EDSPM Section 4.03.4.C, On-site drainage shall be governed by the
Oregon Plumbing Specialty Code (OPSe). .
o I?j. Elevations of the HGL and flow lines fo, both city and private systems where applicable.
Design of Sturm Systems (EDSPM SectloD 4.04)
~. 0 Flow lines, slopes, rim elevations. pipe type and sizes clearly indicated on the plan set.
o l!i Minimwn pipe cover shall be: 18 inches for reinforced pipe and 36 inches for plajo concrete and plastic pipe ma.terials.
aT proper engineering calculatiolls shall be provided when less. The Cover shall be sufficient to support an 80,000 Ib OCr
load witboUl failure of the pipe structure. ...
o eiI Manning's "n" values for pipes shaH be consistent with Tabk 4-1 of the EDSP. All stonn pipes shall be designed to
achieve a minfmum velocity ofdlTCC (3) feet per second at 0.5 pipe full based on Table 4-} as well.
OtherlMise
W 0 Existing and proposed contours, located at one foot interval. Include spot tlevations and site grades showing how site
drains
ti 0 Private stormwater easements shall be dearly depicted On plans when private stormwater flows from one property to
another
o (jj. Drywells shall not receive runoff from any surface w/o being treated by one or more BMPs1 with the exception of
residential building roofs (EDSP Section 3.03.4.A). Additional provisions apply to this as required by the DEQ. 'Refer
to the website: ~_deo.state_or_uslwal!troundwnluichome.hcm for more infonnation.
~ 0 Delention ponds shall be des.igned to limit runoff to p,e-development mtes for the 2 through 25-year storm events
'l1'/sform s',all be included /U an ailachment, inside tltefrant caver, of tile stormwater study
Received:
As the enginee.f of record, I hereby certify the above required items are complete and included with thesubmined storrnwatf;r smdy and
plail S~L
, Signature:
* IMPORTANT: ElofGINEER PLEASE RE4D BELOW AND SIGN!
Date:
FEB t 5 2011
Original submittal
Revised 11{19/09
10 of 10
.
Storm Drainage Evaluation
51"-52od a Main Street Redevelopment - Option C
.
Introduction
This evaluation was prepared to summarize the drainage system proposed for the 5lst-52nd & Main
Street Redevelopment Option C. This storm drainage evaluation will determine the type and size of
water quality/quantity facilities that are acceptable to the City of Springfield. The 5] st-52nd & Main
Street Redevelopment is located on the south side of Main Street and east of 5] Sl Place and west of
52nd Street in Springfield, Oregon. The proposed project site is comprised of two tax lots,
TM] 7023332 TL 6200 and TL 6300.
Existing Conditions
The existing site is bounded by Main Street to the north, 5] Sl place to the west, 52nd Street to the east
and residential to the south. The site consists of an existing building, a burned down existing building,
driveways and landscaping. The impervious surfaces consist of roofs. The pervious surfaces consist
of landscaping.
According to the Soils Survey of Lane County, Oregon, by the Natural Resource Conservation Service,
the soil at the site is Salem Urban Land Complex (Soi] Number: ]] 9, Hydrologic Group: B). Refer to
Appendix A for soils map information.
Proposed Site Conditions
The proposed project includes one new commercial buildings, three buildings with townhomes with
associated parking, sidewalks and landscaping. The parking and drive aisles will consist of asphalt
pavement and the sidewalks will be concrete.
Water Quality Treatment and Storm Water Convevance System
The City of Springfield is encouraging as much infiltration on this site as possible. Therefore, the site
is proposed to have drainage basins which will flow to infiltration/detention basins located across the
site and pervious pavers will be installed in some parking spaces. The infiltration/detention basins will
be landscaped with appropriate vegetation and topsoil to allow treatment and infiltration of stormwa:ter
with storage above for detaining stormwater. Detention of the stormwater runoff for the] 0 year storm
is used to determine the reduction in service development charges.
Infiltration testing was conducted and the site was determined to have adequate infiltration rates t6-
serve the proposed improvements. See the table below for infiltration results and information. -
Test Test Location - Test Test Soils Measured
Depth infiltration Rate
] Northwest corner 48" 0-]2" Topsoi]
of site ]2-36" light brown clayey silt moist 4.5 inches/hour
36"-42" light brown clayey silt
42"-48" Bar Run
See Appendix B for the infiltration testing data. There are two proposed infiltration/detention basins
proposed on the site. Each is primarily treating/detaining parking areas. See Appendix C for the
proposed Drainage Basin Map for location of infiltration/detention basins and thD5tEf~ed:
treating and infiltrating/detaining. Below is a brief description of each.
FEB 1 5 2011
OrIginal Submittal
.
Storm Drainage Evaluation
515'_52od 8: Main Street Redevelopment - Option C
.
InfiltrationlDetention Basin A
InfiltrationlDetention Basin A is located on the west side of the site and west of the proposed
restaurant. InfiltrationlDetention Basin A will have asphalt parking and landscaping draining to it.
The basin draining to InfiltrationlDetention Basin A is 0.22 acres. One side has a 3: I side slope and
the other has a short retaining wall. InfiltrationlDetention Basin A has approximately 800 cubic feet of
storage. InfiltrationlDetention Basin A is bisected by a concrete sidewalk and a 6" storm pipe is
proposed to go under the concrete sidewalk to allow InfiltrationlDetention Basin A to act as one basin.
InfiltrationlDetention Basin A is two feet deep from the top of the growing medium to the overflow.
There is another 6" of freeboard above the overflow. The overflow for InfiltrationlDetention Basin A
is connected to a proposed 8" storm line that is connected to a proposed 12" storm line in 5 I s, Place
that will be constructed under a Public Improvement Permit. The outlet structure has a 1-1/2" diameter
orifice set at elevation 494.50 to control the flow of water out of the infiltration/detention basin and
allow for a reduction in service development charges.
InfiltrationlDetention Basin B .
InfiltrationlDetention Basin B is located on the north side of the site along Main Street and west of the
proposed aD aT driveway approach. Infiltration/Detention Basin B will have asphalt parking and
landscaping draining to it. The basin draining to InfiltrationlDetention Basin B is 0.29 acres.
InfiltrationlDetention Basin B is 1'-6" deep from the top of the growing medium to the overflow and
has 3:1 side slopes. Infiltration/Detention Basin B has approximately 887 cubic feet of storage. The
overflow for Infiltration/Detention Basin B is connected to a proposed 4" storm line that is connected
to the existing public storm system in 52nd Street. The outlet structure has a 1-1/2" diameter orifice set
at elevation 495.25 to control the flow of water out of the infiltration/detention basin and allow for a
reduction in service development charges.
Other drainage basins on the site will be treated by double chambered catch basins with filter inserts
and conveyed through storm pipes to the public storm system.
Stormwater Runoff
Peak discharge rates for the post development conditions were generated using the Santa Barbara Unit
Hydrograph method. The King County Department of Public Works, Surface Water Mariagernent
Division, Hydrographs Programs, Version 4.21B computer program was used to assist in the . ',,'.-.
hydrologic calculations. See Appendix D for the stormwater runoff results. Below is a summary of
the results for each drainage basin.
Proposed Conditions Peak Discharge Rates (cfs)
Storm Basin A Basin B
WQ (0.83 inches/24 hours) 0.03 0.04
2 Year (3.3 inches/24 hours) 0.15 .0.20
10 Year (4.3 inches/24 hours) 0.20 0.27
25 Year (4.8 inches/24 hours) 0.22 0.30
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
Original Submittal
.
Storm Drainage Evaluation
51 "-52'd 8: Main Street Redevelopment - Option C
.
IniIltration Basin Sizing
Each iniiltration/Detention basin is characterized in a spreadsheet to be used with the King County
Department of Public Works, Surface Water Management Division, Hydrographs Programs, Version
4.21 B computer program for routing the developed storm through the infiltration basin. The routing
data can be found in Appendix D as well as the infiltration volumes and the required storage for each
. infiltration/detention basin. Below is a summary of each infiltration/detention basin.
Infiltration Basin A
Below is a summary of the peak flow rates and the peak elevation the stormwater will get in
Infiltration Basin A during these specific storms.
Prol osed Infiltration Basin A
Storm Peak inflow (cfs) Peak outflow (cfs) Water Elevation (feet)
WQ 0.03 . 0.01 494.32
2 Year 0.15 0.07 495.10
10 Year 0.20 0.08 495.36
25 Year 0.22 0.09 495.51
Infiltration Basin A has approximately 800 cubic feet of storage. The overflow is set at an elevation of
496.00. There is a 1-1/2" diameter orifice in the outlet structure and it is set at elevation 494.50. The
10 year storm event will be detained as much as possible to allow for a reduction in the service
development charges. The orifice and outlet are set above the water quality storm event to allow for
maximum storm water treatment. The water quality storm will infiltrate within 21 hours. The
infiltration basin will be landscaped in accordance with the City of Springfield requirements.
Infiltration Basin B
Below is a summary of the peak flow rates and the peak elevation the stormwater will get in
Infiltration Basin B during these specific storms.
Pro osed Infiltration Basin B
Storm Peak inflow (cfs) Peak outflow (cfs) Water Elevation (feet).... -
WQ 0.04 0.02 494.99
2 Year 0.20 0.09 495.56
10 Year 0.27 0.10 495.82
25 Year 0.30 0.11 495.96
Infiltration Basin B has approximately 887 cubic feet of storage. The overflow is set at an elevation of
496.25. There is a 1-1/2" diameter orifice in the outlet structure and it is set at elevation 495.25. The
10 year storm event wIII be detained as much as possible to allow for a reduction in the service
development charges. The orifice and outlet are set above the water quality storm event to allow for
maximum storm water treatment. The water quality storm will infiltrate within 21 hours. The
infiltration basin will be landscaped in accordance with the City of Springfield requirements.
The rest of the site will drain to double chambered catch basins with filter inserts located in the parking
areas and roof drains from the east commercial building and the townhouses will be directed to on-site
private storm line that eventually tlows to the public storm system in 52'd Street.
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
n..;ninAI submittal.
Storm Drainage Evaluation
51 "_52" fr Main Street Redevelopment - Option C
See Appendix D for stormwater runoff, routing and infiltration basin stage-storage-outflow
calculations. See Appendix E for Infiltration swale section and double chamber catch basin with filter
insert.
.
.
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
Original Submittal
e..
.
Storm Drainage Evaluation
51"_52od Ii Main Street Redevelopment - Option C
Appendix A
Soil Maps and Soil Data
Date Received:
FEB , 5 20"
Original Submittal
. .
~ ~
N N
. ~
~ ~
CO"
~,
..vZ.gs .ZZL ~PZ ,9S .~L C> ,
~,
'=,
N'
~,
(
0
~
~
~
0
~
~
~
g
~
~
~
iil
g~
"'z
"W 0
~:2 ~
aD- ~
m-O
,,-,
~w
<(>
""W
cO
~w 0 ~'
,'50: M ..
~ ~ ~,
,,>- ~o
cW :" ~
mW U),
-'0: '0
1>-
o.U) U)
~z 0 .D
0_ '"
~<( ~ 5::
~
~:2 ~
'oc:ro
"'0
.~z
"'N
0",
e~ " ~
-oW ~
>-~
I~ .
:;;
- -.Gi--
"'0
.. M
~ .
"
ik :=
'"
!!i. 0
~ N
0
g ." w
~ '"
ik i5
u
.
.j;
"- ~
- 0
t; M
g W
~ . w
1\ w
w ~
~
. "
" 0 0 0
'"
'"
0:
rn
'5
z<iOi( rn
z
~OC.9S .zu cei~,9.~" 9~
Olr69LBv Ge69Lav OZ69lBv OL69LBt> 0069l91>'. 0699ia, OQ89L9v OL99l8\7 ~l;
~ FEB 19 2011
N N
. "
. Original Submiftal
cr=-
OZ
"'w
~::>
0,,-
-0
"'-.J
~w
<(>
>-w
cO
~w
00::
u>--
"w
Cw
"'0::
-.J>--
6.Ul
5z
(5;:;:
-::>
~06
. 00
.- Z
"'N
52",
o '
~>--
"Ul
>-~
Ie
.
.
0<
~"
0 '0 '" 0'
0 "- c ~,
0 '" ~ i'
0 E '" ~ :c N ;
'"
N " > <ii "" ~
<ii " 0 ~ c 0;
" ." '" " ~
<ii ~ '" " ~.o .~
0; u "
" 0 "" "' '" _5 en E
" " '" Ul~ t 0 -~ "
'" "- ~ 0 u
~ "- .8 c 00 " N '0 '" E
Z '" .2 ~ u ~ ~.o 0
- E ;; 10 13, " 00
0 ~ c c ro "
~ " ~ '<" 0 .r:.~~
i= " '" 10 iU'ro 0:: "'0 :;E3
x ;,:; ~ ~2:~ Z ~- o ~
c{ '" ~ "- .i: 00 " :ce~
'" o.~ Z N "
:E e 0 E Uo:z 0 go) '" ~- m....;
"- ~ c
<( Ul c.... Ul Q)
0::: " '" 00000 '" ~.o l' o ~ c:(:Q
N " U ~..c"- <("
';;; '" '" 0--- . >
0 0 " ~ " " " eLL 0 rn"'O ~l1>
<( >- ~ ~ g E ;i sa:) 15 E~rollJ
l.L. c
c " 0 :3 o..N E 0 '" IV ~ E..c
Z 0 .00 0- 0 c "-
" .~ " Ct:::;;:~ ~ " u .Q ~ lJ).o Q) >.
ro -"'>-- - .0 " ~ 1tI 0 1I'l ro
" E 0 l' '" "-0 " 'O.....Q)E
a.. c 0 00 2 " c" ~ ~ "-", ~
" .. "'> "-0-
c{ .~ u rn --.J ~1!? -.J ~ .~
"'0:: -5 (t) C
:E <ii .0 ,,- " o.!:::! 0 co
,- E " Z", E e- m '" .....;!:: -0 U
.... ,,~ '"
E >-2 tri.... .!; OOla>C
0 00 '" .. lD III "''' " '" o::a >-::J
<p >- .~ m
" c c n.~>- ~O ro - '" 0
~ 0 ~:JU) _ -0 <( '" o"O(i.o
>-" u e >-" ":5 -E..::ij.~ ~
" ~ - E Ul " " " ~
~ o=ro ug o '0 e
ro ~ " ~<( '" €~ ~:J
o e o ~
u '0 " " ~U):o o..ID " >- w
Ul ~ ~ 00 Ul " ID o~l1lg-
n. '" '" ~.o~ ~ > ~ Q) E g' E
'" " " " " " 0 ,- " '0 ~ <ii
'" ~s8 "'", ~ 8.~o
::> >-- 0:: E >--- UlUl 0
0 6
"-
Z " -"
"
W .. '1'
C) E ::>
6 "-
W '0 ro
....I "- ro '"
;; " '0
a.. e ;;0 "'
c{ e
-"
:E '0
ro -"
" '0
.:;: "'
"
"
-"
'm
>
ro
'0
e
"
u
"
l'
a 0 a .0
t;, <( ;:;: a:I iii u U 0 z
c
"
.
~DDfillDD~D
'"
w w
'" >-
c ro
ro .
'" ~
u ~ w w
e I . u u
ro '"' " ro ro
w w "5 0 0
E no no
w ~ c " 0
ro ro !!! no 0 '"
e 2 w " e c 'm " '" ro u
, u e u 1i5 E 0
.. 0 .~ no ::> '" ~
" iJ ..
~ . to
.. " 0
~ "-
:e '" e . i ~ (: <
c
'0 ro E
Q. ;: >-
Date Received:
Original submittal
>-
~,
"
if) .
o
if)
.0
'"
$:'
",'
'"
o
~ ,
"
o
",'
'" ,
0::
- ,
l'
il
'"
Z,
611
'~t,'
HYdrot091~ Soil Group-Lane County Area.egon
. 51ST-52ND & M;IN STREET REDEVELOPMENT
Hydrologic Soil Group
Hydrologic Soil Group- Summary by Map Unit - Lane County Area, Oregon
Map unit sym.bol I Map unit name I Rating I Acres in AOI I Percent of AQI
i 119 ! Salem-Urban land complex ; B 1.5 i 100.0%
,
! Totals for Area of Interest
1.5 !
100.0%
Description
Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are
assigned to one offour groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the
soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation
from long-duration storms.
The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, S, C, and D) and
three dual classes (AID, BID, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows:
Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly
wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or
gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission.
Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These
consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained
soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils
have a moderate rate of water transmission.
Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist
chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or
soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water
transmission.
Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when
thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell
potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a c1aypan or clay layer
at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material.
These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission.
If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (AID, BID, or C/D), the first letter is
for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their
natural condition are in group 0 are assigned to dual classes.
Rating Options
Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition
Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified
Tie-break Rule: Lower
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
USDA
"'-=
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil SU/vey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
Original Submittal
12/112010
Page 3 of 3 .
.
.
Storm Drainage Evaluation
51"-52"d tt Main Street Redevelopment - Option C
Appendix B
Infiltration Testing Report
. "'II;~.._'
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
Original Submittal
.
.
Project Name: 0 is C> V'lc<.11i S~ nu.i,. 'S It-<..
Project No.: oOi - (<;-"/ .
Project Location: S,1! PI",,-( j C;t";"9Crdd.
Date ofField Work: I'(/.;Iio
Cormnents: b<.,f--r.,.,.u...h. {i\.t.OSf.lt-i. r<I\L.~L~S CU-:-t-i"'t,.
of LDf;-OW'\ ~\ 00lt ili_ P~r.e
,. .1,..
. ,-.
Lev'{..! by <,<AM'
(2 Sit i':: he. (C!vJ
/\ "ol~
"'
.,:''-.1'- i."u.~-vl lJLL1-i'(f'l
.f-v-p o!- P:-r<-) ..:t-l
w,,~ (.
~V'0
(.,.. i',"
",':'.;.-,.
Infiltration Test No, 0 Depth l.f Diameter J Vol. of Presat. , "/lJ L
Soil Description: ,.,: f&lI'S. ~
'1.,,4 u&-t+l'" O~...., 4>"" $I"T~'S"T.
'1..-79
. LIA.ttr
,.1. ~....I\, ,-wi
Time Time El~sed .
2.:3<>
--er-
Depth to Water
t. 1. It ..
,L:.-=--O
Vol. of Water Added
"--
ImIltration Test No.
Soil Description:
Depth
Diameter
Vol. of Presat.
Time Time Elapsed
'2. AD Pi" 101"1' n
Depth to Water
:;/\ "
. b -:-O.rP~\
Vol. oj/Water Added
r:! ~'t II ';
. {." f. (pc
\Jvou~h l-
:SZyo
I
'l.- ">ff
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
Original Submittal
{h
.
Project Name: 06v 'f'Nlt~f' <;h.-~,-(-- c,;-'K
Project No.: oC1.r,Q
Project Location: r; ('~. {J(.,<.(.. f r~,V;;(! 'Sf Frd"
Date of Field Work: II f '3 {I (,;,
Comments: ~'u. pq I
Infiltration Test No. Z Depth
Soil Description:
Time Time Elapsed
~ -,' CMI () <J\'::!1'\
1. ':."'$ ",.."" ~ '" ~
~
'4C
Infiltration Test No. .J
Soil Description:
Time Time Elapsed
~ '0"" "k
,,;' "'~Y'" ~(),,,,'i.,
Depth to Water
#"") l tn H
:JI'!, ,
,"
b =. O,J-
Depth
Depth to Water
.-J (l"t; \;
.'
.6:'0,1<:;
.
Diameter
Vol. of Pres at.
Vol. of Water Added .,'\
,i,.....~ (.}<_i.p ~- ,J- I
!" ~ .... :: ~tf"'. .~.'
"
0>1,)
t<> 7- 7i 16 "
b k>G<jh+- ...5Z-
Diameter
. ".<.~-'.'.
Vol. of Presat.
Vol. of Water Added
(~;~
( '",,,,-
~ ;,
"If .,.
'~ -
-..!: c' 11
~ ~QC' .
~ "",!f~;
(/j- --;::7
(i) (IS" I l' P\~ brouv,..J-- "
Date Received:
FES 1 5 2011
Original Submittal
h>
. :;/. ,.'
'2 g
Ll
.
.
/} .. t;..:.. ~ ~+t
Project Name: DbO r1ti~'" \.
Project No.: DIi';-fS-0 I
Project Location: "IS'" Pk!J._i si?f (0-
Date ofField Work: \ \ /1 /[0 .
Comments: ~ pq I
Infiltration Test No.1-Depth
Soil Description:
. Diameter
Vol. of Presat.
",,,- R_' ':''''.
..\..J'f.., ',\1:".
Depth to Water
", i..,. II'
~ . f't,
a
b =- 0,/)
VoLofWater Added
Time Time Elapsed
......s ~ \\)
;e-
il
l_' ."
',i
O\.v~\.I<}e...
19 ,I c; "i Lve.rC-j
I D /YI ~f\ ,-)--<5 ~ 4-.S- I~ C---~ lvl v I ~ -Pi- l I'V- i--
{Lc.A-K-
---------------
Infiltration Test No.
Soil Description:
Depth
Diameter
.vol. of Presat.
Time Time Elapsed
Depth to Water
V 01. of Water Added
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
Original Submittal
3/
e
Storm Drainage Evaluation
51"-52'd Ii Main Street Redevelopment - Option C
e"
Appendix C
Proposed Drainage Basin Map
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
Original Submittal
~
~
0, ~ ~ ~~
~ ~ ~ ~o
~~~l)~~g
en ~ ~ lQ II
iiJ ~ 0 0 c:i:~
~~~~~~~
~ ,...." r"'-I l:"""l k: ~ ~
~ Ie\! ~ ~ ~ ~ CJ
...... l.Q ~ O~l:rl If)
2Z I ~ ~~
Q~~ ~
CI)~
,.....
l.Q
~
-(f)--.:'r'-~-
, J
I
e...
~
~i
If),:,
~!
~,
"'"
h
~
:
,
"
I
i
I;
I-~-
i
I'
:1
I,
!l
! I
'I,
J 'J
i
i!
I -I
I
(~. ..
-r
'~h
~
ki
c.)
ki
>-..:i
,
;;;
(fJ
<l:
CO
UJ
'"
~
<l:
a::
a
..,......
""';--,
t.. .
"
puag
,"-
~
;;'.i
. i -- '--.
.- '-'~-.,-.
.' 7d 1sTg
i
J
..-...;-,;...... ,"
v
^ c
w 0
..J '"
<!
u
(f)
u L{)
I
0..
<!
0::
19
o
LD
o
o
'"
.
(,)
>:::
.....
f-
W
W
LL
:;;
I:l1J
>:::
,-
....
Q)
Q)
>:::
.-
I:l1J
>:::
~
..c:
(,)
>:::
ro
....
iIl
~
,-'I"".
_.JL
~.
.~~~
~U~
oQ
"0
'"'
?
'" oj
" :i
~ M
~ ~ 0
o = M
. ~
... ~ ~
Cl.l ~ Q ~
N 0 ~
'0:; >. toll N
~ I: t: I
........... ~ 0 ~
S u . l'-
~ 0 EM
~ M;;.[E
en """~_
(J)
j
.
~Q)
~ tU~
~ ~ M
- - ~
~ cn~cr
~ ..d~l.O
::;l'':::;':: ;!
.g c;: ~_
~~i:;
::c MCIle
1;1
~ .!,
I
l:::) .CI-
I
~~
"'J~
~
~
.
';:'
t
=
'"
Cl)
If)
I
Cl)
a
"'"
f-
'-'
W
-,
o
0::
Q
-;;;
u
sa
o -"
u ~
bile
.S ~
... ,
:f~
CD ~
C'liI.'l
D4~~
.~ ~'E
ti~.g
~ECI)
q
~ .5
'"
m
c:
'51
'I:
7:0
W
i1
~~
;"te
~"
.~
h
~~
.~
;,,~
'j
I
I
L
~
.
Storm Drainage Evaluation
51"-52" & Main Street Redevelopment - Option C
.
Appendix D
Stonnwater Runoff & Infiltration Basin Sizing Calculations
Date Received:
FEB 1 5.2011
Original Submittal
.
.
Storm Drainage Evaluation
51"-52od 8: Main Street Redevelopment - Option C
Inmtration Basin A - Water Quality Storm
******************** S.C.5. TYPE-IA DISTRIBUTION *******************
********* I-YEAR 24-HOOR STORM **** .83" TOTAL PRECIP. *******
ENTER: AIPERV), CN(PERV), A(IMPERV), CN(IMPERV), TC FOR BASIN NO. 1
0.03,61,0.19,98,10
DATA PRINT-OUT:
AREA (ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC I MINUTES)
A CN A CN
.2 .0 61. 0 .2 98.0 - 10.0
PEAK-Q (CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT)
.03 7.83 432
ENTER Ed:] [path]filename[.ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-wqca.dev
RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE
SPECIFY Ed:] [path]filename[.ext] OF ROUTING DATA
09159ca.rd
DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N)?
y
ROUTING DATA:
STAGE(FT)
494.00.
494.25
494 .50
494 .75
495.00
495.25
495.50
495.75
496.00
496.25
496.50
DISCHARGE (CFS)
.00
.01
.02
.05
.06
.08
.09
.10
.11
.82
2.11
AVERAGE.PERM-RATE:
STORAGE (CU-FT)
.0
57.0
125.0
205.0
298.0
404.0
524.0
660.0
812.0
982.0
1171.0
.0 MINUTES !INCH
PERM-AREA (SQ-FT)
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
ENTER [do] [path]filename[.ext] OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-wqca.dev.
INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS:
PEAK-INFLOW (CFS) PEAK-OUTFLOW (CFS)
.03 .01
INITIAL-STAGE (FT) TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS)
.00 8.33
PEAK STORAGE:
70 CU-FT
OUTFLOW-VOL (CU- FT)
359
PEAK-STAGE-ELEV (J;'T)
494.32
Date Received:
FEB i 5. 2011
Original Submittal
.
.
Storm Drainage Evaluation
51".52,d &: Main Street Redevelopment - Option C
Inmtration Basin A - 2 Year Storm
******************** S.C.S. TYPE-IA DISTRIBUTION *******************
********* 2-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** 3.30" TOTAL PRECIP. *******
ENTER: A(PERV), CN(PERV), A(IMPERV), CN(IMPERV), TC FOR BASIN NO. 1
0.03,61, 0.19,98, 10
DATA PRINT-OUT:
AREA (ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC (MINUTES)
A CN A CN
.2 .0 61. 0 ; 2 98.0 10.0
PEAK-Q (CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL (CU-FT)
.15 7.83 2167
ENTER [do] [path]filename[.ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-2ca.dev
RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE
SPECIFY Cd:] [path]filename[.ext] OF ROUTING DATA
09159ca.rd
DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N)?
y
ROUTING DATA:
STAGE(FT)
494 . 00
494 . 25
494.50
494 . 75
495. 00
495.25
495.50
495.75
496.00
496.25
496.50.
DISCHARGE (CFS)
.00
.01
.02
.05
.06
.08
.09
.10
.11
.82
2.11
STORAGE (CU-FT)
.0
57.0
125.0
205.0
298.0
404.0
524.0
660.0
812.0
982.0
1171.0
PERM-AREA (SQ-FT)
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
AVERAGE PERM-RATE:
.0 MINUTES !INCH
ENTER Cd:] [path]fi1ename[.ext] OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-2ca.dev
INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS:
PEAK-INFLOW (CFS)
.15
PEAK-OUTFLOW (CFS)
.07
OUTFLOW-VOL (CU-FT)
2206
INITIAL-STAGE (FT) TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS)
.00 ~.17
PEAK STORAGE:
340 CU-FT
PEAK-STAGE-ELEV(FT)
495.10
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
Original submittal
.
.
Storm Drainage Evaluation
51 ".52"d ft Main Street Redevelopment. Option C
Infiltration Basin A -10 Year Storm
******************** S.C.5. TYPE-IA DISTRIBUTION *******************
********* IO-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** 4.30" TOTAL PRECIP. *******
ENTER: A(PERV), CN(PERV), A(IMPERV), CN(IMPERV), TC FOR BASIN NO. 1
0.03,61,0.19,98,10
DATA PRINT-OUT:
AREA (ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES)
A CN A CN
..2 .0 61.0 .2 98.0 10.0
PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT)
.20 7.83 2907
ENTER [do] [path]fi1enarne[.ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-10ca.dev
RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE
SPECIFY [do] [path]fi1~narne[.ext] OF ROUTING DATA
09159ca.rd
DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N)?
y
ROUTING DATA:
STAGE (FT)
494.00
494.25
494.50
494.75
495.00
495.25
495.50
495.75
496.00
496.25
496.50
DISCHARGE (CFS)
.00
.01
.02
.05
.06
.08
.09
.10
.11
.82
2.11
STORAGE (CU-FT)
.0
57.0
125.0
205.0
298.0
404.0
524.0
660.0
812.0
982.0
1171.0
PERM-AREA (SQ-FT)
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
AVERAGE PERM-RATE:
.0 MINUTES !INCH
ENTER [d:] [path]fi1enarne [ . ext ] OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-10ca.dev
INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS:
PEAK-INE'LOW(CFS) PEAK-OUTFLOW (CFS)
.20 .OB
OUTFLOW-VOL (CU-FT)
2908
INITIAL-STAGE (FT) TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS)
.00 8.33
PEAK-STAGE-ELEV(FT)
495.36
PEAK STORAGE: 450 CU-FT
Date Received:
FEB 1 5. 2011
Original Submittal
.
.
Storm Drainage Evaluation
51st_52,d &: Main Street Redevelopment - Option C
Inmtration Basin A - 25 Year Storm
******************** S.C.S. TYPE-IA DISTRIBUTION *******************"
********* 25-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** 4.80" TOTAL PRECIP. *******
ENTER: A(PERV), CN(PERV), A(IMPERV), CN(IMPERV), TC FOR BASIN NO. ]
0.03,61,0.19,98,10
DATA PRINT-OUT:
AREA (ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES)
A CN A CN
.2 .0 61. 0 .2 98.0 10.0
PEAK-Q (CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL (CU-FT)
.22 7.83 3282
ENTER Ed:] [path]filenarne[.ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-25ca.dev
RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE
SPECIFY Ed:] [path]fi1enarne[.ext] OF ROUTING DATA
09159ca.rd
DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N)?
y
ROUTING DATA:
STAGE{FT)
494.00
494.25
494.50
494.75
495.00
495.25
495.50
495.75
496.00
496.25
496.50
DISCHARGE (CFS)
.00
.01
.02
.05
.06
.08
.09
.10
.11
.82
2.11
STORAGE (CU-FT)
.0
57.0
125.0
205.0
298.0
404.0
524.0
660.0
812.0
982.0
1171.0
PERM-AREA (SQ-FT)
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
AVERAGE PERM-RATE:
.0 MINUTES/INCH
ENTER Ed:] [path]filenarne[.ext] OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-25ca.dev
INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS:
PEAK-INFLOW (CFS)
.22
PEAK-OUTFLOW (CFS)
.09
OUTFLOW-VOL (CU-FT)
3130
. INITIAL-STAGE (FT)
.00
PEAK STORAGE:
TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS)
8.33
1900 CU-FT
PEAK-STAGE-ELEV(FT)
495.51
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
Original Submittal
.
.
Storm Drainage Evaluation
51 ".52"" & Main Street Redevelopment - Option C
IniIltration Basin B - Water Quality Storm
******************** s.c.s. TYPE-IA DISTRIBUTION *******************
*......... ** *** l-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM ** * * .83" TOTAL PRECI P. ** * ** **
ENTER: A(PERV), CN(PERV), A(IMPERV), CN(IMPERV), TC FOR BASIN NO. 1
0.03,61,0.26,98,10
DATA PRINT-OUT:
AREA (ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES)
A CN A CN
.3 .0 61. 0 .3 98.0 10.0
PEAK-Q (CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL (CU-FT)
.04 7.83 591
ENTER [d~J [path]fi1ename[.ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-wqcb.dev
RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE
SPECIFY Ed:] [path] filename [.extJ OF ROUTING DATA
09159cb.rd
DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N)?
y
ROUTING DATA:
STAGE (FT)
494.75
495.00
495.25
495. 50
495.75
496.00
496.'25
496.50
DISCHARGE (CFS)
.00
.02
.07
.09
.10
.11
.11
.65
STORAGE (CU-FT)
.0
92.0
208.0
351.0
520.0
704.0
887.0
1071.0
PERM-AREA (SQ-FT)
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
AVERAGE PERM-RATE:
.0 MINUTES !INCH
ENTER [do] [path]fi1ename[.ext] OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-wqcb.dev
INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS:
PEAK-INFLOW (CFS) PEAK-OUTFLOW (CFS)
.04 .02
OUTFLOW-VOL (CU-FT)
521
INITIAL-STAGE (FT) TIME-oF-PEAK(HRS)
.00 8.50
PEAK STORAGE:
80 CU-FT
PEAK-STAGE-ELEV(FT)
494.99
Date Received:
FEB 1 52011
Original Submittal
.
Storm Drainage Evaluation
51".5Zod& Main Street Redevelopment. Option C
.
InfIltration Basin B-2 Year Storm
******************** s.c.s. TYPE-IA
********* 2-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM
DISTRIBUTION *******************
**** 3.30" TOTAL PRECIP. *******
ENTER: A(PERV), CN(PERV), A(IMPERV), CN(IMPERV), TC FOR BASIN NO. 1
0.03,61,0.26,98,10
DATA PRINT-OUT:
AREA (ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC (MINUTES)
A CN A CN
.3 .0 61. 0 .3 98.0 10.0
PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL (CU-FT)
.20 7.83 2946
ENTER"[d:] [path]filename[.ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-2cb.dev
RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE
SPECIFY Ed:] [path]fi1ename[.ext] OF ROUTING DATA
09159cb. rd
DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N)?
y
ROUTING DATA:
STAGE(FT)
494 . 75
495.00
495.25
495.50
495.75
496.00
496" 25
496.50
DISCHARGE(CFS)
.00
.02
.07
.09
.10
.11
.11
.65
STORAGE (CU-FT)
.0
92.0
208.0
351.0
520.0
704.0
887.0
1071. 0
PERM-AREA (SQ-FT)
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
AVERAGE PERM-RATE:
.0 MINUTES/INCH
ENTER Ed:] [path]fi1ename[.ext] OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-2cb.dev
INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS:
PEAK-INFLQW(CFS) PEAK-OUTFLOW (CFS)
.20 .09
OUTFLOW-VOL (CU-FT)
2937
INITIAL-STAGE (FT) TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS)
.00 8.17
PEAK-STAGE-ELEV (FT)
495.56
PEAK STORAGE:
390 CU-FT
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
Original Submittal
.
.
Storm Drainage Evaluation
51st.52od f:t Main Street Redevelopment - Option C
IniIltration Basin B -10 Year Storm
******************** 5.C.5. TYPE-IA DISTRIBUTION *******************
********* IO-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM' **** 4.30" TOTAL PRECIP. *******
ENTER: A(PERV), CN(PERV), AIIMPERV), CN(IMPERV), TC FOR BASIN NO. 1
0.03,61,0.26,98,10
DATA PRINT-OUT:
AREA (ACRES)
PERVIOUS
. A CN
.0 61. 0
.3
PEAK-Q (CFS)
.27
T-PEAK(HRS)
7.83
IMPERVIOUS
A CN
.3 98.0
VOL (CU-FT)
3939
TC(MINUTES)
10.0
ENTER Ed:] [path]filename[.ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-10cb.dev
RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE
SPECIFY Ed:] [path]filename[.ext] OF ROUTING DATA
09159cb.rd.
DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N)?
y
ROUTING DATA:
STAGE (FT)
494.75
495.00
495.25
495.50
495.75
496.00
496.25
496.50
DISCHARGE (CFS)
.00
.02
.07
.0.9
.10
.11
.11
.65
STORAGE (CU-FT)
.0
92.0
208.0
351. 0
520.0
704 .0
887.0
1071. 0
AVERAGE PERM-RATE:
.0 MINUTES !INCH
PERM-AREA (SQ-FT)
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
ENTER Ed:] [path]filename[.ext] OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-10cb.dev
INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS:
PEAK-INFLOW (CFS)
.27
PEAK-OUTFLOW (CFS)
.10
INITIAL-STAGE(FT)TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS)
.008.50
PEAK STORAGE:
570 CU-FT
IniIltration Basin B - 2S Year Storm
OUTFLOW-VOL (CU-FT)
3963
PEAK-STAGE-ELEV (FT)
495.82
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
Original submittal
...
.
Storm Drainage Evaluation
51 ".52"d & Main Street Redevelopment - Option C
.
******************** 5.C.5. TYPE-IA DISTRIBUTION *******************
********* 25-YEAR 24-HODR STORM **** 4.80" TOTAL PRECIP. *******
ENTER: A(PERV), CN(PERV), A(IMPERV), CN(IMPERV), TC ,OR BASIN NO. 1
0.03,61,0.26,98,10
DATA PRINT-OUT:
AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES)
A CN A CN
.3 .0 61.0 .3 98.0 10.0
PEAK-Q (CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-,T)
.30 7.83 4441
ENTER [d:] [path] filename [ . ext ) ,OR STORAGE 0, COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-25cb.dev
RESERVOIR ROUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW ROUTINE
SPECI,Y [do] [path]filename[.ext] 0, ROUTING DATA
09159cb.rd
DISPLAY ROUTING DATA (Y or N)?
y
ROUTING DATA:
STAGE (FT)
494.75
495.00
495.25
495.50
495.75
496.00
496.25
496.50
DISCHARGE (CFS)
.00
.02
.07
.09
.10
.11
.11
.65
STORAGE (CU-FT)
.0
92 .0
208.0
351.0
520.0
704.0
887.0
1071. 0
PERM-A~EA(SQ-FT)
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
AVERAGE PERM-RATE: .0 MINUTES/INCH
ENTER [do] [path]filename[.ext] OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
159-25cb.dev
INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS:
PEAK-INFLOW (CFS) PEAK-OUTFLOW (CFS)
.30 .11
,
OUT,LOW-VOL(CU-FT)
4425
INITIAL-STAGE (FT) TIME-OF-PEAK(HRS)
.00 8.50
PEAK-STAGE-ELEV (FT)
-495.96
PEAK STORAGE:
670 CU-,T
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
..1" : ,o,.j (".::;,\.....,.;:,q.{.
,.'flQf ',,; c.:"",\~.ql ~.... l.___
.
Storm Drainage Evaluation
51"-52"d 8: Main Street Redevelopment - Option C
.
Appendix E
Vegetated Infiltration Basin and
Double Chambered Catch Basins with Fossil Filter Insert
Date Received:
FEB 1 5 2011
Original Submittal
.
f
9 f1 MINIWJM
1
FOR PARKING LOTS.
TIRE STOPS OR
CURBS W/CUTS
12~xt2~ CLEAR FLOW
AREA AT CUTOUTS
2"
3:1 MAX.
SlOE SLOPES
(n'P.)
~
2 n
FLAT BOTTOM
.,,-- OVERflOW
ElEVATION
9-~18~
(SEE NOTE 28)
SEE SW-150 fOR PIPING J
CONRGURATlQN.
(~.:\.~,'~/", . \'/-;'\'
.-\, ~ . '" .-\c-\\
:{-~~/\0~\\\:" _ "' ",y-:::-. \~(\~'\.: ::
- \. \\\\t/:'~:"-/\'?\\"1\\~>("'.A ''('" ",/'\ \:\'\\<<\/-';.)....\\'
, ;-;.~\...~-\\\-<\~/;.;~/-'\\:..\\ .;:<; "/}\\;-;\'('/\"'/)Y\\'-<" \....;--).
:;.-'\.r\>;~\.:";.A\;\\,\~,\-:/:"V"'\\ \\ ',/,,\),\\"\\........-~\\ '\
,,\ \\~.'\\C,/\:~/. ,\'-"'\\\-{\\'/A"" "~I \'r..R~,;;~\;,~\:;::\'\",~~j)
'/'\\'\\''\ --('/' '..-, ,v"" '\ ..-'...\"i '''('~''~'''''\~;''\.-'~\'\\\\/'_-
. -' C::_>"<--"'.'7:~\ G\(";->~'\; <\'M~Dl~\\ \\\'(~V;'\ " \
W\.~~-,<~:/~.\ ~~.~,\y(\\~ :~'':..\ 'J.<V~X;;;'/ ~ \\-'....;'-
!~ i"'~ !\--.J' '--.1 iQ
'~ 1\ ,r J.___.,f -------;.. _. -/: f~_ "(-".:':\___f't'>--.../- ,
_ ,__ ,- \(::'~\ )(::J~a
'," / '" 'r-,c, 'p --"~~"-ROC-~-C>.\.,J, ~
;:,<-- / ~r~./ --._.rtll'(' ./\ r ~ ....~
.P-J )~~ 4 I~ NO' ~:r ,-
. _ ''-, .L..~~ ~'--.< r~-1>J _'
'. _. __,,_. -..... ____t"--. ,.:._.. .
F1L1ER FABRIC.
SEE N01E 7
IS"
12" (SEE NOTE 6)
1
. -8<ISnNG 'SUBGAADE
t. Provide protection from all vehicle traffic, equipment staging,
and foot traffic in proposed infiltration areas prior to, during,
and after construction.
6. Drain rock:
a. Size for infiltration basin: 1'Y.:" ~~" washed
b. Size for flow-through basin::y,." washed
c. Depth for Simplified: 12"
d. Depth for Presumptive: 0-48", see calcs.
2. Dimensions:
a. Width of basin: 9' minimum.
b. Depth of basin (from top of growing medium to
overflow elevation); Simplified: 12", Presumptive:
9"-18",
c. Flat bottom width: 2' min.
d. Side slopes of basin: 3:1 maximum.
7. Separation between drain rock and growing medium:
Use filter fabric (see SWMM Exhibit 2-5) or '
a gravel lens (:X - % inch washed, crushed rock 2 to 3 inches
deep),
3. Setbacks (from midpoint of facility):
a.lnfiltration basins must be 10' from foundations and
5' from property lines_
b. Flow-through swales must be lined with connection
to approved discharge point according to SWMM
Section 1.3.
8. Growing medium:
a. 18" minimum
b. See Appendix F.3 for specification or use
sand/loam/compost 3-way mix.
4. Overflow:
a. Overflow required for Simplified Approach.
b. Inlet elevation must allow for 2" of freeboard,
minimum.
c. Protect from debris and sediment with strainer or
grate_
9. Vegetation: Follow landscape plans otherwise refer-tO-.p'rant
list in SWMM Appendix F. Minimum container size is 1
gallon. # of plantings per 100sf of facility area):
a. Zone A (wet): 115 herbaceous plants OR 100
herbaceous plants and 4 shrubs
b. Zone B (moderate to dry): 1 tree AND 3 large
shrubs AND 4 medium to small shrubs.
The delineation between Zone A and B shall be either at the
outlet elevation or the check dam elevation, whichever is
lowest.
5. Piping: shall be ASS SchAD, cast iron, or PVC SchAO. 3"
pipe required for. up to 1,500 sq ft of impervious area,
otherwise 4" min. Piping must have 1 D/O grade and foltow the
Uniform Plumbing Code.
10. Install washed pea gravel or river rock to transition from
. inlets and splash pad to growing medium.
11, Inspections: Call 8DS IVR InsQateiRe0E\i~o,
for appropriate inspections.
. t-. :'~ (\. . . , ~, ,.;
FEB 1 5 2011
~
--
- Simplified I Presumptive Design Approach -
Basin
bmittal
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MANUAL TYPICAL
NUMBER
SW-140
Bureau of Environmental Services
OUTLET
.-
'''Ell
53"
Po)
Q
g;;
"
,i , - X'~ -
ii .
ii i"
i ,
.q-
C\I
A
Ii
;
I;
"
;
Ii..
I
i..
48" LONG
E=o;
;
PLAN VIEW
SILT & DEBRIS
. CONTAINMENT AREA
L2~x2~xfs
FRAME
'~ ~t
~~
OUTLET
z
~
~
~
N
HIGH
FLOW
BYPASS
""""
~
~
53"
-,-.
r-_
,
I
, ,
f ~EDIMENT TRAt -l-
lw/ HINGED ,
LID : SEDIMENT
: TRAP
,
I..
REPLACEABLE
ABSORBENT
PoUCHES ISOMETRIC
48"
..
SIDE VIEW
..'
~G ARD ™
FILTER INSERT
(MODEL FGP-24F)
WOVEN MESH
FILTER BODY
NOTES:
BOX FABRICATED FROM
10 GA MATERIAL
NEOPRENE GASKET
(TWO SIDES)
DUCTILE IRON SOUD LID
DUCTILE IRON GRATE
BIKE PROOF, HEAVY
DUTY TRAFFIC GRATE
SUPPORTS AASHTO
H25 LOADS
cO
SEDIMENT & HYDROCARBONS FILTRATION :rrateER$ceived:
STATE APPROVED - ASPHALT DIPPED
24"x42" - 6"0 OUTLET
SAND COLLECTOR CATCH BASIN
PROJ. MAN. DOUG P. DWN. PAUL G. SCALE NONE
Gibson Steel Basins
SINCE '972 DATE: JAN. 2.3, 06 MODEL: SCBFJO-42HB-6
247 Washington SI Eugene, Or. g7401 ph:(54J) 687 - 8672 fox:.344-0207,
#
F5