HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotice PLANNER 6/16/2011 RECCIVED
1JnUN 1 6 2011
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
By: �u Gf�5c6
STATE OF OREGON ) l 2
) ss.
County of Lane )
I, Karen LaFleur, being first duly sworn, do hereby depose and say as follows:
1. I state that I am a Program Technician for the Planning Division of the
Development Services Department, City of Springfield, Oregon.
2. I state that in my capacity as, Program Technician, I prepared and caused to be
mailed copies of IV P211-0000L k\1otce c 1/2_,C.i-accr• -A fie- mow-r bee i,
(See attachment "A") on (D/ I(p , 2011 addressed to (see
Attachment B"), by causing said letters to be placed in a U.S. mail box with
postage fully prepaid thereon.
KAREN LaFLEUR
STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane
/,.t i , 2011. Personally appeared the above named Karen LaFleur,
•gram Technician, who acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary
act Before me: Xes / / •
c ; OFFICIAL SEAL _ /� O//DEYETBLI KELLY edit/
CC�JJJ
NOTARY PLITIV OREGON
` is COMMISSION NO.420351 p
NIY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUG.15,2011 My Commission Expires: /0/
• •
•
v
•
• •
SPNINOFIELD
Notice of Decision - Site Plan Review
Project Name: OBO mixed use
Project Proposal: A mixed use Commercial/Residential development to include 15 attached dwellings
and up to 6,000sf of commercial space on two separate tax lots under a single ownership.
Case Number. TYP211-00002
Project Location:5175 and 5195 Main Street
Tax lot(s): 17-02-33-32#6300 and 6200
Property size: 1.5 acres
Base Zone: Community Commercial r
Overlay District(s):none
Metro Plan Designation: Mixed Use Commercial
Refinement Plan/Designation: East Main/Mixed Use Area #3
Pre-Submittal Meeting Date: December 21, 2010
Application Submitted Date: February 15,2011
Review suspended:April 20,2011
Review resumed:June 15,2011
Decision Issued Date: June 16, 2011
Appeal Deadline Date:June 31,2011
Other Application: TYP211-00003 (Tree felling)
CITY OP SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW:TEAM 4 u 1 'a:=T = ,,, , `, y
POSITION REVIEW OF NAME PHONE
Project Manager Planning Steve Hopkins 726-3649
Transportation Planning Engineer Transportation Michael Liebler 736-1034
Public Works Civil Engineer Utilities,Sanitary &Storm Clayton Mceachern 736-1036
Sewer
Deputy Fire Marshall Fire and Life Safety Gilbert Gordon 726-2293,
Building Official Building Dave Bowlsby 736-1029
APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMEN'--'t r W TEAMS +
Owner Representative:
Nick Boyles Kristen Taylor
OBO Enterprises LLC TBG Architects
1390 Grosbeak Court 132 E Broadway,Suite 200
Redmond OR 97756 Eugene OR 97401
Boyles/0B0 Enterprises Case No. TYP2I 1-00002 I of20
, .
.
• •
,
Zone map
1
,
-'
, I
( . , I
,
1 I '- . . . . ,
1
i 1 I
I . ,
1 -
. ,
1 I
1 ..
i . . , •-
I - i
- ■ t . ,
I i
1 I
I • i II i I 1 . I
• I
I -
1.1 ,
i i 1 1
I I •
0 •
J' 51;,1°;-,-n•- 2”:"OR7e0i'w.:11;"---`,2• -
wrins/vitz. ,, :.4
LDR
,
A
w 0 50 I 100 Feet
N
!=!!■!S
1 1
1
•
_.....
,
•
Aerial photo
. .
.1 ..e_.......
.._____,-. !....ics!Lae.4....§,! ;L24-14-54,:.et r4;:' r 4.4, .`45.;-4.:r- .nrtr.■ -..;;', • ':-.-'71,14.7.„., ; rr;
LitNi 1-4111.,e4t4.:L:--rD.t4r .1=Z4.4....t;f4:74.r74?4:-SM'ii:a4:;*tiiri.:*4';41.Sitart-r4A::-.“::44 .71..-'4"2^:4.2:;
w•-•-etz ••:.-„tx-Th'enc__:,,,__=.4. ___‘•<4,,styiza,...-‘4--,,-,-.in.,:-.1,; ,,L;-_„„‘," „;-;....77.73,15,,-;:ztk.
,t14-h,itac_.. .,..ezi,.,„,,,,,,, i.i.„--,%,;..._.•-a.,- 414.. ..ce . , -,;:-...45,f„21, -*2-24?-&-_,,,,,,z-zw•-,,
424 ,-,;.?..-..L.--Er.:ififid.akti.. .,;-- t ': ..-7a,t-2,-••••- ..„-cfu&.:;••ii
10".=-"zttitt"t ,; .')Z;:=Ci:HEI`7,--;r-DtSt : 1.:4-4:44;.:'44'Cii-,7../l2i.‘: i. `r- 1.7.7e...t I -,$ ..14{
:itgi344;4,44;,; ::'44.-.1,1gSits- ;',„. , '1,1!?..4*,,;#:;:f.:,...'f''''.14.•:' ..,...'rra:;4;..... l WI: .4.'4...j'It;
f 15- r,•!4-eft.': :rrr.i..PC.L. rr - ..4‘4,."43::::!: '''4:'4 44 'if,444--;::.: -.4.,.. tr ':I r
Pliv?t- ji-- 111.-;, : 'R •',-ti:..e..•-•-r•;,-- 1 t•-•;:"..J., -T. i'-•'' -15, 7:Hliff rr••••'•r k...:H
itt,
br I.2 71 .7,...)r'...,r■:Z),C.:gt tZg, . C t:,... .T. It, -.. 4 1141,f,:,,,et.;n t Sq; , ...C.74
•d%
...-'41.- litis", ',.L : '':: .r..--,62-obl-f.c,-;.: - ; •?E;i: -,A<-..riti:`1,t;ii-[--7,-:-,i--:. , ,,,i,f-.,,,,,
- 1 r---,41-4: ---- -,:v,---:• -.,._. — -,:63oo. e id.34.:t ,,,-.....-.:•.Af' ''' f•.:-.) • • -,• :•• -!c•
• •-•; ;;;; ..;:- ,,,t43,-41(.•;-,._1 • ,_ 2,-..-ze,,---1,:tii,:4 .1`!"''''" ....L,',ct_r:-.., i,,s iFtm;iiti:•.4.,,,,,,,,.• ' ..• -•-.:
.i.„.: „,„,.,,,,J.,,,..,„..,,.... 4::,,.-:I'L't-lift■';', 31.,..lU.-44::;-7- 44 !'' '4_4.-r:.:: 4--44 1.:!$.:C42:S:".■
15,?•/14-Mxiii.? "1•?;13., '.4•-•;',.. ,:-.....1,i:;:, tttirle1,-;,,,T;A-C'ecy-lusr-„ ,;,:.alli:
1-■,,Ile/::::::. t t.,./ -W " 1 Al , r `c .. cte Ar r siy. ‘-_.../ .. -10-..;;;41,,,,,t"-, P3.) . . .".'. - ;..s
.:...'".."? :ff a','. -1"_r".'' '.-le•.----+-4-4,,,'Lt L.sL-''..' r' ','' -,41 E -r.-.'"- c.''''' ::e.
••:‘',--••-•, ‘...._..--,4 t-.1..4..E:2"),y N.y.-7-:-• L-- mr-- L- -1-4414/3.1"-j.....)c't...:-;t1.1°._;‘'. 4'4'1
.--2.`... /gip.'• _ ,...„,,a,„ „, , ,,, 4.;-.-''7-2,-:',"_;-..1,:ir 1 L Hi..„4- :::7-7:;17.71.. , ',,*ii.:
an:rinta-.. . a A4,sialrial=4 -,..- - r. r tr. J 'i-NT.0.$44...-:.*4 , -:. .. - 4-,11- •.::.711t.'erir"4. '' ...e.;
. ..s-cf' ryl,t,3i r3c7-0, 7:?!...i,1 IF .,- ,--/r.1V-!.-.,..
.'-‘ 11441'I-. l -.- --r i.lair - -'"--:--7-':',..::'',1..2■:-1 et.T:: -. -
,. ei .1-• : --_ --,Li,..i. .t .'r ''r.4).; - Vi.
ii. ,..,,,,4::.,,,, .*::'C'ti -41.143.:,11,n1-23P g ''' r.'LS*6.1.--:5::11::-.17Y r.,•*Y.
i• A••,:..;• 75t-.9;•'.'el,'•:::c`.:.•4... "C H".,J;1.t..'':14., I. ;',,•....'.4{"M VI.,...!;i:14 i:P'...•::).<;,,,*q*7 r.. WI■ )4:?
' 4 ICI. ''.t i...' r .14.t iW: ,(tt:l 4 tare 64.tnlaCiat77.43; :;..til.
;"-"2 7-1.:::r.Ptl.--...-•.,' itg./2.7411,?_-- ....t.e.::,. -4-4011 •'--- , icit-1: . Ir: ;,+... . , „....,,,4, -
- ;$.1.:
ZS
'Tre:ZtX.1' .-'',1110;d-• •-r4.= -.:4,-,.. --,,..:,•-7•••-zr r;.h.:1• . 7. - - • :,14 ..;.-;,-:-tt:(1:1;..7 EN i••1 it-,
-__ • . ,_ ..., ..
•
• '
Case No. TYP211-00002 2 of 20
Boyles/080 Enterprises
• •
Summary of proposal:
A mixed use Commercial/Residential development to include 15 attached dwellings and up to 6,000sf
of commercial space.
Multiple site plan variations for the commercial portion of the project were submitted for tentative
review. The intent was to allow the applicant time to receive a final answer from ODOT regarding
access to Main Street,but not delay the processing of the site plan review application. The applicant
has chosen to proceed with Option C,but is not restricted from submitting any Option for final review.
In all options,the residential portion contains 15 dwellings within 4 separate buildings.
Option A has two separate buildings and access to Main Street. Option B has the same building
footprints but no access to Main Street. Option C is a single building and no access to Main Street.
Options A and B were discussed at the pre-submittal meeting on December 21. All options have access
to S 51st Place and 52nd Street,which are local streets and are controlled by the City of Springfield.
Residential -
Building 1A: 6 dwellings (3 lower,3 upper)
Building 1B: 3 dwellings (upper) and 9 garages (lower)
Building 1C: 6 garages (lower), storage and trash area (lower),2 dwellings (upper)
Building 2: Four dwellings (quad,4 two-story townhouse units).
Commercial
Option A: Access to Main Street, 2500 sf drive thru restaurant,3000sf retail
Option B: No access to Main Street,2500 sf drive thru restaurant,3000sf retail
Option C: No access to Main Street, 6000 sf building for retail and/or restaurant use
The final site plan must identify a single option (A, B or C).
Sequencing
The residential portion will be constructed first. Prior to occupancy of the first dwelling:
• Install perimeter landscaping
• Construct the PIP (South 51st Place sidewalk, driveway) to the satisfaction of the city engineer.
Modifications to the final site plan
The preapproved commercial uses are contained in Table 3, and included as Attachment"A" to this
report. Other uses may be allowed, as well as changes to the approved building footprints, in
accordance with SDC 5.17-145. Minor modifications to the building footprints are anticipated once a
specific tenant is identified. Modifications must comply with the rules in effect at the time of submittal.
A switch between Options B (drive thru with separate commercial building) and C (single commercial
building) can be approved with minimal (Type 1 or less) review. These options only modify the
internal circulation, landscaping and commercial building footprints. There are no changes to the site
access, drainage, or utility connections. To add access to Main Street(Option A) would constitute a
significant modification and can be approved with a Type 2 review. The scope of the review would be
limited to the portion of the site plan being modified.
Boyles/080 Enterprises Case No. TYP2I 1-00002 3 of 20
Decision: Tentative Approval with conditions, as of the date of this letter. The standards of the
Springfield Development Code (SDC) applicable to each criterion of approval are listed herein and are
satisfied by the submitted plans and notes unless specifically noted with findings and conditions
necessary for compliance. The Final Site Plan must conform to the submitted plans as conditioned
herein. This is a limited land use decision made according to city code and state statutes. Unless
appealed,the decision is final. Please read this document carefully.
Other Uses Authorized by the Decision: None. Future development will be in accordance with the
provisions of the SDC, filed easements and agreements, and all applicable local, state and federal
regulations.
Review Process: These applications are reviewed under Type II procedures listed in SDC 5.1-130,the
Site Plan Review Criteria in SDC 5.17-100 and the Multi-unit Design Standards in SDC 3.2-240.
Procedural Findings:
• Applications for Limited Land Use Decisions require the notification of property
owners/occupants within 300 feet of the subject property allowing for a 14 day comment period
on the applications (SDC Sections 5.1-130 and 5.2-115). The applicant and parties submitting
written comments during the notice period have appeal rights and are mailed a copy of this
decision for consideration.
• Notice was sent to adjacent property owners/occupants within 300 feet of the subject site on
February 22,2011.
• On March 15, 2011, the City's Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed plans.
City staff's review comments have been reduced to findings and conditions only as necessary
for compliance with the Tentative Site Plan Criteria of Approval contained in SDC 5.17-125.
• On April 20, 2011, the applicant requested the review process be suspended until September 6,
2011.
• On June 15, 2010,the applicant requested the review process resume.
• This decision was issued on the 65th day of the 120 days mandated by the state.
• In accordance with SDC 5.17-135, the Final Site Plan shall comply with the requirements of the
SDC and the conditions imposed by the Director in this decision. The Final Plan otherwise shall
be in substantial conformity with the tentative plan reviewed. Portions of the proposal
approved as submitted during tentative review cannot be substantively changed during Final
Plan approval.
Comments Received: The applicant and parties submitting written comments during the notice period
have appeal rights and are mailed a copy of this decision for consideration. See Appeals,on the last
page of this report.
Brian Stenhoim, 235 South 52nd St,Springfield OR 97478. On February 25, 2011,Mr. Stenholin
submitted an email with his comments. The full text of his comments is made a part of this record by
reference here and is available for review upon request. Some of his concerns include property taxes,
crime, and more bars in Springfield.
Boyles/0B0 Enterprises Case No. TYP2I 1-00002 4 of 20
• •
Response: While property taxes and crime are significant issues, they are outside the scope of this site
plan review. No evidence has been presented that the proposed development will increase crime in the
adjacent neighborhood. Questions regarding property taxes can be answered by the Lane County
Assessment,&Taxation Department(541-682-4321). The site is zoned Community Commercial and
taverns and brew pubs are permitted in that zone. However, the applicant has not proposed a tavern
or brew pub.
SDC 5.17-125 Site Plan Review Criteria of Approval
The Director shall approve or approve with conditions: a Type II Site Plan Review application upon
determining that approval criteria A. through E., below have been satisfied. If conditions cannot be
attached to satisfy the approval criteria,the Director shall deny the application.
A. The zoning is consistent with the Metro Plan diagram,and/or the applicable Refinement Plan
diagram,Plan District map,and Conceptual Development Plan.
Finding:The site is zoned Community Commercial. This area is designated Mixed Use
Commercial by the Metro Plan. It is designated Mixed Use Area#3 by the East Main Street
Refinement Plan.
Finding: The policies for Mixed Use Area #3 state:
A) "The following land uses are allowed under Community Commercial zoning:
• Medium and High Density Residential
• All Community Commercial uses subject to Article 18 of the Springfield Development
Code."
B) "Wherever commercial/industrial uses abut residential uses vegetative buffers and
landscaping shall be required in accordance with Site Plan Review standards (article 31,
Springfield Development Code)."
Finding.The site is being developed with the CC zone standards for the commercial portion,and
the MDR zone and Multi-unit design standards for the residential portion.
Conclusion:The proposal complies with SDC 5.17-125(A).
B. 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 shall not be exceeded and the public improvements shall be available to serve the site
at the time of development, unless otherwise provided for by this Code and other applicable
regulations. The Public Works Director or a utility provider shall determine capacity issues. '
Finding: Willamalane Parks and Recreation District submitted comments on March 15.
"The information in the development issues packet indicates that the applicant wishes to
construct two multiple-family residential buildings,with building one having 11 units
and building two having four units,for a total of 15 multi-family dwelling units.
Pursuant to Willamalane's current SDC policy, each new multi-family dwelling unit
would be subject to a system development charge (SDC) of$2,800 for park and
recreation improvements. SDC's would be collected at the time of building permit
issuance,and will be based on the SDC policy in effect at that time."
Boyles/0B0 Enterprises Case No. TYP211-00002 - 5 of 20
• •
Finding:The existing public stormwater system, to which the applicant proposes connection,
has limited capacity. The applicant has turned in hydrologic stormwater calculations,
consistent with the City's EDSPM, showing that the proposed infiltration swales will limit the
peak stormwater discharge rates from the entire site to acceptable limits. .
Finding: The proposed development appears to provide satisfactory stormwater runoff
management through the use of infiltration ponds and conventional catch basins and
underground conveyance to the existing public system in city owned ROW.
Finding: Section 3.03.3.B of the City's EDSPM states all public and private development and
redevelopment projects shall employ a system of one or more post-developed BMPs that in
combination are designed to achieve at least a 70 percent reduction in the total suspended solids
in the runoff generated by that development. Section 3.03.4.E of the manual requires a
minimum of 50 percent of the non-building rooftop impervious area on a site shall be treated
for stormwater quality improvement using vegetative methods.
Finding: To meet the requirements of the City's MS4 permit, the Springfield Development
Code, and the City's EDSPM, the applicant has proposed three infiltration swales and double
chambered catch basins with filter inserts. One of the ground cover plants specified on the
landscaping plan#491 Rubus pentalobus "bramble" is not found on the plant list for such
facilities found in the BES stormwater manual. This can be allowed if the landscape architect
certifies the proposed plant will function in a similar manner as the listed plants.
Condition 1: Provide a ground cover plant or seed mix found in the BES stormwater manual to
replace Rubus pentalobus "bramble", or submit certification by a landscape architect that the
proposed plant will function in a similar manner as the ground cover plants listed in the BES
stormwater manual.
Finding: The vegetation proposed for use in the swales will serve as the primary pollutant
removal mechanism for the stormwater runoff, and will remove suspended solids and
pollutants through the processes of sedimentation and filtration. Satisfactory pollutant removal
will occur only when the vegetation has been fully established.
Condition 2: Provide an operations and maintenance plan to the City for review to ensure the
long-term maintenance and operation of the proposed double chambered catchbasins,filter
inserts and infiltration swales consistent with maintenance criteria required by BES stormwater
manual and manufacturers if applicable. The plan should designate maintenance responsibility
for operating and maintaining the system, and should be distributed to all property owners and
tenants of the site. The City of Springfield can provide a template for each facility upon request.
• Condition 3: To ensure a fully functioning water quality system and meet objectives of
Springfield's MS4 permit, the Springfield Development Code and the EDSPM, the proposed
private vegetative water quality swale shall be fully vegetated with all vegetation species
established prior to occupancy,while the grassy swale/detention pond shall be fully vegetated
with all vegetation species established prior to City acceptance of the Public Improvement
Project. Alternatively, if this condition cannot be met, the applicant shall provide and maintain
additional interim erosion control/water quality measures acceptable to the Public Works
Department that will suffice until such time as the swale vegetation becomes fully established.
Boyles/080 Enterprises Case No. TYP2I 1-00002 6 of 20
• •
PUBLIC STREETS, SIDEWALKS &IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENTS
Finding: Section 4.2-105.G.2 of the Springfield Development Code requires that whenever a
proposed land division or development will increase traffic on the City street system and that
development has any unimproved street frontage abutting a fully improved street, that street
frontage shall be fully improved to City specifications.
Finding: The site has frontage on S 51st Place, S 52nd Street, and Main Street. A full width
sidewalk is required along 51st Place and 52nd Street. A Public Improvement Project(PIP) has
been initiated and is currently under review for improvements along 51st Place. The plans
include a full width sidewalk along 51st Place. In addition, a sidewalk will be required on 52nd
Street,from the southernmost sidewalk accessing the apartment area to the existing curb return
along Main St,which can be reviewed and constructed under the Encroachment Permit process
and does not require a PIP.
Condition 4: Full width sidewalks shall be constructed along the frontage of 51st Place and
52nd Street. The sidewalk on 52nd shall terminate at the southernmost sidewalk accessing the
residential portion of the project.
Finding: The sidewalk along Main Street contains several tree wells that are not utilized. Either
fill them with concrete or modify the landscaping plan to utilize the tree wells. Include a note
on the PIP that identifies which option is chosen.
Condition 5: Fill the existing tree wells on Main Street with concrete or modify the
landscaping plan to utilise the tree wells. Include a note on the PIP that identifies which option
is chosen.
UTILITIES,EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY
Finding:Section 4.3-140.A of the SDC requires applicants proposing developments make
arrangements with the City and each utility provider for the dedication of utility easements
necessary to fully service the development or land beyond the development area. The
minimum width for public utility easements (PUE) adjacent to street rights of ways shall be 7
feet. The minimum width for all other public utility easements shall be 7 feet. The Public
Works Director may require a larger easement to allow for adequate maintenance.
Condition 6: Provide a 7' public utility easement along Main St adjacent to the existing ROW.
This PUE can exist concurrently with the slope and drainage easement shown on the proposed
plan. All proposed site improvements that will encroach on the PUE are not required to be
relocated.
OTHER PERMITS
Finding: Section 5.12-120F.10 of the SDC requires the applicant submit concurrently with the
application evidence that any required federal or state permit has been applied for or approved.
The applicant has submitted an access application to the Oregon Department of Transportation.
Approval for this work has not yet been permitted.
Finding: Option A proposes access to Main Street. Written approval from ODOT for this access
Will be required prior to approval of the final site plan, as required in Section 5.12-120F.10 of the
Springfield Development Code. This condition is not applicable if Option B or C is chosen for
final review.
Boyles/0B0 Enterprises Case No. TYP21 1-00002 7 of 20
• •
Condition 7: If Option A is chosen for final review, submit written approval from O DOT for
access to Main Street.
Conclusion:As conditioned,the proposal complies with SDC 5.17-125(B).
C. The proposed development shall comply with all applicable public and private design and
construction standards contained in this Code and other applicable regulations.
Finding: Three site plan designs for the commercial portion of the project were submitted for
tentative review. The intent was to allow the applicant time to receive a final answer from
ODOT regarding access to Main Street,but not delay the processing of the site plan review
application.
Finding: The residential portion contains 15 dwellings within 4 separate buildings and remains
the same in all options. The final site plan shall identify a single site plan option (A, B or C).
Finding:The multi-unit dwelling design standards are applicable to this proposal. Compliance
with those standards is addressed below.
Finding: Existing lighting along Main Street between 51st and 52nd does not meet current urban
standards within the City of Springfield Engineering and Design Standards. Improved street
lighting shall be provided with this development to bring this section of Main up to urban
standards according to SDC 4.2-145 (A). Lighting shall be designed, spaced, and constructed
according to the City of Springfield Engineering and Design Standards and Standard Construction
Specifications. This condition will be implemented through the PIP process.
Condition 8: As part of the PIP,include street lighting along the Main Street frontage in
compliance with SDC 4.2-145 (A) and the City of Springfield Engineering and Design Standards and
Standard Construction Specifications.
Finding: In all Site Plan Options, the residential portion will be constructed first and the
commercial portion will be constructed second. To comply with the intent of SC 4.4-105(A),
perimeter landscaping will be required prior to construction of the commercial buildings.
Condition 9: Prior to the first occupancy of the residential buildings,install the residential
landscaping and the perimeter landscaping of the entire site.
Condition 10: The interior commercial landscaping shall be installed prior to occupancy of the
commercial buildings.
Finding: Options A and B include a drive thru restaurant. Headlight glare onto Main Street
will be an issue to address during final site plan review. A short, decorative and sight
obscuring wall will be required. This is not required if Option C is chosen for final site plan
review.
Condition 11: If Option A or B is chosen for final site plan review, the site plan shall include a
3' high sight obscuring, decorative wall adjacent to the drive thru lane.
Conclusion: As conditioned,the proposal complies with SDC 5.17-125(C).
•
Boyles/0B0 Enterprises Case No. TYP21 I-00002 8 of20
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 the ODOT access
management standards for State highways.
Site Access and Circulation Comments
Finding: For Site Plan Option A;the access points at 51st and 52nd will provide adequate access
for the residential portion of the development. Unless ODOT requires a different sequence, the
access to Main Street does not have to be improved until the first commercial building is
constructed.
Condition 12: For Option A, the access to Main Street does not have to be improved until the
first commercial building is constructed,unless ODOT requires a different sequence.
Finding: For Site Plan Option A,the existing throat depth for the proposed driveway off Main
Street is insufficient Per SDC Table 4.2-3. The proposed access aisle for the commercial building
is within the 60 foot minimum throat depth for a curb return driveway.
Condition 13: For Option A, the throat depth for this type of curb return driveway shall be met
by relocating the commercial building access aisle or installing a non-mountable median to
prevent vehicular movements crossing the proposed Main Street access.
Finding: For Site Plan Option A, the proposed driveway curb returns for the Main Street access
location do not reach tangency. Current proposed drawings show angle points along Main
Street where the curbing connects to existing facilities.
Finding: Site Plan Option A exceeds the maximum number of compact parking stalls. In
accordance with SDC 4.2-120(G), the parking lot may contain no more than 30% compact stalls.
Finding: Site plan option A shows an internal pedestrian concrete sidewalk that is
dimensioned 3' 6" wide. This sidewalk as measured on the scaled site plan is 51wide. Typical
minimum sidewalk width from City of Springfield Engineering and Design Standards is 5'. Site plan
dimension should be revised to show minimum required dimension.
Finding: Site plan Option B shows a 3' 6" concrete sidewalk internal to the site running north
and south. This sidewalk as measured on the scaled site plan is 6' wide. City of Springfield
Design Standards call for a minimum of 5' width for sidewalks. Site plan dimension should be
revised to show minimum required dimension.
Finding: Site plan Option C shows a 5' concrete sidewalk internal to the site running north and
south. City of Springfield Design Standards call for a minimum of 5' width for sidewalks-Site plan
dimension should be revised to show minimum required dimension. In addition,this sidewalk
is shown as partially being used to accommodation SDC 4.6-120 (C) (Exception). In this case the
sidewalk would need to be a minimum 7' wide to accommodate vehicle overhang.
Condition 14: For all site plan options,the internal sidewalk dimensions shall be revised to
comply with the City of Springfield Design Standards.
•
Boyles/OBO Enterprises Case No. TYP21 1-00002 9 of 20
• le
Finding: The existing site plan shows curb side sidewalk along 51st street. In accordance with
SDC 4.2-135(C), the city may require planter strips as part of sidewalk construction. This
planter strip shall be a minimum of 4.5 feet wide and contain appropriate street frees. Unless
site-specific conditions make it impractical, the PIP or Encroachment Permit shall include a
planter strip with street trees along both 51st and 52nd street frontages.
Condition 15: Unless site-specific conditions make it impractical, the improvements to the 51st
Street frontage shall include a planter strip with street trees.
Table 1:Residential parking calculations
RESIDENTIAL Building 2 Building 1A Building 1B Building 1C totals
dwellings in building 4 6 3 2 15
dwelling type multi-family/quad multi-family multi-family multi-family
bedrooms/dwelling 2 2 1 1
parking ratio .75/bedroom 1.5/dwelling 1.5/dwelling 1.5/dwelling
required (.75)*8=6 (1.5)*6=9 (1.5)*3=5 (1.5)*2= 3 23
shown 6 9 5 3 23
compact 7 allowed (30%) 8 shown (35%)
bike ratio 1/dwelling 1/dwelling 1/dwelling 1/dwelling
(100% long term)
required 4 6 3 2 15
shown* 4 6 3 2 15
*inside the garages
Finding: The proposed residential parking plan exceeds the maximum number of compact
spaces (30%) by one space. In accordance with SDC 4.6-125,the Director may reduce the
minimum residential parking standard when it is demonstrated that proposed housing is along
a frequent service transit line.
Finding: This site is along the Lane Transit District route #11. This route provides service every
15 to 30 minutes, seven days a week. That level of service is adequate to allow a reduction of
the residential parking requirements by one space. ,
•
Table 2: Commercial parking calculations
Option A Option B • Option C
bldg 1 1 bldg 2 bldg 1 bldg 2 bldg 1
drive thru 1 convenience store drive thru 1 convenience store restaurant or
j convenience store
2500 ; 3000 2500 1 3000 6000
car ratio 1/100sf j 1/300sf 1/100sf j 1/300sf 1/100sf
min 25 I 10 25 1 10 60
shown 49 46 67
compact 21 (43%) (15 max) 13 (27%) (14 max) 24 (36%) (21 max)
bicycle ratio 1/600sf 1 1/3000sf 1/600sf 1 1/3000sf 1/600sf
minimum 5 I 3 5 1 3 10
Boyles/0B0 Enterprises Case No. TYP211-00002 10 of20
Finding: The number of parking stalls is based on the proposed use and the building footprint.
All site plan options provide more than the minimum number of parking spaces. However,
Options A and C exceed the maximum number of compact spaces (30%). Refer to SDC 4.6-
120(G). Unlike a residential development, the SDC does not contain an allowance for exceeding
the maximum number of compact spaces in a commercial development.
Condition 16: The final site plan shall be revised to contain no more than 30% compact vehicle
spaces in the commercial area.
Finding: Table 2 shows the required number of bicycle parking spaces for each commercial
building. The bicycle parking spaces are shown on the site plan,but the locations may be
modified through the building permit process. The bicycle parking requirement will be verified
during the building permit review and verified prior to occupancy.
Condition 17: On the building permits for the commercial buildings,include the required
number of bicycle parking spaces. Compliance will be verified prior to occupancy.
Conclusion: As conditioned, the proposal complies with SDC 5.17425(D).
E. Physical features, including, but not limited to: steep slopes with unstable soil or geologic
conditions; areas with susceptibility of flooding; significant clusters of frees and shrubs;
watercourses shown on the WQLW Map and their associated riparian areas; wetlands; rock
outcroppings; open spaces; and areas of historic and/or archaeological significance, as may be
specified in Section 3.3-900 or ORS 97.740-760,358.905-955 and 390.235-240, shall be protected as
specified in this Code or in State or Federal law.
Finding: This site plan requires removal of more than 5 trees,at least 5" in diameter. A tree felling
application(TYP211-00001)was approved on March 24,2011.
Finding: The Natural Resources Study,the National Wetlands Inventory, the Springfield
Wetland Inventory Map,and the list of Historic Landmark Sites were consulted. No historic or
cultural resources have been identified on this site.
Conclusion:The proposal complies with SDC 5.17-125(E).
SDC 3.2-240 Multi-unit Design Standards
The standards of the Springfield Development Code (SDC) applicable to each criterion of approval are
listed herein and are satisfied by the submitted plans and notes unless specifically noted with findings
and conditions necessary for compliance.
A. Applicability. In all residential districts,multi-unit development (3 or more attached units)
shall comply with the design standards of this Section. In cases where the standards of this
Subsection conflict with other standards in this Code,the standards of this Section shall
prevail.
Finding: The proposal includes 3 or more attached units: The standards of SDC 3.2-240 are
applicable.
•
Boyles/080 Enterprises Case Na. TYP2I 1-00002 1 1 of 20
C. Review. All multi-unit developments shall be reviewed as a Type II Site Plan Review
application as specified in Section 5.17-100.The Director may also determine that a multi-
unit development is subject to a Type III review when it is in the public interest. In addition,
the applicant may choose the Type III Alternative Design procedure specified in Section 3.2
245 when proposing an innovative design that may preclude compliance with some or all of
the design standards in this Section.
Finding: The proposal is reviewed as a Type II Site Plan Review. The applicant has not chosen
an alternative design. Instead, the applicant is requesting several minor adjustments. Those
adjustments must comply with SDC 3.2-250 "Multi-unit Design Standards Variances".
Finding: The requests for minor adjustment are summarized below.
• Building form,roof. There are two alternate roof forms for the back porch awnings
(shed roof) and the outdoor stairs (shed and flat roofs). These are minor building
elements and comply with the adjustment criteria.
• Building form, depth of extensions. Required minimum depth is 24". Maximum
20% adjustment to 20" depth is approved. These are minor building elements and
comply with the adjustment criteria.
• Transition and Compatibility, encroachment and building height. Buildings 2 and
1A are setback 12' and 13' from the property line adjacent to the LDR zone. The base
setback is 15'. The maximum adjustment is 20% (3'). The maximum roof height is
21'. The proposed height is 21' 8". No written comments were received from the
neighbors. Further,no evidence was submitted that the proposed encroachment
would negatively impact the adjacent LDR neighborhood. The adjustments are
approved with one condition. The landscape plan shall obscure the view from the
second story porches into the adjacent LDR property.
• Pedestrian circulation: second floor walkway. The adjustment provides a superior
degree of pedestrian circulation, safety and comfort, as provided by the pedestrian
circulation standards.
Finding: The building will be setback 12' from the adjacent LDR property. The trees along the
southern property line will provide a continuous canopy when mature.
Condition 18: The landscape plan shall locate trees along the southern property line to obscure
the view between the second story porches and the adjacent LDR property.
D. Design Standards. All of the following design standards shall be met by all multi-unit
developments: Building Orientation;Building Form; Storage;Transition and Compatibility
Between Multi-unit and LDR Development;Open Space; Landscaping;Pedestrian
Circulation; Parking; and Vehicular Circulation.
1. Building Orientation. Multi-unit developments,when abutting a private,local,
collector,or arterial street that has existing or planned on-street parking, shall have
the building oriented to the street along a minimum of 50 percent of the site's
frontage (See Figure 3.2-M).The "orientation" standard is met when all of the
following criteria are met:
a. Primary building entrances shall face the street;
Boyles/080 Enterprises Case No. TYP2I 1-00002 12 of 20
• •
b. The front of the buildings shall be within 25 feet of the front lot/parcel
line,
c. Off-street parking or vehicular circulation shall not be placed between
buildings and streets used to comply with this standard;
Finding: At this site,it is not appropriate to place the residential buildings along Main Street.
The East Main Street Refinement Plan requires a mix of commercial and residential uses on this
site. Placing the residential portion along Main Street would put commercial uses adjacent to
the existing neighborhood.
2. Building Form. New multi-unit construction shall comply with the following
building form standards (See Figure 3.2-N).
b. Roofs shall have gable,hip, or gambrel forms (minimum pitch 3 to 12)
with at least a 6-inch overhang;
c. A minimum of 15 percent of the front facade (area measurement) shall
contain windows or doors. All windows and doors shall provide 4-inch trim or
be recessed (i.e.,into the front facade) to provide shadowing.
Finding: Because the residences are closest to the entrance on 52nd Street, that the frontage of
Building One (Structure A and B) is considered the front facade. Additional windows or similar
features are required to comply with the intent of SDC 3.2-240(D)(2).
Condition 19: The facade on 52nd Street shall comply with SDC 3.2-240(D)(2) that requires a
minimum of 15% of the front facade contain windows or doors.
3. Transition and Compatibility between Multi-unit and LDR Development.
Multi-unit developments adjacent to properties designated LDR shall comply with
the transition area and compatibility standards listed below,unless it can be
demonstrated that adjacent LDR property is committed to a non-residential use e.g.,
church) that is unlikely to change (See Figures 3.2-0 and 3.2-P). In evaluating the
status of an adjacent property,the Metro Plan designation shall take precedent over
the current zone or use.
b. A 25-foot buffer area shall be provided between multi-unit
development and property lines abutting an LDR property line,not including
those property lines abutting right-of-ways.Within the 25-foot buffer area,the
following standards apply:
iii. Building encroachments are allowed,provided no building may
encroach more than 10 feet into the 25 foot buffer and no primary
entrance shall face the abutting LDR property. Buildings shall not
exceed 1 story or 21 feet within the buffer, and shall comply with all
other applicable setbacks and transition areas specified elsewhere in
this Code;
Finding: The proposed encroachment and building height comply with the criteria for a
20% adjustment. Refer to the findings for SDC 3.2-240(C).
Boyles/0B0 Enterprises Case No. TYP2I 1-00002 - 13 of 20
v. Light standards shall be 12 feet or less in height and shielded so
that light does not allow direct illumination onto adjacent LDR
property or into dwelling units;
Condition 20: The final site plan and building permit plans shall include a note that all outdoor
lights shall contain full cut off shields and be directed downward.
Condition 21: The final site plan and building permit plans shall include a note that free
standing lights within 50' of the southern property line shall not exceed 12' in height.
vi. Mechanical equipment shall be screened from view (i.e., as
viewed from adjacent properties and street), and shall be buffered so
that noise does not typically exceed 45 to 50 decibels as measured at the
LDR property line. The City may require a noise study certified by a
licensed acoustical engineer;and
Finding: The plans do not show any mechanical equipment. Mechanical equipment
associated with the proposed type of development does not typically violate this
standard. A condition to this effect is included and will be verified during the building
permit review and prior to occupancy.
Condition 22: The building permit plans shall demonstrate all mechanical equipment are
screened from view and buffered so noise does not typically exceed 45 to 50 decibels at the LDR
property line.
8. Parking. Multi-unit developments shall provide parking design as specified in
the following standards:
f. All parking stalls fronting a sidewalk, or landscaped area shall be
provided with a secure wheel bumper not less than 6 inches in height and set
back from the front a minimum of 2 feet to allow for vehicle encroachment.
Wheel bumpers, if used, shall be a minimum of 6 feet in length. As an option,
the sidewalk or planter may be widened 2 feet beyond the minimum
dimension required to allow for vehicle encroachment.The sidewalks and
planters shall be protected by a curb not less than 6 inches in height. See also,
Section 4.6-120C.;
Finding: The interior commercial sidewalks need to be revised to comply with
the width standards. Refer to the findings for SDC 5.17-125(D) and condition
#13.
Conclusion: As conditioned,the proposal complies with SDC 3.2-240(A)-(D).
DETERMINATION: Based on the evidence in the record; the Director determines the site plan
complies with SDC 5.17-125(A)-(E) and SDC 3.2-240(A)-(D), subject to the Conditions of Approval
attached to this report.
Boyles/0B0 Enterprises Case No. TYP2I1-00001 14 of20
What Needs To Be Done?
SDC 5.17-135 states: "Within 90 days of an affirmative decision by the Approval Authority, a complete
Final Site Plan shall be submitted to the Development Services Department. The Final Site Plan
submittal shall incorporate all approval conditions listed in the staff report. The Final Site Plan shall
become null and void if construction has not begun within two years of the signing of the
Development Agreement required in Section 5.17-140."
A Final Site Plan application is charged upon submittal of the complete application and all required
documents and after all conditions of approval are met, including the construction of public and
private improvements and extension of utilities required through this decision. The Final Site Plan
shall comply with the requirements of the SDC and the conditions imposed by the Director in this
decision. The Final Site Plan otherwise shall be in substantial conformity with the tentative plan
reviewed. Portions of the proposal approved as submitted during tentative review cannot be
substantively changed during final site plan approval. Approved Final Site Plans (including
Landscape Plans) shall not be substantively changed during Building Permit Review without an
approved Site Plan Decision Modification.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: In accordance with SDC 15.17-140, a Development Agreement is
required to ensure that the terms and conditions of site plan review are binding upon both the
applicant and the City. This agreement will be prepared by Staff upon approval of the Final Site Plan
and must be signed by the property owner prior to the issuance of a building permit.
SECURITY AND ASSURANCES. All required improvements shall be installed prior to the issuance
of a certificate of occupancy or final building inspection. Refer to SDC 5.17-150 for details regarding
bonding for required improvements.
Additional Information: The application, all documents, and evidence relied upon by the applicant,
and the applicable criteria of approval are available for free inspection and copies are available for a fee
at the Development Services Department,225 Fifth Street,Springfield, Oregon.
Appeal: This Type II Tentative decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission. The appeal
may be filed with the Development Services Department by an affected party. The appeal must be in
accordance with SDC, Section 5.3-100, Appeals. An Appeal application must be submitted to the City
with a fee of $250.00. The fee will be returned to the appellant if the Planning Commission approves
the appeal application. In accordance with SDC 5.3-115(B) which provides for a 15-day appeal period
and Oregon Rules of Civil Procedures, Rule 10(c) for service of notice by mail, the appeal period for this
decision expires at 5:00 p.m. on June 15, 2011. -
Questions: Please call Steve Hopkins in the Planning Division of the Development Services
Department at(541) 726-3649 if you have any questions regarding this process.
Prepared by:
Steve Hopkins,AICP
Planner III
Development Services-Urban Planning Division
Boyles/080 Enterprises Case No. TYP211-00002 15 of20
SUMMARY OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Unless otherwise noted, all conditions are applicable to Options A,B and C and must be met prior
to approval of the final site plan.
Condition 1: Provide a ground cover plant or seed mix found in the BES stormwater manual to replace
Rubus pentalobus"bramble", or submit certification by a landscape architect that the proposed plant
will function in a similar manner as the ground cover plants listed in the BES stormwater manual.
Condition 2: Provide an operations and maintenance plan to the City for review to ensure the long-
term maintenance and operation of the proposed double chambered catchbasins,filter inserts and
infiltration swales consistent with maintenance criteria required by BES stormwater manual and
manufacturers if applicable. The plan should designate maintenance responsibility for operating
and maintaining the system, and should be distributed to all property owners and tenants of the
site. The City of Springfield can provide a template for each facility upon request.
Condition 3: To ensure a fully functioning water quality system and meet objectives of Springfield's
MS4 permit,the Springfield Development Code and the EDSPM, the proposed private vegetative
water quality swale shall be fully vegetated with all vegetation species established prior to
occupancy,while the grassy swale/detention pond shall be fully vegetated with all vegetation
species established prior to City acceptance of the Public Improvement Project. Alternatively, if this
condition cannot be met, the applicant shall provide and maintain additional interim erosion
control/water quality measures acceptable to the Public Works Department that will suffice until
such time as the swale vegetation becomes fully established.
Condition 4: Full width sidewalks shall be constructed along the frontage of 51st Place and 52nd Street.
The sidewalk on 52nd shall terminate at the southernmost sidewalk accessing the residential portion
of the project.
Condition 5: Fill the existing tree wells on Main Street with concrete or modify the landscaping plan
to utilize the tree wells. Include a note on the PIP that identifies which option is chosen.
Condition 6: Provide a 7' public utility easement along Main St adjacent to the existing ROW. This
PUE can exist concurrently with the slope and drainage easement shown on the proposed plan. All
proposed site improvements that will encroach on the PUE are not required to be relocated.
Condition 7: If Option A is chosen for final review, submit written approval from ODOT for access to
Main Street.
Condition 8: As part of the PIP, include street lighting along the Main Street frontage in compliance
with SDC 4.2-145 (A) and the City of Springfield Engineering and Design Standards and Standard
Construction Specifications.
Condition 9: Prior to the first occupancy of the residential buildings,install the residential
landscaping and the perimeter landscaping of the entire site.
Condition 10: The interior commercial landscaping shall be installed prior to occupancy of the
commercial buildings.
Condition 11: If Option A or B is chosen for final site plan review,the site plan shall include a 3' high
sight obscuring, decorative wall adjacent to the drive thru lane.
Condition 12: For Option A, the access to Main Street does not have to be improved until the first
commercial building is constructed,unless ODOT requires a different sequence.
Boyles/0B0 Enterprises Case No. TYP211-00002 16 of20
• •
Condition 13: For Option A, the throat depth for this type of curb return driveway shall be met by
relocating the commercial building access aisle or installing a non-mountable median to prevent
vehicular movements crossing the proposed Main Street access.
Condition 14: For all site plan options,the internal sidewalk dimensions shall be revised to comply
with the City of Springfield Design Standards.
Condition 15: Unless site-specific conditions make it impractical, the improvements to the 51st Street
frontage shall include a planter strip with street trees.
Condition 16: The final site plan shall be revised to contain no more than 30% compact vehicle spaces
in the commercial area.
Condition 17: On the building permits for the commercial buildings, include the required number of
bicycle parking spaces. Compliance will be verified prior to occupancy.
Condition 18: The landscape plan shall locate trees along the southern property line to obscure the
view between the second story porches and the adjacent LDR property.
Condition 19: The facade on 52nd Street shall comply with SDC 3.2-240(D)(2) that requires a minimum
of 15% of the front facade contain windows or doors.
Condition 20: The final site plan and building permit plans shall include a note that all outdoor lights
shall contain full cut off shields and be directed downward.
Condition 21: The final site plan and building permit plans shall include a note that free standing
lights within 50' of the southern property line shall not exceed 12' in height.
Condition 22: The building permit plans shall demonstrate all mechanical equipment are screened
from view and buffered so noise does not typically exceed 45 to 50 decibels at the LDR property
line.
Boyles/0B0 Enterprises Case No. TYP2I 1-00002 17 of20
•
• • .
ATTACHMENT"A"
Allowed uses for the commercial portion of TYP211-00002. Other uses may be allowed, as well as
changes to the approved building footprints,in accordance with SDC 5.17-145.
"P" = PERMITTED USE subject to the standards of this Code.
"S" = SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS subject to special locational and/or siting standards
as specified in Section 4.7-100. .
Table 3
Community Commercial zone Community Commercial zone
Categories/Uses Categories/Uses
Agricultural and Animal Sales and Graphic art services P
Service Gymnastics instruction P
Garden supplies (Section 4.7-150) P House cleaning services P
Business and Professional Offices and Insurance carriers, agents,brokers and P
Personal Services services
Accountants,bookkeepers and auditors P Interior decorator and designers P
Advertising/ marketing agencies P Laundry, dry cleaners, including self P
Architects,landscape architects and P service, and ironing services
designers Loan companies,other than banks P
Art Studios,fine P Locksmiths P
Art restoration P Lumber brokers P
Attorneys P Mailing services / mail order sales P
Audio / video production studio P Management and planning consultants P
Authors / composers P Manufactured unit as a temporary P/S
Banks, credit unions and savings and P construction office,security quarters or
loans general office (Sections 4.8-110,and 4.8-
Barber and beauty shops P 120 and 4.7-185)
Business Schools P Motion picture studio/ distribution P
Catering Services P Non-profit organizations P
Clinics and research/ processing P Opticians P
laboratories Performing arts instruction P
Collection agencies P Photocopying . P
Commodity contract brokers and P Photography studios P
dealers • Planner,land use P
Computer and information services P . Printing/ publishing P
Child care facilities (Section 4.7-125) S Private investigator P
Dentists P Psychologists and counselors P
Detective and protective agencies P Real estate sales and management P
Diaper services P Scientific and educational research P
Doctors P Security systems services P
Drafting, graphic and copy services P Self-defense studio P
Employment agencies and services P Shoe repair P
Engineers and surveyors P Stenographers and secretarial services P
Financial Planning,investment services P Stockbrokers P
Funeral services P Swimming pool cleaning P
Boyles/0B0 Enterprises Case No. TYP2I 1-00002 18 of 20
• •
Community Commercial zone Community Commercial zone
Categories/Uses Categories/Uses
Tailors P Floor coverings P
Tanning salons P Florists P
Title companies P Fruits and vegetables P
Telephone answering services P Furniture P
Travel agencies P Furriers P
TV and radio broadcasting studios P Groceries P
Typing services P Hardware P
Window cleaning P Hobby supplies P
Eating and Drinking Establishments Household appliances P
Cocktail lounges P Jewelry P
Delicatessens and sit down restaurants P Liquidation outlets P
including espresso shops (Section 4.7- Liquor outlets (State) P
145) Luggage and leather P
Drive up restaurants and espresso P Magazines and newspapers _ P
shops Mail order houses P
Taverns and brew pubs P Meats P
Retail Sales (Section 4.7-230) Medical and dental supplies P
Antiques P Musical instruments and supplies P
Apparel P Novelties and gifts P
Art galleries and museums P Office equipment P
Art supplies P Paint, glass and wallpaper P
Auction/ flea markets S Pharmacies _ P
Bakeries P Pottery P
Bicycles P i Radios, televisions and stereos P
Books P Second hand and pawn shops S
Cameras and photographic supplies. P Sewing machines P
Candies,nuts and confectioneries P Shoes P
China, glassware and metal ware P Small electrical appliances P
Cigars and cigarettes P Sporting goods P
Computers,calculators and other office P Stationary P
machines Supermarkets P
Convenience stores P Toys P
Dairy products P Transient merchants S
Department stores P Weapons dealers P
Drapery, curtains and upholstery P Small Scale Repair and Maintenance
Dry goods and general merchandise P Services (Section 4.7-235)
Electrical supplies P Business machine repair P
Equipment rental and leasing_ P Disinfecting and extermination service P
Fabrics and accessories P Electrical appliance repair P
Farm equipment P Furniture repair P
Feed, grain and hay P Janitorial services P
Film drop off and pick up P Small engine repair P
Fish P Watch repair P
Boyles/0B0 Enterprises Case No. TYP2I 1-00002 19 of 20