HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit Miscellaneous 2008-6-11
c~~ 10 De
G
,
13ad-cYu;-wv~ 4~~
7~. -Jv Cd.0U'- ! ( Dg
L J
~~CL
.
c~~~
{
r- - - -- - - _ _ _____ _ _
PJJJh'. JJ0_
--
9v1J'J .~ >#
),
\
~
RECEIVED
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
JUN 112008
BY:~
STATE OF OREGON)
) ss
County of Lane )
I, Karen LaFleur, bemg first duly sworn, do hereby depose and say as follows
1 I state that I am a Program Technician for the Plannmg DIvIsion of the
Development Services Department, City of Springfield, Oregon
2. I state that m my capacity as, Program Technician, I prepared and caused to be
mailed copies of ZoJJ2...(}()f!{-OOO;J..7 ~ 'Io~ 7tJclV,,;'€.--' '\
(See attachment "A") on (p / /I . 2008 addressed to (see C14<.> ".'..' ~)
Attachment B"), by causmg said letters to be placed In a U S mall box with
postage fully prepaid thereon
~~Rb)~~
STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane
~ II . 2008. Personally appeared the above named Karen LaFleur,
'eJ:Ogram Technician, who acknowledged the foregomg mstrument to be their voluntary
act. Before me ,
~AdfL Kdj~
U V
?;/; S- /1/
I
,
.
OFFICIAL SEAL
DEVETTE KELLY
NOTARY PUBLIC. OREGON
COMMISSION NO 420351
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUG 15.2011
My CommiSSion Expires
" )
SPRINGFIELD
/:lI'~
Carla McQwllan
ExecutIve Director
CInldren's ChOIce Montesson
5005 Mam Street
Spnngfield, OR 97478
June 11, 2008
RE 5005 Mam Street Zonmg and Development Issues
Dear Ms McQuillan,
I want to thank you for subllllttmg a Development Issues Meetmg (DIM) appl1canon to further dIscuss the
proposal to cbange your day care facility at 5005 Mam Street mto an elementary school That meetmg IS
scheduled for July 3, 2008 and we will be glad to respond to your specIfic ques1:tons and proVIde as much
general mforma1lon about the process and development standards reqwred by the Spnngfield Development
Code (SDC) as tune a110ws In the mtenm, I thought It IIllght be helpful to document some of the background,
processmg tunelmes and fees we dIscussed m our recent phone ca11 As I prollllSed On the phone, I have
personally reVIewed your preVIOUS SIte plan approvals and checked the code CltanOns that you had preVIously
dIscussed WIth vanous staff
My reVIew of the preVIOUS Srte Plan ReVIew declSlons and current code standards mmcate the mformatIon
proVIded to you by staff m VarIOUS mscusslOns has been accurate m the followmg regards I) the approved use
for the SIte lS a commerCIal daycare fac1lrty, 2) tnmsI1l0nmg the pnmaxy use from a day care center to a pnvate
elementary schoollS a change of use requmng adm1lonalland use approvals from the CIty of Spnngfield, and,
3) the development process to cbange the use to an elementary school mc1udes several appl1calJons subject to
the ORS 120 day tune Ime for \muted land use declSlons, mc1udmg, but lS not \muted to SIte Plan ReVIew,
DlScre1lonary Use and Vanance appl1calJons
As requested, the followmg facts clanJy some of the aforemen1loned background mfonna1lon and land use
deClSlOns' approxnnate tunelmes and costs
Annroved Use Two wn1leu land use deClSlOns document the zonmg of the SIte, the approved use and
reqwred SIte unprovements As Identrlied on page I and throughout CIty of Spnngfield TentatIve SIte Plan
DeclSlon of Approval #1996-05-101 and SIte Plan Modrlica1lon #1998-06-0127, the SIte lS zoned
Commumty CommercIal, the approved use under reVIew was SDC 18 020(3)(q) Day Care Facili1les, and
the proposal was ~,.,.._.~d WIth conm1lons The conm1lons ofapproval were subsequently unplemented and
approved on Fmal SIte Plans pnor to the ongmal occupancy request. No other codrlied use lS dIscussed or
authonzed m any other legal land use declSlon at tlus SIte As such, the approved day care use has never
been cbanged m accordance WIth CIty code and remams m tact today When the pnmaxy use of the facility
lS proposed to cbange to an elementary or charter school the SIte lS subject to standards of the Spnngfield
Development Code for pnvate elementary schools
Pronosed Use A proposed pnvate or publ1c elementary schoollS I1sted under current code as a peIlDltted
use subject to DIScre1l0nary Use and SIte Plan ReVIew (D') at SectIon 32-310, page 82 Adm1lonal
SpecIfic Development Standards for elementary schooIs are also Identrlied and l1sted at sectIon 47-195 of
the SDC (attached) The SpeCIal Use Standards language of SectIon 4 7-195.AI restates the reqwrement at
32-310 for mscre1lonary approval WIth SIte plan reVIew for a11 new facili1les and adm1lons over 10,000
square feet or exceedmg 50% of the emtmg bmldmg (emphaslS added) Comphance WIth the remammg
ten development standards must be demonstrated dunng DlScretIonary Use and Srte Plan ReVIew, leadmg
us to some dIsCUSSIOn regardmg VarIances dunng our recent ca11 The need and process for consIderatIon of
VarIances by staff and the P1anmng COlDllllSslon will be dIscussed at the Development Issues Meetmg The
addrtJ.onal costs and tuneframes are mcluded below
.
-,
~.
Process and Tlmehnes: A DlScrettonary Use/Site Plan ReVIew proposal WIth Vanances IS reVIewed as a
Type III Quasl-Jumctal ApphcatJon reVIew process m accordance WIth SDC 5 1-13 5 What that means IS
that upon acceptance of complete apphcatlOns and staff reVIew, the decISion on the proposal IS made by the
Planmng COll1lIllSslOn after a pubhc heanng, staff recommendatIOn and pubhc testunony Accordmg to the
SDC and Oregon ReVISed Statutes for land use, the Planmng COmmISSion must make a final deCISIOn WIthm
120 days after acceptance of a complete apphcatlOn by the City The process can generally be descnbed m
the followmg sequentIal steps, WIth approxnnate fees and tunelmes noted, asswrung the optIonal step of
Development Issues Meeting has already occurred.
I) PRE-SUBMITTAL Apphcant prepares and sublDlts the apphcatlon matena1s for DIScretIonary Use,
Site Plan and Vanance Apphcatlons as one package subject to completeness reVIew (The Site plans
reqUITe engmeenng and arclntectural mformatIon, vanances and dtscretlonary use reqwre response to
Cntena of Approval A land use plannmg consultant and/or an engmeer's mvolvement are reqUITed)
When sublDltta1 reqwrements are met and a pre-sulnmtta1 fee IS pOld, the Pre-SublDltta1 Meeting IS
scheduled m 24 weeks City development reVIew staffs perform a completeness check of the Site plans
and related documents, then prOVIde a completeness document at the scheduled meeting The
document l1sts the matena1s needed to make the apphcatIon complete The apphcants and thell"
consultants are then responsible for perfectmg the apphcatIon package pnor to returnmg It for actual
sulnmtta1
. Major ActJ.on Apphcatlon Preparation by Apphcant's Consultants
. Elapsed Tune From SublDltta1 14-28 days for Completeness Process
. City Fees $350
. Consultant Fees Market Rate.
. Tuneframe for Apphcant Re-SublDltta1 of Complete Apphcatlon Unknown
2) APPLlCA nON REVIEW Upon apphcatlon re-sublDltta1 of all requested completeness mfonnatIon or
a request to proceed on pre1unmary plans, the City will accept the apphcatIon package, collect
processmg fees, begm the ORS 120 Day and begm mternal reVIew and schedulmg ofpubhc heanng
procedures Dunng mtema1 reVIew and heanng yo "y~ ~;"ons Plannmg staff manage the development
reVIew process, wnte a staff recommendation to the Plannmg COmmISSIOn, schedule a pubhc heanng
before the Plannmg CommISSion and proVIde pubhc notIces and staff 0 _yuo w m accordance WIth SDC
and ORS reqwrements
. Major ActJ.on Start of the ORS 120 Day Tune LlIDlt for LlIDlted Land Use DeCISIOn
. Elapsed Tune ApphcatIon Re-Sulnmtta1-Planmng CommISSion Heanng 4-8 weeks
. CIty Fees Site Plan ReVIew $4500, DIScretIonary Use $4000, Vanance $6500
. Consultant Fees Market Rate
3) DECISION The City of Sprmgfield Plannmg COll1lIllSslOn (PC) will conduct a pubbc heanng and
consIder the apphcant sulnmtta1, the staff recommendatIon and all wntten and ora! testunony from the
pubhc Consldenng all eVIdence, the Plannmg COmmISSion may approve, approve WIth conmtIons or
deny the apphcatJons based upon the Cntena of Approval contained m the SDC for the three
apphcatlons Heanngs extensions may be reqUITed or granted by the Plannmg COll1lIllSSlon m
accordance WIth state statutes Plannmg COmmISSIOn deCISIOns are fina1 upon matl out of the deCISion
to all who partIcipated, or unless the decISIon IS appealed m accordance the SDC and state statutes
. Major ActJ.on. PC Heanng and DecISIOn on Proposal
. Elapsed Tune from Complete Apphcatlon 8-12 weeks WIthout appeal
. City Fees Covered by ApphcatJon Fees
. Consultant Fees Market Rate
~.
,If'..
4) POTENTIAL APPEAL The applicant or any party WIth standmg m the decISIon process by V1rlue of
wntten or oral partJclpatlOn may appeal the pJanmiIg ConumsslOn's decISIon to the City Council or the
Land Use Board of Appeals An appeal to the City Council will follow the same basic heanng
procedure and the City Council's deCISion IS the final local decISIon. Ifnecessary, the appeal to the
City Council will be completed WIthin the 120 day tJrne!mul TIns step completes the local appeal
process An appeal to the State Land Use Board of Appeals IS the responsibility of the apphcant and
may mvolve an addmonal 6 months and mclude addItIonal land use, engmeenng and legal consultant
fees
. Major ActIon. DecISIon on Appeal (as necessary)
. Elapsed Tune From Complete Apphca!J.on 12-16 weeks
. City Fees $2500 (Appellant Cost)
. Consultant Fees Market Rate
ONOTE Consultant fees may equal or exceed City fees for any mdIVldnal apphca!J.on step
The above process can be dIscussed further m the pendmg DIM meetIng We look forward to reVlewmg all
current and proposed use types and occupancy rates We will be responsIve to all matenals submItted and look
forward to asslStmg you WIth future plans 1 also suggest that you consider the same DIM procedures for the
dIscussed relocatIon of most day care cluldren to your residentIal use, given that It has certam code !mutatIOns
that we will be happy to dIscuss
I hope my summary proVIdes some addItIOnal understandmg of the !muted land use deCISion makmg process
The process may seem dauntIng to the lay person, but we are here to help you aclneve your goal of creatIng
quality day care and elementary educatIon facilitIes m the City of Spnngfield. The referenced matena1s are
available for your reVIew upon request at the City, all code InformatIon IS available on the Development
ServIces Department portIon of the City ofSpnngfield's webslte, htto //www Cl snnn.neld.or us
My staff and I look forward to workmg WIth you.
CordIally,
~z?c??~~
ames P Donovan
City of Sprmgfield
Urban P1annmg DIVISion SupervISor
~
cc Spnngfield School DIStrict
OR Dept ofEduca!J.on
~
, .
Page 1 of 1
DONOVAN James
Cc.
DONOVAN James
Wednesday, June 11,2008235 PM
'SCHNEIDERMAN Teresa', 'Jom gllles@state or us', SMOLNISKY Bruce (SPS),
'chlldrensmontesson@msn com' ,
. / -
TAMULONIS John, LAUDATI Nlel, HOPKINS Steve, GRILE Bill, 'Lorelei Kyllonen', Spnngfield Mayor; MOTT
<'
Gregory, TOWERY Jeffrey, MOTT Cynthia
MontessonZomng608 DOC
MontessonZomng608 DOC
From
Sent
To
Subject
Attachments
Ladles and Gentlemen,
As discussed with Ms McQUillan, this letter IS wntten to help c1anfy the eXlstmg situation, the proposed change and the process
for land use review I hope It IS of some assistance to all mvolved
Questions regardmg the land use process can be forwarded to me directly at 541-726-3660
,
Regards,
Jim Donovan
City of Spnngfield Planmng Supervisor
6/11/2008
DF,'l.ELOPMENT SERVICES
225 FIFTH STREET
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
225 FIFTH STREET
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
225 FIFTH STREET
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
~~' ~~J~
~~
a...~llIlIII
Carla McQullllan
Execut1ve Director
Chlldren's Cholce Montessorl
5005 Maln Street
Springfleld, OR 97478
~-~
Teresa Schnelderman
Offlce of Educatlonal Improvement & Innovatlon
Oregon Department of Educatlon
255 Capltol St NE
Salem, OR 97310-1300
':JiI1......
Bruce Smolnlsky
Sprlngfield Publlc Schools Dlstrlct 19
525 Mlll Street
Sprlngfield, OR 97477
0,~t\~
~~~/'"
Yib~
~~
~"e:,"
Children's
~l9f81
-
I , I, ' rg ',E:"'
:Montesson <Pre-Scfwo[ ana'Efementary <PrOf/rams
5005 :Mazn Street" Spn1lflfieUi, (Yj(97478
541-726-2654" 541-726-5527 (Pax)
Carfa 'McQuUJan
!J>zrector
June 9, 2008
Dear State Board of Education Members,
This mormng, we received notice from the Oregon Department of Education that Its staff
recommendation to you IS to deny sponsoring Children's Choice Montessori as a public charter
school Any response we would like to send IS due by 5 OOpm today, so here IS our response at
this pOint
CRITERIA
We appreciate the time and efforts the Oregon Department of Education staff have Invested Into
the careful analysIs of our proposal for a public charter school We must, however, continue to
disagree with staffs findings The review of the CCM charter proposal conducted by Oregon
Department of Education finds that CCM meets 18 of 23 criteria (ORS 338 045(2)) Our position IS
that we meet 22 of the criteria (please see the attached table which provides detailed information)
Our pOSition also IS that we meet all criteria In ORS 338 055(2) Our brief response to each IS'
1 Governance - The review Sited absence of Board Training (which did occur, In July
2007) as well as absence of Information actually contained In long-standing CCM
bylaws
2 Budget/FinanCing - A reVised budget was submitted With new enrollment figures
3 Standards of Behavior - The district did not require thiS Item We submitted CCM's
current Student Conduct Expectations to ODE With plans for fine tumng
4 Program ReView - ReViews will be conducted annually With findings used for
program Improvement
5 FaCility: We are waiting to receive specific requirements from the City In writing
As we shared With you In May, and With ODE staff repeatedly, the CCM charter proposal was
written somewhat Informally, given the collaborative relationship CCM and SPS enJoyed at the time
the proposal was submitted Even so, we believe that It meets the criteria established by law and
the Oregon Department of Education Please see the attached table which proVides more
Information as to why and how CCM believes we meet all of the criteria In ORS 338 045(2) and
ORS 338 055(2)
soos H.- 5't.ut
~ 0Mf-
17liJR
1Sff R;"e. R-'
4-, 0Mf-
'fJftIJIf
1192 S- Si.at
~ oMf-
1M?
FACILITY
The connection between proJected facility expenses and fiscal stability correlates with CCM's ability
to remain fiscally solvent. Because CCM and SPS have asked the Springfield City planners different
questions, the answers have also been different Below IS the most recent InformatJon the City has
given to CCM, which the City has assured CCM It Will provide In writing by June 14th,
Land Use
The Children's ChOice Montessori School IS zoned mixed use/commercial When we
submitted our site plan In 1996 we were designated a faCility for pre-school and
elementary students The City doesn't have any record of the deCISion to classify It
as a Child Care Center, the best guess was that we anticipated a larger number of
preschool students than elementary students Regardless, the transition to a Public
Elementary Charter School would require a Discretionary Use Permit, which IS
permitted In a commercial zone
Discretionary Use Permit
Some of the confuSion regarding the Children's ChOice faCility was brought about by
the question posed to the City. The school district was InqUiring about constructIOn
on our current site The proposal for 70 students the first year would not require
construction Our architect has been working With the City and has scheduled a
Development Issues Meeting to determine what additional work (If any) Will be
reqUired for a Discretionary Use Permit We should have a written document from
the City to present at the June 19 meeting, Including a tlmeline
COLLABORATION
DUring our diSCUSSion at your May Board meetJng, you asked us for our plan to work collaboratJvely
With the Springfield School District In the event that your Board should opt to sponsor Children's
ChOice Montessori as a public charter school Below IS Information regarding past and present
practices that reflect a collaboratJve working relatJonshlp With our local DiStrict, as well as plans to
strengthen that relationship further should we become a public charter school
Children's ChOice has worked collaboratlvely With the Springfield Public Schools since 1996 Such
Interactions Increased when we became an AlternatJve Education Program In 2004 Our relationship
In the area of SpeCial EducatIOn services, which was emphaSized by your Board as one requIring
close collaboration, has always been solid, and continues as such to thiS day Efforts on the part of
Children's ChOICe Montessori to create and maintain an active and pOSitive working relationship
With the district to support student needs Include the follOWing
0" Intervention and support of the district's pOSition on services when parents of an IEP
student In the Alternative Education Program became hostile and belligerent
0" Transportation of IEP student to a resource classroom 4 days a week
0" Occasional interactions With the School Psychologist (while stili a private school) to assess
students' placement or eligibility
0" Creating and maintaining a staff posItion at Children's ChOice Montessori to proVide In
house SpeCial EducatJon services to prevent disruption of students educatIOn program This
staff member worked very closely With the case manager from the district
SOOS H..... 5t.a1 1Sff R_ R-' 11lt2 S- 5t.a1
~ O"'f- 4-- O"'f- ~ O"'f-
?7fJR Wit f7IIii
We had always felt that there was a cooperative Spirit between Children's Choice Montessori and
the Springfield Public Schools, until May of 2007, when the District told us they had concerns about
our charter applicatIOn When I learned there were concerns, I requested to meet with Nancy
1 Golden and the school board chair to discuss these concerns, Bruce Smolinsky told me that "wasn't
gOing to happen" Thus, we felt deterioration In the relationship before the school board took Its
first vote Nonetheless, I counseled my parents to be positive and non-Judgmental about the
traditional education model provided by Springfield Public Schools After the vote, some parents
and teachers provided testimony that was reflective of their anger and frustration In response, I
sent a letter of apology to the school board, not as an excuse for the behaVior, but as a means of
conveYing the frightening and tenuous situation they were In, as a result of the school boards
deCiSion
With regard to the demonstration In spring 2007 which the District staff portrayed to you dUring
your May Board meeting, we want to ensure that you understand there was no rude or
inappropriate behaVior on the part of our students (I e., no one hung out of Windows, banged on
doors or shouted) They were well supervised by teachers and parents. This was a oeaceful
demonstration When the children became weary of the activity, the children were taken back to
school The goal was to allow our children the opportUnity to vOice their disagreement With the
deCiSion made by their elected offiCials I see Similarities With actIVIties With children at the state
capitol, the Eugene schools' staff and families' protest against the proposal to relocate their
schools, and elsewhere In our state
Neither the District Board nor District staff raised the demonstration as a tOpiC or an Issue of
concern at either of the subsequent school board meetings (those shortly after the demonstration)
when the charter was discussed We apologized to District staff, anyway, Just to ensure that It
would not become a barrier between us We had not heard It discussed In nearly a year
Therefore, we were surprised that the District staff raised thiS Issue With your Board, nearly a year
later Given that the District and CCM have very different perceptions of the demonstratIOn, we did
not believe we could convey our perspective to you dUring your May 2008 meeting Without
appearing defenSive or starting a "he-saldjshe-sald" scenario We are concerned that thiS could
divert focus from whether or not the proposed Children's ChOice Montessori public charter school
meets all of the criteria reqUired by law and by the Oregon Department of Education
At any rate, even after the demonstration last spring, we continued to have pOSitive interactions
With district personnel aSSigned to work With our students In the winter of 2008, our SpeCial
EducatIOn support staff worked With the school psychologist to provide reading test results for an
eligibility determination At the May 15 State Board meeting, Keith Hollenbeck (Administrator,
SpeCial Education, SPS) extended a warm InVitation to attend the Title I meeting for the 08 - 09
school year Other efforts toward a collaborative working relationship With our District, which we
have made over the past several years, Include
~ Records and Testing As an alternative educatIOn program, we were reqUired to proVide
records on student achievement twice per year, as well as stateWide assessments Once
aware of thiS requirement, we were prompt With all of our records and testing procedures
~ Enrollment Each year, Children's ChOice Montessori has to proVide documents to the
Gateways Learning Center for all students we were on a first name baSIS With the staff,
SOOS H..... 5t.at 1Sff R;".e. R"""" 1192 S' 5t.at
~ O"'f- 4-, O"'f- ~ O"'f-
17f/JR fJ/{lJ!f 17ff77
worktng cooperatively to complete student files before school started Initially, a few parent
VOiced displeasure with the process We held a parent meeting to calm everyone down and
explain the nature of the system
~ Annual ReView Paperwork and VISits reqUired for our annual review were completed
Without event Overall, I found our relationship With the Gateways staff to be pleasant and
congenial I am confident they would say the same of us
The day after your May Board meeting, I requested a meeting With Nancy Golden for the purpose
of diSCUSSing how our two organizations could work collaboratlvely should the State Board opt to
sponsor us as a publiC charter school We are scheduled to meet on June 26, due to end of the
year activities, Ms Golden was unable to meet With us sooner
The Springfield Quality Education Model pnontlzes several programs that Children's Choice
Montesson would support, enhance, and/or create (Taken from testimony submitted, June 11,
2007)
~ K - 12 Literacy The Montesson method offers a strong reading curnculum that's has
proven most effective Of the 8 students who tested above grade level In September of
2007,7 had been Children's Choice Montesson students In pnor years
~ ExpanSion of Gateways/Academy of Arts and AcademiCS These programs provide
alternative learning environments for middle and high school students Children's Choice
Montesson would offer similar opportunities at the elementary level
~ After School Programs. Children's Choice Montesson has always provided after school
programs for elementary students Since 1993, we have served students form our own
program as well as students from dlstnct schools My early expenences In education were
focused around after school elementary programs After a few years In the trenches I
became a supervisor and eventually helped create or restructure after school programs for
3 schools I would gladly lend my expertise to assist Spnngfield Public Schools With the
creation of such programs In the community
CCM conSiders the Dlstnct a partner In our JOint efforts to proVide high-quality education to all
students who walk In our doors CCM IS committed to proactlvely collaborate and cooperate With
the Spnngfield Public School Dlstnct, including Board and staff members at all levels Ultimately, It
IS our goal to bUild a relationship With the dlstnct to the pOint where dlstnct sponsorship of our
program would be realized In the future
CONCLUSION
We have a group of children who are successful In thiS environment They Will be displaced If CCM
does not start operating as a public charter school thiS coming fall Please allow them the
opportunity to continue on at Children's ChOice Montesson as a public charter school
Thank you for your continued conSideration
Sincerely,
Carla McqUillan
SOIlS H~ 5t.ut
~ O-Mf-
1J117f
1Sff R:"u R-'
~ O-Mf-
'fJ!j{JIf
11ft2 ~ 5t.ut
~ O-Mf-
'fJ!I77
Children's Choice Montessori
May, 2008
Table of criteria ODE review indicates CCM does not meet, with data in response
Criteria
ORS 338,045(2)(f) The governance
structure of the public charter schoo/
ReView states that CCM does not deSCribe
"board selection process, board terms and
removal procedures,"
ReView states that "there IS no plan for bOil
training"
ORS 338,045(2)(j) The legal address,
faCllitJes and physlca//ocatJon of the public
charter school, If known
ReView states that "There are conSiderable
questions on the current site and the types
land use/occupancy permits that will be
needed If the school becomes a K-5 progral
Any reqUired changes could Significantly
Impact the budget"
Response
Per ODE reView, CCM's proposal meets the reqUlrec
criteria and meets four of the SIX "preferred
Indicators,"
The CCM bylaws were prOVided to SPS on 4/22/08
and to ODE (In hard copy) 6/07, the bylaws descrlt
board member selection, removal, and terms
While a board training plan IS not Included In the
proposal, the CCM board did partiCipate In
comprehensive charter board governance training,
7/20-21/07, thiS IS more than most currently
operating charter schools have done, and the CCM
board will partiCipate In further relevant training
The current faCility, In fact, will not require any re-
zoning, re-codlng, or any construction for at least
three years, given the current CCM enrollment
proJections (I e , If student enrollment exceeds 120,
CCM will need to add one classroom, thiS would
Involve a $1,200 planning fee to the City, which car
eaSily come from the 9% reserve In the 2010-2011
budget, If not from capital fund raising)
Before serving students as a public charter school,
CCM will need to obtain a "discretionary use permit
from the City of Springfield, which the City has
verbally assured should be a smooth, four-SIx week
process The fee for a full-Site review of a new
building that IS 10,000 square feet or larger IS
$3,700, given that the CCM bUilding IS not new
construction and IS only 8,000 square feet, the fee
likely lower, however, If It IS $3,700, thiS fee could
paid With CCM's Charter School Incentive Grant (on
CCM has an approved charter proposal, It can acce!
$25,000 for state 2 of the planning phase, those
funds are not Included In the three-year operatlona
budget)
5
Criteria
ORS 338,04S(m) The proposed budget a
finanCla/ plan for the pub/lc charter schoo/
and eVidence that the proposed budget am
finanCial plan are financially sound
Response
Review states that "several line Item
expenses were missing from the budget, I f
annual audit fees, tech support, attorney ar
other contracted fees"
As CCM leaders become Increasingly familiar with
public school budgeting and finance, they continue
refine the budget Also, the ODE Charter School
Incentive Grant Attachment F (budget) does not
Include all of the line Items typically Included In
school budgets These factors provide context, but
do not negate the following
~ The audit IS not speCifically Identified In the
budget, although CCM's proposal elsewhere
Indicates plans for an annual municipal audll
The fee for this IS reflected In the current
budget
~ Oregon charter schools typically do not
budget for, or pay for, "tech support," as th,
limited budgets do not allow for It, tech
support IS typically provided by parents or
other community volunteers This has been
and will continue to be the case, With CCM
~ Because CCM has an attorney on Its board,
who will prOVide the school's limited neceSSi
legal services, CCM does not need to Includf
attorney fees In Its budget
~ CCM has moved "other contracted fees" (I e
speCialized Instruction, substitutes, etc ) fror
"personnel" Into "services and activIties"
While a "preferred factor" rather than a requlremen
CCM agrees that a reserve IS a piece of finanCial
ReView states that "the budget does not stability In the budget reViewed, the 2nd and 3rd
reflect an adequate contingency fund for th years Included a 9% reserve. In the current (recen
first year of operation." reVised) budget, the 2nd and 3rd years stili Include
unusually high contingency/reserve funds (10% am
6 5%, respectfully), and the 1st year Includes a 4%
contingency/reserve fund, which contnbutes to
finanCial stability
6
Criteria Response
ORS 338,045(2)(n) The standards for
behavior and the procedures for the diSC/pIli
suspensIOn or expulsion of students
R tat that ''th d t f th The student behaVior expectations are embedded
eVlew s es , e escnp Ion 0 e
"Character Education model" IS extensive It the Character EducatIOn Model The CCM proposa
d fI ct resol tI I does not Include policles-or plans to create
Iscusses con I u on persona
b I ty d con ' H poliCies-for student suspension and expulsion
responsl I I , an sequences owever
there were no poliCies (or the plan to develc
them) for students With senous behaVior
Issues and no mention of procedures for
suspensIOn and expulsion "
ORS 338,045(2)(w) The manner In whlcl
program review and fiscal audit will be
conducted
Review states that "there are statements
about submitting an annual evaluation and
audit However, there IS no descnptlon of he
the results of these reviews will be used In
ongOing school Improvement planmng "
SPS deemed the charter proposal complete and dll
not request thiS information as part of the
"additional InformatJon" request, SPS verbally
conveyed to CCM (when CCM offered to share Its
current "Student BehaVior Plan") that It did not
anticipate student diSCipline problems from CCM
given Its track record and Montesson program
Per a recommendation dunng the CCM board char
governance tralmng (7/08), the CCM board decide,
to adopt key poliCies pnor to operating as a charte
school, Including poliCies related to student dlsclpll
and suspenSion, and Will do so. The school's cum
"Student BehaVior Plan" Will be reVised, as
appropnate, to reflect the new poliCies
Per ODE reView, CCM's proposal meets the require
crltena and meets two of the three "preferred
indicators "
This IS missing After operating a successful schoe
for 15 years, regularly uSing all data pOints to mak
Improvements to educational and operational
components, It seemed obVIOUS to CCM to state th
the results of fiscal audits and program reviews
would Influence school Improvement The absenCl
of thiS assurance and plans to continuous
Improvement does not mean the school Will not
utilize these practices
7
47-185 47-195
C Foundation cover-skirting, landscaping, and backfill shall be required
D The manufactured unit IS either a Type 1 or Type 2
I 47-190 Professional Offices
A Professional offices In residential districts are permitted when
1. The lots/parcels are adjacent to CC or MRC DiStricts, and
2. The majority of the square footage of the structure on the IoU parcel IS not more than
100 feet from CC or MRC Districts Where public-rlght-of-way separates the
residential district from the commercial dlstnct, the right-of-way width IS not counted
m the measurement
B A professional office exceeding 2,000 square feet of gross floor area shall abut an arterial
or collector street
C No parking shall be permitted within the front yard setback Required parking shall be
screened from the public view
D For structures on the Springfield Historic Inventory, any external modification shall be fully
compatible with the onglnal design
E Professional offices permitted are limited to accountants, architects, attorneys, computer
programmers, designers, engineers, Insurance agencies, Investment counselors, licensed
real estate agents, medical and dental practitioners, counselors, planners, and studiOS for
artists, interior decorators and photographers, and Similar general office uses engaged In
support services to their businesses and/or their parent compames
F A minimum of 25 percent of the loUparcel shall be landscaped
I 47-195
PubliC/Private Elementaryl Middle Schools
A Schools are Identified In the Metro Plan as key urban services, which shall be proVided In
an effiCient and logical manner to keep pace With demand Schools may be located In any
zone that permits schools A umque relationship eXists between schools and the
community, which requires special consideration when applymg screemng standards
Mamtalmng clear Sight lines for the security and safety of children IS desirable and may be
achieved through the use of non-opaque fencmg and/or landscaping The standards In
Section 5 17-100 are applied only when reqUired to screen playground structures,
spectator seating faCIlities, parkmg, storage yards and trash receptacles or where
significant conflicts are determined by the Director
317
4 7-195
4 7-195
1
All new facIlities and additions over 10,000 square feet or those additions
exceeding 50 percent of the size of the eXisting bUilding shall be approved In
accordance With a Type III review procedure (a Type II Site Plan application raised
to a Type III review as speCified In Section 5 1-130) The Site Plan application shall
also address the standards speCified In Subsections 2 through 11 , below
EXCEPTION PubliC/Private Elementary/ Middle Schools In the PLO District are
reviewed under Type II Review
2. A maximum of 65 percent of the site may be covered In ImperviOUS surface The
remainder of the site shall comply With the planting standards In Section 4 4-100
3 Schools shall have a landscaped front yard of 20 feet and landscaped Side and rear
yards of 30 feet AthletiC spectator seating structures adjOining residential uses
shall be set back at least 75 feet, unless the Director determines that adequate
buffering can be proVided With a reduced setback However, In no Instance shall
thiS setback (from spectator faCIlities) be less than 30 feet Parking areas shall
maintain a landscaped buffer of 15 feet when adjOining a residential use
4 Light shall be directed away from adjOIning less intensive uses
5 Other uses permitted Within school faCIlities Include day care faCIlities, SOCial
service offices or other after school program actiVities approved by the School
District and which otherwise do not require discretionary approval
6 All plants used for "landscaped buffering" shall be a minimum of 5-gallon In size and
shall reach a height of at least 36 Inches Within 1 year of planting
7 Paved playground areas may be used as overflow parking for special events
8
Parking IS limited to 2 spaces for each teaching station In the school plus 1 parking
space for each 100 square feet of public Indoor assembly area All parking lots and
driveways shall be designated to separate bus and passenger vehicle traffic All
parking lots shall have Sidewalks raised a minimum of 6 Inches above grade where
pedestrians have to cross parking lots to enter or leave the school grounds
.
9 Any JOintly shared recreational faCIlities, playgrounds or athletic field shall require a
JOint use agreement that Will prOVide for public use and continued maintenance
10 Elementary schools shall have a max,mum bUilding height of 35 feet, middle
schools shall have a maximum bUilding height of 45 feet
11 A Traffic Impact Study and Parking Study, prepared by a Transportation Engineer,
shall be approved by the City Engineer
318
DEVELOPMENT CODE APPLICATION FEES
APPLICATION TYPE
DESIGN REVIEW CASE TYPES
IAccessory Dwellmg Umt
IDemolItIon oflhstonc Landmark
IDlScretIonary Use
IDWP Overlay DlStnct Development
IEstabhshment ofH1stonc Landmark Inventory
IFmal SIte Plan RCVlcwlDevelopment Agreement (1)
IFmal Site Plan EqUIvalent
IlID HlllsHie Development Overlay DlStnct
IHIstone ComnusslOn ReView Under Type I
lHIstonc COIIlIIllSSlOD Review Under Type IT
IRS HOSPItal Support Overlay Dtstnct
Temponuy Use - Emergency Medlcal Hardslnp (SDC 36 135)
ITemnormv Use - Manufactured Dwellme: (SC 36 13m
jMmm1um Development Standards
IMmorVanance (iJp tD 30'10)
IDetermmatlOD ofNon-Conformmg Use Status
INon-Conformmg Use - ExpanslonIModrlicatJ.on
[Pre-SubmIttal Meebng
ISlte Plan Review
I a. <10,000 Square feet oflDlPcrvlOus surface
I b 1 O~OOO - i 00 000 square feet of lIDpervlOUS surface
I c >100,000 square feet ofrmpcmous surface
I Site Plan ReVIew ModtficatIon - Major
Site Plan ReVIew Modtficatlon- MInor
I Solar Access Guarantee
Tree Fellmg PermIt Base Fee (2)
IDepartment of Motor VehIcles Llcensmg - New
IDeoartment of Motor Vehtcles LIcensmJ!; - Renewal
lFmal Site Plan InspectIOn for OccupancY-ILUC/Change of Use
ILand Use Compa1:IbllIty Statement! Letler
IPlan Revtew - MInor
IPlan Revtew - MaJOr
LONG RANGE PLANNING CASE TYPES
Amendment of Development Code Text (9)
Annexation
a Annexatlon to the CIty ofSpnngfield
b Concurrent SpeCIal Dtstnct Boundary Adjustments and/or WIthdrawals (1)
Includmg but not hmIted to
Park and Recreatton Dtstncts Water DIstrIcts Fife Dtstncts, LIbrary DlStncts etc
Ie. Annexatlon ComprehensIve Plannmg Fee per acre
IE................U.M.a1 Pubhc Wastewater or Water Lme ExtensIOns and ConnectJ.ons
Effecbve 7-01-2008
CITY LIMITS
URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY
TYPE
$726 $726 Type!
$3,472 $5,239 Type ill
$3,828 $5,774 Type ill
$1,020 $1020 Type!
$1,922 $1,922 Type ill
See Foo1note (I) See Foo1note (I) Type!
$3761 $3,761 Tyoe ]
$915/acre $915/ocre TyoeIl
$60 $157 Type 1
$176 $467 TyoeIl
$2,919+$585/acre N/A TyoeIl
$276 $276 Type II
$371 $371 Type 1
$726 N/A Type]
$2,433 $2,433 Type II
$107 $160 Type!
$3,828 $5,774 T"l'!'Il
$346 $520 N/A
$4;n:l $4,222 Type II
$4,=+$272/100 $4;n:l+$272/1 000 SQ ft Type II
$4,222+$317/100 $4,222+$317/1000sQ ft Type II
$4,074 $4,074 Type II
$1,241 $1.873 Type]
$781 $945 TyoeIl
$985 $985 TyoeIl
$704 $844 Permit
$281 $340 Pemu!
$281 $281 Pemut
$281 $304 Permrt
$119 $286 PermIt
$211 $286 Permit
$7,405 $11,171 Type IV
ConsIStmg of Less than 1 acre $2,142 Type IV
ConslStmg of 1 acre > 5 acres $2,740
ConslStmg of 6 acre > 10 acres $3,657
N/A ConsIStIng of II acres > 25 acres $4,614
ConsISting of26 acres > 50 acres $5,727
ConsIStIng of 51 acres> 100 acres $6,592
ConslStmg ofl01 acres or more $9,085
Type IV
N/A 10% of applicable Annexatlon Fee
N/A $1,959 Type IV
N/A $1071 Type IV
APPLICATION TYPE CITY LIMITS UlUlAN GROWTH BOlJNDARY lYPE I
IConceptual Development Plan $13.674 $20 627 Type III
- IConceutual Development Plan Amendment $5.297 $7.991 Type III
IMosler Plan Amendment Type I $2.631 $3.944 Type 1
[Master Plan Amendment Type IT $5.297 $7991 TVllCIT
IMaster Plan Amendment Type ill $9.672 $14141 TVllCIII
IMaster Plan Approval $18.814+$634/00 $28.323+634/acre Type III
IFmal Master Plan Approval (1) See F oo!note (1) See Footnote (1) TVllCIII
IMetro Plan Amendment Type I (acre fee for magram amendment) $21,753+$634/0e $32.815+$634/acre
re TVllCIV
!Metro Plan Amendment Type IT (acre fee for dl~ amendment) $10,549+$6,4/0e $13,531+$634/0cre
re Type IV
IRefinement Plan Amendment (acre fee for dIagram amendment) $1O,549+$634/0e $16,232+$634/0cre
re TvveIV
IVacanon Pubhc Easements $1.241 $1,873 I Type IT [
IVacatIon ROW, SUbd1VlSIOD Plat and other Dubhe prooerty $4,742 $7,154 [ TYJ?:Iv I
IStreet Name Change $4.742 N/A I N/A I
SHORELINE CASE TYPES
IFloodplam Development Base Fee (3) (4) $1,105 $1,667 Type!
IWillamette Greenway Overlay DIstrIct Development
[ Greenway Setback. Lroe already establIshed $2,888 $6, 114 TVllCIII
I Greenway Setback Lme not already estabhshed $5,772+$585/acre $8,256+585/acre
TVllCIII
SUBDMSION CASE TYPES
[LDR SUbdtVlSlOD Tentabve Plan
I a. <2 acres $5,518+$237not N/A TVllCIT
I b 2 acres to 5 acres $7.8HH.$390not N/A Type IT
I c 5 acres to 10 acres $10 332 + N1A Type IT
[ dID acres to 20 acres $10,899+$632110t N/A Type n
I e Greater than 20 acres $11.467+$689not N/A TVllCIT
Manufactured Dwellmg Park $9.867 $14.885 Type IT
Manufactured Dwellmg Park-Space Lmc AdJustment $375 $994 TVllCI
Non- LDR SubwV1SlOn TentatIve Plan $9,742+$58510cre $9,742+$58510cre
Type IT
PartlboO Plat (5) $2.677 $2,677 TVllC1
IPartlbon Replot Plat (5) $1834 $1,834 TVllC1
IPar1ltIon Replat TentatIve Plan (5) $3,117 $8,229 TVllCIT
IPartlbOn Tebtabve Plan (5) $4,871 $8.915 Type II
IProperty Lme Adjustment $623 $939 TVllCJ
ISenal Property Lme Adjustments $1.246 I $1.877 Type II
INon-LOR SubwvlSlOn Plat $3904+$634/0cre I $3904+$634/acre
!Y1><:I
ISubdIVISlon Plat LDR $762+$476not $762+$476/10t TyPe!
I SubdIVIsIOn Replat Plot (5) $1,835 $1835 TVllC1
SubdIvISIon Reolat TentatIve Plan (5) $5.066 $6.130 TVllCIT
IExped1ted Land DIVISIOn (6) . . TVllCIT
ZONING CASE TYPES
IApneal ofType IT Director's DeCISIon (7) ORS 227 175 $250 $250 TVllCIII
IAppeal of ExpedIted Land DIVISion (7) $320 $320 TVllCID
IADoeal ofTyue ill DeClSlOD to CIty Counctl $2,322 $3,502 Tyt><!IV
IDevelopment issues MeetIng $521 $521 N/A
IFormal Ir.o.w......,........Dn (9) $1.769 $2.299 Type IT
IFormal InterpretatIon mvolvmg Pohey (9) $4,742 $7154 T~IV
[Pre-Appbcanon Report $3,553 $3,553 N/A
lMaJor Vanance $6,349 $9 577 Type III
IZomng Map Amendment (8) $5178 $10,154 TVllCIII
POINT OF SALE
ITIme ExtensIOn for Certatn Imorovements $321 $1.044 N/A
Postage aDd Legal NotIficaboD Fees
Type IT $160 $160 N/A
Type III $385 $385 N/A
TvoeIV $543 $543 N/A
(1) Fmal Site plan, master plan approval, AnnexatIon SpCClal DIStrIct Boundary AdJustments!Wlthdrawals and dc::vc::lopment agreement fee ISl0010 of the patd Site plan.
annexal10ns or master plan approval fee
(2) Tree Fellmg Fees - Tree Fellmg - Less than five (5) trees no charge or applicatIon reqwred, 6-10 trees base fee (see fee schedule) -1$50 per tree, > 10 trees, Base Fee
(see fee schedule) + $500 per acre Filbert Orchards pay hase fee only
Any Tree Fellmg processed after land use actIVlty IS conducted WIthout reqwred CIty approvals shall be charged an additIonal fee oA200 per tree m addItIon to the
regular apphcatlon fee The City estabhshes these fees based on the average cost of provulmg t'....6>.........matIc servIce for actJ.VltIes conducted WIthout pc::rmtts
(3) An Floodplam permit processed after land use act.J.Vlty IS conducted Without reqUIred CIty approvals shall be charged an addItIOnal fee oA500 per acre In addttlOn to
the regular apphcanon fee The City estabhshes these fees based on the average cost of provuhng programmanc ServIce for actIvItIes conducted WIthout permits
(4) Floodplam - SubdtvlSlon $200 per lot and partttJons and SIte plans $400 per acre In additIOn to the base fee For development areas >5 acres a$13,650 depOSit 18
requrred
(5) A reconfigurabon ofIots or a decrease m the number ofIots In a platted partItIon or subdiVlsIOn shall be charged the tentatlve replatJreplat plat fee for either
subdiVISIOn or partItlon as ...t't'....t'..a.te An mcrease In the number ofIots In a platted partItIon or subdiVISIon shall be charged either the partItIon tentatlve plan/partIbon
plat or subdIVISion tentatIve/subdiVlsIon plat
(6) The fee for a Expedited Land DIVISion (ELD) shall be twIce the fee calculated for a regular land diVISIOn plus an appeal fee establIshed In ORS 197380 to defray
costs In event the deCISIon IS appealed. If the declSlOn IS not appealed, the appeal fee for ELD shall be refunded A separate postage fee IS reqwred for an ELD
(7) ThIS fee IS estabhshed by ORS 227 175 CounCll acknowledge NeIghborhood AsSOCiatIOns shall not be charged a fee for an appeal
(8) The Development ServIceS Department will process CltIzens.tnttlated zorung map amendments, for propertIes where the zonmg and plan deslgnabon are m confuct,
three tlmes a year begmnmg In January There will be no applIcatIon fee for applIcants who choose to utJ.hze t:lns program. however a Type ill notJficabon fee will be
reqwred for each appltcatIon
(9) Ballot Measure 56 matlmg & postage = stafftrme at hourly rate of $75 plus matenals and postage
GENERAL NOTES
TechnnloP'\l Fee All appltcatlons will be assessed a 5% technology fee With the exceptIon of Pre-SUbmittal Meebng, Development Issues MeetIng, Pre-ApplIcatIon
Report., Appeal of Type IT Drrector's DecISIon., Appeal of Expedited Land DIVlSlotl, and all Pomt of Sale fees (TlIIIe ExtensIOn and PostagelNotIficatlon Fees) as
mdicated on tlus schedule Technology Fee will be applIed when on the resolutIon the ldentrlied appltcabons fees are IIIIposed or collected.
Notp (or alllornl annealt If an appellant prevaIls at the heanng or subsequent heanng The filmg fee for the IDlbal fee shall be refunded. TIns applIes to local appeals
only The appellant prevatls tfthe heanngs body sustaIns one or more of the applIcants allegatIons and amends, remands or reverses the land use deCISIOn.
Heannl! OffiCial fee Any applIcal10ns except an appeal bemg processed before the Heanngs OffiCial shall pay an additlonal fee 055,000 Any amount not expended
by the Heanngs OffiClal shall be returned to the applIcant Charges m excess ofthts addibonal fee shall be assessed to the applIcant
l"nMI Inrnm,. Fl".l". R,.tW.rlInn Any applIcatJ.on fee related to thedevelonment oflow lnOOtnc homnnl! or faCil1besmay be reduced pursuant to the cntena ofSect.J.on 1 070(4) of the Spnngfield
Development Code
~Frhl'('k F,.,. A SlID NSF (non-sufficient funds) fee WIll be charged on all returned checks
Exnethtl'-d PrOCl!:!f.tInP Fee Any request to pnonbZe and expedite the reVlew of a partIcular apphcatJ.on submtttal out of order In which applicatIons are received, sball
be approved at the discretion of the Dtrector and shall be charged a non-refundable fee$ll,OOO or 3 tLmCS the application fee, whichever IS greater; where the
development area IS greater than 10 acres an addttIonal fee of$550 per acre will be charged.
Fee WtuVer The Drrector may reduce or watve the fee for Temporary Use - Emergency MedIcal HardshIp upon venficanon oflow Income status of the owner
occupant
Resolution #04-29, July 1, 2004, Fee Increase
Resolution #05-03, January 18,2005, Fee Increase Effect,ve January 19,2005
Resolution #05-36, June 6, 2005, Fee Increase Effective July 1, 2005
Resolution #06-12, Marctl 20,2006, EffectJve Apnl 20, 2006
Resolution #06-30, June 19, 2006, EffectIVe August 1, 2006
Resolution #07-21, May 21, 2007, Effect,ve July 1, 2007
Resolution #07-56, December 3, 2007, EffectJve December 3, 2007
Resolution #XX-XX, , EffectJve July 1, 2008
"Clnldren's ChOIce Montesson
Page 1 ofS
, [)ONOVAN James
From
Sent
To
Cc
Subject
MILLER LIZ
Thursday, June 05, 2008458 PM
SCHNEIDERMAN Teresa
DONOVAN James
RE Children's Choice Montesson
Teresa,
I spoke to Jim Donovan today and he IS In the process of wntlng a letter containing the Information for 5005 Main Street It
sounded like It would be finished soon I know you will need It before Wednesday, June 11 to be ready for the State Board of
Education meeting
Sincerely,
Liz Miller
Planning DIvIsion
From: SCHNEIDERMAN Teresa [mallto Teresa Schnelderman@state or us]
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 11 35 AM
To: MILLER LIZ
Cc' DONOVAN James
Subject: RE Children's Choice Montesson
LIZ,
Has there been an update on the 5005 Main Street property?
Also to keep you up to date, I was Just made aware of emalls sent from Spnngfield SD to Bill Gnle
I have copied the emall stnng below
Thank you for your assistance,
Teresa SchneIderman
Education Specialist
Office of Educational Improvement & Innovation
Oregon Department of Education
255 Capitol St NE
Salem, OR 97310-1300
Office (503) 947-5648
FAX (503) 378-5156
teresa schnelderman@state or us
From: Bruce Smolnlsky [mallto bsmolnls@sps lane edu]
Sent: Thursday, June OS, 2008 7 33 AM
To: GILLES JOnl
Subject" Fwd 5005 Main Street School Siting Issues
Jom--smce I know that BIll Gnle IS out of town I Wlll forward the e-mail we spoke about on the phone My e-mall to
Bill IS on the bottom At the May State Board of Ed meetmg It was clear to me that the Board wanted ODE to check on
winch verSlOn of the zonmg Issue would be most l1kely I e-malled BIll Gnle to gIve lum a head's up that you folks
would be callmg and also tned to state a few of the comments made about zonmg at the Board Meetmg
6/9/2008
CluJdren's ChOice Montesson
Page 2 of 5
You can see that B1l1 clearly stands behInd Ins memo, winch I mcJuded m my attachments to the State Board, m winch
It IS clear that Montesson has many steps to go pnor to bemg approved for K-5
I do not know the procedure or penalty that Illlght come from the fact that Montesson IS, m our oplll1on, already out of
complIance WIth Spnngfield zonmg by havmg a K-5 school already m operatIOn WIthout proper CIty approval
I hope tins Illlght help
Bruce
Begm forwarded message
From: "GRlLE Blll" <bgnle@cl spnngfield or us>
Date: May 16,2008842 13 AM PDT
To: "SMOLNlSKY Bruce (SPS)" <bsmolrus@sps lane edu>
Subject: RE: 5005 Mam Street School SIting Issues
Thanks Bruce Nancy Golden mentioned some of thiS to me last evening The memo proVided by planning
staff speaks for Itself and we'll be prepared to address any questions related to It Thanks for the heads up
Bill
From: Bruce Smolnlsky [mallto bsmolnls@sps lane edu]
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 8'26 AM
To: GRILE Bill
Subject: Re: 5005 Main Street School Siting Issues
Bill--Although you may have seen the article in the Register-Guard this
morning, I wanted to give you an update regarding our hearing with the State
Board of Education,
First of all, thank you and your staff for the clear memo that described the
issues involved with changing the Montessori from a day care to a K-5 school.
At the meeting, the following things were discussed,
1. I shared the current site plan listing Montesori as a day care, I shared your
memo that outlined that they needed a few things done to legally open a school
with the proper permits and zoning, I stated that there did not seem to be any
evidence that the Montessori leadership had requested or received proper
permits to open a K-5 school and that they might be in violation of city zoning
codes, I stated that our concerns were that the Montessori leadership had not
even begun the first step in what we believed was needed to open a school on
that site, which was the DIM.
2, Carla McQuillan, the director of the Montessori, said that City of Springfield
planners told her to use the designation of day care and it would not be a
problem. She had been holding Kindergarten and first grade classes on that site
nearly since she opened.
6/9/2008
Clnldren's ChOIce Montesson
Page 3 of5
3 Upon further questioning Carla stated that she had called John Tamulonis
last week and he had assured her that it would not be a problem to change
zoning and that it was probably 4-6 weeks and she should be ready to open in
the fall.
Anyway, I wanted to alert you that Oregon Department of Education staff will
most likely be calling to clarify who is really correct, the district or Montessori,
You may also hear from the Montessori leadership about what they need to do
because Art paz was clear with Carla that, as a practicing architect, he would be
going to Bill Grille about zoning and planning before he would ask John
Tamulonis,
Call me at 726-3255, if you have questions.
Thanks again for all your help.
Bruce
On May 8, 2008, at 3 :34 PM, GRILE Bill wrote:
Bruce
If you need additional information, I suggest scheduling a process we call a "Development Issues Meeting,"
which Involves representatives from Planning, Public Works, Fire and Life Safety, etc I hope the
information we have proVided IS helpful
Thanks
Bill
<sps.doc
From MILLER LIZ [mailto Imlller@cl sprmgfield or us]
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 4 22 PM
To: SCHNEIDERMAN Teresa
Cc: DONOVAN James
Subject: RE Children's ChOIce Montessori
Dear Teresa,
I have received your e-mail and have forwarded It to Jim Donovan, Planning Supervisor He IS m the process of verlfymg
mformatlon and Will respond back to your questions as soon as possible Do you have deadlines for obtammg the
mformatlon?
Smcerely,
Liz Miller
Planning DIVIsion
From: SCHNEIDERMAN Teresa [mallto Teresa Schnelderman@state or us]
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 2 06 PM
6/9/2008
Clnldren's ChOIce Montesson
To: MILLER LIz
Subject: Children's Choice Montessori
Page 4 of 5'
LIZ,
First of alii would like to thank you for the messages you have left In answer to questions I have had You have been very
helpful
Also I have read the memo sent to Bruce Smolnlsky, Spnngfield School District on May 9, 2008
I would like to share with you what was presented by Children's Choice Montessori at the State Board of Education board
meeting on May 15, 2008
"The current faCIlity, In fact, will not require any re-zonlng, re-codlng, or any construction for at least three years,
given the current CCM enrollment projections (I e , If student enrollment exceeds 120, CCM will need to add one
classroom, this would Involve a $1,200 planning fee to the City, which can eaSily come from the 9% reserve In the
2010-2011 budget, If not from capital fundralslng)
CCM's understanding IS that before serving students as a public charter school, CCM Will need to obtain a
"discretionary use permit" from the City of Springfield, which should be a Simple, four-slx week process Given
CCM's multiple discussions With numerous City planning office staff, the "worst case scenario" would be a
$3,700 fee for this permit this IS the fee for a full-slte review of a new bUilding that IS 10,000 square feet or
larger, given that the CCM bUilding IS not new construction IS only 8,000 square feet, the fee IS likely lower;
however, If It IS $3,700, this fee could be paid With CCM's Charter School Incentive Grant (once CCM has an
approved charter proposal, It can access $25,000 for state 2 of the planning phase, those funds are not Included
In the three-year operational budget) "
My question would be, does thiS accurately reflect what could be In the future for CCM If they open as a K-5 public school
With 120 students? In your expert OpiniOn, what could roughly be the length of time to complete the site plan review and
roughly what could be the cost?
Once again, thank you for all your help City planning IS so far outSide of my area of work I hope I'm not asking Silly
questions
Teresa SchneIderman
Education SpeCialist - Charter Schools
Office of Educational Improvement & Innovation
Oregon Department of Education
255 Capitol St NE
Salem, OR 97310-1300
Office (503) 947-5648
FAX (503) 378-5156
teresa schnelderman@state or us
**********************************************************************
TIns e1lla11 and any fIles transrmtted WIth It are confidential and
6/9/2008
'Clnldren's ChOIce Montesson
mtended solely for the use of the mdlvldual or entIty to whom they
are addressed If you have receIved tins emaIl m error please notIfy
the sender unmedllltely and delete the commurucatlOn and any attachments
Page 5 of5
TIns footnote also confirms that tins emaIl message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer VIrUses
**********************************************************************
6/9/2008
.
225 FIFTH STREET
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
PHONE (541)726-3753
FAX /541)726-3689
WWWCI spnngfield or us
May 23, 2008
Carla McQUillan
ExecutIve Drrector
Children's ChOIce Montesson
5005 MaID Street
Spnngfield, OR 97478
RE 5005 MaID Street Zonmg Issues
Dear Ms McQUillan
Thank you for wntmg to Mayor Leiken With concerns about zonmg and your Montesson School
I've been asked to communicate With you about thiS and am very pleased to do so
In late Apnl, Sprmgfield Public Schools (SPS) asked us to address whether zonmg would allow an
elementary school at the 5005 MaID Street address A May 20, 2008 email from the Oregon
Department of EducatIon to us made a sunilar mqurry A memorandum dated May 23, 2008 was
prepared and proVided to SPS to address the Issue Copies of these two documents are attached for
mformatIon
I have asked Plannmg Supervisor Jun Donovan to reiterate the City'S assessment of the property m
another letter that Will be sent to the Oregon Department of EducatIOn and copied to both you and
SPS I expect that letter will be wntten some tune next week
In the meantune, you may have questIOns that would benefit from a face-to-face meetmg With us
I'd be most happy to meet With you personally but Will be leavmg on vacatIOn next week and back m
the office for two weeks If tune IS of the essence for you, Jim Donovan Will do Ius very best to make hiS
calendar available to meet With you sooner than when I can be available
Thank you agam for wntmg to Mayor Lmken I hope the InformatIon I've proVided IS helpful
Smcerely,
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
a /TL tJ
~~
<McQulllan_Monlesson SchooL23May2008>
Attachments (2) ~ - - . -- -,
CopIes to
Mayor Sid Lelken
GinO Gnmaldl, City Manager
Jim Donovan, Planmng Supervisor
MtilllUldHdmn
To Bruce Smolnisky, Spnngfield Pubhc School Dlstnct
CC Bill Gnle, Development ServIces Drrector
Jnn Donovan, Planmng SupervIsor
From LIZ MIller
Dale 5/23/2008
Re 5005 Mam Street, Map & Tax Lot
The CIty of Spnngfield has preVIously reVIewed and approved two land use apphcatlOns for
5005 Mam Street, Map & Tax Lot 17023332 4500 In 1996 a Type II SIte Plan ReVIew
(Journal Number 1996-05-101) was "'l'l',v>,ed for a clnld care center and ill 1998 a Type II
Site Plan ReVIew (Journal Number 1998-06-0127) was "'1'1"v led for an addItIOn to the chIld
care center
The sIte IS zoned Commumty CommercIal WIth Commumty CommercIal zonmg abuttIng to
the east and west and Low DensIty ResIdentIal abuttIng to the south A proposal to expand
an eXIstIng clnld care center ill a Commumty CommercIal zonmg dIstnct would requrre a
Type II Major SIte Plan ReVIew ModIficatIon illcorporatIng all SIte Plan ReVIew critena
(Spnngfield Development Code (SDC) 5.17-100) and the special use standards for chIld care
centers (SDC 4 7-125) A proposal to add a pubhc or private elementary school or nnddle
school ill a Commumty CommercIal zonmg dIstnct would reqUITe a Type 111 DIscretIonary
Use reVIew, whIch would be reVIewed by the Planmng CommisSIOn, ill conjunctIon WIth a
pubhc heanng, pubhc notIce and the SIte Plan ReVIew declSlon The cntena of SDC 4 7-195
(SpecIal Development Standards for PubhclPnvate E1ementarylMIddle Schools) would be
apphcable along WIth the cntena for Site Plan ReVIew (SDC 5 17-100) The SIte Plan
ReVIew and DIscretIonary Use declSlons will take "'1'1'wAilllate1y 75 days after subnntta1 of a
complete apphcation
The dIfferences between the land use requirements for expandIng an existIng child care
center and addIng a K-5 school would be generally the followmg
· A Type 111 Land Use apphcatIon would be requrred for the K-5 school versus a Type
II for the chIld care center A Type II apphcatIon IS admmlstratIve WIth pubhc notIce
to surroundIng property owners and the declSlon made by the DIrector It IS appealed
to the Plannmg COmmiSSIOn. A Type 111 apphcatIon IS QuasI-JudIcial and declSlons
1
May 23, 2008
are made by the Planrnng COmmISSIOn after a pubhc heanng The Planmng
COmmISSIOn'S declSlon shall mclude findmgs that address all of the applicable
Ul'l'<V lal critena and any wntten or oral testunony The decIsIOn IS appealed to the
City Council and/or the State Land Use Board of Appeals
· The cntena for the sittIng of schools shall be as specIfied m SDC 4 7-195, Special
Use Standards for pubhc and pnvate elementary or nnddle schools The child care
center has SpeCial Use Standards hsted under SDC 4 7-125 The followmg are some
differences between the sectIOns
1 Elementary schools are allowed no more than 65 percent of the Site to be
covered by nnpervIous surface There IS no percentage for child care centers
2 Elementary schools are reqwred to have a front yard landscaped setback of
20 feet and Side and rear yard setbacks of 30 feet Child care centers m tins
zomng wstnct are reqUIred to have a five foot front yard planted setback from
parking lots and 10 foot front yard setback from bOOdmgs These setbacks
are required for the rear yard also adjacent to reSidentIal There are no Side
setbacks
3 Parking for Elementary schools are two spaces for each teaching statIon plus
one space for each 100 square feet of pubhc mdoor assembly area Child
care centers reqUITe one drop-off space for each 700 square feet of gross floor
area plus one long term space for each 350 square feet of gross floor area
4 Elementary schools shall have a maxnnum bOOding height of35 feet Clnld
care centers don't have a maxnnum bOOdmg height With the exceptIon of
land WItInn 50 feet of property zoned Low or Medium Density ReSidentIal
WltInn these 50 feet the maxnnum height IS 30 feet
5 Elementary schools are reqUIred to subnnt a Traffic Impact Study Clnld care
centers are reqwred to subnnt a Traffic Impact Study If the use generates 500
or more vehicle tnps per day or the Pubhc Words director detennmes that It
one is necessary to address known traffic safety Issues
A Site Plan ReView would be reqwred for either use The critena of Site Plan ReView covers
Items such as storm water capacity and management, landscape reqwrements, utility
connectIons, parking lot deSign and access Specifically, Site Plan ReView cntena 5 17-
125D reqUITeS comphance WIth ODOT access management standards for State Highways
Any change of use, expansIOn of use or new use would tngger review and approval of a new
or reVised access penmt by ODOT
Modular umt placement on the site would be reViewed by the Planmng DiVISion srmIlar to
stIck bwlt buildmgs proposed on the site although the Bwldmg DIVISIOn may have adwtIonaI
reqwrements for ADA regulations Don Moore would be able to answer any speCific
bwldmg code regulatIons at (541) 726-3623
2
PHONE MESSAGE FORM
Case No,
Date: 5t2-Ll~ Time: /0:4-6
From: r.l\J1 La _ ml! (91 uJ.J fJ Po ~
Phone Number: "7;LL;, - .J..fr> 54-
Area Code Number ExtenslOD
Message:
(DAVtla., 1-\ {It! . ~ ~ V1fU\'tL, Jr ~ JT
~~~ (l~i141\J.&7 11 DIM {1~i~
:__~.~a'X'-IA rn",J_.
c::JT ,h{l..c1 , :t-AJ A (D ~ ,~ .illv u 1~
\ .N\V rL +0 ('yO -++U\Il'lLAt<< +-tu.. d.-u.J C!Arn 1.'v/ttA.LA I J 11 ~ .
~(...~ ~'(UJ'\I1~ ~ '2.(\ ll~Avt_L4A~l
~/:1JY\LllJNw..U.1q i f1. {J I M +0 cL ~ /"..L..M :I: lA J ..a ~
u)mJ~.d IaL- ~ b.uX. I J ')~ +0 hhMA rJ.. r:t-.
c~.~ w-Ao.::t:- '-I:::/;lL. ell! M (J..Y))(L..uL t.LJ14-!,
Ci MIi.) IM1 J. U J7t-U~ Li rid h1 'In.& .iJJArn'.J i-:. ..
C AJi j~ ..-buJl-> Aizu,.il.L cvaJuA{,4 h1L j;)~
9- ~tJ-v-eJI. LIJ!l.AL ~_J!~ I~
..;:1;jJ))/I .U~~. cj ~~ -.1'd ~
{mar ~fr C:/ .A.A4f7.1 'l ~0"X.tL~ 1;1- /;tt.c..L
;;(-./) .Ju..h.. U
, ,
U-rI1.JhfJL ~ ~ UJ.-tt...b ,I{)CIld... ~d.- ~ %...J
IWd liUJrA-6n <itJl ~ +tu ('~~ #
I
~;
. . /
fuJ-r;f~ '~>.R.J..IJ- r
, ,
9Jl!h~
I Workflow processeslPJannmg Fonns/Phone Message Fonn 2-12-08
Children's
19ffiJCQ]lJ~
- :Montesson Pre-Scfioo{ ancf'Efementary Programs
5005 :Main Street" SpnngfieUf, OCJ(9 7478
541-726-2654 .. 541-726-5527 (p~
Carfa 'McOl'z[[an
'DIrector
Chi M fr.M5I!ZPfl1e~~ (p V J .(P mSAJ c-.-
May 22, 2008
Dear Mayor Lelken,
In 1996, a site plan was submitted to the City of Springfield of the development of tax lot # 17-
02-33-32-04500(5005 Main Street) The original site plan was for a 3752 sq ft structure, consisting of
3 classrooms, a kitchen and administrative area The business to be operated at that locatIOn was
Children's Choice Montessori School, proViding preschool, and elementary, programs With an option for
extended day child care services Sarah Summers In the Springfield Planning department determined
that the faCIlity would be conSidered a "Child Care Center" rather that an elementary school, for the
purposes of City development codes Children's Choice has been proViding these same educational
programs and chJldcare services continuously since 1996
On May 7, 2008 I received a letter from LIZ Miller, Springfield Planner, stating that In order to
operate an elementary school In our faCIlity at 5005 Main Street Children's ChOice would have to
acquire a Discretionary Use Permit, reqUiring a Type III Site Plan Review This letter was prompted by
a request from the Springfield School District and the Oregon Department of Education for a feaSibility
analYSIS of our Charter School Proposal
We are currently In the final stages of our Charter School Appeal The Board of Education
received a letter from the City, and subsequent Information that It would be 12 - 15 months before we
could reasonably be expected to complete the Discretionary Use Permit process
We are no proposing new construction, nor any changes to the current structures on site In
reviewing the speCific development standards for public/private elementary/middle schools, the code
Identifies faCIlities or additions to eXisting faCIlities of 10,000 sq ft or more Our faCIlity IS Just less
than 6,000 sq ft
As yet, I have been unable to receive clarification as to how the code applies to us, and what
that process IS for an eXisting faCility
5005 malA'dtweb
d~~
9747J
/599~~
'iff~~
97404
/%25'" dtweb
d~~
97477
This matter IS most urgent, as we are to present informatIOn to the Board of EducatIOn prior to
June 19, when they will cast their vote on the approval (or denial) of our Charter School One of their
primary considerations IS whether we will be able to open our school In September of 2008, or If,
because of City code and occupancy Issues, we will need to walt a year
The students who are currently enrolled at Children's Choice Montessori have already waited for
a year for this deCision, since the Springfield School District denied our Charter last May If the State
Board delays our approval yet another year, these children will be forced to relocate
Can we possibly have some assurances (perhaps Interpretation or clarification of the relevant
code, or an expedited process, etc ) that we will be authOrized to continue to provide an elementary
education program dUring the 08 - 09 school year?
Your assistance In this matter IS urgently needed and greatly appreciated I can be reached at
726-2654 or 915-0896
Thank you for your attention to this matter,
~
Carla McQuillan
Executive Director
Children's Choice Montessori
5005 ?Ita"" cftteeb
cf~~
9747<f
/599 %ue,,~
'i5'~~
97404
/9425" cftteeb
cf~~
97477
Children's ChOIce Montesson
Page 1 of2
DONOVAN James
From.
Sent
To
Cc
Subject
MILLER Liz
Tuesday, May 20, 2008 349 PM
DONOVAN James, GRILE Bill
JONES Terry (Tara)
FW Children's Choice Montesson
Jim and Bill,
I Just received this e-mail from Teresa Schneiderman from the State Board of Education with questions regarding some of the
Children's ChOice Montessori statements to the Board I know you are meeting tomorrow afternoon I'm not sure of the fees
Children's ChOice IS refernng to although It seems that one IS close to the Discretionary Use fee It might be a good Idea to send
Teresa a packet of our applications for DU, Site Plan Review and a fee schedule ThiS lists the Items needed to submit a
complete application and what type of professional needs to stamp which plans It doesn't seem as though any tlmelines or
preparation costs pnor to application submittal or subsequent Improvement costs are discussed
LIZ
From: SCHNEIDERMAN Teresa [mallto Teresa Schnelderman@state or us]
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 2 06 PM
To: MILLER LIZ
Subject: Children's ChOice Montessori
LIZ,
First of alii would like to thank you for the messages you have left In answer to questions I have had You have been very helpful
Also I have read the memo sent to Bruce Smolnlsky, Spnngfield School District on May 9, 2008
I would like to share With you what was presented by Children's ChOice Montessori at the State Board of Education board meeting
on May 15, 2008
"The current faCIlity, In fact, Will not require any re-zonlng, re-codlng, or any construction for at least three years, given
the current CCM enrollment projections (I e , If student enrollment exceeds 120, CCM Will need to add one classroom,
thiS would Involve a $1,200 planning fee to the City, which can easily come from the 9% reserve In the 2010-2011 budget,
If not from capital fund raising)
CCM's understanding IS that before serving students as a public charter school, CCM Will need to obtain a "discretionary
use permit" from the City of Springfield, which should be a Simple, four-5lx week process Given CCM's multiple
diSCUSSions With numerous City plannrng office staff, the "worst case scenano" would be a $3,700 fee for thiS permit
thiS IS the fee for a full-Site review of a new bUilding that IS 10,000 square feet or larger, given that the CCM bUilding is
not new construction IS only 8,000 square feet, the fee IS likely lower, however, If It IS $3,700, thiS fee could be paid With
CCM's Charter Schoollncentrve Grant (once CCM has an approved charter proposal, It can access $25,000 for state 2 of
the planning phase, those funds are not Included In the three-year operational budget) "
My question would be, does thiS accurately reflect what could be In the future for CCM If they open as a K~5 public school With 120
students? In your expert OpiniOn, what could roughly be the length of time to complete the site plan review and roughly what could
be the cost?
Once again, thank you for all your help City planning IS so far outSide of my area of work I hope I'm not asking Silly questions
Teresa SChneIderman
5/2112008
Clnldren's ChOIce Montesson
Education Specialist - Charter Schools
Page 2 of2
Office of EducatIonal Improvement & Innovation
Oregon Department of Education
255 Capitol St NE
Salem, OR 97310-1300
Office (503) 947-5648
FAX (503) 378-5156
teresa schnelderman@state or us
**********************************************************************
TIns emaII and any fIles transrmtted WIth It are confidentIal and
mtended solely for the use of the mdlvldual or entIty to whom they
, are addressed If you have receIved tins emaIl m error please notIfy
the sender nnmedIately and delete the commumcatIon and any attachments
TIns footnote also confIrms that tins emaIl message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer VlIUses
**********************************************************************
5/21/2008
From SCHNEIDERMAN Teresa [mal~o Teresa Schne.dennan@state or us]
Sent TUesday May 20, 2008 2 06 PM
To MIUER La
Subject Children's Choice Montesson
lIZ,
First of all I would like to thank you for the messages you have left In answer to questions I have had You have been very
helpful
Also I have read the memo sent to Bruce Smolmsky, Spnngfield School Dlstnct on May 9, 2008
I would like to share with you what was presented by Children's ChoICe Montesson at the State Board of Education board
meeting on May 15, 2008
"The current facility, In fact, will not require any re-zoning, re-codlng, or any construction for at least three years,
given the current CCM enrollment projeCtIons (I e I .f student enrollment exceeds 120, CCM Will need to add one
classroom, tins would Involve a $1,200 planning fee to the city, which can easily come from the 9% reserve in the
2010-2011 budget, if not from capital fundralsmg)
CCM's understanding IS that before serving students as a public charter school, CCM Will need to obtain a
"discretionary use pennlf' from the City of Spnngfield. which should be a simple, four..slx week process Given
CCM's mulbple diSCUSSIOns With numerous City plannrng office staff, the "'worst case scenano" would be a
$3,700 fee for this pennlL thIS IS the fee for a full...l... revl_ of a n_ buildIng that Is 10,000 square feet or
larger; given that the CCM buildIng IS not new construction IS only 8,000 square feet, the fee IS likely lower;
however, If It Is $3,700, thIS fee could be paid WJth CCM's Charter Schoollncenbve Grant (once CCM has an
approved charter proposal, It can access $25,000 for state 2 of the plannIng phase, those funds ere not Included
In the th.......year operabonal budget) .
M)' quesbon would be, does thiS accurately reflect what could be In the future for CCM of they open as a K-5 public school
wrth 120 students? In your expert OpIniOn, what could roughly be the length of lIme 10 complete the s~e plan revIew and
roughly what could be the cost?
Once again, thank you for all your help City plannmg IS so far outside of my area of work I hope I m not asking sllly
questIons
Teresa Schn" .." '" .n"
(.Lt;
J_()r'
I'-Ut S@5
:.d',\r\!Jl \~I~
-=-1 S~
Edutabon SpecrallSt - Charter Schools
Office of EducatJonallmprovement & Innovation
Oregon Department of EducalJon
255 Cap~ol St NE
~(\}/cU
Salem, OR 97310-1300
Office (503) 947~5&48
FAX (503) 378-5156
teresa.schneldennan@state or us
j
,
1
1
.
Mtauorandum
....,,-->'!"''''''JU"''''"''''''''''''- >1""~'='" ~lJ_IWIIa"tu
To Bruce Smolmsky, Spnngfield PublIc School DIstnct
cc Bill Gnle, Development Services Drrector
Jrm Donovan, Plannmg Supervisor
From LIZ Miller
Date 5/19/2008
Re 5005 Mam Street, Map & Tax Lot
The City ofSpnngfield has prevIOusly reviewed and approved two land use applIcatIOns for
5005 Mam Street, Map & Tax Lot 170233324500 In 1996 a Type II Site Plan ReView
(Journal Number 1996-05-101) was approved for a cluld care center and m 1998 a Type II
Site Plan ReView (Journal Number 1998-06-0127) was approved for an additIOn to the cluld
care center
The site IS zoned Commurnty CommerCial With Commurnty Commercial zorung abuttmg to
the east and west and Low DenSity ReSidentIal abuttmg to the south A proposal to expand
an eXlstmg cluld care center m a Commurnty Commercial zomng dlstnct would requrre a
Type II Major Site Plan ReView ModificatIOn mcorporatmg all Site Plan ReView cntena
(Springfield Development Code (SDC) 5 17-100) and the special use standards for cluld care
centers (SDC 4 7-125) A proposal to add a publIc or pnvate elementary school or nuddle
school m a Commurnty Commercial zomng dlstnct would requue a Type III DiscretIOnary
Use reView, wluch would be reViewed by the Planrung CommiSSIOn, m conjunctIOn With a
publIc heanng, publIc notice and the Site Plan ReView deCISIOn The cntena ofSDC 4 7-195
(Special Development Standards for PublIc/Pnvate Elementary/Mlddle Schools) would be
applIcable along With the cntena for Site Plan ReView (SDC 5 17-100) The Site Plan
ReView and DiscretIOnary Use declSlons Will take approximately 75 days after submittal of a
complete application
The differences between the land use requrrements for expandmg an eXlstmg cluld care
center and addmg a K-5 school would be generally the follOWing
· A Type III Land Use applIcatIOn would be reqUired for the K-5 school versus a Type
II for the cluld care center A Type II applIcatIOn IS adnurustratlve With public notice
to sUIToundmg property owners and the deCISIOn made by the Director It IS appealed
to the Planrung ComrmsslOn A Type III applicatIOn IS QuaSI-JudiCial and deCISIOns
1
May 19,2008
are made by the Plannrng ComrmsslOn after a publIc heanng The Planrung
ComrmsslOn's deClSlon shall mclude findmgs that address all of the applIcable
approval cntena and any wntten or oral testImony The deCISIOn IS appealed to the
City Councll and/or the State Land Use Board of Appeals
· The cntena for the slttmg of schools shall be as specified m SDC 4 7-195, Special
Use Standards for publIc and pnvate elementary or middle schools The cluld care
center has Special Use Standards lIsted under SDC 4 7-125 The followmg are some
differences between the sectIOns
1 Elementary schools are allowed no more than 65 percent of the site to be
covered by ImpervIOUS surface There IS no percentage for cluld care centers
2 Elementary schools are reqUITed to have a front yard landscaped setback of
20 feet and Side and rear yard setbacks of30 feet Cluld care centers m this
zorung dlstnct are reqUITed to have a five foot front yard planted setback from
parkmg lots and 10 foot front yard setback from bmldmgs These setbacks
are reqUITed for the rear yard also adjacent to reSidentIal There are no Side
setbacks
3 Parking for Elementary schools are two spaces for each teaclung statIOn plus
one space for each 100 square feet of publIc mdoor assembly area Cluld
care centers reqUire one drop-off space for each 700 square feet of gross floor
area plus one long term space for each 350 square feet of gross floor area
4 Elementary schools shall have a maximum bUlldmg height of 35 feet Cluld
care centers don't have a maxrmum bUlldmg height With the exceptIOn of
land Within 50 feet of property zoned Low or Medium DenSity ReSidentIal
Within these 50 feet the maxrmum height IS 30 feet
5 Elementary schools are reqUITed to submit a Traffic Impact Study Chlld care
centers are reqUITed to subrmt a Traffic Impact Study If the use generates 500
or more velucle tripS per day or the PublIc Words dITector determmes that It
one IS necessary to address known traffic safety Issues
A Site Plan ReView would be reqUITed for either use The cntena of Site Plan ReView covers
Items such as storm water capacity and management, landscape requITements, utIlIty
connectIOns, parking lot deSign and access SpeCifically, Site Plan ReView cntena 5 17-
125D requITes complIance With ODOT access management standards for State Highways
Any change of use, expansIOn of use or new use would tngger review and approval of a new
or reVised access permit by ODOT
Modular urut placement on the site would be reviewed by the Planmng DIVISIOn slrmlar to
stIck bUilt bUlldmgs proposed on the site although the BUlldmg DIVISIOn may have additIOnal
requITements for ADA regulatIOns Don Moore would be able to answer any speCific
bUlldmg code regulatIOns at (541) 726-3623
2
mtesson school presents charter plea to state board The RegIster-Guard, Eugene, Ore
The Register-Guard: CztyReglOn CIty/RegIOn
Montessori school presents charter plea to state board
By Anne WIllIams
The RegIster-Guard
PublIshed May 16, 2008 12 OOAM
Members of the State Board of EducatIOn vOIced nuxed feelmgs Thursday about a
bId for a state-sponsored charter by Cluldren's ChoIce Montesson, questIOrung,
among other t1u.ngs, Its decISIon to hold a rally last May protestIng the Spnngfield
School Board's refusal to sponsor the school
The protest, staged by Cluldren's ChOIce students, parents and teachers durmg
school hours outsIde the Spnngfield School DIStnCt AdrrurustratIOn BUlldmg,
came two days after the demal and - accordIng to Bruce Smolmsky, the dIStrICt'S
dIrector of educatIOn, who gave a bnef presentatIOn to the state board In Salem -
grew unruly He saId cluldren occasIOnally pounded on WIndows, yelled Into open
doors and at least once made an obscene gesture at employees workIng InsIde
State board member NIkla SqUIre asked what school offiCIals had done to address
the students' conduct "I'm more than a lIttle concerned about the closmg down of
school, the takmg of cluldren to the office," SqUIre saId
Carla McQUIllan, Cluldren's ChOIce executIve dlfector, saId m retrospect It wasn't
a good Idea But many of the then-50 s4Idents had been at the board meetmg, she
saId, and emotIOns were runrung lugh "The kIds came to school after the board
meetmg lIterally sobbmg," she saId "They were very dIstraught"
McQUIllan also saId she regretted grantmg an IntervIew to conservatIve radIO talk
show host Lars Larson soon thereafter, where the rhetonc - only Ius, she saId-
grew heated and dIsrespectful toward the school dIstnct
Cluldren's ChOIce, wluch opened as a pnvate school In 1993, turned to the state
last fall after the Spnngfield board's back-to-back demals of ItS InItIal charter bId
and an appeal
The school sought charter status after operatIng for three years under contract WIth
the mstnct as a pnvate alternatIve elementary school, takmg students - and a
maJonty of the state funds attached to them - VIa dIStnCt referral New gUIdance
from the state put the brakes on that practIce, gIVIng the school the optIOn of
resurrung operatIOns as a pnvate school or seekIng a charter
The state department's charter school staff hasn't yet offered an up-or-down
recommendatIOn to the board, that WIll come next month, when the board IS
scheduled to vote on the matter But a reVIew by staff and outSIde experts was
largely posItIve and dIdn't mentIOn last year's protest
http //wwwregIsterguardcomlcsp/cms/sItes/dtcms support vIewStory cls?cId=101195&sI
Page I of2
5/19/2008
- ~ontesson school presents charter plea to state board The Register-Guard, Eugene, Ore
Page 2 of2
There were some areas m wluch Cluldren's ChOIce fell short For example, the
reVIew SaId, ItS proposal lacked an adequate descnptlOn of ItS governance, proof of
a suffiCient contmgency fund, clear polICies for cluldren WIth behaVIOr problems,
and eVIdence that It can obtam the necessary land use and occupancy penmts It
needs to expand WIthout comprollllsmg ItS budget
McQUlllan addressed each pomt and said they either had been or would be easily
resolved However, she and Smolmsky had different mterpretatIons from the City
of Spnngfield on land use questIOns Smolmsky SaId that had been a big concern
for the diStrICt, notmg that the property IS zoned for commercial use and approved
only as a day-care facIlIty Cluldren's ChOice also runs a preschool on the prellllses
"These Issues are rmportant for us because they contaIn budgetary and tIme-Ime
Issues," he SaId
But McQUlllan said she belIeves the process would be farrly qUlck and
mexpenslve She asked the board to overrule a staff recommendatIOn that, should
the board opt to sponsor Cluldren's ChOIce, It delay domg so for another year The
school allowed students to stay on for free tlus year m hopes of gettmg a charter
qUlckly That means the school IS operatmg WIth VIrtually no fundmg McQUlllan
noted that, unlIke a start-up charter school, Cluldren's ChOIce IS already
establIshed and "91 percent ready to open our doors"
State board member Art Paz, who lIves m Sprmgfield, echoed others' concerns
about the 2007 rally but said he belIeves Cluldren's ChOIce IS well-regarded He
SaId he wants clanty on the land-use Issues before he votes
A good deal of Thursday's diSCUSSIOn focused on the detenoratlOn of relatIOns
between the distrIct and Cluldren's ChOIce Even If the school operates under state
sponsorship, the distrIct would stIll have to work With Cluldren's ChOIce, as It IS
requITed by law to provide special educatIOn services
"What was troublmg to me was to learn of the degree to whIch the adversanal
relatIOnshIp ramped up," SaId Reynolds School DistrIct Supenntendent Teny
Knelsler, an adViser to the board and to Supenntendent of PublIc InstructIOn Susan
CastIllo
CastIllo, lIke some board members, said she wornes about the department's abilIty
to proVide the necessary oversight for more state-sponsored charter schools, given
ItS workload The board currently sponsors three such schools
But Kaaren Heikes, a charter school consultant asslstmg Cluldren's ChOice, said
that wouldn't be a legltrmate reason to turn down a charter bid, given that the only
recourse for schools unjustIfiably turned down by distrIcts IS to seek board
sponsorslup
COPVrIl!:ht @ 2007 - The Rel!:lster-Guard, EUl!:ene. Orel!:on. USA
http /Iwww reglsterguard comlcsp/cms/sltes/dt cms support vlewStory cls?cld=101195&sl
5/19/2008
Page I of2
MILLER Liz
From
Sent
To
Cc
Subject
Attachments
GRILE Bill
Friday, May 16,2008851 AM
MARX Sandra
DONOVAN James, MILLER Liz, TAMULONIS John, MaTT Gregory
Meeting re 5005 Main Street School Siting Issues
sps doc
Sandy
Please find 30 minutes next week for me to meet with Jim Donovan (and LIz Miller If Jim feels she should attend)
and John TamulOnls The tOpiC for our meeting IS the Issue described above It appears there may be a zoning
violation concerning the subject property, and that the City has provided conflicting information about permitted
land uses at the site We need to sort this out and be sure to speak with a Unified vOice Please copy this
morning's R-G article on the Montesson School to Jim D so that he Will have It for the file Thanks
Bill
From: GRILE Bill
Sent. Fnday, May 16, 2008 8 42 AM
To: SMOLNISKY Bruce (SPS)
Subject: RE 5005 Main Street School Siting Issues
Thanks Bruce Nancy Golden mentioned some of this to me last evening The memo provided by planning staff
speaks for Itself and we'll be prepared to address any questions related to It Thanks for the heads up
Bill
From: Bruce Smolnlsky [mallto bsmolnls@sps lane edu]
Sent: Fnday, May 16, 2008 8 26 AM
To' GRILE Bill
Subject: Re 5005 Main Street School Siting Issues
BIll--Although you may have seen the artIcle m the RegIster-Guard tlus mommg, I wanted to
gIve you an update regardmg our hearmg WIth the State Board of EducatIOn
FITst of all, thank you and your staff for the clear memo that descnbed the Issues mvolved WIth
changmg the Montesson from a day care to a K-5 school
At the meetmg, the followmg tlungs were dIscussed
I I shared the current SIte plan hstmg Monteson as a day care I shared your memo that outlmed
that they needed a few thIngs done to legally open a school WIth the proper permIts and zonmg
(Art Paz IS a member of the State Board of EducatIOn, so he understood the 11llplIcatIOns of what
I presented) I stated that there dId not seem to be any eVIdence that the Montesson leaderslup
had requested or receIved proper penmts to open a K-5 school and that they nught be m VIOlatIOn
of CIty zorung codes I stated that our concerns were that the Montesson leaderslup had not even
begun the fITst step m what we belIeved was needed to open a school on that SIte, wluch was the
DIM
5/20/2008
Page 2 of2
2 Carla McQUIllan, the drrector of the Montesson, saId that CIty of Spnngfield planners told her
to use the desIgnatIon of day care and It would not be a problem She had been holdmg
KIndergarten and frrst grade classes on that sIte nearly smce she opened
3 Upon further questlOmng Carla stated that she had called John Tamuloms last week and he
had assured her that It would not be a problem to change zonmg and that It was probably 4-6
weeks and she should be ready to open m the fall
Anyway, I wanted to alert you that Oregon Department of EducatIOn staff WIll most hkely be
callmg to clanfY who IS really correct, the dlstnct or Montesson
You may also hear from the Montesson leadershtp about what they need to do because Art Paz
was clear wIth Carla that, as a practtcmg archttect, he would be gomg to BIll Gnlle about zomng
and plannmg before he would ask John Tamuloms
I am sorry to cause you problems, but thts IS a bIg deal on the blg-deal-o-meter for us
Call me at 726-3255, If you have questIOns
Thanks agam for all your help
Bruce
On May 8, 2008, at 3 34 PM, GRILE BIll wrote
Bruce
If you need addltJonallnformal1on, I suggest scheduling a process we call a "Development
Issues Meeting," which Involves representatives from Planning, Public Works, Fire and Life
Safety, etc I hope the information we have proVided IS helpful
Thanks
Bill
<sps doc>
5/20/2008
Page 1 of 1
JONES Terry (Tara)
From
Sent
To
Cc
Subject
GRILE Bill
Friday, May 16, 2008 1 42 PM
JONES Terry (Tara)
DONOVAN James, MILLER LIZ, TAMULONIS John, LAUDATI Nlel
RE Children's Choice Montessori
Thanks Tara John T and I discussed this briefly a little while ago I agree with JT that we should start pluggmg
Mr Laudatl mto our diSCUSSion as there IS potential newsworthmess here
Bill
From' JONES Terry (Tara)
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 1 39 PM
To: DONOVAN James
Cc' MILLER Liz, TAMULONIS John, JONES Terry (Tara), GRILE Bill
Subject: Children's Choice MontesSOri
Dear Jim,
, spoke to Carla Mcquillan Children's Choice Montessori today She understands that she needs a
Discretionary Use Permit, but she IS confused about the process to go through to establish her
elementary school Smce so many people have been mvolved and the proposal has changed, I thought
you should be the final arbiter on this Here IS the situation as I understand It
. She IS no longer mterested In expandmg onto the lot next door
. The eXlstmg bUlldmg IS about 5700 sf and has 5 classrooms
. She IS certified by the State for 120 kids (It doesn't matter If they are preschool or elementary
kids)
. Smce 1996 she has had mostly preschoolers, but has also had elementary classes Currently
she has 30 elementary kids
. She would like to move the preschoolers to her other center on 5th Street over the next couple of
years and have elementary kids In those slots She proposes eventually have from 112 - 120
elementary students and no pre-schoolers
. ASide from changmg the tOilets from little kid sized ones to regular sized ones, she doesn't
antiCipate any changes to the bUilding
I told her thiS change to an elementary school would require a Discretionary Use Permit, but If no
changes are proposed to the bUlldmg and Site, would a Site Plan ReView be reqUired too? The standards
for elementary schools In 4 7-195 mdlcate that It shall be a Type III procedure and address 10 speCific
standards It's not clear to me that It requires gOing through a Type II as well If a Type IS reqUired could
It be a Major Modification of their eXlstmg Site Plan ReView? Also, because they are m an eXlstmg
bUlldmg, they may not be able to meet some of the standards (e g 30' landscaped side setbacks) IS there
some leeway based on the location of the eXlstmg bUlldmgs?
Please call Carla when you have a chance Her number IS 726-2654 Thanksl
John T Just told me that you are meetmg on thiS With Bill and John next Wednesday maybe It would be a
good Idea to chat With her pnor to your meebng
7Al'A
5/16/2008
.
.
Children's
iiQllJlll!01~iCrT . '~, 1~:\
t~ ~,,",,~J IG/, :- . I
:Montesso7'l Pre-Scfioo[ aruf 'Ef2rrum.tary Programs
5005 :Main Street" Spnnf1fiew, 0'1(97478
541-726-2654" 541-726-5527 (Pax;)
Carfa ;M cQurf[all
<D1.rcctQr
FAX COVER SHEET
Date:
.~ -'I-DR
To:
John TtJ.n1,A..J"n"S
Phone:
1~ -3to51o
Fax No.:
7 :J.(" - ,J3(" 3
l1-/A.. ,lI(c{) {,u II dtA
From:
Number of Pages (including cover): (p
John- Inese OXL c:.opiLS oP ~ol'i<>f ".....D e.s+i~ r"<!:~\.l.2shJ. ~..... ~ c.:,~
1"1 tkc (QGj'5 .:lov- W\~\ ~ fntL-\- -the~e5 o..YL (a.ICJ..o..~CL~ 0...0; 0... ~c..'n.oc)l, Thcrl ~s ~r
rY\lj 6escdphon o~ c...Jr~sckcol1 e..l.e.V\.<A.~knJ-kc.II\~ AlSo - 4he.rus the... le..\:kr
~ frc:.rn Le..onll.rJ... o.b, .-the.. reuJc.u.Ia..110h . "Th.e.. se.c..onc.l p~e. mcJ.;.ll.s (l!.1;'....'("~LL-h,
l>>C6..S' s r.e.ro~ WV1o...t- we.. reCl.1lj need I ~ GL le..\.kr -tha....+ SA.:; ~ we. Co"""" hc.\.v.e. \ l2.
el.e\'Yle.Y\+o-nj stwlen-t-:s 0...1- 500"5 Ko:\V\ s-\y-.....d, we o..:(e. c.uJ"f.(.vtllj s-to..+e.. \iC..UH..~.cL
~r \20 ~-ts
iOO; 5'1;i;v" r5'<<I(1/
~5k .-".;<."'.",/ @CP\'J tJ7-;7(f'
(''''I (Ak. ';i\-;"."t
~..c <@';l: Q7404
706' '/{w Nt' ,5"-",
'i.~Up"""" '{f;1';l(' 9740.'
J J I U ~ q ')
1') 2:1'
'6'503 72b .16~A
SPH) lH' 'H
@OOl
""'/:::1.,
FAX INFO
TO
'JAM"
_ CJ::.'!-L Ii
- - -- --
_A__
ORGArJj:)~.1 I\_'IJ
-- - -- - ----~ - ------ -
fAX NoJM9ER
- - ---'-
-- -------
-/<11 - 1<+3:.3
-------- --
FROM
r.JAf\.'1~
____-ryz.o~. ._(r~:}~86 \
MESSAGE
--- -- - -- --~
- -- -..- - --~--"'--.-,---
--~- ""---- --~ ----- - ------.-. ------
---- -- _ A_
- ..-- -.....--
-.--- - - ------
---- -~- - ~---- --~~--
--- '"""- ---- ---
- ------- - -- - --
_ _A____ ~_
--- --~ -----~ - - -
hA_ __ ~~ ___
"UMGER or P4GE:.> .3
ilNCl UD,rJG C'.J J1:-R-s..:i;"r r-,--
----- --.- -
~,' r 'I.)' I
I,
\1 \ to! l-M~ . St '-,',1_1 ~
I J' J -I, I
. ~, I _ 1 h.
:, ,-Il:.:f"~R~~7Iil
--I jIJI_
1204951522
'5'503 ;26 J689
Sf'fD OJ- \ SER
~002
c5TlM AT~
JOB NO.
CITY OF
SPRINGFT~L~ SYSTEMS DEVfLOPMENT
WORKSHEf:T
'r 7 )
CAR!.A _~~C.\"l~-~I( I'
CHARGE
FA,X =-
,~'-i'"l!>?,
I-Jrl.r1t. OR Cl]i"'F,1rft
LOCATION
5005
1"1 A 11../ sr.
OEVELOPMENT TYPE
c...\" '.::010-
BLllLDING SIZE
! flT :;IZ(
SQ Ft
s-:-nO'.1 OBf~ ~~,DG..E ~ ~... L '~\""3 I
_'> 3:,800 C".,. +-
".. ;'"",~jf'\"
H1PE/\'IIOUS SQ FT <-.. 5'50(1
.
1
~ll~ sf j
x sO 2L PER SQ Fl
01, '153"'?~
-- .-'
~
~
SANTTARY SF~FR-r.TT(
N0 OF FFU 5
(See Reverse)
36
X $4J 43 PER PFU
01, "'50 J.1-)
"-'- --
3 TRANSPORTATjJ2U
NO OF UNITS X TRIP RATE X COST PER TRIP
0.0\
x
""
X $437 9,3
-- ,,,-......,,
G z~ z - )
-- --
x
X ~437 93
s
'(
X $437 93
$
4 SANTTARY SF~FP-MWMC
cO
NO OF PFU S 36 X $18 75 PG PFI) T $In MW~IC ADMIN.FEE $ 7Z,-"'-
(Use PFU Total From Item 2 J1bo'leJ
5 ADMINISTATIVE FEES
SU6TUTh~ (~DD ITE~~ 1 2 3 & 4;
73
$ 1"31..-
C"8'1;~
<'-i'1S:S~
------+ -
Mo'" r"EDlT IF APPLICl\&LE (SE:E R[VEf5E)
rort,1 .MW1Ulli;.
Troy MeA 111 ,rl)r
sac Coord I f'a tor
T'i~ AI SlY
-~-
(~~;)
Cr~ '1i:' .
.' '"
" <1 ( 7 6 - .~
--'fJL- -
8ASE: CHARGE (5L'B TOTAL ABOVf:J Y 0..:
E~mr--t~
(j~+Ec
!!1~~/'?~.
.
SI:>nl,,",CFflE:LD
PfJ{3LIG ~'t<Jnl"'~ DEPAR7MCN'"
1~)l"I\'?;~~ ~~
" ~
(::0(:. ~c.~.z. 2€.<cRPS.
~
Ms Carla McQUIllan
Children's ChOice Montesson School
5005 Mam Street
Spnngfield, Oregon 97478
Re SDC Charges
Dear Ms McQudlan
I have attempted to recalculate your total SDC charges, based on a revised transportal1on
charge at the amount mdlcated m the traffic analYSIS submitted on October 2, 1996
It would appear that the total charge IS $8787 29, broken down as follows
Storm DraInage
SanItary Sewer - City
Transportation
Samtary Sewer-MWMC (net)
Admmlstratlve Fee
$1,84723
1,52150
4,390 76
609 36
41844
On that basLs, the amount remainIng due, after your prevIOus payment of $5,000, IS
$3,78729" Please understand that these final calculations are subject to review by Troy
McAllIster when he returns to the office on Monday, October 7 He Will adVise you promptly If I
have made any errors In ca1culalion
I
Very truly yours,
~
~~~
Leonard oodwm
Semor Management Analyst
"
. ',. \ ~
,-'~ V /1L"
Job Number ~60~60
lI'IXTllRE WIT CALc:tlLATION TABLE
Page 2
Fixture Type
B...thtub
Drinking Founta1n
Floor Dra~n
Interoeptors For Grease/01l/sol1ds/Eto
Inteoeptors For Sand/Auto Wash/Stc
Laundry Tub/Clotheswasher
Clotheswasher - 3 Or More
Receptor For Refr1gerator/water Station/Eto
Receptor for Commerolal S1nk/D1Shwasher/Etc
Shower, Single Stall
Shower, Gang
S1nk, Bar, Commerc1al, Resident1al ~ltchen
Urlnal, stall/Wall
Wash Basln/Lavatory, Single
Water Closet, Pub11c Installat10n
Water Closet, Pr~vate
M:J..Bcellaneous
TOTAL FIXTURE UNITS ~
CREDIT CALCULATION TABLE Based on assessed value
after annexat10n date, cred1ts
(calculations are by $1000)
Year Annexed 196~
Credlt For Paroel Or Land Only If Applioable
Improvement (1f after annexat10n dace)
Number of Unlt F.l.xture
New Fixt.\1:re Equ1valent. Unite
0 2 0
1 1 1
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 6 0
1 2 2
0 6 0
0 1 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 0
2 ;2 4
0 2 0
7 1 7
0 6 0
5 4 20
0 0
34
If 1mproVement8 occured
are calculated separately
30,000
x
3 47
~04 10
o
x
3 47 .
o 00
CRIWIT TOTAL .
S104.10
(If land value 1S multlp11ed by 1 then the parcel/land oredlt 16 not accurate.)
CXTY OF SPRINGFXELD SYSTEKS PEVBLOP~ CHARGE
(CO~RCLAL / XRDOSTRXAL)
Name or Company. LEWIS/SALLY EDMONDS
Loeat~on 5005 MAIN ST
Oevelopement Type C Bu~ld~ng S1~e
1 STORM CRAXNAGB
Imperv~ous Sq Ft 1 0 X 8552
2 _ SANXTAAY 9EWllR
Number 01: PFUs
(see Pag" 2)
- CXTY
1 0 X 3'1
~~E. 1JtAfl" (.
3. TRANSPORTATION /'
Number 01: Un~ts X f Tr~p Rate
1 0 X 70 X 0 139 X
It.. 'Stu()G...r"
TranBportat~on Total
4 SANl:TAAY SilWER - blWMC
Number 01: PFt.1s
34
HWMC CREDIT If Appl~cable (see page 2)
TOTAL - MWMC SOC
9~TOT~ - (Add I~~ 1. 2, 3 ~ 'I)
5 ADMINISTRATIVE FEES
Base Charge (Subtotal Above) X
TOTAL SCC
Rev~ewed By TROY MCALLISTER
X
X
x
o 216
Job No . 960980
Lot Size:
Per Sq Ft
Per PFt.1 -
.0;"",0") ll~ ..d (.,~
""c:Qd"I.."
X
44 75
X
Cost Per TrJ..p
451 26
$4,390 76
Per PFU +
20 690 +
o 50
MWMC Adnl1n I<'ee
10 00
Date 07/25/']6
Pag" 1
Sq Ft
$1,847 23
$1,521 50
~rEO "'N'ffo)
$4,390 76
=
$713 46
$104 10
$609 36
$8,368.85
$418.44
$8.787.29
SPRINGFIELD
May 7, 2008
225 FIFTH STREET
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
(541) 726-3753
FAX (541) 726-3689
WWWCl springfield or us
Ms Carla McQuillan
Clnldren's ChOIce Montesson School
522 65th Street
Spnngfield, OR 97478
Dear Ms McQuillan
The CIty of Spnngfield has preVIously reVIewed and approved two land use applICatIOns
for 5005 Mam Street, Map & Tax Lot 17023332 4500 In 1996 a Type II SIte Plan
ReVIew (Journal Nurnber 1996-05-101) was approved for a clnld care center and m 1998
a Type II SIte Plan ReVIew (Journal Number 1998-06-0127) was approved for an
addItIOn to the clnld care center
r
The SIte IS zoned Commumty CommercIal WIth Commumty CommercIal zomng abuttmg
to the east and west and Low DensIty ReSIdentIal abuttmg to the south A proposal to
expand an eXIstIng clnld care center m a Commumty Commercial zomng dIstnCt would
requrre a Type IT Major SIte Plan ReVIew ModIficatIon mcorporatmg all Site Plan
ReVIew cntena (Spnngfield Development Code (SDC) 517-100) and the specIal use
standards for clnld care centers (SDC 4 7-125) A proposal to add a publIc orpnvate
elementary school or IDlddle school m a Commumty CommercIal zomng dIstnct would
require a Type ill DiscretIOnary Use reVIew, winch would be reVIewed by the Planmng
COII1IIllSSIOn, m conjunctIon WIth a publIc heanng and Site Plan ReVIew The cntena of
SDC 4 7-195 (Special Development Standards for PublIc/Pnvate E1ementarylMIddle
Schools) would be applIcable along WIth the cntena for SIte Plan ReVIew (SDC 5 17-
100)
Please gIve me a call at (541) 726-23011fyouhave any questions or would hke to reVIew
the preVIOUS land use files for tins property The above referenced code sectIons from the
Spnngfield Development Code can be reVIewed on our webslte www CI snnnl!field or llS
Smcerely,
d~ Iff ~
LIZ Miller
Planner I
cc John Tamuloms, EconoIDlc Development Manager
Jnn Donovan, P1anmng Supemsor
l
MILLER Liz
From
Sent
To
Cc
Subject
DONOVAN James
Wednesday, May 07,20081259 PM
GRILE Bill
MILLER LIz
-FW CHILDREN'S CHOICE MONTESSORI SCHOOL
BG,
I wlll ask L12 to put somethlng together that relterates my lnltlal response In memo form
for your reVlew by Frlday
L1Z,
Just the eXlstlng and proposed uses wlth cltatlons for the DU and slte plan reVlew We
don't want to get too much lnto the ffilSSlon creep and hlstory of the sltuatlon unless we
absolutely have to respond to the owners wlth the facts
Thank you L12,
JD
-----Orlglnal Message-----
From GRILE Blll
Sent Tuesday, May 06, 2008 6 18 PM
To DONOVAN James
Cc SMOLNISKY Bruce (SPS)
SubJect. RE CHILDREN'S CHOICE MONTESSORI SCHOOL
Jlm
Wlll you or one 0 your planners please put together a reasonably detalled rsponse to
Bruce's request (stated below)? Granted, It would take a speclflc development proposal to
glve a speclflc response However, I do bel1eve we can put together a reasonable response
based on hypothetlcals
Please also copy the response to me when you send 1t to Bruce
Thanks
Blll
-----Or1glnal Message-----
From Bruce Smoln1sky <bsmolnls@sps lane edu>
Sent Tuesday, May 06, 2008 5 30 PM
To GRILE Blll <bgrlle@cl sprlngfleld or us>
SubJect Re CHILDREN'S CHOICE MONTESSORI SCHOOL
B111--1 have a couple of quest10ns that wlll help me prepare for a meetlng w1th the State
Board of Educat10n regardlng thlS charter appllcat10n
My purpose lS to pOlnt out to the State Board that there w1ll be some problems wlth th1S
charter plan
Can you help descrlbe to me What are the d1fferences between the land
use/zonlng requ1rements for a preschool/day care that the Montessor1 currently
wlth the Clty of Spr1ngfleld and the requ1rernents If that school became a K-5?
th1ngs would need to be done?
has on flle
What
I belleve that the Montessorl owners belleve that they wlll be able to brlng In 1-3
portable/modular bUlldlngs to functlon as classrooms 1f they are allowed to expand Can
you tell me what would be requlred to br1ng more portables for classrooms on to that
current slte?
1
W1II OOOT want to get lnto thlS lssue Slnce the K-5 school lS on Maln Street?
thanks,
Bruce
On Apr 30, 2008, at 4 59 PM, GRILE Blll wrote
>
> Bruce
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Your call to me was prudent Plannlng Supervlsor Jlm Donovan answers
the questlon, below In short, there are a number of lssues that
would need to be addressed and carefully consldered Jlm suggests a
"DIM," WhlCh 1S a "Development Issues Meetlng" The fee for these lS
around $500 and what happens at them lS that plannlng and englneerlng
staff answer up to flve or SlX quest10ns presented by potent1al
appllcants I'd llke to walve the fee for a Team Sprlngf1eld partner,
but we've not done thlS In the past and I lack authorlty to do so (as
does Glno) However, we ALWAYS glve tender lovlng care to
appllcatlons subm1tted by Team Spr1ngfleld Partners It does appear
that dlscretlonary / appealable land use actlons would be requlred to
expand the school A DIM would allow you to conf1rm thlS and narrow
the 1ssues
I'm off to LA tomorrow afternoon and back late Tuesday You and I can
talk then 1f you have quest10ns Or, ln the alternat1ve, feel free to
contact Jlm and go dlrectly to the source Jlm's ema1l 1S above, and
hls phone number lS 726-3660 You'll flnd hlm especlally helpful If
you do declde to call
Thanks
Blll
B111 Grlle, D1rector
Development Servlces Department
Clty of Sprlngfleld
225 Flfth Street
Sprlngfleld, OR 97477
Tel 541 726 3619
Fax 541 726 3689
Emall bgr1le@cl sprlngfleld or us
Internet http //www Cl sprlngfleld
or us/dsd/dept_dsd htm
<unknown glf>From DONOVAN James
Sent Tuesday, Aprll 29, 2008 4 41 PM
To GRILE Blll
Cc MILLER Llz
SubJect RE CHILDREN'S CHOICE MONTESSORI SCHOOL
Blll,
The eXlstlng faclllty was approved as a Montessorl daycare and
preschool The proposal to expand lnto a pr1vate charter grade school
wlll requlre a slte plan reVlew for compllance wlth speclal des1gn
standards and a publlC hearlng for Olscretlonary Use The slte faces
challenges for ODOT access, lmpervlous coverage and requlred setbacks
I would strongly suggest a DIM lf more lnfo 1S requlred for the slte
plan rev18W and publlC hearlng procedures
2
>
> JD
> <unknown glf>From GRILE Elll
> Sent Monday, Aprll 2S, 200S 5 25 PM
> To DONOVAN James
> SubJect CHILDREN'S CHOICE MONTESSORI SCHOOL
> Importance Hlgh
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Jlm
Bruce Smolnlsky, an admlnlstrator at SPS (726-3255) called to ask me
about any zon1ng requlrements that would affect expandlng the
Montessorl School located at 5005 Maln St They would llke to double
the bUlldlng and partner wlsh SPS ThlS 15 a questlons from a Team
Sprlngfleld partner and at thlS pOlnt doesn't ffierlt a full DIM I
slrnply would llke to know, 1n summary, what 15 the 20n1n9 for the
subJect property and mlght they be able to expand? And If so, would
thlS be slte plan reVlew or what? Please let me know the answer by
Wednesday Thanks'
Elll
Note The lnformatlon contalned III thlS message may be prlvlleged and confldentlal and
protected from dlsclosure If the reader of thlS message 15 not the lntended reClplent,
or an employee or agent responslble for dellverlng thlS message to the lntended reClplent,
you are hereby notlfled that any dlssemlnatlon, dlstrlbutlon or copYlng of thlS
communlcatlon lS strlctly prohlblted If you have recelved thls communlcatlon In error,
please notlfy us lmmedlately by replYlng to the message and deletlng It from your
computer
Thank you
SPRINGFIELD SCHOOL DISTRICT 19
3
"We've got everythIng In place to move forward"
- CARLA McQUILLAN, DIRECTOR/CHILDREN'S CHOICE MONTESSORI SCHOOL
School will make case to state for charter
The fate of Springfield's ChIldren's ChOIce Montessori IS up
to state offiCials after the school board relected ItS request
By ANNE WILLIAMS
The Register-Guard
Commg up on a year smce the
Sprmgfield School Board rejected
Its charter bid, Cluldren's ChOIce
MontessorI School will fmally make
Its case for state sponsorshIp to the
State Board of Educallon on Thurs-
day
But the school doesn't have the
clear SIgnal It had expected from the
Oregon Department of EducatIOn
EGION MONDAY, MAy 12, 2008
Contrary to the norm, a staff
report to the state board released
last week offers no up-or down rec-
ommendatIOn on whether It should
agree to sponsor the school, saymg
that will come only after the board
has had a chance to hear from rep-
resentallves of Cluldren's ChOIce
and the Sprmgfield School DIstrIct
tlus week
"That surpnsed us," school dIrec-
tor Carla McQmllan sald And, more
dlsappomllng to her, It suggests that
If the board approves state sponsor-
slup, It wouldn't take effect unl1l
2009 10
That's problemallc, McQuillan
Said, as the school has been lnnp-
mg along WIth essenllally no fund-
mg m anllclpallon of gettmg a state
charter
Cluldren's ChOIce operated under
contract WIth the Sprmgfield distrIct
for three years as a pnvate alterna-
llve elementary school, takmg stu-
dents - and a majorIty of the state
funds attached to them - Via refer-
ral from the distrIct New dIrec-
tives from the state put the brakes
Please turn to CHARTER, Page C4
Charter: School lost funding, but
donations have helped keep it open
Contmuedfrom Page Cl
on that pracllce, promplmg
the school to seek SprIngfield
distrIct sponsorslup as a char-
ter school
The Spnngfield board
rejected the school's charter
request last May and turned
down a subsequent appeal
the follOWIng month, cltmg
concerns about a potentially
adverse unpact on regular
distrIct schools That left the
school's 50-plus students WIth
no clear plan for last fall
McQmllan and her board
deCIded to allow eXlstmg fIrst-
through fIfth-graders, many
of whom are from low-mcome
fanuhes, to contmue tultlOn-
free, even though there was no
more state money commg m
They've kept thmgs afloat
by seelung donallons and trIm-
mmg expenses, but McQuillan
was expectmg state charter
school sponsorslup - or at
least a deCISIon - by Janu-
ary
Teresa SchneIderman, an
educatIOn specIalist WIth the
department, Said the Issues
were complex WIth Cluldren's
ChOIce A change m the way
the department contracts WIth
outSide reVIewers also delayed
tlungs a bIt, she Said
She added that preVIOUS
expenence has taught the
state board that takmg on such
sponsorslup IS a complicated
process WIth many detalis to
lIon out, such as makmg sure
the department IS covered by
illsurance
McQuillan plans to explam
the school's pl1ght to the bOard
Thursday, hopmg for an expe-
dited tunelme
"I will emphaSIZe how
adversely that would affect our
teachers and students, and how
tlus process has already taken
longer than certamly we were
told It would take," she Said
She noted that, unl1ke a
charter school that's m the
planrung stages, Cluldren's
ChOlce has eXIsted as a prl~
vate school smee 1993 "We've
got everyllung m place to move
forward," she SaId
Cluldren's ChOlce, wluch
currently has 30 students
m grades one through fIve,
hopes to eventually serve 112
students It offers a hands-on,
chud-dIrected educatIOn that
IS modeled after the pluloso-
phy of Ilahan educator Mana
MontessorI
Last year the Spnngfield
board also turned dOvnl a
would-be charter school, the
Academy of Teaclung and
Learnmg, wluch would have
offered a mulllcultural, mulll-
lmgual, SOCIal Jusllce-centered
educatIOn to 300 to 400 stu-
dents m lundergarten through
grade 12
Wlule the ATL deSIgn team
had mtended to appeal to the
state board, co~proJect dIrector
Jolmny Lake sald the group
had qualms about localmg m
Spnngfield, given the senll-
ment agamst It He Said they're
now consldermg al1gnmg WIth
other districts and will focus
more on thelI next steps ill
commg months "We sl1ll are
pretty comrmtted to startmg a
school," he SaId
The state board has spon-
sored only three charter
schools preVIously, one of
whIch has smce closed and
one of wluch opened last fall
m Portland
Charter schools are tax-
payer-funded and operate WIth
greater autonomy than regular
public schools
They reCelve a portIon of
the state's per-pupu fundIng
- 80 percent for elementary
and lnlddle school students
and 95 percent for those m
hIgh school
May 7, 2008
225 FIFTH STREET
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
(541) 726-3753
FAX (541) 726-3689
WWW CI springfield or us
Ms Carla McQwllan
Cluldren's ChOIce Montesson School
522 65th Street
Spnngfield, OR 97478
~
~ " ,r r
Dear Ms McQwllan
The City of Spnngfield has preViously reViewed and approved two land use apphcatlOns
for 5005 MaIn Street, Map & Tax Lot 170233324500 In 1996 a Type II Site Plan
ReView (Journal Number 1996-05-101) was approved for a cluld care center and m 1998
a Type II Site Plan ReView (Journal Number 1998-06-0127) was approved for an
additIon to the cluld care center
The site IS zoned Commumty Commercial With Commumty Commercial zomng abuttIng
to the east and west and Low DensIty ReSIdentIal abuttIng to the south A proposal to
expand an eXIsting cluld care center m a Commumty Commercial zomng district would
reqUIre a Type II Major SIte Plan ReView ModrlicatIon mcorporatmg all Site Plan
ReView cnteria (Spnngfield Development Code (SDC} 5 17-100) and the special use
standards for cluld care centers (SDC 4 7-125) A proposal to add a pubhc or pnvate
elementary school or rmddle school m a Commumty CommercIal zomng dIstnct would
reqUIre a Type ill DISCretIOnary Use reView, winch would be reViewed by the Planmng
ComrmsslOn, m conjunctIon With a pubhc heanng and Site Plan ReView The cntena of
SDC 4 7-195 (Special Development Standards for PubhclPrivate ElementarylMJ.ddle
Schools) would be apphcable along With the cntena for Site Plan ReView (SDC 5 17-
100)
Please give me a call at (541) 726-2301 If you have any questIons or would hke to reVIew
the preVIous land use files for tins property The above referenced code sectIons from the
Spnngfield Development Code can be reViewed on our webslte www CI snnmmeld or us
Smcerely,
d~ to( ~
cc. John Tamuloms, Econormc Development Manager
Jun Donovan, Planmng SupervIsor
r~ !~~
~-/;1Ko ~ ---
//~ 411{/ JJ-~I
LIZ Miller
Planner I
~~/U1-
'.
04/29/08 TUE 17 01 FAX 5417263689
CITY OF 5PRINGFIELD
1ilI00l
*********************
*** TX REPORT ***
*********************
TRANSMISSION OK
TXlRX NO
CONNECTION TEL
CONNECTION In
ST TIME
USAGE T
PG S SENT
RESULT
0455
915417263316
SPFLD SD CURCLM
04/29 16 59
02'13
7
OK
Cit.Y of Springfield
Development Services Department
SPRINGFIE LD
Facsimile Cover F age
Fax: (5+1) 726-;689
To'b(u~ Srroll,,~I-c(J- fax 5.YJ -1)/7 - 33 I ~7
. - U
Compan!j <;p(ln~ti{ltl <;ChcollJi",trfl+-
From Lr 7.... m \ \\-lr
Message,
Page I of I
MILLER LIz
From DONOVAN James
Sent Tuesday, Apnl 29, 2008 8 26 AM
To JONES Terry (Tara), MILLER LIz
Subject FW CHILDREN'S CHOICE MONTESSORI SCHOOL
Importance High
Anyone have a read on this one??? Can I get a qUick check on this from one of y'all this momlng??
JD
From: GRILE Bill
Sent: Monday, Apnl 28, 2008 5 25 PM
To: DONOVAN James
Subject: CHILDREN'S CHOICE MONTESSORI SCHOOL
Importance High
JIm
tnaftr ~C/rwl
Bruce Smolrusky, an admrmstrator at SPS (726-3255) called to ask me about any zonrng reqUIrements
that would affect expandmg the Montesson School located at 5005 Mam St They would lIke to double
the bUlldmg and partner WIsh SPS TIus IS a questIOns from a Team Spnngfield partner and at tlus pomt
doesn't ment a full DIM I sImply would lIke to know, m summary, what IS the zonmg for the subject
property and mIght they be able to expand? And If so, would tlus be sIte plan revIew or what?
Please let me know the answer by Wednesday Thanks'
~\)fL
iO vtV 66 frorerro--
/1 VhI\Tc( Cwz-
'6 {J.r-l~
~
I1DL~2-0l{500
(' L Lor\' f\ t
P (Iv<<i'i - ft<bllL - t:/UVlen t1
/) 1'5 r r Lftf\~(y IAaA- (~{ t (f 1"'-
/q1& -OS-OIO I
Iq1~ - (Jo -Oil 7-
SffL-' ~ l---drr0rdS.
(K.Q [u H{t4- ~
BIll
4/29/2008
NOTICE OF VIOLATION
225 FIFTH STREET
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
(541) 726-3753
FAX (541) 726-3689
WWWCI springfIeld or us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
DATE ISSUED
February 1, 2008
CASE# 2008-59
Lucas and Carla McQUlln
1942 5th Street
Spnngfield, OR 97477
LOCATION OF VIOLATION 1942 5th Street, Spfld, OR 97477
NAME
The City received a complaint that the property listed above IS In Violation of a Springfield City
Code and/or ordinance Rather than ISSUing a citation or taking Immediate legal aCllon, It IS the
City's standard practice to Inform citizens of the Violation and request that It be corrected
SPECIFIC VIOLATION/REQUIRED CORRECTION Section 8 236(10) of the Spnngfield City
Code - Prohibited Signs The sign on the fence at thiS location IS prohibited and must be
removed No addlllonal signs to be erected until after land use compliance IS determined
Section 3 2-210 ReSidential Uses A Montesson School may/may not be a use permitted In thiS
zOning dlstnct Contact Spnngfield Planning staff to diSCUSS the ages, grades and number of
children at thiS location to determine the whatilf any land use prOVIsions need to be addressed
In order to aVOid actions being taken against you or your property we encourage you to proceed
qUickly In the event that you have not taken corrective action by the assigned time deadline, a
cIvil infraction citation will be Issued to the reSident and'or property owner CIvil Infraction fines
$500 00 first offense/$1 000 00 second offense Each day a Violation continues constitutes a
separate offense and Citations can be Issued dally
DEADLINE FOR COMPLIANCE Seven (7) days from the date of thiS notice for all dead organic
matter and debns, Thirty (30) days from the date of thiS notice for all used matenals and stored,
damaged and'or Inoperable vehicles
Thank you for your attention to thiS matter If you Wish to diSCUSS the Violation, or the required
correction, Code Enforcement staff can be reached by calling 726-3659 between 7 00-9 00 a m
VOice maillS available for messages throughout the day
copy LIZ Miller, and Tara Jones, Planners and DaVid Bowlsby, BUilding Permit ReView Tech
Page 1 of2
Child ren's
""'f H: .....
'C;' ,,,"0
" ,
.I' ...-..........
,
I
"
A.
I!I
O@
Chlldren's
Choice
Montessort
Schools
Teacher
EducatIOn NFB Camp DonatIOns Contact Us Ab(
Program
5th Street Location
I Brochure Information
I School Locations
I Element;ry Program (Spnngfie
I Mam Street (Spnngfield)
I River Road (Eugene)
1942 5th Street, Spnngfleld, OR 97477
541.7262654
Preschool and Kmderaarten oroarams
Hours of operation: 7'00 am - 6 00 pm
Meals Lunch and snacks
Ages 24 month - 6 years
Emily Yoder - Site Director
ThiS program has all the comfort and atmosphere of a quamt old house, With all the benE
of a school Arched doorways, plaster walls, hardwood floors and big picture wmdows a<
to the character and charm of the location
Children's ChOice Montessori at 5th Street maintains a small student enrollment With a
teacher to student ratio of 1 to 8 The play area mcludes a large fenced lawn area, swm~
set, a paved courtyard for tncycles and an mdoor play and lunch area for stormy days
At the back of thiS acre lot IS a beautiful iriS aarden that In the future will orovlde the
http Ilwwwmarnstreetmontesson orglCCM-5th html
5120/2008
Page 2 of2
- ~ - - - - - - - - - - -. - - - - - -- - - ~- - - - - -, - - --- -, r-
students of the 5th Street and Main Street locations the opportunity to learn hands-on
botany, Incorporate marketing strategies for the sale of Irises to the general public, and
review of project proposals and community service work
Parent's Page
Lunch Menu
Home Page I Contact Us I About Us
http //www mamstreetmontesson orglCCM-5th html
512012008
Page 1 of2
Child ren's
~~c'l'8~::;'b' J,~
t . . . .f to_",..,.,._
.-0 .-....\
c
E:
Mo.ntessori Sohool
A
m
O@
Chtldren's
ChOlce
Montesson
Schools
Teacher
EducatlOn NFB Camp DonatlOns Contact Us Ab(
Program
Main Street Location
I Brochure Information
I School Locations
15th Street (Springfield)
I Elementary Program (Sprlngfie
I River Road (Eugene)
5005 Main Street, Spnngfleld, OR 97478
541 7262654
Preschool and Klnderaarten oroarams
Hours of operation: 6 30 am - 6.00 pm
Meals. Breakfast, lunch, snacks
Ages 30 months - 11 years
Carla McQuillan - Executive D/rector
The original and largest of the Children's Choice Montessori facIlities, Main Street IS on l
acre of land, and IS the site of 3 preschool and 2 elementary classrooms
The play area Includes 2 large play structures, a grass field, a paved courtyard and alar
Indoor play area for Inclement weather There IS also a large garden area for spring and
summer planting and harvesting
Parent's Page
http //wwwmamstreetmontesson org/CCM-Mam html
C::~
.
,
C),-L V0 c Q.;( ((CL-VI 'q'2(;, --ZbS~( 73u_ :s.,,~
c2 ~ 15 - ~ Y...JC [) 0 m ~ V1
\ 1- C- '-1150 " I -j / I '( -"A D.. ()- . - - S~'
LA^-\. ~(s: ~~ fr~
(SZSD\ rn 0Y-- ~ J/ ~J
t1MY3
----
'1) V'tlcu4 ~cJ ~6
? '~~ U?CC~ A to;; h"Y-
. W Ol-.-€d ~ fo ~ ~ S:v0-~
,{)y,dJ..v1 r. _ f-o I -Zh ~"~. -~ CLr k;r:~
V/ v-~ - Q 1VY 0Jl
....-....,.
q Tce l
,/ ~}n,)Ad,4vz.- 3
,
C L~:S P n zJJ- / (fVly'l~ c ~~ c.J
{;XL( ^cc... 1 ~ S~
f\R.ecR- it50 / SPa.
fet~ v>n'1V2. s~ h C<- D U L-0/ S (7(((
lV1~ ~I
'pv 4>-<", )-tP ~
'--- (,,/ r '" M€~
-
MUc.... - ~~
-0
,
~
\
~
vJ
Ie:{) l{oC~~) ~
/-0 ~ ~'",~~ (L.O(LCJ\.<~
~
.> ~~2. s~ ~ ~0:S, (()O(=iJ _-.t:
I V\ (?LO .~ v..i 0rw, _ ~ v'2
J...-..e vL<. s~ t P-
C)'
\)
/'
A1Ut</Z -
F16. 5 LOT LINES, DE.PTH t Wlt:::'-fH
l"f'.ONT \...OT l...lNe
'P~ ~, t<CYf:
~/o'~
PO'~ ~ r-c.......- ~
.eu..-k :1.-ld-< ' ~l"e..c..-*"
~s\"'e ....o-r l.-INS P. C _
~ ~"r.k. 'l-A'-c.t.. f''O',..--!l 'T'Y
'0'-0" K -~ -~, L..\Nos. re~ ~ I=-c-L L..--...
"-:- ~~Id ~ _ _ g..h I\. \"<2<>-1
, -', I
. " I
'''~, ~ I. Sf &\ er,~Q, 50 ~vLt
: -:- ___ I ~v-c. ~ ~tUJ.
'.~ . lJ'5~ l.-OT l...IN5
" ,/
" .
','
ST~E.ET L..INE
SIPS
l.-OT ....'Ne._)..
-
P-BAfZ-
, .
IO'-O"___~ '
~ . --/
-~. '1
-' . :../
..............: 1
...-....j
ST'f2-EET L..\NE
LOT l...lNe;
WI~TH ~ ~~~h
DePTH '\ ~
<.......r ..,
'\ ,;...
" .../,--
, /:'
-,~_."
\/',
/~/"\ .~,
- -
\ ~ '
\ ~,
\ -
DePTH MeA'5UfLe",
l""f't7t-<l MIOPOINT Dr UNE
=-rt<-SQU I f2-el?
1?5PTH
Will
I
,(Al"-D
W'~TH
~EPTH
......... ... .
~-
137.
~~*~ ~ssC]yi. SC~~
J ~~ }'Vt~lA
17-02-3-3-SG/4ruG (CC-)
~ ,"'" OOVV~ ~~ /99(.
o t:> q-C ~ ~ ~ d-)zJ C:vv-<-- h
JTkh
, ' - / I J Sthd Ov.yv
'. \ v '\"~ p 7/. vv .s.o-v-+-z:;^ -'
" , ), If '
". ... -1-0 (lV"^~ ~ ~c. +u
~ ~-j<J.- ~~ ~
~CYL- 1b ~-cL-
)V0- J ~
a-Jd {h-c / ~~
i-D ~ f1--;Y f- ~ ,
City of Springfield PUBLIC
Planning Commission
MAILING ADDRESS PHONE APPOINTMENT RE- EXPIRATION
DATE APPOINTMENT DATE
DATE
Steve Moe Chair Home 726-7613 05/01/1999 06/05/2003 06/05/2007
3698 Franklin Boulevard
PO Box 847
Springfield, Oregon 97477
Intercltv(cj)aol com
BIll Carpenter Vice Chair Home 726-6286 04/20/1998 04/17/2000 03/31/2004
680 T Street
Springfield, Oregon 97477
wcaroenter(cj),ac ora
James Burford Home 747-9384 06/03/1996 04/17/2000 03/31/2004
6781 Ivy Street
Springfield, Oregon 97478
maa33803(cj)aol com
Lee Beyer Home 746-5889 04/16/2001 9/16/2002 09/22/2006
1439 Lawnrldge
Springfield, Oregon 97477
leebever(cj)comcast net
Greg Shaver Home 726-1410 12/2/2002 12/2'2006
1225 Water Street
Springfield, Oregon 97477
area(cj)cvber-dvne com
Gale Decker Home 747-0462 06/02/2003 06/02/2007
415 67'h Street
Springfield, Oregon 97478
OIdecker(cj)comcast net
DavId Cole Home 741-0444 06'02/2003 06/02/2007
PO Box 70142 (mailing add.)
Eugene, Oregon 97401
Enalneerlna(cj)hehtech com
Note Spnngfield Plannmg Commissioners serve four-year terms Two members may reside outside the
Sprmgfield City limits and two members may be employed m real estate Representatives to the City
Council are on a rotatmg basIs
CONTACTS' SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
BIll G"/e, Development Services Director 726-3671
Greg Mott, Planning Manager 726-3774
Mel Oberst, Planning Supervisor, Planning Commission Liaison 726-3783
Brenda Jones, Planning Secretary 726-3610
,..'
Montesson Pre-School and Latch-Key Programs
5005 MaIn Street ~
Spnngfleld, OR, 97478-6454
541-726-2654
Carla McQuillan, Director
Aug 8, 1996
Dear Mayor Mornsette and the Spnngfleld City Council,
We are In the process of bUilding a new facility for our Montesson School at 50th and
Main Street When completed, ours Will be the first Child Care Center to be
constructed In Spnngfleld All other child care programs In the city have emerged
from eXisting bUildings In the community We deSigned the bUilding ourselves, taking
care to make It the perfect place for both the children and our staff We have all been
extremely excited about the new project since It began last December
Over the past four years, our bUSiness has steadily grown from a small home based
program of 6 students, to a capacity enrollment of 50 students at our current facility
The time had come for us to find some property and bUild a school of our own Last
fall, we applied for and were granted a loan from the Small BUSiness Administration,
coordinated through the Lane Council of Governments ThiS application prOVided a
detailed budget of proposed project costs, Including the fees for permits and Systems
Development Charges (SDC) Permit fees and Information were proVided by
employees of the city of Spnngfleld Attached IS the wntten estimate for the SDC's,
dated December of 1995 You Will note that thiS estimate was $4700
We had planned to remain In our leased faCility at 3988 Main Street, until our new
faCility was completed Shortly after we ordered the 4 modular bUIldings that would be
ready for occupancy In late August, our landlord served an eViction notice, demanding
that we vacate our Child Care faCility by June 30 The landlord's daughter opened her
own Child Care Center In the bUilding on July 15 Fortunately, we were able to secure
a temporary location for our summer program In the Head Start space at St Alice
Church ThiS temporary location was made available to us only through the end of
August, at which time the Head Start Program resumes
Our site plan was approved In mid July When permits were prepared and final fees
assessed on July 25th, the SDC for our project went from $4700 to over $18,439 an
Increase of nearly 400% (See attached fee assessment) The majonty of thiS Increase
was due to a recalculation of the transportation fees The SBA budget was submitted In
December, uSing the figure of $4700 for the SDC's Submitting a revised budget for
SBA approval at thiS pOint, could not be accomplished without delaYing the completion
of the project Our contractor Informed us that the foundation needed adequate time to
cure before the delivery of the bUildings The window of opportunity to meet the
September 3rd deadline was qUickly clOSing DelaYing the project by even 5 days,
would leave upwards of 70 children stranded A majonty of these children are
dependent upon us for care and supervision while their parents are at work
, The employees at the counter In public works were wonderful They seemed to
understand our sltuallon, and finally agreed that we could pay for all of the bUilding
permits (a total of $697), plus $5,000 of the SDC's, with the balance to be paid prior to
final occupancy
''''ll
At this pOint In time, I have some mixed emotions regarding the situation In which I find
myself I do not begrudge the fees that the city charges I do, however, expect that an
estimate In writing will be reasonably close to the fee I am charged I also expect the
fees to be assessed In an equitable manner that does not prohibit development,
growth, and expansion
Yet, I find that the SDC's are not necessarily equitable For example, banks with drive
up windows are not charged based on the calculated number of customer tripS dUring
peak hours of the day, but rather on an adjusted scale that keeps the SDC's
transportation fees at a more reasonable rate There IS no such fee cap for Child Care
Centers, even though a Center IS far less capable of surviving a mighty financial blow
than a bank
In addition, there are several formulas for assessing the same business When an
alternate formula IS applied, our fee IS reduced by over $2,000
I am told that there IS a tremendous difference between Child Care Centers and
Schools, when It comes to SDC's The fees assessed for Transportation are 85 hmes
higher for a Child Care Center than for a school Now, had our program been
exclusively Day Care, with none of our children enrolled In our academic program, the
SDC In our faCIlity would have been $31,706, according to the current figures The
Systems Development Analyst did not know the difference at the hme of the eshmate
I was also Informed that Springfield used to assess SDC's based on 1 5% of the project
cost ThiS practice was brought to a halt several years ago probably because It left
no room for lobbYing, bantering, and bartering for excephons and exclusions The
$18,439 represents 5 2% of our total project cost land, Improvements, bUilding, and
landscaping If we were running Child Care programs only, the fees would represent
9% of the project cost
Several questions have crossed my mind concerning thiS matter.
1) How did the banks come to acqUire a cap on their transportation fees?
2) Are there other busmesses that enloy Similar breaks?
3) What IS the procedure for obtammg such a pnvlleged status?
4) How does the analyst deCide which formula Will be used to assess the fees?
5) How can I be sure that the appropnate classification and formulas were used m
my situatIOn?
6) There was a $13,700 dIfference between the first and second assessment of my
fees How do I know that the second one IS correct, If eIther?
7) If my project IS delayed while I resubmit a budget to SBA for approval of
additional funds to cover fees that were not accurately presented to me m a
timely fashIOn, where Will the 70+ children go until the matter IS resolved?
8) How can we prevent thIS from happenmg to others m the future?
I do not know the extent to which the Council has authority to handle these matters, but
If It IS pOSSible, It seems appropriate In thiS Situation, that temporary occupancy be
,.
granted without addllional payment of the SDC's, until this Issue IS resolved This
would enable us to provide Child Care beginning September 3, assuming that all other
conditions for occupancy are met
In a society where most families are either single parent or double Income, the number
one concern and cause for absenteeism among working parents, IS the result of
problems with their child care arrangements We In the profession realize this We
don't do It for the wealth and fame, but rather to meet a crrtlcal need that society tends
to overlook We do It for an opportunity to ensure that the children of today will grow to
be the community leaders of tomorrow This IS achieved by creating an environment
that centers around mutual respect, and accepting responsibility for one's actions
Thank you for your time
~a~
12/C4/95 15 22
'0'503 i26 36SQ
SPFD DEl SER
IilI 001 ..
SPR1NQ,FIELO ,,,...Iol,~,...~,
FAXfNFO
/
/
TO
NAME
CARL-A
ORGANIZA TIOI'J
FAX NUMBER
,'-11 - l/.f"6'S
FROM
NAME
~~\
(nf.D-3,("8B~
MESSAGE
-
NUMBER OF PAGES 3
(INCLUDING COVER SHEET!
. ,
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
PUBLIC WORKS
225 N 5TH STREET
SPRINGFIELD OR 97477
PHONE (503) 726-3759
12/04,95 15 22 ~503 726 3689
SPFD DE\ SER
Ii1I 002
JOB NO
c5lJ M ATC-
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT C~ARGE
WORKSHEET
NAr1E OR COt'I~P:NY
cARLA
r"r ~")
f'\ 'QUI. -' ,(
LOCATION
50'05
p.,A I i-I '.5T,
DEVELOPMENT TYPE .
::c.,,<>::>\...
BUILDING SIZE
LOT SiZE
1
STnPM DRATN~GF: r g",\A"j r
'~ 3.Boo -,. ....
r",,~'~~
IMPERVIOUS SO FT c.;; 5.5MJ f
I
0~fJ
~ Ii
X SO 21 PER SO FT
2 SANTTARY SFI~FR-r:IT{
NO OF PFU'S
(See Reverse)
36
-
X $43 43 PER PFU
3 TRANSPORTATTON
NO OF UNITS X TRIP RATE X COST PER TRIP
0.0\
60
X $437.93
X
X
X $437 93
X
X $437 93
4 SANITARY SFWFR-MWM[
NO OF PFU'S 36 x $18 75 PER PFU + $10 MWI1C Am.tIN FEE
(Use PFU Total From Item 2 Above)
N~JMC CREDIT IF APPLICABLE (SEE REVERSE)
TOTAl -MI~Mr: SOr:
SUBTOTAL (ADD ITEMS 1 2 3 & 4)
5 ADMINISTATIVF FEES
BASE CHARGE (SUBTOTAL ABOVE) X 05
ESTlMPir!:
(2./4/'(5'
Date
Troy MeA 111 ster
SDC Coordlnator
TOTAl 'lOr:
FAy. o::t"i'11 -1433
SO Ft
~153€)
'- .-/
.--:;::-
~I ~50 31:)
--....:.... -
C:2~ Z :.€:)
----------
5
$
$1 7 Z-z.. s,E..
~
73
$ /37..-
~<;~"?L~
"-. /
$ Lj,'i5S~
~22::''' ::y
'- .-/
~- 1;;J) .
,-- G.~
~..:ut 76 - V
FIXTURE UNIT CALCULATION TABLE: Number of New F,"tures X Unit Equivalent =
(NOTE For remodels, calculate only the NET additional !Ixtures)
NUMBER OF
NEW FIXTURES
12/u4/95
15 23
'0'503 ;26 3689
FIYTUqE TYPE
Bathtub
DrinkIng Fourraln
Floor Drain ~
Interceptors For Grease/Oil/SolldsIErc
Interceptors For Sand/Auto Was~/E[c
Launary Tub'Clotheswasher .
Clotheswasher - 3 Or More ,
Mobile Home Park Trap (1 Per Trailer)
Receptor For Refngerator/Water Statlon/ftc
Receptor For~ercl~LSj!l~LQlsh.'6'as1JJl?tEtc
Shower, Single Stall.
Snower, Gang
Sink Barl CommercIal, ResloentJal t<1!cr,en
Unnal, Stall/Wall
Wash Basln/Lavawry, Single
Todet, Public Installation
TOilet, Prrvate
Miscellaneous
CREDIT CALCULATION TABLE'
calculate credits separates
I-
i,
SPFD DE\' SER
c;
<:;
TOTAL FIXTURE UNITS
I4J 003
FIxture Uf11t'S
UNIl
EQUIVALENT
FIXTURE
UNITS
2
1
2
3
6
2
6
6
1
3
2
l/Head
2
3
2
1
6
S
"30
4"t'";:"
=
38
Based on assessed value. If Improvements occurred after anneyatlon date In table,
Year
Annexed
Rate per $1,000
Assessed Value
1979 or before
1980
1981
1982
19B3
1984
1985
1986
$347
339
333
321
305
2.92
274
246
(
Year
Annexed
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
Credit lor Parcel or Laf'd Only If Applicable
L
Improvement {,f after annexation datel
/' -r"" V~I",,-.f
I
"'3d 7 X $'" ~B, 25"0
(Rate X Assessed Var"ue)
X $
(Rate X Assessed Value)
Rate per $1,000 I
Assessed Value ,
I
i
,
$213
1.76
1 35
095
058
041
029
014
n C'Z. 33 ;3'Z.. .,r-,,~
=
7S
/32 -
=
73
/'72-
CREDIT TOTAL = $ .;;
07/~O/06 16 ~6
'Z3'50~ 726 ~680
r
SPFD DEl SER
~
Post-,t' Fax Note 7071
ITO CAaA K<c.UlllA-N
CoJOspI
IPM""
IF." 72.G,- (D88"1
10"'7/30/%1:';'. <:. i
Fmm m.~ J
I,Co CJ~ o~ $J-J(,l'"'E;:<."
.IPhone. 7u..-;s'-66 J
IF"" I
F"A- )(
CITY Oll' B;PRJ:N(31"~i:LD 8Y6~ DXVEI.r..-,;,oIoIOI"... CHARGB
(COMIIE1!.C:IAL I lliDllSTRIAI.)
Name or Company' LEWIS/SALLY EDMONDS
Lo~at~on~ 5005 MA1N ST
Developement Type: C BuJ.~<lJ.ng Si%e'
1. S:rOR>l CRAINAGB
Imperv~oua Sq Pt 1.0 X S552
2. SAHJ::rlUl.Y SSVlEll. - CITY
NUmber Of PPUa 1.0 X 34
(see page 2)
I/?.
l/z.
X
3. ~SPORTATION
;1l)O/;<T" NUmber Of Ulu ta
",-n" -:. 1 0 X 35 X
~. 1.0 35 X
<l'~
rlUDJ (J. l'\{"alJlu.6-H
~.- Transporcation Total
(.<>~ 5-z.e
C.Ot: 5t.S
Tr~p !l.ate
0.010 X
o SSO
4. SAHJ::rlUlY SBWER - I<1'lHC
Numher Of PPUs
34
Job No.. 960980
Lot Sue,
x
0.4~5
Per sq pt =
x
44 75 Per PPU .
..(
~t'r6eL
O""=' CflI1Z€. C(;.<TCR. f':z.:z.
Cost. Per 'I':t:'1p
451 26
451.25
$157.94
$13,424 ~B
X Per Pro + MWMC Adau.n Fee
X :10 6~0 + 10 00
MWMC CREDIT If AppliCable (see Page 2)
TOTAr. - MWMC SDC
SDBTO'l'AL - (Add Uems 1. 2. 3 &, 4 J
5, AOM:Ims~= J'EBS
Ease Charge (Subtotal Abov~) X
o 50
:renAL SDC
ReV1ewed By. TROY MCALLISTER
Date- 07/25/96
_............r~,
~001
-n(p - (,,~'ij,9
---.
Page 1
Sq l't
$1,847.23
$1,521 50
" 0 I ISTuDG<li
c:>" et; I S1VP.EH1'
,
-r
I
.$23,582.93
$713.46
$~04.10
.$509.3S
$17.SSl,02
$878.05
$18.439.07
..
07/:10/96
16 J6
'5'50J 726 3689
Job Number 960980
SPFD DEV SER
F=E =T CALCllLA':l'IOH TABLE
FD<ture Type
Bathtub
Dr1.I1kJ..ng Fountam
Floor Drain
Interceptors For Grease/Oil/Sol~ds/Eta
Inteceptors For Sand/Auto Wash/Eta
Laundry TUb/Clotheswa~her
Clotheswasher - 3 Or More
Receptor For Refrigerator/Water Stat~on/Etc
Receptor for Commerc~l Sink/D1shwasher/Etc
Shower, S~ngle seal 1
Shower, Gang
S1nk, Bar, Commerc1al, Residential X1tchen
Unna.l, StaJ.l/wall
Wash Bas~n/Lavatory, S~gle
Water closet, Puhl~c lnstallation,
water Closet, Private
Miscellaneous
TOTAL FIXTUR1l UNITS =
Number of
New F.1xture
o
I
o
o
o
I
o
o
o
o
o
2
o
7
o
5
o
.
,
Ii!I002
Page 2
u:n~t F1xture
Eqll::l.valent Uluts
2 0
1 I
2 0
3 0
6 0
2 2
6 0
I 0
3 0
2 0
0
2 4
2 0
I 7
6 0
4 20
0
34
=1':1' c;J\J.,COLATION TABLE, Based on assessed value, If improvements occured
after annexat~On date, creai;s ere calculate4 separately.
(calculat~ons are by $1000J
Year Annexed. 1969
Credit For Parcel Or Land Only If Appl~cable:
Improvement (if after annaxat~on date) r
(If land value is mult~phed by 1 then the
30,000
x
3.47 :=;
104.10
o
x
3 47 .c
o 00
CRJ3l)IT TO'1'AL =
$104.10