HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023 06 21 811-23-000060 Order811-23-000060-TYP3 – DISCRETIONARY USE PERMIT FOR PROPOSED EDUCATIONAL FACILITY ON VACANT LOT
NORTHWEST CORNER OF G STREET AT 8TH STREET (MAP 17-03-35-12, TL 6700 & 6800)
SITE CONTEXT MAP
G Street 7th Street SITE 8th Street 9th Street Springfield High School
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Tax Lot 6700:
Lots 16, 17, 18 and that portion of the vacated North 2.0 feet of G Street adjacent on the South, Block 108,
Plat of WASHBURNE’S SUBDIVISION OF THE SPRINGFIELD INVESTMENT AND POWER COMPANY’S
ADDITION to Springfield as platted and recorded in Book 2, Page 73, Lane County Oregon Plat Records in
Lane County, Oregon.
Also Including: South ½ of alley adjacent on the North to Lots 16, 17 & 18 in Block 108, WASHBURNE’S
SUBDIVISION OF THE SPRINGFIELD INVESTMENT AND POWER COMPANY’S ADDITION to Springfield, Lane
County, Oregon by Vacation Ordinance #5837 & 5838 for 1998.
Tax Lot 6800:
Lots 19 and 20 and that portion of the vacated North 2.0 feet of G Street adjacent on the South, Block 108,
Plat of WASHBURNE’S SUBDIVISION OF THE SPRINGFIELD INVESTMENT AND POWER COMPANY’S
ADDITION to Springfield as platted and recorded in Book 2, Page 73, Lane County Oregon Plat Records in
Lane County, Oregon.
Also Including: South ½ of alley adjacent on the North to Lots 19 and 20 in Block 108, WASHBURNE’S
SUBDIVISION OF THE SPRINGFIELD INVESTMENT AND POWER COMPANY’S ADDITION to Springfield, Lane
County, Oregon by Vacation Ordinance #5837 & 5838 for 1998.
Staff Report and Findings as Amended at June 21 Meeting
Springfield Planning Commission
Discretionary Use Request (EC Cares)
Hearing Opened Date: June 6, 2023
Report Date: June 21, 2023
Case Number: 811-23-000060-TYP3
Applicant: EC Cares – University of Oregon
Applicant’s Representative: Lorri Nelson, Rowell Brokaw Architects
Site: Northwest corner of 8th and G Streets in Springfield (Map 17-03-35-12, Tax Lots 6700 &
6800)
Request
The applicant is requesting a Discretionary Use permit to facilitate construction of a modular classroom
building for a preschool.
The application was submitted on March 30, 2023 and the City conducted a Development Review
Committee meeting on the Discretionary Use request and accompanying Site Plan Review on April 18,
2023.
The Planning Commission opened a public hearing on the request for Discretionary Use permit at the
regular meeting on June 6, 2023. The Commission continued the public hearing to the regular meeting
on June 21, 2023 at 7:00 pm to allow for submittal of additional testimony and allow the applicant and
staff to respond.
Site Information/Background
The property that is the subject of the Discretionary Use request is located on the north side of G Street
between 7th and 8th Streets. The site abuts the Springfield High School campus along the northern edge.
The site is currently vacant and is zoned R-1 which is consistent with the Low Density Residential plan
designation as shown on the adopted Metro Plan Diagram.
The property is currently vacant and has frontage on G Street along the southern boundary and a stub of
8th Street along the eastern boundary. An abandoned curb cut and driveway approach is located near the
midpoint of the property frontage on G Street. The applicant has submitted a Site Plan Review
application under separate cover (Case 811-23-000059-TYP2) for the proposed modular classroom
building and associated site improvements including a driveway access onto 8th Street, parking lot,
outdoor play areas and site landscaping.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission conclude the public
hearing and closes the record at the regular meeting on June 21, 2023. Staff recommends approval
of the Discretionary Use permit subject to the recommended condition of approval contained
herein.
Exhibit B, Page 1 of 18
Zoning Map Legend
R-1 Residential
R-2 Residential
Public Land & Open Space (PLO)
Neighborhood Commercial (NC)
Washburne Historic District
Photo 1 – Site Air Photo
Figure 1 – Zoning Map Extract
SITE
G Street
SITE 9th Street G Street
Springfield High School
Springfield
High School 7th Street 8th Street 7th Street 9th Street 8th Street 10th Street 6th Street Exhibit B, Page 2 of 18
Notification and Written Comments
The Planning Commission voted unanimously at the June 6, 2023 regular meeting to continue the public
hearing to the June 21, 2023 regular meeting. Notification of the initial June 6, 2023, public hearing for
both the Discretionary Use permit and Site Plan Review application was sent to all property owners and
residents within 300 feet of the site on May 5, 2023. Notification was also published in the legal notices
section of The Chronicle on May 11, 2023. Public hearing notices were posted in the following public
locations: on both the G Street and 8th Street frontages of the subject property; in the public notices bulletin
board in the lobby of City Hall; on the City’s webpage; and on the digital display in the Development &
Public Works office. Public notification was also sent to all property owners and tenants/residents within
300 feet of the site on April 20, 2023 for just the Site Plan Review application submitted under separate
cover (Case 811-23-000059-TYP2) as part of the standard comment period notice for a Site Plan
application. All public comments have been provided to the Planning Commission for consideration and
are in the record of this application.
Testimony Provided at Public Hearing: Curtis Phillips provided verbal testimony at the June 6 public
hearing meeting reiterating his concerns about traffic and speeding along G Street. Mr. Phillips spoke
neither in favor of nor opposed to the proposal. Mr. Phillips requested mitigation for traffic speeds on
G Street in the form of a speed bump or a stop sign to slow vehicles down, especially with special needs
children attending the proposed pre-school.
Michael McIlrath provided verbal testimony at the June 6 public hearing meeting. He spoke in
opposition to the proposal. Mr. McIlrath expressed concerns about the “haste” in which the applications
have been brought forward and alleged that staff had been “directed” to work with the School District to
approve the proposal. Mr. McIlrath stated that the 1997 vacation of the mid-block alley between G Street
and the high school campus affirmed the boundary between the school and the adjacent residential area.
Mr. McIlrath also submitted written comments, diagrams and photos at the public hearing meeting. In
a historical image included with his submittal, Mr. McIlrath pointed out that there was an open space
buffer between the high school and the residential area to the south along G Street. [Staff Note: The
historical image in question is taken from a 1969 document that shows the newly-constructed Springfield
High School in 1946]. The public hearing submittal is included herein as Attachment 4, Exhibit J.
Staff Response to Public Hearing Testimony: No new issues were presented at the public hearing
meeting because both speakers reiterated previously conveyed concerns about traffic, suitability of the
site for the proposed use, and perceived accelerated timelines for review. Evaluation of the traffic issues
raised by Mr. Phillips is found in Criterion B below. At the June 6 public hearing meeting staff explained
that the multiple mailed notifications sent for the applications could have caused confusion among
recipients and therefore recommended continuing the public hearing to the June 21 meeting. Continuing
the public hearing was offered as a remedy to a potentially confusing notification process. The Planning
Commission granted the continuance for the public hearing. All written submittals received between the
time of initial notification of the Site Plan Review sent on April 20, 2023 up to and including the
comments received at the June 6 public hearing have been included in the June 21 Planning Commission
meeting materials as Attachment 4, Exhibits A-J.
In his verbal testimony to the Planning Commission on June 6, Mr. McIlrath expressed concerns about
the “boundary” between the high school and the adjacent residential neighborhood to the south being the
mid-block alley vacated in 1997. The Springfield High School has changed significantly – both in terms
of location and configuration – since its initial construction. However, none of this testimony is relevant
to the criteria of approval or has bearing on the proposal which is for a preschool on a vacant lot adjacent
Exhibit B, Page 3 of 18
to the high school campus. The proposal is not to expand the high school onto the subject property. In
this report and at the public hearing meeting on June 6 staff has explained that the current R-1 zoning
precludes any high school uses on the site, either under the Discretionary Use approval or otherwise.
The contents of the written materials provided by Mr. McIlrath are discussed in Criterion B below.
Criteria of Approval
Section 5.9.100 of the SDC contains the criteria of approval for the decision maker to utilize during review
of Discretionary Use requests; those criteria are:
SDC 5.9.120 CRITERIA
(A) The proposed use conforms with applicable:
(1) Provisions of the Metro Plan;
(2) Refinement plans;
(3) Plan District standards;
(4) Conceptual Development Plans or
(5) Specific Development Standards in this Code;
(B) The site under consideration is suitable for the proposed use, considering:
(1) The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the use (operating characteristics
include but are not limited to parking, traffic, noise, vibration, emissions, light, glare, odor,
dust, visibility, safety, and aesthetic considerations, where applicable);
(2) Adequate and safe circulation exists for vehicular access to and from the proposed site, and
on-site circulation and emergency response as well as pedestrian, bicycle and transit
circulation;
(3) The natural and physical features of the site, including but not limited to, riparian areas,
regulated wetlands, natural stormwater management/drainage areas and wooded areas shall
be adequately considered in the project design; and
(4) Adequate public facilities and services are available, including but not limited to, utilities,
streets, storm drainage facilities, sanitary sewer and other public infrastructure.
(C) Any adverse effects of the proposed use on adjacent properties and on the public can be mitigated
through the:
(1) Application of other Code standards (including, but not limited to: buffering from less intensive
uses and increased setbacks);
(2) Site Plan Review approval conditions, where applicable;
Exhibit B, Page 4 of 18
(3) Other approval conditions that may be required by the Approval Authority; and/or
(4) A proposal by the applicant that meets or exceeds the cited Code standards and/or approval
conditions.
Proposed Findings In Support of Discretionary Use Approval
Criterion: Discretionary Use criteria of approval:
A. The proposed use conforms with applicable;
1. Provisions of the Metro Plan;
Approval Criterion: School siting is discussed in the Public Facilities and Services Element
of the Metro Plan. Metro Plan Policies G.22 – G.24 require coordination between the School
District and the City regarding land use planning and siting of school facilities.
Finding: The property is currently zoned R-1 Residential in accordance with the Springfield
Zoning Map and is designated Low Density Residential (LDR) in the adopted Metro Plan
diagram. The applicant is not proposing to change the current zoning or designation for the
subject site.
Finding: Provisions of the Metro Plan contemplate non-residential uses such as schools,
streets, parks and government facilities in land designated for residential use. Approximately
32% of residentially-designated land is typically developed with non-residential uses (Metro
Plan Residential Land Supply and Demand Finding #8).
Finding: The proposed modular classroom building is consistent with Policy G.22(a) of the
Metro Plan whereby the City and School District are coordinating the need for new school
facilities and sufficient land to site them. The land use planning and coordination specified
by Policy G.22(a) is evidenced by the Discretionary Use permit and Site Plan review
submitted by the applicant for review and approval by the City as approving authority. The
proposed modular classroom building is to be located on vacant land owned by the School
District and it performs a key function in addressing preschool educational needs for children
within the district, as detailed in the EC Cares summary included in the AIS packet as
Attachment 4, Exhibit H.
Approval Criterion: The adopted comprehensive plan applicable to the site is the Springfield
Comprehensive Plan.
Finding: As the adopted buildable lands inventory that supports the Springfield
Comprehensive Plan - Residential Land and Housing Element, the Residential Housing
Needs Analysis identifies the need for new and expanded school facilities as population
increases. The findings of the Residential Housing Needs Analysis align with earlier findings
and conclusions contained in the Metro Plan and restated in the Springfield Comprehensive
Plan regarding planning and integration of schools within residential areas and responding to
changing needs as population increases. However, there are no specific policies or
Exhibit B, Page 5 of 18
requirements of the adopted Springfield Comprehensive Plan that apply to the proposed
development.
Finding: Respondent McIlrath asserts that the proposed busing of students to the classroom
building is contrary to the provisions of TransPlan and Metro Plan policies which encourage
neighborhood focused uses that reduce vehicle trips (ref. Attachment 4, Exhibit G). While
this principle might be true for certain types of commercial and mixed-use developments –
especially in frequent transit corridors – the proposed classroom building does not violate
any Metro Plan policies. The Metro Plan (Section III-G-10) contemplates and supports the
need for flexibility in school facility use and siting due to fluctuations in student populations
in different areas of the District and anticipates a reliance on busing to keep student numbers
in line with facility capacity. The proposed classroom building will rely on busing of students
to the facility which is consistent with School District practice and long supported by the
City’s adopted comprehensive plans. Springfield has replaced the former Metropolitan
Transportation System Plan or “TransPlan” with the City’s own Transportation System Plan
or TSP for the local Springfield transportation system. There are no policies or
recommendations arising from the City’s TSP (last updated in 2020) that affect this project.
There are no regional projects or policies in TransPlan that are applicable to this site.
Moreover, the proposed modular classroom building in no way violates the provisions of the
City’s adopted TSP or regional policies of TransPlan.
Conclusion: The request meets this criterion.
2. Refinement plans;
Finding: The subject site is not within an adopted neighborhood refinement plan area.
Approval Criterion: Metro Plan Policies G.22 – G.24 are restated as Policies G.21 – G.23 in
the adopted Eugene-Springfield Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP), which is a
functional refinement plan of the Metro Plan.
Finding: The relationship between the Metro Plan and the PFSP is described on Page I-5 of
the Metro Plan. The proposed modular classroom building is consistent with the policies of
the PFSP whereby the School District and City are coordinating the land use planning and
siting of school facilities. This policy has been met through the applicant’s submittal of land
use applications in support of the facility on vacant property owned by the School District.
The City is similarly meeting its commitment to process the applications under the provisions
of the Development Code.
Conclusion: The request meets this criterion.
3. Plan District standards;
Finding: The subject site is not within an adopted Plan District.
Conclusion: This criterion is not applicable to this request.
Exhibit B, Page 6 of 18
4. Conceptual Development Plans or
Finding: There are no Conceptual Development Plans currently applicable to the subject site.
Conclusion: This criterion is not applicable to this request.
5. Specific Development Standards in this Code;
Approval Criterion: SDC Table 3.2.210 specifies that “educational facilities: elementary and
middle schools” are a Discretionary Use in the R-1 district and are subject to Site Plan
Review.
Finding: The use of “preschool” is not listed in the Springfield Development Code. The
term Elementary school or Middle School is not defined in the SDC. The term “school” is
defined in SDC 6.1.100 as “A building where individuals gather to receive educational
instruction, either public or private, except as otherwise specifically defined in this code.
School does not include a child care facility as defined in this chapter.” In accordance with
SDC 6.1.105(G) where words are not defined direction is given to rely on other sources
including State laws, and dictionaries in common usage. The term “preschool” as defined in
the online Merriam-Websters dictionary as “a school for children usually younger that those
attending elementary school or kindergarten.”
Finding: For the purpose of the proposed use, it is found that the use is a school and is allowed
in the R-1 district as a discretionary use because it is an educational facility.
Finding: The requirements of SDC 4.7.195 are also evaluated in more detail in the
accompanying Site Plan Review application submitted under separate cover (File 811-23-
000059-TYP2). As discussed in the accompanying Site Plan Review application, those
findings are incorporated by reference here, it is found that SDC 4.7.195(A)(2)-(11) only
apply to schools that are 10,000 square feet or larger.
Finding: To address the land use approval requirements for an educational facility in the R-
1 Residential District, the applicant has submitted this request for Discretionary Use
approval. The Site Plan Review process is typically a Type 2 decision under SDC
5.17.110(A)(1)(d). However, under SDC 5.1.415(B), the Director may elevate review of a
Type 2 decision to Type 3 review “due to the complexity of the application or the need for
discretionary review.” The Director has determined that the Site Plan Review application is
appropriate for concurrent review as a Type 3 decision given the concurrent application for
Discretionary Use approval.
Approval Criterion: SDC 5.9.115(A) requires that new Discretionary Uses are reviewed and
approved under Type 3 procedure concurrently with or prior to approval of a Site Plan
Review.
Finding: With approval of the Discretionary Use request, the applicant will need to obtain
approval for the accompanying Site Plan Review submitted under separate cover (File 811-
23-000059-TYP2). The detailed site development plans, including vehicle access and
parking, bus drop off zone, underground utilities, playground structures, street frontage
Exhibit B, Page 7 of 18
improvements and site landscaping need to be addressed through the Site Plan Review
process. After the completion of the public hearing process, the Planning Commission can
concurrently approve the Site Plan Review application with the Discretionary Use request.
Concurrent or subsequent approval of the Site Plan Review submitted as File 811-23-000059-
TYP2, with any conditions necessary to meet the criteria of approval, is hereby made a
condition of approval to satisfy Approval Criterion SDC 5.9.115(A).
Finding: In his submitted comments and at the public hearing meeting on June 6, respondent
McIlrath has expressed concerns about the review and approval process for the Discretionary
Use and Site Plan Review being “rushed” and “hasty”. Mr. McIlrath identified the May 4
deadline for submittal of written comments as being insufficient due to delays in mailing.
The mailed notice stating a May 4 deadline was for comments specific to the Site Plan Review
application (File 811-23-000059-TYP2). The subsequent mailed and published notice
provided for the June 6 public hearing includes both the Site Plan Review and Discretionary
Use permit (File 811-23-000060-TYP3), indicating the record on the staff reports is open
until closed at or following the public hearing. All comments submitted by Mr. McIlrath
between April 25 and June 6 are included with this staff report (Attachment 4, Exhibits B, C,
E, G, I and J). To the extent that the first Site Plan Review notice caused any confusion
regarding the deadline for submitting comments related to the proposed development, City
staff recommended the Planning Commission continue the public hearing until the next
regular meeting on June 21 to allow additional time for public comment. The Planning
Commission continued the public hearing meeting to June 21.
Finding: Regarding the issue of sufficient time for review and comment, the applications
were submitted on March 30, 2023 and considered complete on April 18, 2023 and the City
has met all required public notification timelines for Type 3 Site Plan Review and Type 3
Discretionary Use permit. Under Oregon state law, the City must issue a decision on a
complete land use application within 120 days, including the provision for any local appeals.
The public hearing for this application was opened on June 6, 2023 and continued to June 21,
2023 which is day 64 of the approval timeline. This is consistent with the approval timeline
for similar Discretionary Use and Site Plan Review applications. The public hearing being
continued to June 21 provides additional opportunity for the public and the applicant to
submit comments and for staff to provide supplemental information on police traffic reports
from G Street. The approval process for these applications is consistent with the requirements
of the Springfield Development Code, and the City’s adopted and acknowledged Goal 1
Citizen Involvement Plan.
Recommended Condition of Approval:
1. To satisfy SDC 5.9.115(A), concurrent with or subsequent to approval of the
Discretionary Use Permit the applicant must obtain Planning Commission approval
for the Site Plan Review initiated by Case 811-23-000059-TYP2.
Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposal meets this criterion.
Exhibit B, Page 8 of 18
B. The site under consideration is suitable for the proposed use, considering:
1. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the use (operating
characteristics include but are not limited to parking, traffic, noise, vibration, emissions,
light, glare, odor, dust, visibility, safety, and aesthetic considerations, where applicable);
Finding: The proposed modular building on the property is to accommodate an early
childhood education program provided by EC Cares. In response to issues raised by
respondent McIlrath in his submitted comments, the Discretionary Use permit process is the
approval process used to confirm that a proposed use will not be conspicuously different from
– or impose adverse effects on – existing uses adjacent to the property and in the immediate
vicinity. By submitting the Discretionary Use permit and having the request scheduled for
public hearing before the City’s Planning Commission, the applicant has met this requirement
for “conditional use permit” identified by respondent McIlrath in the April 25 comments
(note that these comments were submitted before Mr. McIlrath received notice of the
Discretionary Use application).
Parking
Approval Criterion: In accordance with SDC 4.6.125, the parking requirements for modular
classroom buildings are one per classroom plus one per 100 ft2 of assembly area.
Finding: Comments submitted by respondents describe concerns about parking issues
created or exacerbated by the proposed classroom building. Currently, the property frontage
along 8th Street has painted curbs that prohibit parking. There is on-street parking along G
Street frontage.
Finding: There is no assembly area within the modular building, therefore the parking
requirement under SDC 4.6.125 is two spaces. The parking requirement is satisfied with the
proposed three-space, on-site parking lot. Additional review of the site parking is contained
in Section 9 of the accompanying Site Plan Review (File 811-23-000059-TYP2).
Finding: The applicant is proposing to replace the G Street parking frontage with a dedicated
school bus loading and unloading area. Approximately 88 feet of curb line will be required
for two bus loading spaces as depicted on Sheet L-1.0 of the applicant’s submittal. With
delineation of two bus loading spaces, there is approximately 60 feet of curb line remaining
along the property frontage that could accommodate up to three parallel parking spaces at the
western edge of the site. Three vehicle parking spaces are being provided on-site which
approximates the impact of a two-classroom modular building. The provision of three on-
site parking spaces meets the requirements under SDC 4.6.125 and therefore the proposed
development will be sufficient to mitigate any potential adverse impact on the availability of
on-street parking in the neighborhood.
Finding: To the extent that the proposed modular classroom building displaces existing on-
street parking available for public use, if the lots were developed with any type of outright
permitted residential use, including middle housing, there could be one or more driveways
installed to access off-street parking for residents, which would reduce the available space of
on-street parking. The demand for the on-street parking would likely be higher from new
Exhibit B, Page 9 of 18
residents using the curb line for their own parking if no off-street parking was provided. In
either development scenario the existing on-street parking would be diminished or displaced.
Outright permitted residential development on the lots meeting R-1 district standards,
including middle housing, would not require any type of land use approval and would proceed
directly to building permit. Permitted R-1 development would thus have a greater impact on
the availability of on-street parking than the proposed Discretionary Use.
Finding: The opportunity to use available on-street parking for students, parents, or nearby
residents is not a guarantee or a right since it exists within the public right-of-way. The
applicant is proposing to retain some on-street parking along the property frontage. This
information in combination with the finding above about similar impact for residential uses
leads to the conclusion that the subject site is suitable for the proposed use.
Finding: At the public hearing, respondents expressed concerns about the proposed school
bus zone along the G Street frontage of the site. The use of the public right-of-way for
exclusive school bus use was raised as an adverse impact. There is an existing LTD bus stop
one block to the west at 7th and G Street that precludes on-street parking in that area. In
addition, on a daily basis, public school buses pick up students throughout the R-1 (and other
land use districts) by stopping within the public right-of-way. For these reasons the proposed
bus loading zone is like other uses of the public right of way in the R-1 zoning district and
will not have adverse impacts on the neighboring land uses.
Finding: In the written materials submitted on June 6, respondent McIlrath provided photos
of vehicles parked along G Street. According to the notations provided with the photos, some
were static (i.e. unoccupied) parked vehicles – possibly high school students or neighborhood
residents – and some were occupied vehicles. The occupied vehicles were indicated to be
parents waiting to pick up students from the high school. The pictures do not show obvious
parking problems, conflicts or infractions.
Traffic
Finding: Comments submitted by respondent McIlrath demands a traffic impact study for
the proposed modular classroom building. Respondent McIlrath points to the requirement
under SDC 4.7.195(A)(11) for a Traffic Impact Study to be provided for a school. The
proposed modular classroom building is being reviewed through a Type 3 process. However,
because the modular classroom building is about 2,677 ft2 it does not meet the criteria for
requiring the Specific Development Standards of SDC 4.7.195, therefore these standards are
not applicable.
Finding: Comments submitted by respondents describe concerns about traffic congestion
and safety. Vehicles are not typically travelling at high speeds through the area when there
is traffic congestion
Respondent McIlrath points to vehicles being backed up for two blocks or more at the four-
way stops at 7th and G Streets when school is just starting or has just let out. Observations
and complaints about congestion are incongruous with respondents’ requests for additional
stop signs and speed bumps along G Street because these traffic control measures are likely
to increase congestion. Introducing another stop control at 8th and G Street to make it a four-
Exhibit B, Page 10 of 18
way stop will further congest the G Street corridor during busy times in mornings and
afternoons on school days. The City’s Transportation Planning Engineer states that one of
the most effective ways to address congestion is to provide a grid system of streets that allow
for vehicles to travel in all directions to and from the site. This condition exists at the
proposed development site because there is a two-way stop at the 8th and G Street intersection
allowing for travel east, south and west and there is a four-way intersection at 7th and G Street.
The Transportation Planning Engineer states that stop signs are not an effective traffic
calming measure when they are installed without being warranted by existing traffic volumes
or conflicts, because they lead to an increase in mid-block speeding, disregarding of the stop
sign installation, and/or diversion of traffic to adjacent streets because some drivers will try
to avoid the traffic control feature. For these reasons, installing a four-way stop at 8th and G
Streets would not effectively mitigate any increase in congestion or traffic conflicts caused
by the Discretionary Use approval.
Finding: Respondent Phillips suggests a speed bump or stop sign as a remedy for speeding
as a separate concern from traffic congestion. The City’s Transportation Planning Engineer
and the City’s Traffic Engineer have reviewed the requests for a speed bump and/or a stop
sign to mitigate traffic speeds and state that they disagree that these will provide a remedy.
As stated in the prior finding, installing a stop sign at an intersection that does not warrant
this treatment will have adverse impacts, including potential increase in mid-block speeding.
Finding: There are no speed bumps on any of the surface streets in this area of Springfield.
These speed control devices are typically used on private sites such as manufactured home
parks or commercial shopping centers where there is mixing of significant pedestrian and
vehicle traffic and there is a desire to prevent higher speed, shortcutting traffic. There is no
evidence in the record that shows that there would be a similar level of pedestrian and vehicle
conflicts as exist on a private shopping center, that would justify a speed bump adjacent to
the proposed development. The feature constructed at Dos Rios/Two Rivers School is not a
speed bump and is discussed below under Pedestrian Safety.
Finding: The Springfield Police Department provided call log and incident information for
the three-block section between 7th and G Street and 10th and G Street for the period of
January 1, 2019 to May 31, 2023 (Attachment 5, Exhibit A). Five traffic accident reports
were also sent (Attachment 5, Exhibits B-F). According to the compiled information, a total
of 38 incidents were recorded during this period. Of these incidents, no accidents involving
pedestrians were reported. The most serious accident – in terms of reported damage – was a
collision between a private vehicle and an LTD bus that occurred in the intersection of 10th
and G Street. A total of eight motor vehicle accidents were reported and six of the eight were
at or near the 4-way stop intersection of 10th and G Street. Of the remaining two accidents,
one occurred on a Saturday in the 700 block of G Street and the other was a sideswipe to a
parked vehicle in the 900 block of G Street. No accidents were noted at the intersection of
8th and G Street.
Finding: Of the 30 other traffic-related incidents that were logged between January 1, 2019
and May 31, 2023, five occurred on the weekend and 16 occurred in the evening or overnight
hours when no schools were operating (i.e. between 5:00 pm and 7:00 am). This leaves nine
calls over three years for traffic issues occurring during school hours. Of these nine calls,
Exhibit B, Page 11 of 18
four occurred at the intersection of 10th and G Street, three occurred at or near the four-way
stop at 7th and G Street, one occurred at 9th and G Street and one occurred at 8th and G Street.
The reported traffic stop on 8th and G Street was at around noon on Wednesday, December
15, 2021. No further details of the traffic stop were provided. Based on the police call logs
and accident reports for the three-block segment of G Street between 7th and 10th Streets, the
intersection of 8th and G Street had the fewest occurrences of calls overall and especially
during school operating hours of Monday – Friday, 8:00 am – 5:00 pm.
Finding: Based on the information provided by the Springfield Police Department identified
above, there is no existing safety issue present at or in the vicinity of 8th and G Street that
would warrant a traffic impact analysis to assess the traffic safety impacts of the proposed
preschool use.
Finding: Should traffic or pedestrian safety issues arise after the proposed development is
completed, the City retains authority under the Springfield Charter and Springfield Municipal
Code to install additional traffic calming measures within the public right-of-way.
Pedestrian Safety
Finding: Operation of the classroom building will be largely consistent with the operating
hours of other schools in the vicinity. Most of the students will arrive at the facility by bus,
which reduces the total amount of private vehicle trips associated with the classroom
building. It is not expected that the early childhood educational facility will generate
vibrations, odors, emissions, glare, dust or other adverse impacts to the neighborhood.
Finding: The property requested for Discretionary Use approval is zoned R-1 and it borders
an existing residential dwelling on the west boundary only. On the north the site abuts the
Springfield High School campus, and on the east and south it has frontage on public streets
(8th and G Streets).
Finding: There will be daytime noise and activity during construction of the new site
improvements, which includes relocation of perimeter fencing, construction of a new
driveway approach and parking lot, installation of utilities, and siting of the modular building.
However, short duration noise spikes are not regulated through the Springfield Development
Code and are mitigated by daytimebackground noise from nearby school activities, traffic on
G Street and public transit operations already occurring along the site frontage. Nighttime
construction of a private facility is not permitted without a special noise permit approved by
the City Council. Additionally, the proposed site work should not require extensive
excavation or prolonged use of heavy equipment or machinery that would introduce new or
excessive noise to the site. According to the response to written comments provided by EC
Cares, upon completion of the classroom building, the preschool will follow a specialized
program of instruction based on the specific needs of students and have activities occurring
both indoors and outdoors.
Finding: Comments submitted by respondents describe concerns about speeding along G
Street, which represents an existing condition. These comments are anecdotal and are not
supported by any speed studies, police data or other traffic information submitted into the
record. Respondents also expressed concerns that preschool aged children, especially those
Exhibit B, Page 12 of 18
with special needs, would be particularly vulnerable at crossings if vehicle speeds were not
addressed.
Finding: There is an absence of traffic speed data for G Street and the respondents did not
request or conduct a speed study in support of these allegations. To determine whether a
speeding problem exists during busy periods, the City’s Traffic Operations and Engineering
Section conducted a speed study on May 25, 2023 at the time of school release (2:49 pm –
3:30 pm). A radar gun was used to record vehicle speeds on G Street between 8th and 9th
Streets. The entire length of G Street between 3rd Place and 14th Street is posted as a 25 mph
zone. During the course of the speed study 97 passenger vehicles were recorded. The speed
study found that the average speed of vehicles was 25 mph and the 85th percentile speed (i.e.
speed at which at least 85% of the vehicles were under) was 29 mph.
Finding: The traffic incident information provided by the Springfield Police Department and
discussed in the “Traffic” section above confirms there are no elevated risks for pedestrians
at this location. In his written submittal, respondent McIlrath provided photos of children
and teens crossing the streets near the intersection of 8th and G Streets. Again, there are no
obvious issues or concerns noted in the photographs: the pedestrians are crossing at the
corners and traffic (including school buses) are yielding to them as should be expected. Based
on the information provided by the police, staff observations and recorded data at the site,
and submittals by respondent McIlrath there is no elevated risk to pedestrians at the 8th and
G Street intersection. The evidence shows that construction and operation of a preschool at
the corner of 8th and G Street - where students are bused to the site – will not increase the risk
to pedestrians crossing 8th or G Street.
Finding: Comments submitted by respondents recommend traffic calming or traffic control
measures such as speed bumps and stop signs to mitigate speeding. Respondents point to the
“speed bump” at Dos Rios/Two Rivers Elementary School as a viable measure. The “speed
bump” on G Street in front of Dos Rios/Two Rivers School is an elevated pedestrian crossing
that functions in part as a speed control and in part as a crosswalk. The Transportation
Planning Engineer states that the elevated crossing was installed because it represents a mid-
block pedestrian connection between the parking lot on the south side of the street and the
main school entrance on the north side of the street. There is more pedestrian traffic
associated with Dos Rios/Two Rivers School because hundreds of students attend the school
and the parking lot served by the elevated crossing is frequently used for parent pick-up and
drop-off of students from private vehicles.
Finding: Students will be bused to the proposed site and dropped off curbside on the north
side of G Street. Based on the applicant’s submittal and testimony provided at the public
hearing on June 6, the proposed school would be served exclusively or almost exclusively by
busing. From the bus drop off zone on the G Street frontage the students can walk directly
to the school entrance without crossing a street. It is not expected that many students (or any
at all) would be arriving to the site on foot or unaccompanied. Therefore, an elevated
pedestrian crossing is not necessary or warranted for the subject site.
Finding: Comments submitted by respondents identify speeding vehicles as hazards to
pedestrian safety that warrant four-way stops and crosswalks along G Street. Under Oregon
law, every intersection is a crosswalk whether it is marked/striped or not. There are existing,
Exhibit B, Page 13 of 18
striped crosswalks at 7th and G Street and 10th and G Street where there are also four-way
stop traffic controls. No striped crosswalks are provided on G Street at 8th or 9th Streets.
Finding: Respondent McIlrath contends that installing a driveway for the facility on 8th Street
will obstruct pedestrian travel to and from the high school. The proposed site parking lot for
the facility contains three parking spaces and the driveway is located on the lower
classification street of the two street frontages in accordance with SDC 4.2.120(B). Installing
a second driveway to serve the property along G Street is prohibited because it is a collector
street with higher traffic and pedestrian volumes. A driveway from G Street would increase
congestion by creating a new traffic conflict point on G Street. Conversely, the proposed
driveway on 8th Street has better sight lines, avoids conflicts with the bus loading zone and
consolidates conflict points on the local street to one location which is in line with driver and
pedestrian expectations. The driveway will experience very few vehicle trips because it is
solely used for the three proposed on-site parking spaces.
Finding: Respondent McIlrath expressed concerns that the applicant’s statements about
busing of students, limiting vehicle trips and parking demand associated with the site and
other operational matters should be considered “provisional.” The characteristics of the
modular classroom building and its proposed use as a preschool is the focus of this
application; no other uses are proposed or would be allowed. If EC Cares were to abandon
the facility another educational program for preschool or elementary education could occupy
the building under the provisions of the Discretionary Use permit. However, the Springfield
High School could not expand onto the site because high schools are not allowable in the R-
1 District – even with a Discretionary Use permit. A rezoning of the property would be
required if high school activities were proposed – a land use action requiring another public
review and comment period and a public hearing. Similarly, the site characteristics could not
be changed in the future without requiring additional development review, such as by
modification to the Discretionary Use permit.
Conclusion: The proposal meets this sub-criterion.
2. Adequate and safe circulation exists for vehicular access to and from the proposed
site, and on-site circulation and emergency response as well as pedestrian, bicycle and
transit circulation;
Finding: The site has frontage on G Street along the southern boundary and on 8th Street along
the eastern boundary. The site is located on the northwest corner of a street intersection that
provides for vehicle and bicycle access from nearby local and major streets that connect to the
entire city and region. The segment of G Street along the property frontage is signed as a 25
mph zone because it is designed and intended as a low-speed neighborhood collector street that
primarily conveys traffic to and from existing residences and educational facilities on G Street.
Finding: The subject site is less than one mile from Fire Station #4 at 1475 Fifth Street, which
provides for rapid emergency response via 5th and G Streets.
Finding: Lane Transit District operates Routes 17 (5th Street/Hayden Bridge) and 18 (Mohawk)
which run past the proposed development site on G Street. There are existing transit stops for
Exhibit B, Page 14 of 18
both east- and west-bound riders located one block west of the subject property near the
intersection of 7th and G Streets.
Finding: Between Pioneer Parkway East and 14th Street, G Street has a posted speed limit of
25 mph and has striped crosswalks at key intersections, including 7th and G Street and 10th and
G Street which are proximate to the subject site. Under Oregon state law, all street intersections
are crosswalks – whether marked or not – so there are pedestrian connections to the site from
all directions.
Finding: Both site frontages are improved with public sidewalks. The applicant is proposing
to install pedestrian walkways from G Street to the modular building allowing for students
dropped off by bus or arriving on foot to access the main entrance.
Finding: The applicant is proposing to install a new driveway on 8th Street to serve the
classroom building and associated parking lot. Under SDC 4.2.120(B), a site must take
driveway access from the lower classification street where a site has frontage on more than one
street and the streets have different functional classifications. Because G Street is classified as
a collector street, the proposal meets this requirement by taking access from the local street (8th
Street). In responses to written comments, the proposed driveway has been confirmed to be
located on a street with sight lines in conformance with SDC 4.2.130, Vision Clearance Area,
and SDC Table 4.2.4, Minimum separations between a driveway and the nearest intersection
curb return on the same side of the street. The proposed driveway is expected to experience
minimal traffic due to the small size of the parking lot (i.e. three spaces), and is not anticipated
to interfere with pedestrian movements along the fronting sidewalk or traffic movement on 8th
Street.
Finding: The findings included under Criteria 1 in the “Parking,” “Traffic,” and “Pedestrian
Safety” demonstrate that there is existing safe and adequate on-site and off-site vehicular,
bicycle, and pedestrian access and facilities.
Conclusion: The proposal meets this criterion.
3. The natural and physical features of the site, including but not limited to, riparian areas,
regulated wetlands, natural stormwater management/drainage areas and wooded areas
shall be adequately considered in the project design; and
Finding: There are no regulated wetlands or riparian areas within the project area.
Finding: Respondent McIlrath describes the northern edge of the proposed development site
as a former natural boundary between the developed portion of Springfield and the City limits
at 10th and G Streets, and that drainage channels that directed runoff to the river used to run
within the alley along the northern edge of the subject property. Even if there was a previous
drainage channel in the past, there are no remaining natural or manmade surface drainage
features or wooded areas within the project area. Drainage in this neighborhood has been
formalized through a system of catch basins within the public street system and a network of
underground pipes that direct runoff to public stormwater outfalls – in this case, the Willamette
River. This criterion pertains only to the existing features of the site and does not require
Exhibit B, Page 15 of 18
restoration of any previously-existing features. There are no existing natural stormwater
management or drainage areas on the site.
Finding: The site is currently vacant and is seeded with turf grass. There are no wooded areas
on the site.
Conclusion: The proposal meets this criterion.
4. Adequate public facilities and services are available, including but not limited to, utilities,
streets, storm drainage facilities, sanitary sewer and other public infrastructure.
Finding: The site is just outside the northern edge of the Washburne Historic District and was
previously developed with residential dwellings. Public utilities are available on the site
periphery including water, electricity, telecommunications and sanitary sewer. The applicant
will be responsible for managing stormwater drainage on the site. The topic of adequate public
facilities and services is addressed in more detail in the accompanying Site Plan Review (File
811-23-000059-TYP2) under Standard of Approval 6; those findings and any conditions are
incorporated by reference here.
Conclusion: As described herein and with the recommended Condition 1 requiring
concurrent or subsequent approval or conditional approval of the Site Plan Review submitted
under separate cover (Case 811-23-000059-TYP2), the proposal meets this criterion.
C. Any adverse effects of the proposed use on adjacent properties and on the public can be
mitigated through the:
1. Application of other Code standards (including, but not limited to: buffering from less
intensive uses and increased setbacks);
Finding: The proposed modular classroom building is similar to a residential dwelling in
terms of size and scale (i.e. approximately 2,677 ft2 and single-story). The applicant is
proposing to orient the building to the G Street frontage and provide driveway and parking
access from 8th Street. The northern boundary abuts the Springfield High School campus and
the property on the east side of 8th Street across from the development site is a vacant lot that
is also owned by the Springfield School District. Therefore, the site abuts a less intensive
use on only the western boundary.
Finding: The applicant is proposing to retain an existing fence along the western boundary
of the site where it adjoins a residential property. A five-foot wide landscaping strip is
proposed along the western edge of the site and active play areas are focused on the northern
and eastern edges of the site (i.e. away from the adjoining residential property). The proposed
landscaping buffering and increased building and play area setbacks from the western
boundary mitigates any potential impact to the adjoining residential use. The existing G Street
buffers the proposed use from the residential properties to the south.
Finding: It is not expected that the proposed use will generate unusual noise, odors or
emissions, aside from occasional noise and activity associated with children playing outside.
Exhibit B, Page 16 of 18
The modest size of the facility combined with the anticipated number of students limits the
potential for noise that is detectable from less intensive uses in the vicinity.
Finding: The proposed modular building and associated improvements meet the applicable
setbacks from perimeter property lines and abutting land uses as evidenced by the findings
and conclusions in the accompanying Site Plan Review application under Standard of
Approval 3 (File 811-23-000059-TYP2), which findings are incorporated herein by
reference.
Finding: The applicant is proposing to use wall-mounted, residential-style light fixtures for
the modular building. The proposed lighting should be similar to fixtures used elsewhere in
the adjacent residential neighborhood. No light towers or pole-mounted lights are proposed
on the site. Therefore, it is not expected there will be any adverse effects from lighting on
the subject site.
Conclusion: The proposal meets this criterion.
2. Site Plan Review approval conditions, where applicable;
Finding: The applicant will be required to satisfy the conditions of approval for this
Discretionary Use Permit and the Site Plan Review submitted under separate cover (Case
811-23-000059-TYP2) prior to or concurrently with obtaining Final Site Plan approval and
building permits for this project. Any Site Plan Review conditions are incorporated herein
by reference.
Conclusion: As described herein and with the recommended Condition 1 requiring approval
of the Site Plan Review submitted under separate cover (File 811-23-000059-TYP2), the
proposal meets this criterion.
3. Other approval conditions that may be required by the Approval Authority; and/or
Finding: No other conditions of Discretionary Use approval are being recommended.
Recommended conditions required to address specific site development and operational
issues are described in the accompanying Site Plan Review approval (Case 811-23-000059-
TYP2).
Conclusion: As described herein and with the recommended condition listed above, the
proposal meets this criterion.
4. A proposal by the applicant that meets or exceeds the cited Code standards and/or
approval conditions.
Finding: The applicant is requesting concurrent approval of the Site Plan Review submitted
for the modular classroom building (Case 811-23-000059-TYP2). However, the applicant is
not requesting alternate design criteria or proposing to depart from the cited Code standards
for this facility.
Exhibit B, Page 17 of 18
Conclusion: As described herein and with the recommended Condition 1 requiring approval
of the Site Plan Review submitted under separate cover (Case 811-23-000059-TYP2), the
proposal meets this criterion.
Conclusion: The proposal meets the criteria of Discretionary Use under SDC 5.9.120.
Conditions of Approval
SDC 5.9.125 allows for the Approval Authority to attach conditions of approval to a Discretionary Use
request to ensure the application fully meets the criteria of approval. The specific language from the
code section is cited below:
5.9.125 CONDITIONS
The Approval Authority may attach conditions as may be reasonably necessary in order to allow
the Discretionary Use approval to be granted.
The proposed modular classroom building has been reviewed and additional recommended conditions
of approval are described in the companion Site Plan Review application for this development submitted
under separate cover (Case 811-23-000059-TYP2). This Discretionary Use Permit will need to be
approved before approval can be issued for the accompanying Site Plan Review.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED CONDITION OF APPROVAL:
1. To satisfy SDC 5.9.115(A), concurrent with or subsequent to approval of the Discretionary Use
Permit the applicant must obtain Planning Commission approval for the Site Plan Review
initiated by Case 811-23-000059-TYP2.
Exhibit B, Page 18 of 18
TYPE 3 TENTATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW,
staff report & RECOMMENDATIONS
Project Name: EC (Early Childhood) Cares Site Plan Review
Project Proposal: Construct a 2,677 ft2 modular classroom building and associated driveway, parking lot,
playground, site landscaping and stormwater management facilities for a pre-school on a vacant residential property
near downtown Springfield.
Case Number: 811-23-000059-TYP2
Project Location: 700 Block of G Street (Map 17-03-35-12, Tax Lots 6700 & 6800)
Zoning: R-1 Residential
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Low Density Residential (LDR)
(Metro Plan)
Overlay Districts:
Drinking Water Protection (DWP)
Completeness Check Meeting Date:
March 3, 2023
Application Submitted Date:
March 30, 2023
Planning Commission Meeting Dates:
June 6 and 21, 2023
Associated Applications: 811-22-000252-PRE (Development Initiation Meeting); 811-23-000033-PRE
(Completeness Check Meeting); 811-23-000060-TYP3 (Discretionary Use Permit)
APPLICANT’S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM
Applicant:
Luke Helm
EC Cares – University of Oregon
1585 E. 13th Avenue
Eugene OR 97403
Applicant’s Representative:
Lorri Nelson
Rowell Brokaw Architects
1203 Willamette Street, Suite 210
Eugene OR 97401
Project Engineer:
Anna Backus, PE
KPFF Consulting Engineers
800 Willamette St., Suite 400
Eugene OR 97401
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD’S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM
POSITION REVIEW OF NAME PHONE
Project Manager Planning Andy Limbird 541-726-3784
Transportation Planning Engineer Transportation Michael Liebler 541-736-1034
Public Works Engineer Utilities Clayton McEachern 541-736-1036
Public Works Engineer Sanitary & Storm Sewer Clayton McEachern 541-736-1036
Deputy Fire Marshal Fire and Life Safety Gilbert Gordon 541-726-2293
Building Official Building Chris Carpenter 541-744-4153
SITE 7th Street 8th Street G Street
B Street
Springfield
High School 7th Street 9th Street Exhibit C, Page 1 of 20
Page 2 of 20
Site Information: The proposed project site is a vacant, rectangular-shaped parcel that is located at the northwest
corner of G Street and 8th Street. The subject property is comprised of two adjoining lots that are owned by the
Springfield School District. The applicant is proposing to construct a 2,677 ft2 modular classroom building along
with a new driveway and parking lot off 8th Street, pedestrian walkways, outdoor play areas, site landscaping, bus
drop off area along G Street and vegetated stormwater management facilities on the vacant property. The subject site
is located adjacent to and east of 724 G Street but the property has not yet been assigned a municipal street address
(Map 17-03-35-12, Tax Lots 6700 & 6800). The property is zoned R-1 Residential in accordance with the low-
density plan designation shown on the Metro Plan diagram. Thus, current zoning is consistent with the adopted
Comprehensive Plan designation. The extreme northeast corner of the property is within the mapped 5-10 year time
of travel zone and the remainder of the property is within the 10-20 year time of travel zone for the Q Street drinking
water wellhead.
RECOMMENDATION: This Type 2 Site Plan Review application has been elevated to a Type 3 decision at
the discretion of the Director in accordance with SDC 5.1.415(B). This report is a recommendation for
approval to the Planning Commission. Final Site Plans must conform to the submitted plans or as conditioned
herein. The Planning Commission decision is a Type 3 land use decision made according to City code and
state statutes. Unless appealed, the Planning Commission decision is final.
(See Page 17 for a summary of the conditions of approval.)
REVIEW PROCESS: The application is being reviewed under the Site Plan Review approval standards of SDC
5.17.125. The Director has elevated this application to a Type 3 review in accordance with provisions of SDC
5.1.415(B) because the applicant has applied for a concurrent Discretionary Use permit under separate cover (File
811-23-000060-TYP3).
Procedural Finding: The subject application was submitted on March 30, 2023 and considered complete on April 18,
2023. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 6 and continued the public hearing to June 21, 2023
which is day 64thof the 120 days mandated by Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 227.178 for issuing a final decision at
the local level.
Procedural Finding: Applications for Type 2 and 3 Land Use Decisions require the notification of property
owners/occupants within 300 feet of the subject property allowing for a 14-day comment period on the application
for Type 2 applications and a 20-day public hearing notification for Type 3 applications (SDC 5.1.425). This
application was initially distributed to adjacent property owners and occupants as a Type 2 land use action with a 14-
day comment period. The application was subsequently elevated to a Type 3 land use action and provided with a 20-
day public hearing notification period. The applicant and parties submitting testimony during the notice period have
appeal rights and are mailed a copy of this decision (See Written Comments below). This application was
subsequently elevated to a Type 3 Land Use Decision at the discretion of the Director and is tied to the Type 3
Discretionary Use permit submitted under separate cover (File 811-23-000060-TYP3). Notification of the June
6public hearing meeting for the Discretionary Use permit included reference to the Site Plan Review application.
Based on the foregoing, two notices and opportunities to comment were provided for the subject Site Plan Review
application and all comments received during both notification periods are addressed in the Discretionary Use permit
report.
Requirement for Final Site Plan: As stated in SDC 5.17.130, the Final Site Plan must comply with the requirements
of the Springfield Development Code and the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission in this decision. The
Final Site Plan otherwise must be in conformance with the tentative plan reviewed. Portions of the proposal approved
as submitted during tentative review cannot be changed during Final Site Plan approval. Approved Final Site Plans
(including Landscape Plans) must not be changed during Building Permit Review without an approved Site Plan
Modification.
WRITTEN COMMENTS:
Procedural Finding: In accordance with SDC 5.1.425, notice was sent to adjacent property owners/occupants within
300 feet of the subject site on April 20, 2023. Public hearing notification for the combined Type 3 Discretionary Use
Exhibit C, Page 2 of 20
Page 3 of 20
and Site Plan Review was mailed to adjacent property owners/occupants on May 5, 2023. Staff responded to several
telephone calls and emails regarding the proposal and written comments were received from four respondents. The
written comments and staff responses are addressed in the staff report and recommendations for Discretionary Use
permit, File 811-23-000060-TYP3.
SITE PLAN APPROVAL STANDARDS:
SDC 5.17.125(A), Site Plan Approval Standards states, “The Director must approve, approve with conditions, or
deny a proposed Site Plan Review application based on the following standards.” The subject application has been
elevated to a Type 3 review by the Director because it has been submitted concurrently with a request for
Discretionary Use permit under separate cover (File 811-23-000060-TYP3). Therefore, the Planning Commission is
the approval authority for this decision.
1. The proposed land use is a permitted use or is allowed as a discretionary use in the land use district.
Approval Standard 1.1: SDC Table 3.2.210 specifies that “educational facilities: elementary and middle schools”
area Discretionary Use in the R-1 district and are subject to Site Plan Review.
Finding: The use of “preschool” is not listed in the Springfield Development Code. The term Elementary school
or Middle School is not defined in the SDC. The term “school” is defined in SDC 6.1.100 as “A building where
individuals gather to receive educational instruction, either public or private, except as otherwise specifically
defined in this code. School does not include a child care facility as defined in this chapter.” In accordance with
SDC 6.1.105(G) where words are not defined direction is given to rely on other sources including State laws, and
dictionaries in common usage. The term “preschool” as defined in the online Merriam-Websters dictionary is “a
school for children usually younger that those attending elementary school or kindergarten.”
Finding: For the purpose of the proposed use, it is found that the use is a school and is allowed as a Discretionary
Use in the R-1 district as an educational facility. The applicant has submitted a Discretionary Use permit for the
facility under separate cover, File 811-23-000060-TYP3.
Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Standard of Approval 1.
2. If a use is allowed as a discretionary use, in addition to meeting the standards below, a Discretionary Use
application must be approved in conformance with the standards in SDC 5.9.100.
Approval Standard 2.1: Prior or concurrent approval of the Discretionary Use permit is necessary for the Site
Plan Review to be approved.
Finding: The applicant has submitted a Discretionary Use permit under separate cover (File 811-23-000060-
TYP3). The Planning Commission reviewed both the Discretionary Use permit and accompanying Site Plan
Review at the public hearing meeting opened on June 6 and at the continued public hearing on June 21, 2023.
The Planning Commission conducted deliberations and adopted the Discretionary Use permit on June 21, 2023.
Prior or concurrent approval of the Discretionary Use permit is necessary for Approval Standard 2.1 to be met
and for the Site Plan Review to be approved.
Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Standard of Approval 2.
3. The proposal complies with the standards of the land use district of the subject property.
Finding: The subject site is comprised of two adjoining, vacant residential lots that have frontage on 8th Street
along the eastern boundary and G Street along the southern boundary. The total site area is approximately 0.42
acres (18,240 ft2) and the applicant is proposing to construct a 2,677 ft2 modular classroom building with
associated improvements including a driveway and parking lot accessed from 8th Street; bus drop off lane on G
Street; pedestrian walkways from G Street to the building entrance; outdoor play areas; vegetated stormwater
management facilities; and site landscaping.
Exhibit C, Page 3 of 20
Page 4 of 20
Approval Standard 3.1: SDC 3.2.215 requires that parcels within the R-1 district must be at least 1,000 ft2 for
townhomes; 3,000 ft2 for single-unit or duplex dwellings; 5,000 ft2 for tri-plex dwellings; 5,000 ft2 for cottage
clusters; and 7,000 ft2 for fourplexes. There are no minimum lot frontage requirements.
Finding: There are no specific dimensional standards for non-residential uses in the R-1 District. However, the
subject site has approximately 152 feet of frontage on G Street and 120 feet of frontage on 8th Street which
exceeds the requirements for any residential use in the district.
Approval Standard 3.2: SDC 3.2.220 requires a 10-foot front and rear side yard setback for primary structures
in the R-1 District. Side yard setbacks are 5 feet in the R-1 District.
Finding: The proposed modular building is set back more than 10 feet from all perimeter property lines which
meets this requirement.
Approval Standard 3.3: SDC 3.2.225 limits the total building coverage to 45% for the R-1 District.
Finding: The proposed modular classroom building will occupy approximately 15% of the site, which is less
than the 45% coverage requirement for residential dwellings and accessory structures as listed in SDC 3.2.225.
Approval Standard 3.4: SDC 3.2.230 limits the maximum height of buildings within the R-1 district to 35 feet.
Finding: The proposed single-story building is approximately 12 feet high as measured at the roof peak which
meets this requirement.
Approval Standard 3.5: SDC 3.2.235 describes measures for determining dwelling unit density in residential
districts.
Finding: The proposed modular classroom building is not designed or intended for residential occupancy.
Therefore, the minimum dwelling unit density provisions of SDC 3.2.235 are not applicable to this proposal.
Approval Standard 3.6: SDC 3.2.240 describes special development standards for panhandle lots.
Finding: The proposed development site is comprised of two rectangular lots that have combined frontage on G
Street and 8th Street. The development site is not classified as a panhandle lot or parcel. Therefore, the provisions
of SDC 3.2.240 are not applicable to this proposal.
Approval Standard 3.7: SDC 3.2.245 – 3.2.275 describes special development standards for various dwelling unit
types including middle housing forms.
Finding: The proposed modular classroom is not classified as a single-unit dwelling, accessory dwelling unit, or
a form of middle housing. Therefore, the provisions of SDC 3.2.245-275 are not applicable to this proposal.
Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Standard of Approval 3.
4. The proposal complies with any applicable approved master plan, master facilities plan, refinement plan,
and/or special planned district.
Finding: The subject site is not within an adopted refinement plan area. Additionally, the property is not within
an approved Master Plan area and is located outside the Washburne Historic District.
Approval Standard 4.1: SDC 3.3.235 establishes development standards for sites within the mapped Time of
Travel Zones for Springfield’s Drinking Water wellheads.
Exhibit C, Page 4 of 20
Page 5 of 20
Approval Standard 4.2: SDC 3.3.220(C)(3) states that tax lots having parts lying within more than one Time of
Travel Zone are governed by the standards of the more restrictive zone. SDC 3.3.220 governs sites within the 0-
1 year, 1-5 year, 5-10 year and 10-20 year Time of Travel Zones.
Finding: The subject property is within the Drinking Water Protection Overlay district (DWP). The extreme
northeast corner of the site is within the 5-10 year Time of Travel Zone and the remainder of the property is
within the 10-20 year Time of Travel Zone for the Q Street drinking water wellhead. For the purpose of this
review, the subject property is considered to be within the 5-10 year Time of Travel Zone in accordance with
SDC 3.3.220(C)(3).
Approval Standard 4.3: SDC 3.3.235(C) establishes development standards for properties within the 5-10 year
Time of Travel Zone. SDC 3.3.235(C)(1) allows for the storage, handling, treatment, use, production or
otherwise keeping on premises of more than 20 gallons of hazardous materials that pose a risk to groundwater in
aggregate quantities not containing Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids (DNAPLs) is allowed upon compliance
with containment and safety standards specified by the most recent Fire Code adopted by the City.
Approval Standard 4.4: SDC 3.3.240 states that the approving authority may attach conditions of approval that
will minimize negative impacts of regulated substances on groundwater and ensure that the facility or the
proposed development can fully meet the standards specified in SDC 3.3.235. These conditions may include,
but are not limited to: on-site monitoring wells, Wellhead Protection Area signs, special storm water facilities or
other conditions to address specific risks associated with the proposed development.
Finding: The Drinking Water Source Protection Coordinator has reviewed the proposed development and
determined that the proposed modular classroom building should not contain hazardous materials that, in
aggregate, pose a risk to groundwater. Therefore, a Drinking Water Protection permit is not required for this
proposed development.
Finding: As a water quality protection measure, SUB Drinking Water Protection recommends that a Wellhead
Protection Area sign be placed at the trash enclosure in accordance with SDC 3.3.240. These signs are available
from SUB Water for a nominal cost and the applicant can contact Amy Chinitz at amyc@subutil.com or call 541-
744-3745.
Recommended Condition of Approval:
1. The Final Site Plan must provide for installation of a SUB Wellhead Protection Area sign at the
outdoor trash enclosure to meet the requirements of SDC 3.3.240.
Conclusion: As conditioned herein, this proposal satisfies Standard of Approval 4.
5. The proposal complies with the applicable sections of SDC 4.2, Infrastructure Standards-Transportation.
Standard of Approval 5.1: SDC 4.2.105(B) requires a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) when a development is
expected to generate 100 peak hour vehicle trips or 1,000 daily vehicle trips as determined by the 11th edition of
the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, or when traffic safety, street capacity.or
multimodal concerns may be associated with the proposed development.
Finding: The first of the criteria in (1) is for a Peak Hour Threshold. The second in (2) is for an Average Daily
Traffic Threshold. For the subject proposal, the development is expected to generate fewer than 25 peak hour
trips and less than 70 total vehicle trips based on a two-classroom modular building for 30 students with 2-3 staff.
This does not account for the proposed student busing which will reduce the peak hour and daily vehicle trips.
Because the worst-case scenarios of no busing with 30 students arriving separately using “Day Care” or
“Elementary School” ITE trip generation rates does not approach the threshold levels for requiring a TIS, neither
of the criteria are met to trigger a TIS. A third criteria in (3) is for a Variance or Known Issues Threshold. A
variance has not been submitted for this application. Comments have been submitted identifying concerns about
Exhibit C, Page 5 of 20
Page 6 of 20
traffic safety and capacity but these are not supported by submitted evidence, staff data collection or traffic reports
provided by the Springfield Police Department. The Discretionary Use permit (File 811-23-000060-TYP3)
evaluated the potential impacts of the proposed site development on parking, traffic and pedestrian safety and
found there was no known issue that rendered the site unsuitable for the preschool or created an adverse impact
that required mitigation. The findings in the Discretionary Use permit under the criteria SDC 4.2.105(B) are
incorporated herein by reference.
Standard of Approval 5.2: SDC 4.2.105(G)(2) requires that whenever a proposed land division or development
will increase traffic on the City’s street system and that development has unimproved street frontage abutting a
fully improved street, that street frontage must be fully improved to City specifications.
Standard of Approval 5.3: SDC 4.2.105 states that improvement requirements for local and collector streets
include paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, planter strip, street trees, street lighting, and stormwater management
facilities.
Standard of Approval 5.4: SDC 4.2.135(C)(3) states that sidewalks must be separated from the curb by the
planting strip. Alternatively, sidewalks may be proposed to not meet this standard when necessary for
connectivity, safety, or to comply with street design requirements subject to approval by the approving authority.
In this case, the approving authority is the Planning Commission.
Standard of Approval 5.5: SDC 4.2.140 states that street trees are required to be planted or replaced for every 30
feet of frontage except where required streetlights or approved driveway approaches are located. Street trees are
also set back from intersections to preserve vision clearance areas.
Finding: The subject site is currently vacant so the construction of a modular classroom building will introduce
new traffic onto the City’s street system. Therefore, Standard of Approval 5.2 applies to this proposal.
Finding: The southern boundary of the site has frontage on G Street, which is classified as a neighborhood
collector street. The eastern boundary of the site has frontage on 8th Street, which is classified as a local street.
Therefore, Standard of Approval 5.3 applies to this proposal.
Finding: The southern boundary of the project site has frontage on G Street, which is classified as a neighborhood
collector street. The public collector street abutting the subject site is developed to neighborhood collector street
standards with curb, gutter, setback sidewalk, street trees, paving and street lighting. Curbside parking is
available on both sides of the street and there are no striped bicycle lanes. The subject property has one street
tree that has deteriorated and is proposed to be removed, so two new trees are to be installed with the project as
depicted on Sheet L-1.0. The proposed street trees and frontage improvements meet the requirements of SDC
4.2.105 and Figure 4.2-N. The proposal satisfies Standards of Approval 5.2, 5.3 and 5.5 for the G Street frontage.
Finding: The eastern boundary of the project site has frontage on a stub of 8th Street, which is classified as a local
street. The public local street abutting the subject site is developed to urban standards with curb, gutter, setback
sidewalk, planter strip and three new street trees that were installed by the Friends of Trees organization in Spring
2023. The applicant is proposing to construct a new curb cut and driveway approach onto 8th Street to serve the
on-site parking lot. An Encroachment Permit for work within the public right-of-way will be required for this
driveway construction and the permit can be obtained from the City’s Development & Public Works Department.
Upon completion of the work the site frontage will meet the requirements of SDC 4.2.105. The proposal satisfies
Standards of Approval 5.2, 5.3 and 5.5 for the 8th Street frontage.
Finding: The applicant is proposing to modify the planter strip along the G Street frontage of the site. Therefore,
Standard of Approval 5.4 applies to the proposal.
Finding: The applicant is proposing to install concrete panels within the planter strip along G Street to allow for
students begin dropped off at the curb line by bus to cross the landscaping areas. The applicant is proposing the
additional curbside panels to improve safety and connectivity for students and persons with disabilities being
Exhibit C, Page 6 of 20
Page 7 of 20
dropped off at the curbside allowing them to proceed onward to the public sidewalk and connecting walkways to
the school entrance. In addition to improving safety and connectivity, the curbside panels will prevent erosion
of the planter strip from pedestrian traffic between the curb line and sidewalk. Staff recommends approval of the
additional concrete panels within the bus zone planter strip as a suitable alternative standard as contemplated by
SDC 4.2.135(C)(3).
Finding: The applicant is advised that a sidewalk permit will be required to cover the additional concrete work
proposed along the G Street frontage.
Finding: The proposed site driveway on 8th Street is depicted at or near the location where a street tree was
recently installed by the Friends of Trees organization. It is recommended that the newly-installed street tree is
relocated to the G Street frontage of the property to satisfy one of the two developer-provided street trees as
shown in the applicant’s Planting Plan, Sheet L-2.0.. Alternatively, the applicant can contact the Friends of Trees
organization and have them remove the tree and relocate it elsewhere within the neighborhood to prevent loss of
the tree when the driveway is installed.
Conclusion: Based on the above findings, this proposal satisfies Standard of Approval 5.
6. The proposal complies with the applicable sections of SDC 4.3, Infrastructure Standards-Utilities.
Sanitary Sewer
Approval Standard 6.1: SDC 4.3.105(B) requires that sanitary sewers must be installed to serve each new
development and to connect developments to existing mains. Additionally, installation of sanitary sewers must
provide sufficient access for maintenance activities.
Approval Standard 6.2: SDC 4.3.105(C) requires that sanitary sewers must be designed and constructed in
conformance with the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual (EDSPM).
Approval Standard 6.3: SDC 4.3.105(D) states the City Engineer must approve all sanitary sewer plans and
proposed systems prior to development approval for an application proposing or requiring new sanitary sewer
construction
Approval Standard 6.4: SDC 4.3.105(F) states the sanitary sewer system must be separated from any stormwater
sewer system. Where outdoor or partially exposed floor drains are provided, Chapter 3.02.4.e of the City’s
Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual and Section 3.6 of the City of Eugene Stormwater
Management Manual require that loading docks, material transfer areas and trash enclosures must be covered and
hydraulically isolated from potential stormwater runoff and directed to the sanitary sewer system.
Finding: The applicant is proposing to connect the new building to an existing 10-inch public sanitary sewer line
that runs east-west just outside the northern property line. A connection to the public sewer line is depicted on
the applicant’s utility plan (Sheet C4.0). The applicant will need to add a cleanout for the sanitary sewer lateral
serving the proposed building in conformance with Detail 4-4a of the City’s Standard Construction
Specifications.
Finding: The proposed sewer connection location does not match City records for an existing sewer lateral
serving this property. The applicant can either use the existing sewer lateral (requiring a plumbing permit) or
install a new tap and lateral to the sewer main (requiring an additional encroachment permit).
Finding: The proposed building has a trash enclosure with an overhead cover and residential-style rollout bins.
A floor drain is noted and depicted on Sheet C4.0 of the civil plans. The proposed trash enclosure equipped with
a floor drain that is plumbed to the sanitary sewer system meets the requirements of the SDC 4.3.105(F).
Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-criterion of Standard of Approval 6.
Exhibit C, Page 7 of 20
Page 8 of 20
Stormwater Management
Approval Standard 6.5: SDC 4.3.110(A)(2) requires that a stormwater management system must be installed to
serve each new development within the city limits.
Approval Standard 6.6: SDC 4.3.110(A)(3) states the stormwater management system must be designed and
constructed in conformance with SDC 4.3.110(B) - Stormwater Study Standards.
Approval Standard 6.7: SDC 4.3.110(A)(5) states that any development that creates or replaces 5,000 square feet
or more of impervious surface area and discharges to the storm system must install storm water controls that
minimize the amount and rate of surface water runoff into the city stormwater system. The storm system must
be constructed consistent with the City’s EDSPM. Section 3.03 of the City’s EDSPM requires that private
stormwater facilities provide for suitable ongoing maintenance to ensure the long-term functionality of the
system.
Approval Standard 6.8: SDC 4.3.110(B)(2)(b)(viii) requires that a Stormwater Study provides a hydrological
site map showing existing and proposed stormwater pipes and channels including sizes and cross-section details.
Finding: The existing site is vacant and seeded with turf grass so it is almost entirely pervious surface. The
proposed modular building, parking lot and playground will create more than 5,000 ft2 of new impervious surface
so the applicant has prepared and submitted a stormwater study for the project. To meet the requirements of SDC
4.3.110(A)(2) & (B) the applicant is installing a stormwater management system to manage site drainage.
Overflow from the constructed stormwater system must be directed to the nearest public system, which is located
in 8th Street.
Finding: To meet the requirements of SDC 4.3.110(A)(2) & (B) the applicant is proposing to construct a rain
garden and soakage trench to address typical rainfall frequency events as determined by SDC Table 4.3.1.
However, there is no apparent connection to the public stormwater system for overflow, which does not comply
with approval standard 6.7. An overflow connection to a weephole in the curb line along 8th Street is feasible to
construct and therefore will be made a condition of approval necessary to comply with this standard.
Finding: The existing public stormwater system is just outside the northern edge of the Washburne Historic
District and it has limited capacity. To meet the requirements of SDC 4.3.110(B) and the EDSPM, the applicant
has prepared and submitted a hydrologic analysis and stormwater calculations showing that the proposed rain
garden and soakage trench will limit the peak stormwater discharge rates to the predeveloped 2-year storm event
for both the 2 and 25-year post-developed storm event.
Finding: The applicant is proposing to use vegetative treatment and infiltration of runoff from the site to address
stormwater quality. These include a rain garden in the northeast corner of the site and a filter strip adjacent to
the walkway at the building entrance. An overall landscaping and planting plan has been provided for the site
which includes planting lists for the proposed stormwater facilities.
Finding: The applicant has provided a Stormwater Study with hydrological site map. The map shows the
dimensions but not the cross-section of the proposed filter strip. To meet the requirements of SDC
4.3.110(B)(2)(b)(viii), a detailed cross-section of the filter strip must be provided. The cross-section detail must
be consistent with the standards for Filter Strip facilities as shown in Appendix B of the Eugene Stormwater
Management Manual, attached hereto and incorporated by this reference.
Finding: To address the requirements of SDC 4.3.110(A)(5), the applicant has provided an Operations and
Maintenance Agreement for the rain garden, soakage trench and filter strip meeting the standards of EDSPM
3.03.1. Because the installed stormwater management system is intended to serve the development site in
perpetuity, a notice of Operations and Maintenance Agreement that commemorates the applicant’s obligations
for maintaining the private drainage facilities needs to be recorded against the property. The recorded notice
Exhibit C, Page 8 of 20
Page 9 of 20
ensures that the maintenance obligations remain in place irrespective of changes in property ownership and/or
tenancy.
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
2. To meet the requirements of SDC 4.3.110(A)(5), the applicant’s Final Site Plan must provide an
overflow connection from the rain garden to a weephole in the curb line of 8th Street.
3. To meet the requirements of SDC 4.3.110(B)(2)(b)(viii), the applicant’s Final Site Plan must include a
cross-section detail for the vegetated filter strip. The cross section must show compliance with the
standards listed on the Filter Strip detail attached to this decision as Attachment A.
4. To meet the requirements of SDC 4.3.110(A)(5), prior to approval of the Final Site Plan the applicant
must record a Notice of Operations and Maintenance Agreement consistent with Appendix 3A-1 of the
City’s EDSPM against the subject property and provide evidence thereof to the City.
Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies this sub-criterion of Standard of Approval 6.
Water Quality Protection
Finding: The subject site is not located near a Water Quality Limited Watercourse, or within or adjacent to a
riparian protection area. Therefore, the requirements of SDC 4.3.115 are not applicable to this proposal.
Natural Resource Protection Areas
Finding: The subject site does not contain any inventoried natural resources. Therefore, the requirements of
SDC 4.3.117 are not applicable to this proposal.
Underground Placement of Utilities
Approval Standard 6.9: SDC 4.3.125 requires that whenever possible, all utility structures, facilities and
equipment must be placed underground.
Finding: There is an existing power pole along the G Street frontage of the property with an overhead wire that
runs northward into the site. The applicant is proposing to remove the power pole, guy wires and overhead
service line and install new underground utility connections to the modular building.
Finding: The proposal meets the requirements of SDC 4.3.125 for placement of utilities underground and thereby
satisfies this sub-criterion of Standard of Approval 6.
Electric System
Approval Standard 6.10: SDC 4.3.127(A) and (B) requires that electrical systems are available and have the
capacity to serve the proposed development.
Finding: Springfield Utility Board (SUB) coordinates the design of the electrical system within the Springfield
City limits north of the Mt. Vernon Road alignment, which includes this site.
Finding: SUB Electric advises that a new electrical service will be required for the proposed building. There is
an existing power pole and transformer on G Street at the southwest corner of the property. The current design
would take a power drop from the existing pole-mounted transformer and run the electrical line northward inside
the western boundary of the property and then eastward along the northern edge of the site to a transformer
located near the midpoint of the northern site boundary. Underground electrical service lines would run
Exhibit C, Page 9 of 20
Page 10 of 20
southward from the transformer to the proposed modular building as depicted on Sheet E100 of the applicant’s
submittal.
Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-criterion of Standard of Approval 6.
Water System and Fire Protection
Approval Standard 6.11: SDC 4.3.130(A) requires that each development area must be provided with a water
system having sufficiently sized mains and lesser lines to furnish an adequate water supply to the development
with sufficient access for maintenance.
Finding: Springfield Utility Board (SUB) coordinates the design of the water system within Springfield City
limits.
Finding: The applicant is proposing to extend a 2-inch potable water line from the existing 8-inch water main
that runs along the property frontage in G Street. The applicant is not proposing to install a sprinkler system
within the building. The proposed domestic water service meets the requirements of SDC 4.3.130(A).
Finding: There is an existing public fire hydrant at the southeast corner of the property at the intersection of 8th
and G Streets. The fire hydrant is within the optimal 400-foot hose lay distance to serve the proposed building.
Finding: The proposal satisfies the requirements of SDC 4.3.130(B).
Conclusion: The existing SUB Water facilities are adequate to serve the site and the proposed building water
services satisfy this sub-criterion of Standard of Approval 6.
Public Easements
Approval Standard 6.12: SDC 4.3.140(A) states the applicant must make arrangements with the City and each
utility provider for the dedication of utility easements necessary to fully service the development or land beyond
the development area, as necessary.
Approval Standard 6.13: SDC 4.3.140(A) states that public utility easements must be shown on plat or in a form
approved by the City Attorney.
Approval Standard 6.14: SDC 4.3.140(A)(3) requires that the minimum width of public utility easements is 7
feet.
Finding: The underground and overhead utilities outside the edges of the site are located within the public right-
of-way or within existing public utility easements. The applicant is not proposing to create any other public
easements along the property frontages, and none are required.
Finding: The proposed development site is already platted. In this case, to meet the requirements of SDC
4.3.140(A) any proposed utility easements must be shown on the applicant’s Final Site Plan. Easements for
individual utilities, such as electrical lines, can be less than the 7-foot minimum width required by SDC
4.3.140(A)(3). As an example, underground electrical service lines can be placed within a 5-foot wide easement.
Finding: Easements can affect the amount and type of development that can occur on a site. At-grade
improvements such as paving and landscaping are usually acceptable within easement areas. However, buildings
and structures – including building projections such as eave lines or cantilevers – cannot encroach into or over a
public easement.
Finding: The underground electrical service line for the proposed modular building may require a dedicated
electric easement running inside and parallel with the western boundary of the site and a second easement for the
Exhibit C, Page 10 of 20
Page 11 of 20
service lines within the interior of the site. The final configuration of the easements will need to be coordinated
with SUB Electric. If electrical easements are required for installation of electrical service lines to the
development site these must be depicted on the Final Site Plan.
Finding: As conditioned herein, the proposal meets the requirements of SDC 4.3.140(A).
Recommended Condition of Approval:
5. The Final Site Plan must show the location and dimensions of any recorded electrical easements
provided for Springfield Utility Board facilities.
Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies Standard of Approval 6.
7. The proposal complies with the applicable sections of SDC 4.4, Landscaping, Screening, and Fence
Standards.
Approval Standard 7.1: SDC 4.4.105(B)(2) requires street trees in the public right-of-way as specified in SDC
4.2.140.
Finding: The applicant is proposing to install two new street trees along the property frontage on G Street, which
meets the requirements of SDC 4.4.105(B)(2). As previously stated herein, there are three recently-installed
street trees along the 8th Street frontage of the site. One of the street trees appears to conflict with the location of
the proposed driveway so it will need to be relocated. The other two street trees can be retained and satisfy these
requirements for frontage improvements. The proposal satisfies the requirements of Approval Standard 7.1.
Approval Standard 7.2: SDC 4.4.105(B)(3) requires curbside planter strips in the public right-of-way as specified
in SDC 4.2.135.
Finding: To meet the requirements of SDC 4.4.105(B)(3), the applicant is proposing to retain the existing
curbside planter strips in 8th Street and G Street.
Finding: SDC 4.2.135(C)(3) requires that sidewalks must be separated from the curb by the planting strip.
Alternatively, SDC 4.2.135(C)(3) allows for sidewalks to be proposed that do not meet this standard when
necessary for connectivity, safety, or to comply with street design requirements subject to approval by the
approving authority, which in this case is the Planning Commission.
Finding: The applicant is proposing to install additional concrete panels along the G Street frontage to
accommodate students dropped off by school buses and direct them to the building entrance. Because the
concrete panels will increase safety and connectivity for preschool age students and persons with disabilities and
also protect against pedestrian impacts to the planter strip, these are acceptable along the G Street frontage of the
site as allowed by SDC 4.2.135(C)(3) and this decision. The proposal satisfies the requirements of Approval
Standard 7.2.
Approval Standard 7.3: SDC 4.4.105(D)(1) states that all required setback areas and other locations required by
the zoning district are to be landscaped.
Finding: The required setbacks for the R-1 Residential district are the front, side and rear yards of the property.
To meet the requirements of SDC 4.4.105(D)(1), the applicant is proposing to landscape the front, street side
yard and interior side yard of the site with turf grass, stormwater plantings, ornamental shrubs, and hardscape
elements including playground surface, and walkways. There are no standards that specifies how much of the
required setbacks areas must be landscaped with planted areas. As discussed below under SDC 4.4.105(E),
whatever planning areas that are proposed must be covered by 65% living plant materials within 5 years of
planting. The rear yard along the north property line is proposed to be improved with landscaping elements
including hardscaping for the playground area, which are allowable in the R-1 Residential District. There is also
Exhibit C, Page 11 of 20
Page 12 of 20
a covered structure area for the playground area - similar in many respects to residential patios and accessory
structures such as a gazebo or shed. The eave of the structure extends 18” into the rear yard setback along the
north property line as allowed. Required setback areas do not have to be vegetated if they are improved with
alternative surfaces that do not exceed the maximum impervious surface provisions of SDC 3.2.225(B). Under
SDC 3.2.225(B), there is no maximum impervious surface coverage for lots larger than 4,500 ft2, only a maximum
of 45% building coverage. The site development area is 18,240 ft2 and the proposed 2,677 ft2 building footprint
represents 14.6% of the site area which meets SDC 3.2.225(B).
Finding: The applicant’s site plan identifies covered and tiled hard surfaces equipped with stormwater drainage
facilities along with surfaces covered with wood chips. The covered and tiled hard surfaces in combination with
the modular building, walkways and parking lot comprise a total of 10,110 ft2 of impervious surface. The
proposed hardscape improvements and wood chip areas are to be used as outdoor play spaces for children. The
proposed setback landscaping meets the requirements of SDC 4.4.105(D)(1). The proposal satisfies the
requirements of Approval Standard 7.3.
Approval Standard 7.4: SDC 4.4.105(D)(2) requires parking lot planting areas.
Approval Standard 7.5: SDC 4.4.105(F) requires one tree and five shrubs for each 100 ft2 of parking lot planting
area.
Finding: According to the applicant’s planting plan, there is approximately 228 ft2 of planting area at the
southwest and southeast corners of the parking lot. Within the parking lot planting areas, the applicant is
proposing to install two trees, 28 shrubs and 15 ornamental plants. The proposed parking lot planting meets the
requirements of SDC 4.4.105(D)(2) & (F). The proposal satisfies the requirements of Approval Standards 7.4
and 7.5.
Approval Standard 7.6: SDC 4.4.105(E) requires that at least 65 percent of each required planting area must be
covered with living plant materials within 5 years of the date of installation. SDC 4.4.105(E) also requires a
minimum of two trees, ten shrubs, and lawn or groundcover for each 1,000 ft2 of required landscaping.
Finding: To meet the requirements of SDC 4.4.105(E), the applicant must demonstrate that the required planting
areas will have 65% coverage within 5 years of planting. The applicant’s site landscaping plan provides for more
than 65% coverage of vegetated areas within less than 5 years following installation. The “required planting
areas” is not specified in terms of how much of the landscape area, as discussed above in SDC 4.4.105(D)(1),
with in the required setbacks must be planted with planted material verses other surface treatments such as
hardscape. The other required planting area is that area within the proposed parking area. As discussed below,
staff finds that the standard above for 65% coverage in 5 years will be met based on the proposed planning plan.
Finding: The applicant’s site landscaping plan provides for a total of five ornamental trees, 148 shrubs, 163
ornamental plants and manicured turf grass for all areas of the site not improved with buildings or hard surfaces.
According to the applicant’s site plan, approximately 4,500 ft2 of the site is to be landscaped. Of this total area,
about 2,986 ft2 or 66.3% of the landscaping area will be turf grass which is considered to provide 100% vegetative
coverage at time of initial installation.
Finding: The rear yard along the north property line is not planted and instead contains hardscape play surfaces
as described in Approval Standard 7.3 above. The rear yard along the western property line is proposed be all
planted with lawn, for 100% vegetative cover in this area. The total net area of the required planting areas is
approximately 2,585 ft2 of which 1,980 ft2 or 76.6% is proposed to be turf grass or grass filter strip. After
installation and establishment, 100% of the turf grass and grass filter strip areas are proposed to be vegetated. For
the purposes of determining vegetative coverage, as proposed, staff finds the proposed vegetative areas will meet
the requirement for at least 65% coverage within 5 years.
Finding: All of the vegetation proposed along the west side yard (600 ft2) and south front yard (1,310 ft2) is turf
grass so 100% of the required setback in these areas is considered vegetated upon installation. Of the east street
Exhibit C, Page 12 of 20
Page 13 of 20
side yard setback, 70 ft2 of the required planting area is grass filter strip and would be considered 100% vegetated
upon installation and establishment. The remaining landscaping areas are a combination of trees, shrubs and
groundcover plants that will require more than one growing season to establish and cover more than 65% of the
required planting area based on the planting plan, plant list and methods of planting found on the applicant’s site
landscaping plan. Upon installation and after five growing seasons the combination of plants are expected to
exceed the 65% vegetative coverage in these areas.
Finding: The remaining 23.4% of the required planting areas are proposed to be planted with shrubs, trees and
groundcover plants. Based on the proposed plants and planting scheme shown on Sheet L-2.0 of the applicant’s
submittal, about 50% of the area will be covered with plants upon initial installation and establishment. The
amount of vegetative coverage will gradually increase as plants become established, grow, and expand their
breadth of coverage. Because the proposal already meets the minimum requirements for 65% vegetative coverage
the exact amount of vegetative coverage at 5 years following installation is not estimated here but will be
somewhere above 76.6%.
Approval Standard 7.7: SDC 4.4.105(G) requires that all new landscaping areas be provided with an irrigation
system or planted with drought-tolerant species.
Finding: To meet the requirements of SDC 4.4.105(G), all new landscaping areas are to be irrigated as stated on
the applicant’s site landscaping plan. The proposal satisfies the requirements of Approval Standard 7.7.
Approval Standard 7.8: SDC 4.4.105(H) allows for landscaped setbacks to be exempted from planting
requirements where they abut required screening.
Finding: There is no requirement for screening of the subject development, therefore the requirements of SDC
4.4.105(H) are not applicable. The proposal satisfies the requirements of Approval Standard 7.8.
Approval Standard 7.9: SDC 4.4.105(I) allows for existing trees and landscaping to be retained on a site and for
replacement of topsoil to be included in the planting installation plan.
Finding: The applicant is not proposing to retain existing trees or landscaping on the site. Therefore, the
requirements of SDC 4.4.105(I) are not applicable. Approval Standard 7.9 is not applicable to this proposal.
Approval Standard 7.10: SDC 4.4.110(A)(4) requires screening for garbage and recycling receptacles.
Finding: The applicant is proposing to keep the trash and recycling bins for the site in a covered and screened
enclosure on the east side of the modular classroom building. The bins are to be screened with a slatted gate at
the front of the enclosure, and solid walls on the other three sides. The proposed screening meets the requirements
of SDC 4.4.110(A)(4). The proposal satisfies the requirements of Approval Standard 7.10.
Approval Standard 7.11: SDC 4.4.115 describes the style, height and location of fencing allowable in residential,
commercial and industrial districts. SDC 4.4.115(C)(1) requires that fences within the front yard setback are
limited to four feet high if composed of wrought iron or chain link, or three feet high if composed of sight
obscuring material (such as a wood panel fence).
Finding: The subject site is within a residential district. Therefore, the provisions of SDC 4.4.115 apply to the
site.
Finding: There is existing chain link style fencing around the perimeter of the subject site. Portions of the fencing
along the western boundary are inset approximately 5 feet from the actual property line. The fence along the
eastern boundary is more than 4 feet high and is not set back from the property line as required by SDC
4.4.115(C)(1).
Exhibit C, Page 13 of 20
Page 14 of 20
Finding: The applicant is proposing to remove and replace sections of the existing chain link fence surrounding
the site. A section of 4-foot high chain link fencing is proposed to be installed just outside and parallel with the
eastern boundary of the site within the 8th Street right-of-way. A right-of-way use agreement will be required for
the placement of a boundary fence within the public right-of-way.
Finding: The applicant is proposing to remove the existing chain link fence along the G Street frontage of the
site and install segments of fence within the site interior to provide a secure play space in the rear of the site. The
proposed interior fencing meets the requirements of SDC 4.4.115. The proposal satisfies the requirements of
Approval Standard 7.11.
Conclusion: The proposal satisfies Standard of Approval 7.
8. The proposal complies with the applicable sections of SDC 4.5, On-Site Lighting Standards.
Approval Standard 8.1: SDC 4.5.105(C)(2) states that residential-style low wattage lighting used to illuminate
driveways and yards are exempt from outdoor lighting standards provided they do not shine, glare, emit direct
illumination or cast a shadow onto adjacent properties.
Finding: The applicant is proposing to install building-mounted, residential-style lighting on the western,
southern and eastern building facades.
Finding: The proposed lighting meets the residential low wattage lighting standards for yards and driveways.
As proposed, the site lighting meets the requirements of SDC 4.5.105(C)(2). The proposal satisfies the
requirements of Approval Standard 8.1.
Conclusion: The proposal satisfies Standard of Approval 8.
9. The proposal complies with the applicable sections of SDC 4.6, Motor Vehicle Parking, Loading, and
Bicycle Parking Standards.
Approval Standard 9.1: SDC 4.6.110(A)(2) requires that off-street parking spaces must be provided, consistent
with requirements in SDC 4.6.125 and Table 4.6.2, unless excepted as allowed herein, for changes in use or the
use category of an existing building or structure.
Approval Standard 9.2: In accordance with SDC 4.6.125 and Table 4.6.2, the parking space requirement for
educational facilities is one space per classroom. The proposed modular building has two classrooms.
Approval Standard 9.3: Under OAR 660-012-0440(3), cities may not enforce parking mandates for developments
on a lot or parcel that includes lands within ½ mile of a corridor with bus service arriving at least four times per
hour during peak service. The City may use walking distance to measure distances under that rule. However,
where vehicle parking is provided by an applicant it must meet the requirements of SDC 4.6.115 and 4.6.120.
Finding: The applicant is proposing to install on-site parking spaces. Therefore, the provisions of SDC 4.6.115
and 4.6.120 apply to the proposal.
Finding: The subject property is within ½ mile walking distance of both the EmX bus rapid transit line running
along Pioneer Parkway and the LTD Route 11 (Thurston) bus operating along Main Street, both of which are
scheduled to arrive more than four times per hour or four times per hour during peak service. Therefore, the City
cannot require any off-street parking spaces for this development.
Finding: The proposed modular building has two classrooms. The applicant is proposing to construct a three-
vehicle parking lot accessed via a driveway onto 8th Street. Two standard spaces and one ADA accessible space
are proposed within the parking lot. The two standard parking spaces are proposed to be 9’x18’ and equipped
with curb stops and the ADA accessible space is proposed to be 9’x18’ with an adjacent 8-foot accessible aisle.
Exhibit C, Page 14 of 20
Page 15 of 20
The parking space dimensions meets the requirements of SDC 4.6.115 and 4.6.120. The proposal satisfies the
requirements of Approval Standards 9.1 – 9.3.
Finding: The City has exclusive authority to control the design, construction and operation of public streets under
its jurisdiction as described in Chapter 3.208 et seq. of the Springfield Municipal Code. The City’s Transportation
Division oversees operations on the existing City street system and reviews and approves proposals for new or
modified streets and related improvements. Proposals for new or modified on-street parking or loading areas
also are reviewed and approved by the City’s Transportation Division.
Finding: The Springfield School District, through its school busing coordinator, manages the operations of school
buses serving the district’s educational facilities, including determining the locations and configurations of
approved school bus loading zones.
Finding: The applicant is proposing to modify the curb line on G Street to allow for school bus parking and drop-
off for students. The applicant is also proposing to provide a school bus staging/waiting space on G Street to the
east of the intersection with 8th Street. The City’s Transportation Division and the Springfield School District’s
school bus coordinator have reviewed the proposed configuration and support the parking and drop-off area along
the subject site frontage on G Street.
Finding: The proposed creation of an off-site parking space across 8th Street to the east is not supported because
it does not meet the adjacency requirements of SDC 4.6.110(G) and would require students to cross an
intersection to reach the school. To satisfy the approved school bus parking and drop-off configuration, the
applicant’s final site plan must be reviewed to eliminate the Bus #3 space depicted on the northeast corner of G
Street at 8th Street. As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies the requirements of Approval Standard 9.4.
Approval Standard 9.5: SDC 4.6.145(A) requires that bicycle parking spaces and facilities must be a powder
coated staple or inverted-U rack as shown in Figure 4.6-B.
Approval Standard 9.6: SDC 4.6.145(B) requires that bicycle parking spaces and facilities must be constructed
and installed in accordance with SDC 4.6.150 and Figures 4.6-B and 4.6-C.
Finding: To meet the requirements of SDC 4.6.145(A) and (B), the applicant is proposing to install two inverted
U-shaped bicycle racks that will be permanently affixed to the pavement. A single rack for two bicycle parking
spaces is to be installed on the east side of the building near the vehicle parking area. A second single rack for
two bicycle parking spaces is to be installed on the northwest edge of the building near the outdoor play area.
The placement of the bicycle racks meets the requirements of SDC 4.6.150(A)(1). The proposal satisfies the
requirements of Approval Standards 9.5 and 9.6.
Approval Standard 9.7: SDC 4.6.145(C) states that all required long-term bicycle parking spaces must be
sheltered from precipitation, in conformance with SDC 4.6.145(D)(3) and include lighting in conformance with
the lighting standards in SDC 4.5.100.
Finding: Neither bicycle parking rack is proposed to be covered. To meet the requirements of SDC 4.6.145(C)
and 4.6.155(B), at least one bicycle parking space must be sheltered from precipitation and provided with lighting.
There is building-mounted exterior lighting near the interior bicycle parking rack at the northwest corner of the
building. Therefore, provision of a covering roof or canopy at this location would meet this requirement.
Alternatively, the applicant must identify another location on the site equipped with a covering roof and
illumination. As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies the requirements of Approval Standard 9.7.
Approval Standard 9.8: SDC 4.6.145(D) provides that no sheltering of short-term bicycle parking is necessary
if fewer than 10 spaces are provided.
Exhibit C, Page 15 of 20
Page 16 of 20
Finding: The applicant is not required to or proposing to install more than 10 short-term bicycle parking spaces.
Therefore, SDC 4.6.145(D) which requires the sheltering of more than 10 short-term bicycle parking spaces is
not applicable to this proposal. Approval Standard 9.8 is not applicable to this proposal.
Approval Standard 9.9: SDC 4.6.145(E) requires that at least 10 percent of all bicycle parking spaces
accommodate oversize bicycles.
Finding: The applicant is proposing to install a single rack for two bicycle parking spaces on the northwest corner
of the building near the staff and student entrance to the outdoor play area. The location and configuration of the
bicycle parking rack would accommodate oversize bicycles, which meets the requirements of SDC 4.6.145(E).
The proposal satisfies the requirements of Approval Standard 9.9.
Approval Standard 9.10: SDC 4.6.150(A)(1)-(8) provides standards for bicycle facility improvements to prevent
conflicts between bicycle parking areas and pedestrian and vehicle movements.
Finding: The applicant is proposing to anchor the bicycle racks to paved areas on the site which meets the
requirements of SDC 4.6.150(A)(1) for bicycle racks that are securely affixed to the ground.
Finding: The bicycle racks are within 50 feet of the building entrance and more than 5 feet from the nearest
vehicle parking space which meets the requirements of SDC 4.6.150(A)(2) and (4).
Finding: The bicycle rack on the east side of the building is directly visible from the driveway entrance onto 8th
Street and the public right-of-way on 8th Street. The bicycle rack is visible from the public right-of-way, which
meets the requirements of SDC 4.6.150(A)(3). Because it is visible from the main entrance, the requirements of
SDC 4.6.150(A)(5) for signage directing bicyclists to the parking rack is not required for this proposal.
Finding: The applicant is not proposing to locate bicycle parking inside a building, therefore the provisions of
SDC 4.6.150(A)(6) are not applicable to this proposal.
Finding: The applicant is not proposing to place the bicycle racks within the public right-of-way or in sidewalk
or walkway areas where they would conflict with pedestrians. Therefore, the provisions of SDC 4.6.150(A)(7)
are not applicable.
Finding: The proposal is not for multi-unit housing. Therefore, the requirements of SDC 4.5.150(A)(8) are not
applicable to the proposal.
Finding: Based on the findings above, the proposal satisfies the requirements of Approval Standard 9.10.
Approval Standard 9.11: In accordance with SDC 4.6.155(B) and Table 4.6.3, one bicycle parking space is to be
provided for every 10 students in an educational facility. A minimum of four spaces are to be provided for all
principal uses that generate a requirement for bicycle parking under SDC 4.6.155(A).
Approval Standard 9.12: In accordance with SDC 4.6.155(B) and Table 4.6.3, bicycle parking spaces at schools
must be at least 25% long-term (i.e. covered) and 75% short-term spaces.
Finding: According to the applicant’s submittal, fewer than 40 students will be accommodated at the proposed
classroom building so it generates the minimum 4-space bicycle parking requirement under SDC 4.6.155(B) and
Table 4.6.3. The applicant’s proposed site plan provides for four bicycle parking spaces which meets this
requirement. The proposal satisfies the requirements of Approval Standard 9.11.
Finding: As previously stated and conditioned above, the applicant must provide at least one covered bicycle
space to meet the requirements of SDC 4.6.145(C) and 4.6.155(B). As conditioned below, the proposal satisfies
the requirements of Approval Standard 9.12.
Exhibit C, Page 16 of 20
Page 17 of 20
Finding: According to the applicant’s submittal, fewer than 40 students will be accommodated at the proposed
classroom building so it generates the minimum 4-space bicycle parking requirement under SDC 4.6.155(B) and
Table 4.6.3. The applicant’s proposed site plan provides for four bicycle parking spaces which meets this
requirement.
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
6. The Final Site Plan must be revised to remove the Bus #3 parking space depicted on G Street to the
east side of 8th Street.
7. The Final Site Plan must include a roof or canopy over the bicycle parking rack at the northwest corner
of the building. Alternatively, the applicant must provide a covered bicycle parking at another location
on the site that meets the requirements for location, covering, illumination and anchoring to the ground
as described in SDC 4.6.145(C), 4.6.150(A) and 4.6.155(B).
Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies Standard of Approval 9.
10. The proposal complies with the applicable sections of SDC 4.7, Specific Development Standards.
Approval Standard 10.1: In accordance with SDC 4.7.195(A)(1) all new elementary and middle school facilities
and additions over 10,000 square feet or those additions exceeding 50 percent of the size of the existing building
must be through a Type 3 procedure concurrently with the Site Plan application. In addition to the Site Plan
approval criteria, the Type 3 application must also address the standards specified in SDC 4.7.195(A)(2)-(11).
Approval Standard 10.2: SDC 4.7.195(B) states that in the Public Land and Open Space (PLO) District,
public/private elementary/middle schools must be adjacent to residentially-zoned property.
Finding: The proposed modular classroom building is being reviewed through a Type 3 process. The standards
in 4.7.195(A)(2)-(11) are applicable only when one of the conditions in (A)(1) is met. Because the modular
classroom building is about 2,677 ft2 and does not add onto any existing building, the standards in SDC
4.7.195(A)(2)-(11) are not applicable.
Finding: The subject property is not within the PLO District. Therefore, SDC 4.7.195(B) is not applicable to
this proposal.
Finding: The proposal satisfies the requirements of Approval Standards 10.1 and 10.2.
Conclusion: The proposal satisfies Standard of Approval 10.
11. The proposal complies with the applicable sections of SDC 4.8, Temporary Use Standards.
Finding: The proposed modular classroom building is not being used as a dwelling or for a temporary use as
described in SDC 4.8.100.
Conclusion: Standard of Approval 11 is not applicable to the proposal.
CONCLUSION: The proposal as conditioned herein meets the Standards of Approval for Site Plan Review,
SDC 5.17.125(A)(1-11).
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The Final Site Plan must provide for installation of a SUB Wellhead Protection Area sign at the outdoor
trash enclosure to meet the requirements of SDC 3.3.240.
Exhibit C, Page 17 of 20
Page 18 of 20
2. To meet the requirements of SDC 4.3.110(A)(5), the applicant’s Final Site Plan must provide an overflow
connection from the rain garden to a weephole in the curb line of 8th Street.
3. To meet the requirements of SDC 4.3.110(B)(2)(b)(viii), the applicant’s Final Site Plan must include a
cross-section detail for the vegetated filter strip. The cross section must show compliance with the
standards listed on the Filter Strip detail attached to this decision as Attachment A.
4. To meet the requirements of SDC 4.3.110(A)(5), prior to approval of the Final Site Plan the applicant must
record a Notice of Operations and Maintenance Agreement consistent with Appendix 3A-1 of the City’s
EDSPM against the subject property and provide evidence thereof to the City.
5. The Final Site Plan must show the location and dimensions of any recorded electrical easements provided
for Springfield Utility Board facilities.
6. The Final Site Plan must be revised to remove the Bus #3 parking space depicted on G Street to the east
side of 8th Street.
7. The Final Site Plan must include a roof or canopy over the bicycle parking rack at the northwest corner
of the building. Alternatively, the applicant must provide a covered bicycle parking at another location
on the site that meets the requirements for location, covering, illumination and anchoring to the ground as
described in SDC 4.6.145(C), 4.6.150(A) and 4.6.155(B).
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The application, all documents, and evidence relied upon by the applicant, and
the applicable criteria of approval are available for free inspection and copies are available for a fee at the
Development & Public Works Department, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon.
PREPARED BY
Andy Limbird
Andy Limbird
Senior Planner
Attachment A: Filter Strip Detail
Exhibit C, Page 18 of 20
Page 19 of 20
Attachment A
Exhibit C, Page 19 of 20
Page 20 of 20
Please be advised that the following is provided for information only and is not a component of the
Site Plan Review decision.
FEES AND PERMITS
Systems Development Charges:
The applicant must pay Systems Development Charges when the building permits are issued for
developments within the City limits or within the Springfield Urban Growth Boundary. The cost relates to
the amount of increase in impervious surface area, transportation trip rate, and plumbing fixture units.
Systems Development Charges (SDCs) will apply to the construction of buildings and site improvements
within the subject site. The charges will be based upon the rates in effect at the time of permit submittal for
buildings or site improvements on each portion or phase of the development.
Sanitary Sewer In-Lieu-Of-Assessment Charge:
Pay a Sanitary Sewer In-Lieu-Of-Assessment charge in addition to the regular connection fees if the property
or portions of the property being developed have not previously been assessed or otherwise participated in
the cost of a public sanitary sewer. Contact the Engineering Division to determine if the In-Lieu-Of-
Assessment charge is applicable [Ord. 5584].
Public Infrastructure Fees:
It is the responsibility of the private developer to fund the public infrastructure.
Other City Permits:
Encroachment Permit or Sewer Hookup Permit (working within right-of-way or public easements). For
example, new tap to the public storm or sanitary sewer, installation or repair of public sidewalk, or adjusting
a manhole. The current rate is $369 for processing plus applicable fees and deposits.
Land and Drainage Alteration Permits (LDAP). Contact the Springfield Development & Public Works
Department at 541-726-5849 for appropriate applications/requirements.
Right-of-way Use Agreement for placement of boundary fence in the public right-of-way. Please contact the
Springfield Development & Public Works Department at 541-726-5849 for application requirements.
Additional permits/approvals may be necessary:
• Plumbing Permits
• Electrical Permits
• Building Permits
• Sidewalk Permits
• Paving Permits
Exhibit C, Page 20 of 20