HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotes Planner 12/15/2022LIMBIRD Andrew
Sent:
To:
Cc:
From:LIMBIRD Andrew
Thursday, December 15,2022 2:11 PM
Zach Galloway
Kristen Taylor
RE: scheduling and submittals
HiZach, my interpretation of Site Plan ApprovalStandard 5.17.125(A)(1) is that because the proposed use is not listed in
the current land use district it wouldn't qualify for approval even with conditions. However, I can check with our legal
counsel to see if this could be reviewed and approved based on a pending zone change. The main challenge for both the
City and the applicant are the different timelines for approval of a site plan versus zoning map amendment.
From: Zach Ga lloway <zgalloway@tbg-a rch.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 1.5,202210:30 AM
To: Ll M Bl RD Andrew <a limbird @springfield-or.gov>
Cc: Kristen Taylor <ktaylor@tbg-arch.com>
Subject: scheduling and submittals
**l WARNING: This email originated from outside of your organization. Please do not click on links or
open attachments unless you know the content is safe. l**
Andy,
Here's another follow-up question for you. When we spoke earlier this week, we brainstormed a few options to compress
the application timeline. You noted that site plan review previously could be submitted concurrently with Metro Plan or
Zoning [trlap amendment applications; however, recent code amendments preclude that concurrent submittal now. I did a
quick review of section 5.17 but didn't see anything that explicitly prohibits a concurrent submittal or a submittal that
precedes completion of the amendments. Can you share a citation or interpretation that clarifies the city position?
As always, thanks for your time and . ted earlier this week that the code changes preclude accepting
Zach Galloway, AICP Senior Planner
132 East Broadway, Suite 200 | Eugene, Oregon 97401
541.687.1010 xl 22 | zqallowav@tbq-arch.com
[)ata Received
[,!:nner: Al
Subject:
L
1