HomeMy WebLinkAboutPacket, DIM PLANNER 8/6/2008
CASE NOTES FORM
Case No. D I JV\ ..<1Jd'1S-0Q(l';::: 7
5/(0
Date:
?C1>QgF f'1 ,,,,,,....,.,....l -~'?-+J~ are
'..c ~v
I f\ r IT) CI '/ir-,,, -It ) "'" el, rA I J J'
\:) I A/\. /l)p.(Jd ~ -f"" 0
- ,
I Workflow processes/Plannmg Forms/Case Notes Form 2-12-08
bnrli..'y'r1l1n".J ,
-t..c> :yJ..p ~,';J n _ ~~,
J.^ ~{Lo.
~
RECEIVED
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
JUN 11 ZOOS
BY:~
STATE OF OREGON)
) ss
County of Lane )
I, Karen LaFleur, being first duly sworn, do hereby depose and say as follows
1 I state that I am a Program TechniCian for the Planning DIVISion of the
Development Services Department, City of Springfield, Oregon
2 I state that In my capacity as, Program TechniCian, I prepared and caused to be
mailed copies of Zo/J2...o{)ff-OOO~ 7 ~ {o ~ 7Y!ca..;.(I!.. < ' '\
(See attachment "A") on &'//1 ,2008addressedto(see (14<> J-..u...~)
Attachment B"), by causing saId letters to be placed In a U S mall box With
postage fully prepaid thereon
~~Rb)~~
STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane
~ 1/ . 2008 Personally appeared the above named Karen LaFleur,
'et6gram Techmclan, who acknowledged the foregOing Instrument to be their voluntary
act Before me
.
OFFICIAL SEAL
OEYEm KELLY
NOTARY PUBLIC. OREGON
COMMISSION NO 420351
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUG 15, 2011
~Adt1- ~~
. u t
C;{1t~/ / /
My Commission Expires
I '
J _, ..
<
1
SPAINOFIELD
Carla McQwllan
Execullve Director
Clnldren's ChOice Montesson
5005 MalO Street
Spnngfield, OR 97478
June II, 2008
RECEIVED
RE 5005 MaID Street Zonmg and Development Issues
JUN 112008
Dear Ms McQwllan,
By:
I want to thank you for SUbIDltl1ng a Development Issues MeeTIng (DIM) applIcallon to further discuss the
proposal to change your day care facility at 5005 MaID Street mto an elementary school That meeTIng IS
scheduled for July 3, 2008 and we will be glad to respond to your specific quesllons and provide as much
general mfonnallon about the process and development standards requrred by the Spnngfield Development
Code (SDC) as tane allows In the mteron, I thought It IDlght be helpful to document some of the background,
processmg tanelInes and fees we d1scussed 10 our recent phone call As I proIDlSed on the phone, I have
personally reViewed your preVIous site plan approvals and checked the code cltallons that you had preViously
discussed With vanous staff
My reView of the preVIous Site Plan ReView deCISIOns and current code standards md1cate the mfonnallon
proVided to you by staff 10 vanous disCUSSIOns has been accurate 10 the followmg regards I) the approved use
for the site IS a commercial daycare facility, 2) translllOnmg the pnmary use from a day care center to a pnvate
elementary school IS a change of use reqomng add1llonal land use approvals from the City ofSpnngfield, and,
3) the development process to change the use to an elementary school mcludes several applIcallons subject to
the ORS 120 day tane lIne for Iumted land USe deCISIOns, mc1udmg, but IS not Iumted to Site Plan ReView,
DlScrellonary Use and Vanance applIcatiOns
As requested, the followmg facts clanfY some of the aforemenlloned background mfonnallon and land use
decISIOns' approxunate tanelmes and costs
Annroved Use Two wntten land use declSlons document the zonmg of the Site, the approved use and
reqUIred site unprovements As IdenTIfied on page I and throughout City ofSpnngfield Tentallve Site Plan
DeCISIOn of Approval #1996-05-101 and Site Plan Moc:hficallon #1998-06-0127, the site IS zoned
Commumty Commercia!, the approved use under reView was SDC 18 020(3)(q) Day Care Facililles, and
the proposal was approved With cond1llons The cond1llons of approval were subsequently unplemented and
approved on Fmal Site Plans pnor to the ongmal occupancy request No other coc:hfied use IS discussed or
authonzed 10 any other legal land use deCISIOn at thIS site As such, the approved day care use has never
been changed m accordance With City code and remams 10 tact today When the pnmary use of the facility
IS proposed to change to an elementary or charter school the Site IS subject to standards of the Spnngfield
Development Code for pnvate elementary schools
Pronosed Use A proposed pnvate or publIc elementary school IS lIsted under current code as a pe1IDltted
use subJectto Dlscrellonary Use and Site Plan ReView (D*) at Secllon 3 2-310, page 82 Add1llonal
SpeCific Development Standards for elementary schools are also IdenTIfied and lIsted at secllon 47-195 of
the SDC (attached) The Special Use Standards language ofSecllon 4 7-195.A I restates the reqUIrement at
3 2-310 for d1screllonary approval With site plan reView for all new facililles and addlllons over 10,000
square feet or exceec:hng 50% of the eXISTIng bwlc:hng (emphasIS added) ComplIance With the remammg
ten development standards must be demonstrated durmg DlScrellonary Use and Site Plan ReView, leac:hng
us to some disCUSSIOn regardmg vanances durmg our recent call The need and process for consideratIon of
vanances by staff and the Plannmg ComrmsslOn will be d1scussed at the Development Issues MeeTIng The
add1llonal costs and taneframes are mcluded below
~
Process and T.melmes A DlScrellonary Use/Site Plan ReView IAVl'V,JI wrth Vanances IS reViewed as a
Type III QuasI-Juc:hClal ApplIcallon reView process 10 accordance With SDC 5 1-135 What that means IS
that upon acceptance of complete applIcallons and staff reView, the decISion on the proposal IS made by the
Plannmg Cnmm'.'lon after a publIc hearmg, staff recommendallon and publIc testunony Accorc:hng to the
. ~'j "'j) 'II if ~ . ~"~ dSDGand Oregon ReVISed Statutes for land use, the Plannmg COIDlDlSslon must make a final deCISIOn Wlthm
,J 'f" ".:~ llf II ""'it 120 day!> ~ acceptance of a complete applIcallon by the City The process can generally be descnbed 10
1 Ii fl \},;t ; Y J.'I' ,}
, '" ".=.- \ IlL.... 'the followmg sequenllal steps, With approxunate fees and tanelmes noted, assummg the opllonal step of
Development Issues MeeTIng has already occurred
3005 ' r viUL
I) PRE-SUBMITTAL ApplIcant prepares and subIDlts the applIcallon matenals for DlScrellonary Use,
Site Plaii'and Vanance ApplIcallons as one package subJect to completeness reView (The Site plans
"I ,
_ reqUIre engmeenng and arclutecturaI mfonnallon, vanances and d1screllonary use reqUIre response to
Cntena of Approval A land use plannmg consultant and/or an engmeer's mvolvement are reqUITed)
When subID1ttal reqUIrements are met and a pre-subIDlttal fee IS pard, the Pre-SubIDlttal MeeTIng IS
scheduled 10 2-4 weeks City development reView staffs perfonn a completeness check of the Site plans
and related documents, then proVide a completeness document at the scheduled meeTIng The
document lIsts the matenaIs needed to make the applIcallon complete The applIcants and therr
consultants are then responsible for perfectmg the apphcallon package pnor to rel1rrnmg It for actual
submittal
. MaJor Acllon ApplIcallon Preparallon by Apphcant's Consultants
. Elapsed Tune From SubIDlttal 14-28 days for Completeness Process
. City Fees $350
. Consultant Fees Market Rate"
. Tuneframe for ApplIcant Re-SubIDlttal of Complete ApplIcallon Unknown
2) APPLICATION REVIEW Upon apphcallon re-subIDlttal of all requested completeness mfonnallon or
a request to proceed on prelunmary plans, the City will accept the apphcallon package, collect
processmg fees, begm the ORS 120 Day and begm mtemaI reView and schedulmg of publIc hearmg
procedures Durmg mtemaI reView and hearmg preparaTIons Plannmg staff manage the development
reView process, wnte a staffrecommendallon to the Plannmg COmIDlSSIOn, schedule a publIc hearmg
before the Plannmg COmIDlsslOn and proVide publIc nollces and staffreports 10 accordance With SDC
and ORS reqUIrements
. MaJor Acl10n Start of the ORS 120 Day Tune LlDllt for LlDllted Land Use DeCISIOn
. Elapsed Tune Apphcallon Re-SubIDlttal -Plannmg COmIDlsslon Hearmg 4-8 weeks
. City Fees Site Plan ReView $4500, DlScrellonary Use $4000, Vanance $6500
. Consultant Fees Market Rate
3) DECISION The City ofSpnngfield Plannmg COIDlDlSslon (PC) will conduct a publIc hearmg and
COnsider the apphcant SUbIDlttal, the staffrecommendallon and all wntten and oral testunony from the
publIc Consldenng all eVidence, the Plannmg COmIDlsslon may approve, approve With condlllons or
deny the applIcaTIons based upon the Cntena of Approval conlamed 10 the SDC for the three
applIcallons Hearmgs extensIOns may be reqUIred or granted by the Plannmg COIDlDlSslon 10
accordance With state statutes Plannmg COIDlDlSslon decISIOns are final upon marl out of the deCISIon
to all who parTICipated, or unless the deCISIon IS appealed 10 accordance the SDC and state statutes
. MaJor Acl10n PC Hearmg and DeCISIOn on Proposal
. Elapsed Tune from Complete Apphcallon 8-12 weeks WithOut appeal
. City Fees Covered by ApplIcallon Fees
. Consultant Fees Market Rate
--,
""
.
4) POTENTIAL APPEAL The applIcant or any party With stanc:hng 10 the deCISIon process by V1rlue of
wntten or oral parnclpallon may appeal the Plannmg COIDlDlSslOn's deCISIon to the City Councrl or the
Land Use Board of Appeals An appeal to the City Councrl will follow the same basiC hearmg
procedure and the City Councrl's deCISIon IS the final local decISIOn. Ifnecessary, the appeal to the
City Councrl will be completed Wlthm the 120 day tane Iumt TIns step completes the local appeal
process An appeal to the State Land Use Board of Appeals IS the responslbrllty of the applIcant and
may mvolve an adc:hllonal 6 months and mclude adc:hllonalland use, engmeenng and legal consultant
fees
. MaJor Acl10n DeCISIon on Appeal (as necessary)
. Elapsed Tune From Complete ApplIcallon 12-16 weeks
. City Fees $2500 (Appellant Cost)
. Consultant Fees Market Rate
"NOTE Consultant fees may equal or exceed City fees for any mc:hVldual applIcallon step
The above process can be discussed further 10 the penc:hng DIM meeTIng We look forward to reVlewmg all
current and proposed use types and occupancy rates We will be responsive to all matenals subIDltted and look
forward to assISTIng you With future plans I also suggest that you consider the same DIM procedures for the
c:hscussed relocallon of most day care clnldren to your resldenllal use, gIVen that It has certam code Iumtallons
that we will be happy to discuss
I hope my summary prOVides some adc:hllonal understanc:hng of the Iumted land use deCISIon makmg process
The process may seem daunllng to the lay person, but we are here to help you aclueve your goal of creatmg
qualIty day care and elementary educallon facililles 10 the City of Spnngfield The referenced matenals are
avarlable for your reView upon request at the City, all code mformallon IS avarlable on the Development
SerVIces Deparnnent porTIon of the City of Spnngfield' s webslte, httn //www Cl snnn~field or n.
My staff and I look forward to workmg With you.
Cord1ally,
~z?4?~
ames P Donovan
City of Spnngfield
Urban Plannmg DlvlSlon SupeTVlSor
cc Spnngfield School DlStnct
OR Dept of EducaTIon
RECEIVED
JUN 112008
By.~
,
Page 1 of 1
DONOVAN James
Cc
DONOVAN James
Wednesday, June 11, 2008 2 35 PM
'SCHNEIDERMAN Teresa', ~Onl gllles@state or us', SMOLNISKY Bruce (SPS),
'chlldrensmontessorl@msn com'
, / ~-
TAMULONIS John, LAUDATI Nlel, HOP'S!NS Steve, GRILE Bill, 'Lorelei Kyllonen', Springfield Mayor; MOTT
Gregory, TOWERY Jeffrey, MOTT Cynthia
MontessorlZonlng608 DOC
MontessorlZonlng608 DOC
From
Sent
To
Subject
Attachments
Ladles and Gentlemen,
As discussed with Ms McQUillan, this letter IS wntten to help clanfy the eXisting situation, the proposed change and the process
for land use review I hope It IS of some assistance to all Involved
Questions regarding the land use process can be forwarded to me directly at 541-726-3660
Regards,
Jim Donovan
City of Springfield Planning Supervisor
RECEIVED
JUN 112008
By:
6/11/2008
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
225 FIF;rH STREET
,SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
DEVELOPMENTSERWCES
225 FIFTH STREET
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
225 FIFTH STREET
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
C~',~~J~
~~
~ '
~
IL.~
Carla McQulllian
Executive Dlrector
Chlldren's Cholce Montessorl
5005 Main Street
Sprlngfleld, OR 97478
....~
Teresa Schnelderman
Offlce of Educational Improvement & Innovatlon
Oregon Department of Educatlon
255 Capltol St NE
Salem, OR 97310-1300
RECEIVED
........
JUN 112008
By:
Bruce Smolnlsky
Springfield Publlc Schools Dlstrlct 19
525 Mlll Street
Sprlngfield, OR 97477
0.~-K~
~~~LA-L. ,
~~ r
~~
~
\; 1\
e>
C ~t/AA.L ! I; 0 e
c
,
13ruLCiA JJ~lMZrduJ~
~) , j u r ( (J De
~~L
,
C~~~
U
~ECEIVED
JUN 112008
By:
Children's
~:[En
~ ' !",;"@:rID
:MontesSOri Pre-ScfiooC antf'ECementary Prof/rams
5005 :Mam Street" Spnnflftd:d, 0Cl(97478
541-726-2654" 541-726-5527 ('Fax)
Carra 9dcQutllan
!Director
June 9, 2008
Dear State Board of Education Members,
This mormng, we received notice from the Oregon Department of Education that Its staff
recommendation to you IS to deny sponsonng Chfldren's ChOice Montesson as a public charter
school Any response we would like to send IS due by 5 OOpm today, so here IS our response at
thiS pOint
CRITERIA
We appreciate the time and efforts the Oregon Department of Education staff have Invested Into
the careful analysfs of our proposal for a public charter school We must, however, continue to
disagree With staffs findings The review of the CCM charter proposal conducted by Oregon
Department of Education finds that CCM meets 18 of 23 cntena (ORS 338 045(2)) Our posItion IS
that we meet 22 of the cntena (please see the attached table which provides detailed information)
Our pOSition also IS that we meet all cntena In ORS 338 055(2) Our bnef response to each IS
1 Governance - The revIew sfted absence of Board Tralmng (which did occur, In July
2007) as well as absence of Information actually contained In long-standing CCM
bylaws
2 Budget/Financing - A revised budget was submitted With new enrollment figures
3 Standards of BehaVior - The dlstnct did not require thiS Item We submitted CCM's
current Student Conduct Expectations to ODE With plans for fine tuning
4 Program ReView - Revfews Will be conducted annually With findings used for
program Improvement
5 Facility We are waiting to recefve speCific requirements from the City In wntlng
As we shared With you In May, and wfth ODE staff repeatedly, the CCM charter proposal was
wntten somewhat Informally, given the collaboratfve relationship CCM and SPS enjoyed at the time
the proposal was submitted Even so, we believe that It meets the cntena established by law and
the Oregon Department of Education Please see the attached table which prOVides more
InformatIOn as to why and how CCM believes we meet all of the Crltena InOe" ~~ ~4jC~O
ORS 338 055(2) R : ;- \ V t:
-- -
JUN 112008
soos #..... >t.at
~o~
1lff7R
1Sff R.- R..d
4-,O~
1J!flJ1f
By:
19lf25" >t.at
~o~
'f7!f77
FACILITY
The connection between projected facility expenses and fiscal stability correlates with CCM's ability
to remain fiscally so/vent Because CCM and SPS have asked the Springfield City planners dffferent
questions, the answers have also been different Below IS the most recent information the City has
given to CCM, which the City has assured CCM It will provide In writing by June 14th
Land Use
_ The Children's C;holce Montessori School I? zoned mixed use/commercial When we
submitted our site plan In 1996 we were designated a facility for pre-school and
eiemimtary studentS The City doesn't have any record of the decIsion to classify It
as a Child Care Center, the best guess was that we anticipated a larger number of
-preschool students than elementary students' Regardless, the transition to a Public
Elelllentary Charter Scnool woula require a Discretionary Use Permit, WhiCh, IS
permitted In a commercial zone
Discretionary Use Permit
Some of the confusfon regarding the Children's Choice facility was brought about by
the question posed to the City The school district was inquIring about construction
on' our current site The proposal for 70 students the first year would not require
construction Our architect has been working with the City and has scheduled a
Development Issues Meeting to determine what additional work (If any) will be
required for a Discretionary Use Permit We should have a written document from,
the City to present at the June 19 meeting, Including a tlmeline -
COLLABORATION
DUring our discussion at your May Board meeting, you asked us for our plan to work collaboratlvely
With the Springfield School District In the event that your Board should opt to sponsor Children's
Choice Montessori as a public charter school Below IS Information regarding past and present
practices that reflect a collaborative working relationship With our local DfStrlct, as well as plans to
strengthen that relationship further should we become a public charter school
Children's Choice has worked collaboratlvely With the Springfield Public Schools since 1996 Such
Interactions Increased when we became an Alternative Education Program In 2004 Our relationship
In the area of Special Education servfces, WhfCh was emphaSized by your Board as one requIring
close collaboration, has always been solid, and continues as such to thIs day Efforts on the part of
Children's ChoICe Montessori to create and maintain an active and positive working relatfonshlp
With the district to support student needs Include the following
0' Intervention and support of the district's position on services when parents of an IEP
student In the Alternatfve Education Program became hostfle and belligerent
0' Transportation of IEP student to a resource classroom 4 days a week
0' Occasional Interactions With the School Psychologist (while stili a private school) to assess
students' placement or eligibility
0' Creating and maintaining a staff pOSition at Children's Choice Montessori to proVide In
house Special Education services to prevent disruption of students education program This
staff member worked very closely wfth the case manager from the district
SOfJS H..... 5h4 1S'I'I R.- R-' 1'1!f2 ~ 5h4
~ 0"'1- ~ 0"'1- ~ 0"'1-
1J!f?R 1J!fO!f 1J!f??
We had always felt that there was a cooperative Spirit between Children's Choice Montessori and
the Springfield Public Schools, until May of 2007, when the District told us they had concerns about
our charter application When I learned there were concerns, I requested to meet With Nancy
Golden and the school board chair to discuss these concerns, Bruce Smolinsky told me that "wasn't
gOing to happen" Thus, we felt deterioration In the relationship before the school board took fts
first vote Nonetheless, I counseled my parents to be positive and non-Judgmental about the .
traditional education model proVided by Springfield Public Schools After the vote, some parents
and teachers proVided testfmony that was reflective of their anger and frustration In response, I
sent a letter of apology to the school board, not as an excuse for the behaVior, but as a means of
conveYing the frlghtemng and tenuous Situation they were In, as a result of the school boards
deCISion
With regard to the demonstration In spring 2007 which the District staff portrayed to you dUring
your May Board meeting, we want to ensure that you understand there was no rude or
Inappropriate behaVior on the part of our students (I e , no one hung out of Windows, banged on
doors or shouted) They were well supervised by teachers and parents This was a oeaceful
demonstration When the children became weary of the actiVity, the children were taken back to
school The goal was to allow our children the opportumty to vOice theIr dfsagreement With the
deCISion made by their elected offiCials I see Similarities With actiVities With chfldren at the state
capitol, the Eugene schools' staff and families' protest against the proposal to relocate their
schools, and elsewhere In our state
Neither the District Board nor District staff raIsed the demonstration as a tOpiC or an Issue of
concern at either of the subsequent school board meetings (those shortly after the demonstration)
when the charter was discussed We apologized to District staff, anyway, Just to ensure that It
would not become a barner between us We had not heard It discussed In nearly a year
Therefore, we were surprised that the District staff raised thfS Issue With your Board, nearly a year
later Given that the District and CCM have very different perceptions of the demonstration, we did
not believe we could convey our perspective to you during your May 2008 meeting Without
appearing defenSive or starting a "he-saldjshe-sald" scenario We are concerned that thfS could
divert focus from whether or not the proposed Children's ChOice Montessori public charter school
meets all of the criteria reqUired by law and by the Oregon Department of Education
At any rate, even after the demonstration last spring, we continued to have positive Interactions
With district personnel aSSigned to work With our students In the winter of 2008, our SpeCial
Education support staff worked With the school psychologist to proVide reading test results for an
eligibility determination At the May 15 State Board meeting, Keith Hollenbeck (Admlmstrator,
SpeCial Education, SPS) extended a warm InVitatIOn to attend the Title I meeting for the 08 - 09
school year Other efforts toward a collaborative working relationship With our DiStrict, which we
have made over the past several years, Include
)> Records and Testing As an alternative educatIOn program, we were reqUired to proVide
records on student achievement twice per year, as well as stateWide assessments Once
aware of thiS requfrement, we were prompt With all of our records and testing procedures
)> Enrollment Each year, Children's ChOice Montessori has to proVide documents to the
Gateways Learmng Center for all students we were on a first name baSIS With the staff,
SOOS H.- Sh4 1S11 R.... R-' 11112 S- Sh4
~ 0"'1- 4-, 0"'1- ~ 0"'1-
'fJfI7R 17!f1Jff 171177
working cooperatively to complete student files before school started Imtlally, a few parent
vOiced dfspleasure With the process We held a parent meeting to calm everyone down and
explain the nature of the system
)> Annual Review Paperwork and VfSlts required for our annual reVfew were completed
Without event Overall, I found our relationship With the Gateways staff to be pleasant and
congemalI am confident they would say the same of us
The day after your May Board meeting, I requested a meeting With Nancy Golden for the purpose
of discussing how our two organizations could work collaboratlvely should the State Board opt to
sponsor us as a public charter school We are scheduled to meet on June 26, due to end of the
year actiVities, Ms Golden was unable to meet With us sooner
The Springfield Quality Education Model prioritizes several programs that Chfldren's Choice
Montessori would support, enhance, and/or create (Taken from testimony submftted, June 11,
2007)
)> K - 12 Literacy The Montessori method offers a strong reading CUrriculum that's has
proven most effective Of the 8 students who tested above grade level In September of
2007, 7 had been Children's Choice Montessori students In prior years
)> ExpanSion of Gateways/Academy of Arts and AcademiCS These programs provfde
alternative learmng environments for middle and high school students Children's ChOice
Montessori would offer Similar opportumtles at the elementary level
)> After School Programs Children's ChOice Montessori has always proVided after school
programs for elementary students Since 1993, we have served students form our own
program as well as students from district schools My early experiences In education were
focused around after school elementary programs After a few years In the trenches I
became a supervisor and eventually helped create or restructure after school programs for
3 schools I would gladly lend my expertise to assist Springfield Public Schools With the
creatfon of such programs In the commumty
CCM conSiders the District a partner In our JOint efforts to provfde high-quality education to all
students who walk In our doors, CCM IS committed to proactrvely collaborate and cooperate With
the Springfield Public School DiStrict, Including Board and staff members at all levels Ultimately, It
IS our goal to bUild a relationship With the district to the pOint where district sponsorship of our
program would be realized In the future
CONCLUSION
We have a group of children who are successful In thiS environment They Will be displaced If CCM
does not start operating as a public charter school thiS coming fall Please allow them the
opportumty to continue on at Children's ChOice Montessori as a public charter school
Thank you for your continued conSideration
Sincerely,
Carla McQUillan
SOOS H-. ft,at
Sf.+4< O~
11f!7f
1S11 R.- R.wI
4-, O~
WIf
19lf2 S- St.a1
Sf..+U, o~
17m
Children's Choice Montessori
May, 2008
Table of criteria ODE review indicates CCM does not meet, with data in response
Criteria
ORS 338.045(2)(f) The governance
structure of the public charter school
Review states that CCM does not describe
"board selection process, board terms and
removal procedures,"
Review states that "there /s no plan for be.:
training"
ORS 338.045(2)(j) The legal address,
faCilities and physical location of the public
charter schoo~ If known
Review states that "There are considerable
questfons on the current site and the types
land use/occupancy permits that will be
needed If the school becomes a K-5 progra,
Any required changes could significantly
Impact the budget"
Response
Per ODE reView, CCM's proposal meets the reqUlrec
cntena and meets four of the SIX "preferred
Indicators"
The CCM bylaws were provided to 5PS on 4/22/08
and to ODE (In hard copy) 6/07, the bylaws descnt
board member selectfon, removal, and terms
While a board trarnrng plan IS not rncluded In the
proposal, the CCM board did partiCipate In
comprehensive charter board governance training,
7/20-21/07, thfS IS more than most currently
operating charter schools have done, and the CCM
board will participate In further relevant training
The current facilfty, In fact, will not require any re-
zOning, re-codlng, or any construction for at least
three years, given the current CCM enrollment
projectIOns (I e , If student enrollment exceeds 120,
CCM Will need to add one classroom, thiS would
rnvolve a $1,200 planning fee to the City, which can
easfly come from the 9% reserve In the 2010-2011
budget, ff not from capital fundralslng)
Before serving students as a publiC charter school,
CCM Will need to obtain a "discretionary use permit
from the City of Spnngfield, which the City has
verbally assured should be a smooth, four-sIx week
process The fee for a full-Site review of a new
bUlldrng that IS 10,000 square feet or larger IS
$3,700, given that the CCM building IS not new
constructIOn and IS only 8,000 square feet, the fee
likely lower, however, If It IS $3,700, thiS fee could
paid With CCM's Charter School Incentive Grant (on
CCM has an approved charter proposal, It can acce
$25,000 for state 2 of the planning phase, those
funds are not rncluded In the three-year operatlona
budget)
5
Criteria
ORS 338.04S(m) The proposed budget a
finanCial plan for the public charter school
and eVidence that the proposed budget ant
finanCial plan are finanCially sound
Review states that "several line Item
expenses were missing from the budget, I E
annual audit fees, tech support, attorney al
other contracted fees"
Review states that "the budget does not
reflect an adequate contingency fund for th
first year of operation"
. Response
As CCM leaders become Increasingly familiar With
public school budgeting and finance, they continue
refine the budget Also, the ODE Charter School
Incentive Grant Attachment F (budget) does not
Include all of the line Items typically Included In
school budgets These factors prOVide context, but
do not negate the following
~ The audit IS not speCifically Identified In the
budget, although CCM's proposal elsewhere
Indicates plans for an annual muniCipal audr
The fee for thiS fS reflected In the current
budget
~ Oregon charter schools typically do not
budget for, or pay for, "tech support," as th
limited budgets do not allow for It, tech
support IS typfcally proVided by parents or
other community volunteers This has been
and will continue to be the case, With CCM
~ Because CCM has an attorney on Its board,
who will proVide the school's limited neceSSi
legal servfces, CCM does not need to IncludE
attorney fees In Its budget ,
~ CCM has moved "other contracted fees" (I e
speCialized instruction, Substftutes, etc.) fror
"personnel" Into "services and activities"
While a "preferred factor" rather than a requlremen
CCM agrees that a reserve IS a piece of financfal
stability In the budget reviewed, the 2nd and 3rd
years Included a 9% reserve In the current (recen
reVised) budget, the 2nd and 3rd years stlllrnclude
unusually high contingency/reserve funds (10% anI
65%, respectfully), and the 1st year Includes a 4%
contingency/reserve fund, which contnbutes to
financial stability
6
Criteria Response
ORS 338.045(2)(n) The standards for
behavior and the procedures for the diSC/pIlI
suspenSion or expulsion of students
R t t th t "th d t f th The student behavior expectations are embedded
eVlew s a es a, e escnp Ion 0 e
"Ch ct Ed b d I" xt It the Character Education Model The CCM proposa
ara er uca on mo e IS e enslve
d fl ct I t I does not Include policles-or plans to create
Iscusses con I reso u Ion persona
b I ty d 'H policies-for student suspension and expulsion
responsl II ,an consequences owever
there were no policies (or the plan to develc
them) for students wfth senous behavior
Issues and no mention of procedures for
suspension and expulsion"
ORS 338.045(2)(w) The manner In whlcl
program review and fiscal audit will be
conducted
ReView states that "there are statements
about 5ubmfttJng an annual evaluatfon and
audit However, there IS no deScription of he
the results of these reviews Will be used In
ongOing school Improvement planning"
SPS deemed the charter proposal complete and dll
not request this information as part of the
"additional Information" request, SPS verbally
conveyed to CCM (when CCM offered to share Its
current "Student BehaVior Plan") that It did not
anticipate student discipline problems from CCM
given Its track record and Montesson program
Per a recommendation dunng the CCM board chaM
governance training (7/08), the CCM board decldel
to adopt key poliCies pnor to operating as a charte
school, Includfng poliCies related to student dlsclpli
and suspension, and Will do so The school's cum
"Student BehaVior Plan" Will be revised, as
appropnate, to reflect the new pohcles
Per ODE reView, CCM's proposal meets the reqUire
crltena and meets two of the three "preferred
Indicators"
This IS missing After operating a successful schoc
for 15 years, regularly uSing all data pOints to mak
Improvements to educational and operational
components, It seemed obVIOUS to CCM to state th
the results of fiscal audits and program reviews
would Influence school Improvement The absencl
of thiS assurance and plans to conbnuous
Improvement does not mean the school Will not
utflize these practices
7
47-185 47-195
C Foundation cover-skllilng, landscaping, and backfill shall be required
D The manufactured unit IS either a Type 1 or Type 2
I 4 7 -190 Professional Offices
A Professional offices In residential dlstncts are permitted when
1 The lots/parcels are adjacent to CC or MRC DiStrictS, and
2 The majority of the square footage of the structure on the lot/parcells not more than
100 feet from CC or MRC Districts Where publlc-rlght-of-way separates the
residential district from the commercial diStriCt, the right-of-way width IS not counted
In the measurement
B A professional office exceeding 2,000 square feet of gross floor area shall abut an arterial
or collector street
C No parking shall be permitted within the front yard setback ReqUired parking shall be
screened from the public view
D For structures on the Springfield HistOriC Inventory, any external modification shall be fully
compatible with the onglnal deSign
E Professional offices permitted are limited to accountants, architects, attorneys. computer
programmers, deSigners, engineers, Insurance agencies, Investment counselors, licensed
real estate agents, medical and dental practitioners, counselors, planners, and studios for
artists, Intenor decorators and photographers, and similar general office uses engaged In
support services to their bUSinesses and/or their parent companies
F A minimum of 25 percent of the lot/parcel shall be landscaped
I 47-195
Public/Private Elementary/ Middle Schools
A Schools are Identified In the Metro Plan as key urban services, which shall be provided In
an efficient and logical manner to keep pace With demand Schools may be located In any
zone that permits schools A unique relatJonshlp eXists between schools and the
community, which reqUires special consideration when applYing screening standards
Maintaining clear Sight lines for the secunty and safety of children IS deSirable and may be
achieved through the use of non-opaque fenCing and/or landscaping The standards In
Section 5 17-100 are applied only when reqUired to screen playground structures,
spectator seating faCIlities, parking, storage yards arid trash re~. t 19!i~\ ,!ill;lriVED
Significant conflicts are determined by the Director _.... ;
1 1GIII taz:a '
JUN 11 Z008
317
By:
4 7-195
47-195
1
All new facIlities and additions over 10,000 square feet or those additions
exceeding 50 percent of the size of the eXisting bUilding shall be approved In
accordance with a Type III review procedure (a Type II Site Plan application raised
to a Type III review as speCified In ~ectlon 51-130) The Site Plan application shall
also address the standards speCified In Subsections 2 through 11 , below
EXCEPTION Publlc/Pnvate Elementary/ Middle Schools In the PLO Dlstnct are
reviewed under Type II Review
2 A maximum of 65 percent of the site may be covered In ImperviOUS surface The
remainder of the site shall comply with the planting standards In Section 4 4-100
3 Schools shall have a landscaped front yard of 20 feet and landscaped side and rear
yards of 30 feet Athletic spectator seating structures adjoIning resldenlial uses
shall be set back at least 75 feet, unless the Director determines that adequate
buffering can be provided with a reduced setback However, In no Instance shall
this setback (from spectator facllllies) be less than 30 feet Parking areas shall
maintain a landscaped buffer of 15 feet when adjoIning a resldenlial use
4 Light shall be directed away from adjoIning less Intensive uses
5 Other uses permitted within school facllllies Include day care facllltfes, SOCial
service offices or other after school program aclivltles approved by the School
Dlstnct and which otherwise do not require discretionary approval
6 All plants used for "landscaped buffenng" shall be a minimum of 5-gallon In size and
shall reach a height of at least 36 Inches within 1 year of planting
7 Paved playground areas may be used as overflow parking for special events
8
Parking IS limited to 2 spaces for each teaching station In the school plus 1 parking
space for each 100 square feet of publiC Indoor assembly area All parking lots and
dnveways shall be designated to separate bus and passenger vehicle traffic All
parking lots shall have Sidewalks raised a minimum of 6 Inches above grade where
pedestnans have to cross parking lots to enter or leave the school grounds
.
9 Any JOintly shared recreational faCIlities, playgrounds or athlelic field shall require a
JOint use agreement that Will provide for public use and continued maintenance
10 Elementary schools shall have a maximum bUilding height of 35 feet, middle
schools shall have a maximum bUilding height of 45 feet
11 A Traffic Impact Study and Parking Study, prepared by a Transportation Engineer,
shall be approved by the City Engineer
318
DEVELOPMENT CODE APPLICATION FEES
APPLICATION TYPE
DESIGN REVIEW CASE TYPES
IAccessory Dwellmg Unit
IDemolInon of Histone Landmark
/DlScrettonary Use
IDWP Overlay Dlstnct Development
IEstabhshment ofHtstonc Landmark Inventory
IFmal Site Plan ReVlewlDevelopment Agreement (I)
IFmal Site Plan EQwvalent
IHD lhllslde Development Overlay DIStrIct
IHlStone CommlSslon Review Under Type I
IHtstonc CODJDllSSlOD Review Under Type IT
IHS Hospital Support Overlay Dlstnct
ITemporary Use - Emergency MedIcal Hardship (SDC 36 135)
ITemnorarv Use - Manufactured Dwellml! (SC 36 13m
IMumnum Development Standards
IMmor Vanance (Up to 3(010)
IDetermmatlOn ofNon-Conformmg Use Status
Non-Conformmg Use - ExpanslOnlMowficatlOD
IPre-Submlttal Meetmg
I Site Plan Review
I a <10,000 square feet OfunpervlOUS surface
I b 10,000 - 100,000 square feet oflIDpervlous surface
I c >100,000 square feet ofunpemous surface
'SIte Plan Review Modtficattoo - Major
I Site Plan Review ModdicatlOo- MInor
I Solar Access Guarantee
ITree Fcllmg PermIt Base Fee (2)
IDepartment of Motor VehIcles LlceDsmg - New
IDepartment of Motor Veluc1es Ltcensmg - Renewal
IFmal Site Plan lnspectlon for OccunancylLUC/Chane:e of Use
,Land Use Compattbl.bty Statement! Lett~ -
IPlan Review - Mmor
IPlan ReView - Major
LONG RANGE PLANNING CASE TYPES
IAmendment ofDevelooment Code Text (9)
AnnexatIOn
a Annexatton to the City ofSpnngfield
b Concurrent Special DIStrIct Boundary Adjustments and/or WIthdrawals (1)
Inc1udmg but not Imllted to
Park and RecreatIOn DIStrIcts, Water DiStrIcts, FIre DIStrIcts, Library DlStrIcts, etc
Ie Annexabon Comprehensive Plannmg Fee per acre
IExtratemtonal Public Wastewater or Water Lme ExtensiOns and ConnectIons
CITY LIMITS
$726
$3,472
$3,828
$1,020
$1,922 I
See Footnote (1)
$3,761
$915iacre
$60
$!76
$2,919+$585/acrel
$276 1
$371 1
$726
$2,433
$107
$3,828
$346 I
I
$4 222 I
$4,222+$272/1001
$4 222+$317l1001
$4,074 I
$1241
$781
$985
$704
$281
$281
$281
$119
$211
$7405
NiA
NiA
NlA
N/A
RECEIVED
Effective 7 ~1 :~008
JUN 112008
URB~TH BOUNDARY I TYPE
$726
$5,239
$5,774
$1,020
$1,922
See Footnote (1)
$3761
$915/acre
$157
$467
NiA
$276
$371
NiA
$2,433
$160
$5 774
$520
$4,222
$4 222+$272/1000 SQ 11
$4,222+$3 I 7i1000 SQ 11
$4074
$1,873
$945
$985
$844
$340
$281
$304
$286
$286
$11,171
ConslStmg of Less than 1 acre
ConsIStmg of I acre > 5 acres
ConsIStmg of 6 acre> 10 acres
COnsIStIng of 11 acres > 25 acres
ConsIStmg of26 acres> 50 acres
COnslStmg of 51 acres> 100 acres
Conslstmg of 10 1 acres or more
10% ofapphcable Annexatton Fee
$1,959
$1,071
$2142
$2,740
$3 657
$4,614
$5 727
$6,592
$9,085
TYJX;I
Type ill
Type ill
Type!
Type ill
Type I
Type]
Type 11
Type!
Type 11
Type 11
Type 11
Type I
Type I
Type 11
Type I
TYI><1l
NlA
Typell
Type 11
Typell
Type 11
Type I
TypeD
Typell
Permit
Permit
Permit
Permit
PermIt
PerIntt
Type IV
Type IV
Type IV
Type IV
Type IV
APPLICATION TY. CITY LIMITS Ii .N GROWTH BOUNDARY TYPE I
/conceptual Development Plan $13 674 $20 627 TyneIIl I
Com..eptua1 Development Plan Amendment $5,297 $7991 TypeIIl I
IMaster Plan Amendment Type I $2,631 $3,944 TVJlt:1 I
IMaster Plan Amendment Type II $5,297 $7,991 TVJlt:D I
IMaster Plan Amendment Type ill $9,672 $14,141 TyueIIl I
IMaster Plan Approval $18814+$634iac $28,323+634iacre TypeIIl I
IFmal Master Plan Approval (1) See Footnote (1) See Footnote (1) TypeIIl I
IMetro Plan Amendment Type I (acre fee for dIagram amendment) $21,753+$634iac $32,815+$634iacre Tyue IV I
re
IMetro Plan Amendment Type II (acre fee for dlagram amendment) $1O,549+$6,4iac $13,531+$634iacre Type IV I
re
IRefinement Plan Amendment (acre fee for chagram amendment) $1O,549+$634/ac $16,232+$634iacre Type IV I
re
IVacallon Pubhc Easements $1241 $1,873 Type_D I
IVacatlon ROW, SUbdJVlSIOD Plat and other Dubhe property $4,742 $7,154 Type IV I
IStreet Name Change $4,742 NlA NlA I
SHORELINE CASE TYPES
IFloodplam Developmenl Base Fee (3) (4) $1,105 $1,667 Tyne1 I
IWillamette Greenway Overlay D,stnct Development I
I Greenway Setback Lme already establIshed $2,888 $6,114 TVJlt:II11
I Greenway Setback Lme not already establIshed $5 772+$585iacre $8,256+585iacre Type ill I
SUBDIVISION CASE TYPES
ILOR SubdlvlSIon TentatIve Plan
I a. <2 acres $5518+$237not NiA TypeD
I b 2 acres to 5 acres $7,810+$390not NiA TyneII
I c 5 acres to 10 acres $10,332 + N/A Type D
I d 10 acres to 20 acres $10,899+$632/fot N/A TVJlt:D
I e Greater than 20 acres $11,467+$689not NlA Type D
IManufactured Dwellmp, Park $9 867 $14,885 Type D
IManufactured Dwellmg Park~Space Lme AdJustment $375 $994 Type 1
/Non- LDR SubwVlSlon TentatIve Plan $9,742+$585iacre $9,742+$585/acre
TypeD
!ParlIl1on Plat (5) $2 677 $2,677 Type 1
IParlIl10n Replal Plat (5) $1834 $1834 Type 1
JPartltlOD Replat TentatJve Plan (5) $3,117 $8 229 Tyne D
IParlIl10n Tental1ve Plan (5) $4,871 $8915 Type D
IProperty Lme AdJustment $623 $939 Type]
I Senal Property Lme Adjustments $1,246 $1,877 Type II
INon-LDR SubdIVISIOn Plat $3904+$634/acre $3904+$634/acre
Type 1
ISubwvlston Plat LDR $762+$476not $762+$476not Type I
ISubwvlsIon Replat Plat (5) $1,835 $1,835 Type 1
ISubwvlSIon Replat Tentative Plan (5) $5,066 $6,130 TVJlt:D
IExpedlted Land D1V1slon (6) TVJlt:D
ZONING CASE TYPES
jAppeal of Type II Director's DeCISIon (7) ORS 227175 $250 $250 Typelll I
IAppeal of ExpedIted Land DlvlSlon (7) $320 $320 TypeIIl I
lAp~al ofTYl!.e III DeCISIOn to City CaUDell $2,322 $3,502 T~IV I
IDevelopment Issues Meetmg $521 $521 N/A I
IFormal InterpretatIon (9) $1,769 $2 299 TypeD I
IFormal InterpretatIon mvolvmg Pohcy (9) $4 742 $7154 T~e<:IV
IPre-ApphcatIOD Report $3,553 $3,553 NlA
IMalor Vanance $6,349 $9577 TVJlt:II1
IZorung Map Amendmenl (8) $5,178 $10,154 Type III
POINT OF SALE
ITlDle ExtenslOD for Certam Improvements $321 $1044 N/A
Postage and Legal NotIfication Fees
Type II $160 $160 NlA
Type III $385 $385 NiA
Type IV $543 $543 NiA
.
(1) Fma! site plan, master plan approval, AnnexatIon Special DlStnct Boundary AdJustmentslWlthdrawals and development agreement fee lSlO% of the patd site plan.,
annexations or master plan approval fee
(2) Tree Fellmg Fees - Tree Fellmg - Less than five (5) trees no charge or apphcabonrequrred 6-10 trees, base fee (see fee schedule) fS,50 per tree, > 10 trees, Base Fee
(see fee schedule) + $500 per acre Fllbert Orchards pay base fee only
Any Tree Fellmg processed after land use actIVIty IS conducted WIthOut reqwred City approvals shall be charged an addItIOnal fee 01$200 per tree ill add1tIon to the
regular apphcatlOD fee The CIty estabhshes these fees based on the average cost of prOVldmg programmatIc service for acbVlbes conducted Without permits
(3) An Floodplam permit processed after land use actiVIty IS conducted WIthout requrred City approvals shall be charged an additIOnal fee 01$500 per acre m addItion to
the regular appllcatton fee The City estabhshes these fees based on the average cost ofprovldmg programmatic servIce for activIties conducted Without pernllts
(4) Floodplam. Subdlvlslon $200 per loland partItlons and site plans $400 per acre m adwtlon to the base fee For development areas >5 acres a$13 650 depOSit IS
requrred
(5) A reconfiguratlOD oflots or a decrease m the number ofIots m a platted partrllon or SUbWVlSI0D shall be charged the tentative replatlreplat plat fee for either
SUbWVlSlon or partItion as appropnate An mcrease m the number oflots m a platted partItion or subdtVlSlon shall be charged either the partItion tentative planlpartJ.tlon
plat or subdIVISIon tentative/subdIVISion plat
(6) The fee for a ExpedttedLand DIVlS100 (ELD) shall be twice the fee calculated for a regular land WVJSlOD plus an appeal fee establIshed m ORS 197380 to defray
costs m event the deCISIon IS appealed lfthe deCISIOn IS not appealed, the appeal fee for ELD shall be refunded A separate postage fee IS requrred for an ELD
(7) Thts fee IS estabhshed by ORS 227 175 Council acknowledge Neighborhood AssocllltmDs shall not be charged a fee for an appeal
(8) The Development ServiceS Department will process cltJzens-mrl:1ated zomng map amendments, for properl:1es where the zonmg and plan deslgnal:1on are m conflICt,
three tlDles a year begmmng m January There will be no applIcation fee for applIcants who choose to Dahze thIs program however a Type ill notdicabon fee will be
reqmred for each apphcanon
(9) Ballot Measure 56 maIlmg & postage = stafftlDle at hourly rate of $75 plus matenals and postage
GENERAL NOTES
Tl!chnoloFll Fel! All applIcations WIll be assessed a 5% technology feeWlth the exceptIon of Pre-SubmIttal Meebng, Development Issues Meetmg, Pre-Apphcat1on
Report, Appeal of Type II Drrector's DeCISIOn Appeal ofExpedtted Land DIVISlOD, and all Pomt of Sale fees (TlDle ExtensIOn and Postage/Notlficat:J.on Fees) as
mdtcated on thIs schedule Technology Fee will be apphed when on the resolution the IdentIfied apphcatlOns fees are Imposed or collected.
Note (ar oIl local annl!olt_ Ifan appellant prevails at the heanng or subsequent heanng The filmg fee for the wnal fee shall be refunded This apphes to local appeals
only The appellant prevails If the heanngs body sustams one or more of the apphcants allegatIOns and amends, remands or reverses the land use deCISion
Heannr! Offlcla} fee Any apphcatJons except an appeal bemg processed before the Heanngs OffiCial shall pay an addinonal fee 01$5,000 Any amount not expended
by the Heanngs OffiCIal shall be returned to the apphcant Charges m excess ofthts addItional fee shall be assessed to the apphcant
Low lncoml! Fee RedJlchon Any apphcanon fee related to thedevelonment of1ow Income housmp or factllne_<::may be reduced pursuant to the mtena ofSecbon
I 070(4) oflbe Spnngfield Developmenl Code
NSFrhprk Fpp A $110 NSF (non-sufficient funds) fee WIll be charged on all returned checks
E:x:nl!thtl!d Proc~.""tP Fee Any request to pnonttze and expedtte the reVIew of a partJ.cular apphcatmD submtttal out of order m WhICh apphcattons are recewed, shall
be approved at the dtscretlon of the Drrector and shall be charged a non-refundabJe feeS11 000 or 3 tUDes the apphcatJon fee; wh1chever 18 greater, where the
development area IS greater than J 0 acres an addinonal fee of$550 per acre will be charged.
Fee WOlver The Drrector may reduce or waive the fee for Temporary Use - Emergency Medical Hardslnp upon venficabon oflow mcome status of the owner
occupant
Resolution #04-29, July 1, 2004, Fee Increase
Resolution #05-03, January 18, 2005, Fee Increase EffectIVe January 19, 2005
Resolution #05-36, June 6, 2005, Fee Increase Effective July 1, 2005
ResolutIOn #06-12, March 20,2006, Effective Apnl 20, 2006
Resolution #06-30, June 19, 2006, Effective August 1, 2006
Resolution #07-21, May 21, 2007, Effective July 1, 2007
Resolution #07-56, December 3, 2007, Effective December 3, 2007
Resolution #XX-XX, , Effective July 1, 2008
Cluldren's ChOice Montesson
Page 1 of5
DONOVAN James
From
Sent
To
Cc
Sublect
MILLER LIz
Thursday, June 05,2008458 PM
SCHNEIDERMAN Teresa
DONOVAN James
RE Children's Choice Montessori
Teresa,
I spoke to Jim Donovan today and he IS In the process of writing a leller containing the Informalion for 5005 Main Street It
sounded like It would be finished soon I know you Will need It before Wednesday, June 11 to be ready for the State Board of
Education meeting
Sincerely,
LIZ Miller
Planning DIVISion
From: SCHNEIDERMAN Teresa [mallto Teresa Schnelderman@state or us]
Sent. Thursday, June OS, 2008 11 35 AM
To: MILLER LIZ
Cc: DONOVAN James
Subject: RE Children's ChOice Montessori
LIZ,
Has there been an update on the 5005 Main Street property?
Also to keep you up to date, I was Just made aware of emalls sent from Springfield SD to Bill Grlle
I have copied the emall string below
Thank you for your aSSistance,
Teresa SchneIderman
Education Specialist
Office of Educational Improvement & Innovation
Oregon Department of Education
255 Capitol St NE
Salem, OR 97310-1300
Office (503) 947-5648
FAX (503) 378-5156
teresa schneldermanl1Vstate or us
~ECEIVED
JUN 112008
By:
From: Bruce Smolnlsky [mallto bsmolms@sps lane edu]
Sent. Thursday, June OS, 2008 7 33 AM
, To: GILLES Jom
Subject: Fwd 5005 Main Street School Siting Issues
Jom--smce I know that Bill Gnle IS out oftown I Will forward the e-mail we spoke about on the phone My e-marl to
Bill IS on the bottom At the May State Board of Ed meetmg It was clear to me that the Board wanted ODE to check on
wluch verSIOn of the zomng Issue would be most lIkely I e-malled Bill Gnle to give hrrn a head's up that you folks
would be callmg and also tned to state a few of the comments made about zonmg at the Board Meetmg
6/9/2008
ChIldren's ChOIce Montesson
Page 2 of5
You can see that Bill clearly stands behInd hIs memo, whIch I mcluded m my attachments to the State Board, m whIch
It IS clear that Montesson has many steps to go pnor to bemg approved for K-5
I do not know the procedure or penalty that might come from the fact that Montesson IS, m our opmlOn, already out of
comphance WIth Spnngfield zomng by havmg a K-5 school already m operation WithOut proper City approval
I hope thIS mIght help
Bruce
Begm forwarded message
From: "GRILE BIll" <bgnle@cl spnngfield or us>
Date: May 16,200884213 AM PDT
To: "SMOLNISKY Bruce (SPS)" <bsmolms@sps lane edu>
Subject: RE: 5005 Mam Street School Sltmg Issues
Thanks Bruce Nancy Golden mentioned some of this to me last evening The memo provfded by planning
staff speaks for ftself and we'll be prepared to address any questions related to It Thanks for the heads up
Bill
From: Bruce Smolnlsky [mallto'bsmolnls@sps.lane edu]
Sent: Fnday, May 16, 2008 8 26 AM
To: GRILE Bill
Subject: Re 5005 Main Street School Siting Issues
Bill--Although you may have seen the article in the Register-Guard this
morning, I wanted to give you an update regarding our hearing with the State
Board of Education.
First of all, thank you and your staff for the clear memo that described the
issues involved with changing the Montessori from a day care to a K-5 school.
At the meeting, the following things were discussed.
1. I shared the current site plan listing Montesori as a day care. I shared your
memo that outlined that they needed a few things done to legally open a school
with the proper permits and zoning, I stated that there did not seem to be any
evidence that the Montessori leadership had requested or received proper
permits to open a K-5 school and that they might be in violation of city zoning
codes. I stated that our concerns were that the Montessori leadership had not
even begun the first step in what we believed was needed to open a school on
that site, which was the DIM.
2. Carla McQuillan, the director of the Montessori, said that City of Springfield
planners told her to use the designation of day care and it would not be a
problem. She had been holding Kindergarten and first grade classes on that site
nearly since she opened.
6/9/2008
Clnldren's ChOice Montesson
Page 3 of5
3_'Upon further questioning Carla stated that she had called John Tamulonis
last week and he had assured her that it would not be a problem to change
zoning and that it was probably 4-6 weeks and she should be ready to open in
the fall.
Anyway, I wanted to alert you that Oregon Department of Education staff will
most likely be calling to clarify who is really correct, the district or Montessori.
You may also hear from the Montessori leadership about what they need to do
because Art paz was clear with Carla that, as a practicing architect, he would be
going to Bill Grille about zoning and planning before he would ask John
Tamulonis.
Call me at 726-3255, if you have questions.
Thanks again for all your help.
Bruce
On May 8, 2008, at 3:34 PM, GRILE Bill wrote:
Bruce
If you need additional information, I suggest scheduling a process we call a "Development Issues Meeting,"
which Involves representatives from Planning, Public Works, Fire and Life Safety, etc I hope the
information we have provided IS helpful
Thanks
Bill
<sps.doc
From: MILLER LIz [mallto Imlller@cl spnngfield or us]
Sent Wednesday, May 21, 2008 4 22 PM
To: SCHNEIDERMAN Teresa
Cc: DONOVAN James
Subject: RE Children's ChOice Montesson
Dear Teresa,
I have received your e-mail and have forwarded It to Jim Donovan, Planning Supervisor He IS In the process of verifying
information and Will respond back to your questions as soon as possible Do you have deadlines for obtaining the
information?
Sincerely,
LIZ Miller
Planning DIVISion
From: SCHNEIDERMAN Teresa [mallto Teresa Schnelderman@state or us]
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 2 06 PM
6/9/2008
Clnldren's ChOIce Montesson
To. MILLER LIz
Subject: Children's ChOIce Montessori
Page 4 0[5
Liz,
First of alii would like to thank you for the messages you have left In answer to questions I have had You have been very
helpful
Also I have read the memo sent to Bruce Smolnlsky, Springfield School District on May 9, 2008
I would like to share with you what was presented by Children's ChOice Montessori at the State Board of Education board
meeting on May 15, 2008
"The current faCIlity, m fact, Will not reqUire any re-zonmg, re-codmg, or any construction for at least three years,
given the current CCM enrollment prolectlons (I e , If student enrollment exceeds 120, CCM Will need to add one
classroom, thiS would mvolve a $1,200 plannrng fee to the CIty, whIch can easily come from the 9% reserve m the
2010-2011 budget, If not from capital fundralsmg)
CCM's understandmg IS that before servmg students as a public charter school, CCM Will need to obtam a
"discretionary use permit" from the City of Sprmgfield, which should be a Simple, four-sIx week process Given
CCM's multiple diSCUSSions with numerous City plannmg office staff, the "worst case scenario" would be a
$3,700 fee for thiS permit thiS IS the fee for a full-slte review of a new bUlldmg that IS 10,000 square feet or
larger, gIVen that the CCM bUlldmg IS not new construction IS only 8,000 square feet, the fee IS likely lower,
however, If It IS $3,700, thiS fee could be paid with CCM's Charter School Incentive Grant (once CCM has an
approved charter proposal, It can access $25,000 for state 2 of the plannmg phase, those funds are not mcluded
m the three-year operational budget) "
My question would be, does thiS accurately reflect what could be In the future for CCM If they open as a K-5 public school
with 120 students? In your expert OpiniOn, what could roughly be the length of time to complete the site plan review and
roughly what could be the cost?
Once again, thank you for all your help City planning IS so far outside of my area of work I hope I'm not asking Silly
questions
Teresa SchneIderman
Education Specialist - Charter Schools
Office of Educational Improvement & Innovation
Oregon Department of Education
255 Capitol St NE
Salem, OR 97310-1300
Office (503) 947-5648
FAX (503) 378-5156
teresa schnelderman@state or us
**********************************************************************
TIns emml and any files transrmtted Wlth It are confidential and
6/9/2008
Cluldren's ChOIce Montesson
mtended solely for the use ofth" mdlvldual or entity to whom they
are addressed If you have received tlus emmllll error please notIfY
the sender nnmedlately and delete the commumcatlon and any attachments
Page 5 of5
.'
Tlus footnote also confIrms that tlus emaIl message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer VlTUses
**********************************************************************
6/9/2008
,.
SPRINGFIELD
May 23, 2008
225 FIFTH STREET
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
PHONE (541) 726-3753
FAX (541)726-3689
WWW CI spnngfield or us
Carla McQUillan
Executive Director
Children's ChOIce Montesson
5005 Mam Street
Spnngfield, OR 97478
RE 5005 Mam Street Zonmg Issues
Dear Ms McQUillan
Thank you for wntmg to Mayor Lelken with concerns about zonmg and your Montesson School
I've been asked to commumcate with you about thiS and am very pleased to do so
In late Apnl, Sprmgfield Pubhc Schools (SPS) asked us to address whether zonmg would allow an
elementary school at the 5005 Mam Street address A May 20, 2008 emarl from the Oregon
Department of EducatIOn to us made a similar mqUlry A memorandum dated May 23,2008 was
prepared and proVided to SPS to address the Issue Copies of these two documents are attached for
mformatlOn
I have asked Planmng Supervisor J 1m Donovan to reiterate the City'S assessment of the property m
another letter that Will be sent to the Oregon Department of EducatIOn and copied to both you and
SPS I expect that letter Will be written some time next week
In the meantime, you may have questions that would benefit from a face-to-face meetmg with us
I'd be most happy to meet with you personally but Will be leavmg on vacatIOn next week and back m
the office for two weeks If time IS of the essence for you, Jim Donovan Will do hiS very best to make hiS
calendar available to meet with you sooner than when I can be available
Thank you agam for wntmg to Mayor Lelken I hope the mfornlatlOn I've proVided IS helpful
Smcerely,
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
~
I ~
III Gnle, Director
RECEIVED
<McQUlllan_Montesson SchooL23May2008>
JUN 112008
- Attachmenls (2)
By:
Copies to
Mayor S,d Lelken
Gmo Gnmaldl, City Manager
11m Donovan, Planning SupervIsor
MClllVla.lldutn
To Bruce Smolmsky, Spnngfield Public School DIstrIct
cc BIll Gnle, Development ServIces DIrector
Jnn Donovan, Planrung SupervIsor
From LIz MIller
Date 5/23/2008
Re 5005 Mam Street, Map & Tax Lot
The CIty of Spnngfield has prevIOusly reVIewed and approved two land use applIcatIons for
5005 Mall Street, Map & Tax Lot 170233324500 In 1996 a Type II SIte Plan ReVIew
(Journal Number 1996-05-101) was approved for a cluId care center and m 1998 a Type II
SIte Plan ReVIew (Journal Number 1998-06-0127) was approved for an addItIOn to the cluld
care center
The sIte IS zoned Commumty CommercIal WIth Commumty CommercIal zonmg abuttmg to
the east and west and Low DenSIty ReSIdentIal abuttmg to the south A proposal to expand
an eXlstmg cluld care center m a Commumty CommercIal zonmg dIstrIct would requIre a
Type II Major SIte Plan ReVIew ModIficatIon mcorporatmg all Site Plan ReVIew cntena
(Spnngfield Development Code (SDC) 5 17-100) and the specIal use standards for cluld care
centers (SDC 4 7-125) A proposal to add a public or pnvate elementary school or rmddle
school m a Commumty CommercIal zonmg dIstrIct would requrre a Type III DIscretIonary
Use reVIew, wluch would be reVIewed by the Planrung ComrmsslOn, m conjunctIOn WIth a
publIc heanng, publIc notIce and the SIte Plan ReVIew declSlon The cntena of SDC 4 7-195
(SpecIal Development Standards for PublIc/Pnvate Elementary/Mlddle Schools) would be
applIcable along WIth the cntena for SIte Plan ReVIew (SDC 5 17-100) The SIte Plan
Review and DIscretIonary Use deCISIOns WIll take "'l'l'wAlIllately 75 days after subrmttaI of a
complete applIcatIon
The dIfferences between the land use requrrements for expandmg an eXlstmg cluld care
center and addmg a K-5 school would be generally the folloWIng
· A Type III Land Use applIcatIon would be reqwred for the K-5 school versus a Type
II for the cluld care center A Type II applIcatIon IS adnurustratIve WIth publIc notIce
to surroundIng property owners and the deCISIon made by the DIrector It IS appealed
to the Planning COmrmsslOn. A Type III applIcatIon IS QuasI-JudICIal and deCISIOns
1
May 23, 2008
are made by the Plannmg COIlllllISSlOn after a publIc heanng The Plannmg
COmmISSIOn's declSlon shall mclude findIngs that address all of the applIcable
"ppwval cntena and any wntten or oral testrmony The deCISIOn IS appealed to the
CIty CouncIl and/or the State Land Use Board of Appeals
· The cntena for the SItting of schools shall be as specIfied m SDC 4 7-195, SpecIal
Use Standards for publIc and pnvate elementary or nuddle schools The clnld care
center has SpecIal Use Standards lIsted under SDC 4 7-125 The followmg are some
dIfferences between the sectIOns
I Elementary schools are allowed no more than 65 percent of the SIte to be
covered by unpervlOus surface There IS no percentage for clnld care centers
2 Elementary schools are reqwred to have a front yard landscaped setback of
20 feet and SIde and rear yard setbacks of 30 feet ChIld care C"'ll~"'," m tins
zomng dlStnCt are reqwred to have a five foot front yard planted setback from
parkmg lots and 10 foot front yard setback from bwldmgs These setbacks
are requITed for the rear yard also adjacent to reSIdentIal There are no SIde
setbacks
3 Parkmg for Elementary schools are two spaces for each teachmg statIon plus
one space for each 100 square feet of public mdoor assembly area Clnld
care centers requITe one drop-off space for each 700 square feet of gross floor
area plus one long term space for each 350 square feet of gross floor area
4 Elementary schools shall have a maxunum bwldmg heIght of 35 feet Clnld
care centers don't have a maxunum bOOdIng heIght Wlth the exceptIon of
land Wltlnn 50 feet of property zoned Low or MedIum DensIty ReSIdentIal
Wlthm these 50 feet the maxunum heIght IS 30 feet
5 Elementary schools are reqwred to submIt a Traffic Impact Study Clnld care
centers are reqwred to subnut a Traffic Impact Study If the use generates 500
or more velncle tnps per day or the PublIc Words dITector determmes that It
one IS necessary to address known traffic safety Issues
A SIte Plan ReVIew would be reqwred for eIther use The cntena of SIte Plan ReVIew covers
Items such as storm water capaCIty and management, landscape requirements, utIlIty
connectIOns, parkmg lot deSIgn and access SpeCIfically, SIte Plan ReVIew cntena 5 17-
125D reqwres complIance With ODOT access management standards for State H1ghways
Any change of use, expansIOn of use or new use would tngger reVIew and "ppw val of a new
or reVIsed access penmt by ODOT
Modular wut placement on the SIte would be reVIewed by the Planning DIVISIOn smnlar to
stIck bwlt bOOdmgs proposed on the SIte although the Bwldmg DlvlSlon may have addItIonal
reqwrements for ADA regulatIons Don Moore would be able to answer any speCIfic
bwldmg code regulatIOns at (541) 726-3623
2
PHONE MESSAGE FORM
Case No.
Date: 5ILLI~ TIme: 10,4-0
From: (lAVtUj Yn~ (]l~P~')
Phone Number: 'I J....I.o -..If<, 5"1-
Area Code Number ExtensIOn
RECE IVED
JUN 112 JOB
By:
Message:
(l At.Jt1a ., 1A (J &. tl~ I%j V1iU\'I.L J,. \'"trvI.U JT
h~ah~ 6..p~JlM~ 11 DIM ,'lRL~
, < "h.Jh . 1.Jl /VYLD J1raY J J U.A .f' h^~.
I
Jl , X\l1d . t-4J A (D ~ ,..th/li:. illv <l lMllJi
\ ,M 'J.J...fL-- W rya -!-tu\(),\lIlA ~ O-u:Jf!.J\.Ln fJ.YlilAu..1J LL.I> .
~ ~t1L._~ fl.'1-oL../Wl 'MT/> i\.J lJ./lf'l/iorlJ1
IlJVILl , Jrv.L.U-l.J1 q ()~ \) I M +0 CLULA'LUlL) . -.t JA J -1' ..J
(J)il:LI...Q.d 1cJp~ /\:'.lA...L ~,t 1.1 ,)11~ 'I--r:? Ii1dAAd (1" ~,
<....~ ~ (.J.J.-;IL.l::J:~.P_ })IM fV))rLL-J. (.J'M.(J.)
Q ~L1,) IM1 ~ U ]7HJ..hi nJ Hi 'itJ -<u .i.J:vmJT-:. _
('fuj f-4- .huAt-> A-:t7J.d;bd ~ 1241u~1 #1L 'J;)-'~
9. ~ ~ ~.&.J1b..Lrk /IJ-Ct:L,...J
~dIJy/) U~ &rJ1~ U ~Juv. y~ ~
-'.JHL/, >1 ~4-1Y L/dD-' ~ ~~I&..!J'HLM 4;;t- j;~
Tn .Au.h. U U I
, .
\. J --r~) h~L ~ $.-4- I.u-tu:> ~ JJ--tru d- ku ~
klu;C ~ Ytf/ ~ </--tu f'~P#
I
. ,/
~; &jT';;f~ 'f1jW.'lf~./;;I- r
, ,
9J1i;'~
1 WorlJ1ow processes/Plannmg FormslPhonc Message rorm 2-12-08
Children's
~lgJr8) lQ]fD rg 'rID,
:M.ontesson Pre-Scfioo( ana'Efementary Programs
5005 :M.amStreet * SpnngfieUf, O!J(97478
541-726-2654 * 541-726-5527 (Pal\)
Cana :McQ.uI<<an
'DIrector
May 22, 2008
CAililUlSwn *RECEIVED
JUN 112008
Dear Mayor Lelken, B .
In 1996, a site plan was submitted to the City of Springfield of the 2'v~lopment of tax lot # 17-
02-33-32-04500(5005 Main Street) The original site plan was for a 3752 sq ft structure, consisting of
3 classrooms, a kitchen and administrative area. The bUSiness to be operated at that location was
Children's ChOice Montessori School, providing preschool, and elementary, programs With an option for
extended day child care services Sarah Summers In the Springfield Planning department determined
that the faCility would be considered a "Child Care Center" rather that an elementary school, for the
purposes of City development codes Children's ChOice has been proViding these same educational
programs and chlldcare services continuously since 1996
On May 7, 2008 I received a letter from Liz Miller, Springfield Planner, stating that In order to
operate an elementary school In our faCility at 5005 Main Street Children's ChOice would have to
acqUire a Dlscretfonary Use Permit, requIring a Type III Site Plan ReView ThiS letter was prompted by
a request from the Springfield School District and the Oregon Department of Education for a feaSibility
analYSIS of our Charter School Proposal
We are currently In the final stages of our Charter School Appeal The Board of Education
received a letter from the City, and subsequent information that It would be 12 - 15 months before we
could reasonably be expected to complete the Discretionary Use Permit process
We are no proposing new construction, nor any changes to the current structures on site In
reviewing the speCific development standards for public/private elementary/middle schools, the code
Identifies faCilities or additions to eXisting faCilities of 10,000 sq ft or more Our faCility IS Just less
than 6,000 sq ft
As yet, I have been unable to receive clarification as to how the code applies to us, and what
that process IS for an eXisting faCility
5005 '11tauv Stweb
S~~
9747J'
/599 ~ 9?ood
'i3~ ~
97404
/9425"' Stweb
S~~
97477
This matter IS most urgent, as we are to present Information to the Board of Education pnor to
June 19, when they will cast their vote on the approval (or denial) of our Charter School One of their
pnmary consfderatlons IS whether we will be able to open our school In September of 2008, or If,
because of City code and occupancy Issues, we will need to walt a year
The students who are currently enrolled at Children's Choice Montesson have already waited for
a year for this decIsion, since the Spnngfield School Dlstnct denied our Charter last May If the State
Board delays our approval yet another year, these children Will be forced to relocate
Can we possibly have some assurances (perhaps Interpretatfon or c1anficatlon of the relevant
code, or an expedited process, etc ) that we Will be authonzed to continue to provide an elementary
education program dunng the 08 - 09 school year?
Your aSSistance In thiS matter IS urgently needed and greatly appreciated I can be reached at
726-2654 or 915-0896
Thank you for your attention to thiS matter,
Carla Mcquillan
Executive Director
Children's ChOice Montesson
RECE\VED
JUN 112008
By:
5005 'main' cftweb
cf~~
97~7J
/599 %ww 9?oad
g>~~
97~0~
/9~2 5A cftweb
cf~~
9.N77
Cluldren's ChOIce Montesson
Page I of2
DONOVAN James
From
Sent
To
Cc
Subject
MILLER LIZ
Tuesday, May 20, 2008 3 49 PM
DONOVAN James, GRILE Bill
JONES Terry (Tara)
FW Children's Choice Montessori
Jim and Bill,
I Just received this e-mail from Teresa Schneiderman from the State Board of Education with questions regarding some of the
Children's Choice Montessori statements to the Board I know you are meeting tomorrow afternoon I'm not sure of the fees
Children's Choice IS refernng to although It seems that one IS close to the Discretionary Use fee It might be a good Idea to send
Teresa a packet of our applications for DU, Site Plan Review and a fee schedule This lists the Items needed to submit a
complete application and what type of professional needs to stamp which plans It doesn't seem as though any tlmellnes or
preparation costs prior to application submittal or subsequent Improvement costs are discussed
LIz
From' SCHNEIDERMAN Teresa [mallto Teresa Schnelderman@state or us]
Sent: Tuesday, May 20,2008206 PM
To: MILLER Liz
Subject: Children's ChOice Montessori
RECEIVED-
JUN 112008
Liz,
By:
First of alii would like to thank you for the messages you have left In answer to questions I have had You have been very helpful
Also I have read the memo sent to Bruce Smolnlsky, Springfield School District on May 9, 2008
I would like to share With you what was presented by Children's ChOice Montessori at the Slate Board of Education board meeting
on May 15, 2008
"The current faCIlity, m fact, will not reqUire any re-zonmg, re-codmg, or any construction for at least three years, given
the current CCM enrollment projections (I e , If student enrollment exceeds 120, CCM will need to add one classroom,
thiS would mvolve a $1,200 plannmg fee to the City, which can eaSily come from the 9% reserve m the 2010-2011 budget,
If not from capital fundralsmg)
CCM's understandmg IS that before servmg students as a public charter school, CCM will need to obtam a "discretionary
use permit" from the City of Sprmgfield, which should be a Simple, four-slx week process Given CCM's multiple
discussions With numerous City plannmg office staff, the "worst case scenano" would be a $3,700 fee for thiS permit
thiS IS the fee for a full-Site review of a new buildmg that IS 10,000 square feet or larger, given that the CCM bUlldmg IS
not new construction IS only 8,000 square feet, the fee IS likely lower, however, If It IS $3,700, thiS fee could be paid With
CCM's Charter School Incentive Grant (once CCM has an approved charter proposal, It can access $25,000 for state 2 of
the planmng phase, those funds are not mcluded m the three-year operational budget) "
My question would be, does thiS accurately reflect what could be In the future for CCM If they open as a K-5 public school With 120
students? In your expert OpiniOn, what could roughly be the length of time to complete the site plan review and roughly what could
be the cost?
Once again, thank you for all your help City planning IS so far outSide of my area of work I hope I'm not asking Silly questions
Teresa Schneiderman
5/21/2008
Cluldren's ChOice Montesson
Education Specialist - Charter Schools
Page 2 of2
Office of Educational Improvement & Innovation
Oregon Department of Educalion
255 Capitol St NE
Salem, OR 97310-1300
Office (503) 947-5648
FAX (503) 378-5156
teresa schnelderman@state or us
**********************************************************************
Tlus emml and any files transmItted WIth It are confidential and
mtended solely for the use of the mdlVldual or entity to whom they
, are addressed If you have receIved tlus emml m error please notify
the sender unmedIately and delete the commurucatlOn and any attachments
Tlus footnote also confirms that thiS emml message has been swept by
MIMEs weeper for the presence of computer viruses
**********************************************************************
RECEIVED
JUN 112008
By:
5/21/2008
From SCHNEIDERMAN Teresa [mal~o Teresa Schneldennan@state or usl
Sent Tuesday, May 20, 20082 06 PM
To MILLER Uz
Subject Children's ChoIce Montesson
liz,
FIrst of alii would like to thank you for the messages you have left. In answer to questions I have had You have been very
helpful
Also I have read the memo sent to Bruce Smolmsky, Spnngfield School Dlstnd on May 9, 2008
I would like to share with you what was presented by Children s Choice Montesson at the State Board of Education board
meeting on May 15, 2008
"The current facIlity, In fact, will not require any I'&-Zonmg, re-codmg. or any construction for at least three years,
gIVen the current CCM enrollment projeCtIons (I e . If student enrollment exceeds 120, CeM Will need to add one
classroom, thiS would Involve a $1,200 planning fee to the city, which can easily come from the 9% reserve In the
2010-2011 budget, If not from capital fundralsmg)
ceM's understanding IS that before serving students as a public charter school, ceM Will need to obtain a
lldlscretlonary use pennlt" from the City of Spnngfield, which should be a simple, four-slx week process Given
CCM's multiple diSCUSSIOns with numerous City planning office staff, the "worst case scenano" would be a
$3,700 fee for thIS pennll thIS Is the fee for a full.Slte l'8VIew of a new bulldong that IS 10,000 square feet or
larger; gIven that the CCM bUIlding IS not new construcbon IS only 8,000 square fee~ the fee IS likely lower,
however, If It IS $3,700, thIS fee could be paid with CCM's Charmr Schoollncenllve Grant (once CCM has an
approved charter proposal, It can access $25,000 for state 2 of the planning phase, those funds are not Included
In the three-year operatoonal budget) .
My question would be, does thiS accurately reflect what could be on the future for CCM 01 they open as a K-5 public school
With 120 students? In your expert OpiniOn, what could roughly be the length ofbme to complete the site plan review and
roughly what could be the cost?
Once agam, thank you for all your help City planning IS so far outside of my area of work I hope I'm not askmg Silly
questIons
Teresa Schneldennan
t;
11 ,r,LL
fYAv_O
j1-U~S @
~~ \.\!iI '7",\ '" l'(j
~(V'rJI
Educabon SpeclallSt - Charter Schools
Office of Educabonallmprovement & Innovation
Oregon Department of Education
255 Capitol St NE
Salem, OR 97310-1300
Office (503) 947-5648
FAX (503) 378-5156
RECEIVED
teresaschnelderman@state or us
JUN 11 ~008
By:
^~,
;
I
I \1emornndum
To Bruce Smolmsky, Spnngfield Pubhc School Dlstnct
cc Bill Gnle, Development Services Director
J1llI Donovan, Planmng Supervisor
From LIZ MIller
Date 5/1912008
Re 5005 MaIn Street, Map & Tax Lot
The City ofSpnngfield has prevIOusly revIewed and approved two land use apphcatlOns for
5005 MaIn Street, Map & Tax Lot 170233324500 In 1996 a Type II SIte Plan RevIew
(Journal Number 1996-05-101) was approved for a child care center and In 1998 a Type II
SIte Plan ReVIew (Journal Number 1998-06-0127) was approved for an additIOn to the chIld
care center
The sIte IS zoned Commumty CommercIal WIth Commumty CommercIal zonIng abuttmg to
the east and west and Low DenSity Resldentral abuttmg to the south A proposal to expand
an eXlstmg child care center In a Commumty Commercial zomng dlstnct would reqUire a
Type II Major SIte Plan ReVIew ModificatIOn mcorporatIng all SIte Plan ReVIew cntena
(Spnngfield Development Code (SDC) 5 17-100) and the special use standards for chIld care
centers (SDC 4 7-125) A proposal to add a pubhc or pnvate elementary school or mIddle
school m a Commuruty Commercial zomng dlstnct would reqUIre a Type 111 Discretionary
Use reVIew, whIch would be reviewed by the Planmng CommIssion, m conjunctIOn WIth a
pubhc hearmg, pubhc notIce and the SIte Plan ReVIew declSlon The cntena ofSDC 4 7-195
(SpeCIal Development Standards for Pubhc/Pnvate Elementary/MIddle Schools) would be
apphcable along With the cntena for Site Plan ReView (SDC 5 17-100) The Site Plan
ReVIew and DIscretIOnary Use deCISIOns Will take approXimately 75 days after submittal of a
complete apphcatlOn
The dIfferences between the land use reqUirements for expandmg an eXlstmg child care
center and addmg a K-5 school would be generally the follOWIng
· A Type 111 Land Use apphcatlOn would be reqUired for the K-5 school versus a Type
II for the child care center A Type II apphcatlOn IS admInIstrative WIth pubhc notice
to surroundmg property owners and the deCISIOn made by the Dlfector It IS appealed
to the Planmng CommiSSIOn A Type 111 apphcatlOn IS REdCIEfvE D
1
JU' 1 i 00"3
1\ ~ (IJ...1
By:
~
"
May 19,2008
are made by the Plannmg CommissIOn after a public heanng The Planrung
ComnusslOn's declSlon shall mclude findmgs that address all of the applicable
approval cntena and any wntten or oral testImony The decIsIOn IS appealed to the
City Council and/or the State Land Use Board of Appeals
. The cntena for the slttmg of schools shall be as specified m SDC 4 7-195, Special
Use Standards for public and pnvate elementary or nuddle schools The child care
center has Special Use Standards hsted under SDC 4 7-125 The followmg are some
differences between the sectIOns
I Elementary schools are allowed no more than 65 percent of the site to be
covered by ImpervIOus surface There IS no percentage for child care centers
2 Elementary schools are reqUired to have a front yard landscaped setback of
20 feet and side and rear yard setbacks of 30 feet Child care centers m thiS
zomng dlstnct are reqUired to have a five foot front yard planted setback from
parkmg lots and 10 foot front yard setback from bUlldmgs These setbacks
are reqUired for the rear yard also adjacent to residentIal There are no side
setbacks
3 Parkmg for Elementary schools are two spaces for each teachmg statIOn plus
one space for each 100 square feet ofpubhc mdoor assembly area Child
care centers reqUire one drop-off space for each 700 square feet of gross floor
area plus one long term space for each 350 square feet of gross floor area
4 Elementary schools shall have a maximum bUlldmg height of35 feet Child
care centers don't have a maximum bUlldmg height Wlth the exceptIOn of
land wlthm 50 feet of property zoned Low or MedIUm DenSity Residential
Wlthm these 50 feet the maJnmum height IS 30 feet
5 Elementary schools are reqUired to submit a Traffic Impact Study Child care
centers are reqUired to submit a Traffic Impact Study If the use generates 500
or more velucle tnps per day or the Pubhc Words director determmes that It
one IS necessary to address known traffic safety Issues
A Site Plan ReView would be reqUired for either use The cntena of Site Plan ReView covers
Items such as storm water capacity and management, landscape reqUirements, utIlity
connectIOns, parkmg lot deSign and access Specifically, Site Plan ReView cntena 5 17-
125D reqUires comphance With ODOT access management standards for State Highways
Any change of use, expansion of use or new use would tngger rev!Cw and approval of a new
or revised access permit by ODOT
Modular umt placement on the site would be reViewed by the Plannmg DIVISIOn similar to
stick bUilt bUlldmgs proposed on the site although the BUlldmg DIVISIOn may have additIOnal
reqUirements for ADA regulatIons Don Moore would be able to answer any specific
bUlldmg code regulatIOns at (541) 726-3623
2
;;~mtes,son school presents cha~ 'r plea to state board The Reglster-GuP" Eugene, Ore
...,
I
Page I of2
The Register-Guard CltyReglOn City/RegIOn
Montessori school presents charter plea to state board
By Anne WIllIams
RECEIVED
The Register-Guard
PublIshed May f 6, 2008 12 OOAM
JUN 112008
By:
Members of the State Board of EducatIOn vOiced mIxed feelmgs Thursday about a
bId for a state-sponsored charter by ChIldren's ChOice Montesson, questlOnmg,
among other thmgs, Its decIsIOn to hold a rally last May protestmg the Spnngfield
School Board's refusal to sponsor the school
The protest, staged by ChIldren's ChOice students, parents and teachers dunng
school hours outsIde the Sprmgfield School Dlstnct Adm1IllstratlOn Bmldmg,
came two days after the demal and - accordmg to Bruce Smolmsky, the dIStrICt's
dIrector of education, who gave a bnef presentatIOn to the state board m Salem-
grew unruly He sard chrldren occasIOnally pounded on wmdows, yelled mto open
doors and at least once made an obscene gesture at employees workmg mSlde
State board member Nlkkr SqUire asked what school offiCials had done to address
the students' conduct "I'm more than a lIttle concerned about the closmg down of
school, the takmg of chIldren to the office," SquIre sard
Carla McQUillan, Cluldren's ChOice executive dIrector, sard m retrospect It wasn't
a good Idea But many of the then-50 students had been at the board meetmg, she
sard, and emotIOns were runrung lugh "The kIds came to school after the board
meetmg lIterally sobbmg," she sard "They were very dIstraught"
McQUillan also sard she regretted grantmg an mtervlew to conservative radIO talk
show host Lars Larson soon thereafter, where the rhetonc - only hiS, she sard-
grew heated and disrespectful toward the school dlstnct
ChIldren's ChOice, whICh opened as a pnvate school m 1993, turned to the state
last fall after the Spnngfield board's back-to-back demals of Its mltlal charter bId
and an appeal
The school sought charter status after operatmg for three years under contract WIth
the dlstnct as a pnvate alternatIve elementary school, takmg students - and a
maJonty of the state funds attached to them - VIa dlstnct referral New gUidance
from the state put the brakes on that practlce, glvmg the school the optIOn of
resummg operatlons as a pnvate school or seekmg a charter
The state department's charter school staff hasn't yet offered an up-or-down
recommendatIOn to the board, that WIll come next month, when the board IS
scheduled to vote on the matter But a revIew by staff and outSIde experts was
largely posltlve and dIdn't mentIOn last year's protest
http //wwwreglsterguardcom/csp/cms/sltes/dtems support vlewStory c1s?cld=101195&sl
5/19/2008
(-lontesson school presents cha""'r plea to state board The Reglster-Gua'~ Eugene, Ore
. .
A
Page 2 of2
There were some areas m which Children's ChOIce fell short For example, the
review sard, Its proposal lacked an adequate descnptlOn of Its governance, proof of
a suffiCient contmgency fund, clear poltcles for children With behaVIOr problems,
and eVidence that It can obtam the necessary land use and occupancy perrmts It
needs to expand without compromlsmg Its budget
McQUillan addressed each pomt and sard they either had been or would be easily
resolved However, she and Smolmsky had different mterpretatlons from the City
of Spnngfield on land use questIOns Smolmsky sard that had been a big concern
for the dlstnct, notmg that the property IS zoned for commercml use and approved
only as a day-care faclltty Children's ChOIce also runs a preschool on the prerruses
"These Issues are Important for us because they contam budgetary and tlme-ltne
Issues," he sard
But McQUillan sard she belt eves the process would be farrly qUick and
mexpenslve She asked the board to overrule a staff recommendatIOn that, should
the board opt to sponsor ChIldren's ChOice, It delay domg so for another year The
school allowed students to stay on for free thiS year m hopes of gettmg a charter
qUickly That means the school IS operatmg With Virtually no fundmg McQUillan
noted that, unltke a start-up charter school, Cluldren's ChOice IS already
establtshed and "91 percent ready to open our doors"
State board member Art Paz, who lIves m Sprmgfield, echoed others' concerns
about the 2007 rally but sard he belt eves Chtldren's ChOice IS well-regarded He
sard he wants clanty on the land-use Issues before he votes
A good deal of Thursday's discussIOn focused on the detenoratlOn of relations
between the dlstnct and Children's ChOice Even If the school operates under state
sponsorship, the dlstnct would still have to work with Children's ChOice, as It IS
reqUired by law to provide specml educatIOn services
"What was troublmg to me was to learn of the degree to which the adversarml
relatIOnship ramped up," sard Reynolds School Dlstnct Supenntendent Terry
Knelsler, an adViser to the board and to Supenntendent of Publtc Instruction Susan
Castillo
Castillo, lIke some board members, sard she wornes about the department's ablltty
to prOVide the necessary oversight for more state-sponsored charter schools, given
ItS workload The board currently sponsors three such schools
But Kaaren Heikes, a charter school consultant asslstmg ChIldren's ChOice, sard
that wouldn't be a legitimate reason to turn down a charter bid, gIVen that the only
recourse for schools unjustifiably turned down by dlstncts IS to seek board
sponsorship
CODvril!ht I!;) 2007 - The Rel!lster-Guard. EUl!ene. Orel!on. USA
http //wwwreglsterguard com/csp/cms/sltes/dt cms support vlewStory cls?cld=101195&sl
5/19/2008
Page I of2
J_./
MILLER LIz
From
Sent
To
Cc
Subject
Attachments
GRILE Bill
Friday, May 16, 2008 8 51 AM
MARX Sandra
DONOVAN James, MILLER LIZ, TAMULONIS John, MOTT Gregory
Meeting re 5005 Main Street School Siting Issues
sps doc
RECEIVED
JUN 11 Z008
By:.
Sandy
Please find 30 minutes next week for me to meet with Jim Donovan (and LIz Miller If Jim feels she should attend)
and John Tamulonls The tOpiC for our meeting IS the Issue described above It appears there may be a zOning
violation concerning the subject property, and that the City has provided conflicting information about permitted
land uses at the site We need to sort this out and be sure to speak with a unified vOice Please copy this
morning's R-G article on the Montessori School to Jim D so that he will have It for the file Thanks
Bill
From GRILE Bill
Sent Friday, May 16, 2008 8 42 AM
To' SMOLNISKY Bruce (SPS)
Subject: RE SOOS Main Street School Siting Issues
Thanks Bruce Nancy Golden mentioned some of this to me last evening The memo provided by planning staff
speaks for Itself and we'll be prepared to address any questions related to It Thanks for the heads up
Bill
From: Bruce Smolnlsky [mallto bsmolnls@sps lane edu]
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 8 26 AM
To: GRILE Bill
Subject: Re S005 Main Street School Siting Issues
BIII--Although you may have seen the artIcle In the Register-Guard this mornIng, I wanted to
give you an update regardIng our hearIng With the State Board of EducatIOn
First of all, thank you and your staff for the clear memo that descnbed the Issues Involved With
changIng the Montesson from a day care to a K-5 school
At the meetmg, the followmg dungs were discussed
I I shared the current site plan listIng Monteson as a day care I shared your memo that outlmed
that they needed a few thIngs done to legally open a school With the proper penmts and zomng
(Art Paz IS a member ofthe State Board of EducatIOn, so he understood the ImplicatIOns of what
I presented) I stated that there did not seem to be any eVidence that the Montesson leadership
had requested or received proper perrmts to open a K-5 school and that they rmght be m VIOlatIOn
of City zomng codes I stated that our concerns were that the Montesson leadership had not even
begun the fIrst step In what we believed was needed to open a school on that Site, which was the
DIM
5/20/2008
Page 2 of2
.
.
2 Carla McQUillan, the director of the Montesson, saId that CIty of Spnngfield planners told her
to use the designatIOn of day care and It would not be a problem She had been holdmg
Kmdergarten and first grade classes on that SIte nearly smce she opened
3 Upon further questIOnmg Carla stated that she had called John Tamuloms last week and he
had assured her that It would not be a problem to change zomng and that It was probably 4-6
weeks and she should be ready to open m the fall
Anyway, I wanted to alert you that Oregon Department of EducatIOn staffWlll most lIkely be
callIng to clanfY who IS really correct, the dIstnct or Montesson
You may also hear from the Montesson leadershIp about what they need to do because Art Paz
was clear wIth Carla that, as a practlcmg archItect, he would be gomg to BIll Gnlle about zomng
and plannmg before he would ask John Tamuloms
I am sorry to cause you problems, but thiS IS a big deal on the bIg-deal-o-meter for us
Call me at 726-3255, If you have questIOns
Thanks agam for all your help
Bruce
On May 8, 2008, at 3 34 PM, GRILE Bill wrote
Bruce
If you need additional information, I suggest scheduling a process we call a "Development
Issues Meeting," which Involves representatives from Planning, Public Works, Fire and Life
Safety, etc I hope the information we have provided IS helpful
Thanks
Bill
<sps doc>
5/20/2008
Page ] of]
.
RECEIVED
JONES Terry (Tara)
From
Sent
To
Cc
Subject
GRILE Bill
Friday, May 16,2008 1 42 PM
JONES Terry (Tara)
DONOVAN James, MILLER LIZ, TAMULONIS John, LAUDATI Nlel
RE Children's Choice Montessori
JUN 112008
By:
Thanks Tara John T and I discussed this brlefiy a little while ago I agree with JT that we should start plugging
Mr Laudatl Into our discussion as there IS potential newsworthiness here
Bill
From: JONES Terry (Tara)
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 1 39 PM
To: DONOVAN James
Cc: MILLER LIZ, TAMULONIS John, JONES Terry (Tara), GRILE Bill
Subject' Children's ChOice Montessori
Dear Jim,
I spoke to Carla McQUillan Children's ChOice Montessori today She understands that she needs a
Discretionary Use Permit, but she IS confused about the process to go through to establish her
elementary school Since so many people have been Involved and the proposal has changed, I thought
you should be the final arbiter on thiS Here IS the situation as I understand It
. She IS no longer Interested In expanding onto the lot next door
. The eXisting bUilding IS about 5700 sf and has 5 classrooms
. She IS certified by the State for 120 kids (It doesn't matter If they are preschool or elementary
kids)
. Since 1996 she has had mostly preschoolers, but has also had elementary classes Currently
she has 30 elementary kids
. She would like to move the preschoolers to her other center on 5th Street over the next couple of
years and have elementary kids In those slots She proposes eventually have from 112 - 120
elementary students and no pre-schoolers
. ASide from changing the tOilets from little kid Sized ones to regular Sized ones, she doesn't
anticipate any changes to the bUilding
I told her thiS change to an elementary school would reqUire a Discretionary Use Permit, but If no
changes are proposed to the bUilding and Site, would a Site Plan ReView be reqUired too? The standards
for elementary schools In 4 7-195 indicate that It shall be a Type III procedure and address 10 specific
standards It's not clear to me that It reqUires gOing through a Type II as well If a Type IS reqUired could
It be a Major Modification of their eXisting Site Plan ReView? Also, because they are In an eXisting
bUilding, they may not be able to meet some of the standards (e g 30' landscaped Side setbacks) IS there
some leeway based on the location of the eXisting bUildings?
Please call Carla when you have a chance Her number IS 726-2654 Thanks'
John T Just told me that you are meeting on thiS With Bill and John next Wednesday maybe It would be a
good Idea to chat With her prior to your meeting
7ArA
5/] 6/2008
I
I
!
----
----------
- I
lTV/
\j
"--~......
t,
,
Childrenls
ifq lF01?Q1q!r}} - '~ iEi,\
t,.-u,; ~.__A, ICI" _ 'I
" '-I... ,,,,,,,," ~ PI_
:Montesso7'1 Pre-Sdioof ant! 'EfJJmentary Program.s
5005 :Mam Street * SpnnefieW, OCJ(9147 8
541-726-2654 * 541-726-5527 (Pax)
Carra ~cQ.utf[an
([)1,fl'ctQr
FAX COVER SHEET
Date:
,~ -'I-DR
To:
John Ttll7'wJon,'S
Phone:
7:x;,-Dto:5~
Fax No.:
7:;10 - d~(,,3
~/IL ){c{)u.J !ltftJr.
From:
Number of Pages (including cover): Co
John - Ihese tu'L U)pi~ o-P ~Ol'!"f ",....0 e:s+i~ f-t'1V-eStRJ. ~....... +\..... c;..l~
In l:J.e.c IQQ'5 ~ov.- wit\ 'Xe- ~+- i-he.~~s "'Yl_ (a.lC\.I..\c....~ 0..-:' C1. ~c.h.oo\, Thc.J- W1..s ~r
rYllj d€sc:dpl-icn o-Q- c-JY"l.sd,ooI1 e..1.e.\'l.U..~~rj4c.111~ AlSo - -fhe.Y"~\5 t\-te,. \e.\kr
~ trc>vn Le:.on.ll.l'"J.. o.b:. -the.. (UaJCIA-I11-110h . -n-..~ se.c:..ond p(A~e. Y)"lc:J.:.es a~"E..I1<..L +.:,
UACIILS'5 r~rl:-- WYio...t- we. reoJlj (\eed 1 ~ 0-- le..\.kr -th/loJ 5ll:3 ':> Ul~ CW'1 hCl...v~ \ l"L
elemen+tu'j '5tw.le.nt-s o...+- 5::xY::; ~V'I Str....e..+, we o...fe. oMRltL+\Lj s+o..+e. \\u.~~cL
~l'" \20 ~h
RECEIVED
JUN 112008
By:
iOOi ~b" c5t<<<nI
" .__/..M ~AC>' ,,-. -I'
C"I/.Ut'..~ "tC7", 7/'//(
ff~'1 'A1-Let {'';''''r..wu/
7~t~qr<" 'flI'A'1 q74(}4
70J' '/{,~.,/ f rt' ,5_/
\'iu,,"''''' <{f'J<Jc </740.'
) j 04 Q'1
1) 22
'C!'503 72b .lc,"
C)P~J) J)f' ..,1:....
~(l(lJ
""'/::1..
FAX INFO
TO
'JArJ1t
_''-Arp..A
--- - ~- --..
OAGArJI::,\', "_,.
-- - ---
----~ - ------ - ----,--- - ---~-
rAX NdMBER
-- -~ -----
-l'11 - 142,'3
~ ------- - --
FROM
tJAt\'1~
,___-r72.0:;L. ,-GYe::}~8e-d-__ ______.
MESSAGE
- -- -..- -~ - -~- -~ -- ~---
-- ---~~ - ._---~---
- .-- --._-
---- -~- - ---- -- .--
---- ---- ---~---
---- - -.
-.- - - - ------ ~-
.-- ~~
~
,JUr.1GER Of F<'..,E,_ ..-:__
"Net UD,rJG L'J JbR S." r 11
--- - ----
I , f".>' "
" \ " , 'Vir. , St , ',I i
, " I , ,
, , , - 1 h.
::, " II:' , 'cl ~~ 7 I I /
-; ,'j!
lL ()4 95 15 22
'5'50,1 ; 26 Jb89
Sf'tlJ [)}I SER
t:..:::>f II-1AT~
CITY OF
SPRINGFTCL~ SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT
WORKSHE~T
"J,J.r~c. or:-:. ((Jr.. Frl.r~IY
CARLA
')
,7
.....l:.r'l I "r '
__----I...!_ ........ I. ~ ~
LOCATION
5~o5
;/IAlt-I ST
DEVELOPMENT TYPE
~ L\-.I;x:,\-
BLiILDING SIZE
i OT ::iIZE
1
ST~QM D.2PI~~AG.E ,~..,\~~\"3 I
_ 3:.800 COt
.... ~"'I ~ ....1
1I1PEfi'Il0US SO FT ~5oo
/
~n~
X :0 21 PER SQ Fl
+-
~ SANITARY SF~rR-(IT(
N0 OF FFU' S
(See Reverse)
36
X $43 43 PER PFU
3 TRANSPORTAJrON
NO OF UNITS X TRIP RATE X COST PER TRIP
0.1>\
w
X $437 9,3
x
x
X .$437 93
x
X $431 93
4 ~ANTTARY SF~P-MWMC
r,O OF PFU S 36 X $lB 75 PE;;' RFI) ... $In MWl'tC ADMIN FEE
(Use PFU Total From [tern 2 Ilbo'leJ
1'1,'/1 (<{ED[T IF APPLlCl\5LE (StE R[VET5E)
JO r t,1 - MWtjL:illS.
5 ADM[NISTAiIVF FEES
"US fUT hL ("DO [TEI~~ 1 2 :: & 4)
3ASt CHARGE (SL'B 'DTAL A80VU 'i O~
E6'i1M~
0,' f: !!:!~'i/'i~
Troy MeA 111 ,''Or
sac (oordlPator
T"~AI Slir,
->-
..
(g) 002
JOB NO
CHARGE
FA)' =-
1'1,-il-{!>?'
SQ Ft
~'!53"'?~
(5 I, -)
'- ~
-~
C:;,(.,se 11:)
-.....;. --'
-- .,"'~
G 2~ Z -- )
---- --
s
$
<'D
$ 7 Z'-- -:--
73
S 1'3'2.-
~ .,a<("77~
'..... .-/
i_'!;.':!.S5 ~
~~:-~
'd.~;;~:;;-- ,
C. 'G
:~76_
, ~-
I~.'
PfJ3LIC ~~1"'11l1 C; VEf\t.RTMCN"
" '
/~ " I 1\ ~)'
"
r:-o~ ~c.,-,z. e.€.<CROS.
~
Ms Carla McQuillan
ChIldren's ChOice Montesson School
5005 Main Street
Spnngfield, Oregon 97478
Re SDC Charges
De'll Ms McQu1l1an
I have attempted to recalculate your total SDC charges, based on a revised transportahon
charge at the amount mdlcated In the traffic analysIs submItted on October 2, 1996
It would appear that the total charge IS $8787 29, broken down as follows
Storm Dramage
SaOltary Sewer - City
Transportal1on
SaOltary Sewer-MWMC (net)
Admmlstratlve Fee
$) ,84723
1,52150
4,390 76
609 36
41844
On that baSIS, the amount remammg due, after your prevIOUS payment of $5,000, IS
.'
$3,78729 Please understand that these final calculatIOns are subject to review by Troy
McAll1ster when he returns to the office on Monday, October 7 He wliI adVIse you promptly If I
have made any errors In calculatIOn
I
Very truly yours,
\..~
d'- C>)
Leonard oodwln
Sentor Management Analyst
"
'I" \
'- '~V /1L' ,
Job Number 960980
PXXTURE UNXT CALCULATION TABLE
Fixture Type
Bathtub
Drinking Founta1n
Floor Dra~n
Interceptors FOr Grease/O~l/Sol~ds/Etc
Inteaeptors For Sand/Auto Wash/Etc
Laundry Tub/~lotheswasher
Clotheswasher - 3 Or More
Receptor For Refrlgerator/water Station/Eta
Receptor for Commerclal Slnk/D18hwaaher/Eta
Shower, S~n9le Stall
Shower I Gang
S~nk, Bar, Commerc1al, Residentlal KItchen
Urlnal, Stall/wall
Wash BaB~n/Lavatory, Single
Water Closet, Pub11c Installat10n
Water Closet, Pr1vate
M~Bcellaneous
TOTAL FIXTURE UNITS ~
CREDIT CALCULATION TABLE Based on assessed value
after annexat10n date, cred1ta
(calculations are by $1000)
Year Annexed 1969
Credlt For Parcel Or Land Only If Applicable
Improvement (~f after annexat10n da~e)
Number of
Ne'W' Fixt.ux-e
Unlt
Equ~valent.
Page 2
F;l..xture
Uni1:.s
o
I
o
o
o
2
o
o
o
o
o
4
o
7
o
20
o
34
If 1mproVementa occured
are calcula~ed separately
l.04 10
o 00
S104.10
(If land value 18 multlplled by 1 then the parcel/land credlt ~s not accurate )
o
1
o
o
o
1
o
o
o
o
o
2
o
7
o
5
o
2
1
2
3
6
2
6
1
3
2
2
2
1
6
4
30,000
x
3 47
o
x
J 47 .
CRJl:DIT TOTAL .
, -
CITY OV SPRINGFIELD SYSTEMS DBVELOP~ CHARGE
(C~._....^CIAL I INDUSTRIAL)
Name or Company. LEWIS/SALLY EDMONDS
Locatlon 5005 MAIN ST
Developernent Type C BUlldlng Sloe
1 STORM DRAINAGE
Irnpervlous Sq Ft lOX 8552
2 SANITARY SEWER
Number 01: PFUs
(see Page 2)
- CITY
lOX 34
~~(;.
3, TRANSPORTATION /'
Number Of UnltS X ~ Trlp
lOX 70 X 0 13~
~ 'S1\.J()6...r"
Transportatlon Total
'flU'fl'l L
l1-ate
X
4 SANITARY SBWER - ~c
Number 01: proe
34
X
X
Per Pro +
20 690 +
MWMC CREDIT If Appllcable Ieee Page 2)
TOTAL - MWMC SDC
SUBTOTAL - (Add I~ema I, 2, 3 ~ 41
5 ADMINISTRATIVE FESS
Base Charge (Subtotal Above) X
o 50
TOTAL SIlC
Revlewed By TROY MCALLISTER
X
0216
Job No 960980
Lot Size
Per Sq Ft
Per Pro
<;.,...0") S~ .." <.II;
Me Go"I.."
x
44 ?5
X
Cost Per Trlp
451 26
$4,390 76
MWMC Adrnl.n F'ee
10 00
Date O? /25/96
Page 1
Sq Ft
$1,847 23
$1,521 50
~n;:o '*/9(0)
$4,3~0 76
~
$713 46
$104 10
$609 36
$8,368 85
$418 44
$8,7B7.::a9
May 7, 2008
225 FIFTH STREET
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
(541) 726,3753
FAX (541) 726,3689
WWWCI springfield or us
Ms Carla McQUlllan
Clnldren's ChOIce Montesson School
522 65th Street
Spnngfield, OR 97478
Dear Ms McQuillan
The CIty of Spnngfield has prevIOusly reVIewed and approved two land use applIcatIOns
for 5005 Mam Street, Map & Tax Lot 170233324500 In 1996 a Type II SIte Plan
ReVIew (Journal Number 1996-05-101) was approved for a clnld care center and m 1998
a Type II SIte Plan ReVIew (Journal Number 1998-06-0127) was approved for an
addItIOn to the clnld care center
The sIte IS zoned Commumty CommercIal WIth Commumty CommercIal zomng abuttmg
to the east and west and Low DensIty ReSIdentIal abuttmg to the south A proposal to
expand an eXIstIng cluld care center m a Commumty CommercIal zomng dIstrIct would
reqUITe a Type II Major SIte Plan ReVIew ModIficatJ.on mcorporatmg all SIte Plan
ReVIew cntena (Spnngfield Development Code (SDC) 5 17-100) and the specIal use
standards for clnld care centers (SDC 4 7-125) A proposal to add a publIc or pnvate
elementary school or ill1ddle school m a Commumty CommercIal zomng dIstrIct would
reqUITe a Type III DIscretIOnary Use reVIew, winch would be reVIewed by the Plannmg
CormrusslOn, m conjunctJ.on WIth a publIc heanng and SIte Plan ReVIew The cntena of
SDC 4 7-195 (SpecIal Development Standards for PublIc/Pnvate ElementaryfM1ddle
Schools) would be applIcable along WIth the cntena for SIte Plan ReVIew (SDC 5 17-
100)
Please gIve me a call at (541) 726-2301 If you have any questIOns or would lIke to reVIew
the preVIous land use files for tins property The above referenced code sectIOns from the
Spnngfield Development Code can be reVIewed on our webslte www CI snnnmeJd or us
Smcerely,
dl1 to( ~
LIZ MIller
Planner I
cc John Tamuloms, Econoill1c Development Manager
Jrm Donovan, Plannmg Supemsor
,
MILLER LIz
From
Sent
To
Cc
Subject
DONOVAN James
Wednesday, May 07,2008 12 59 PM
GRILE Bill
MILLER LIZ
FW CHILDREN'S CHOICE MONTESSORI SCHOOL
BG,
I wlll ask L1Z to put somethlng together that relterates my lDltlal response lD memo form
for your reVlew by Frlday
L1Z,
Just the eXlstlng and proposed uses wlth cltatlons for the DU and slte plan reVlew We
don't want to get too much luto the ffilSSlon creep and hlstory of the sltuatlon unless we
absolutely have to respond to the owners wlth the facts
Thank you Ll Z,
JD
-----Orlglnal Message-----
From GRILE Blll
Sent Tuesday, May 06, 2008 6 18 PM
To DONOVAN James
Cc SMOLNISKY Bruce (SPS)
SubJect RE CHILDREN'S CHOICE MONTESSORI SCHOOL
Jlm
Wlll you or one 0 your planners please put together a reasonably detalled rsponse to
Bruce's request (stated below)? Granted, It would take a speclflc development proposal to
glve a speclflc response However, I do belleve we can put together a reasonable response
based on hypothet1cals
Please also copy the response to me when you send lt to Bruce
Thanks
Blll
RECEIVED
-----Orlg1nal Message-----
From Bruce Smoln1sky <bsrnoln1s@sps lane edu>
Sent Tuesday, May 06, 2008 5 30 PM
To GR1LE B1ll <bgr1le@c1 spr1ngf1eld or us>
SubJect Re CHILDREN'S CHOICE MONTESSORI SCHOOL
JUN 11 2008
By:
B11l--1 have a couple of questlons that w1ll help me prepare for a meet1ng w1th the State
Board of Educat10n regardlng th1S charter appl1cat1on
My purpose 1S to p01nt out to the State Board that there w1ll be some problems w1th th1S
charter plan
Can you help descr1be to me What are the dlfferences between the land
use/zonlng requ1rements for a preschool/day care that the Montessor1 currently
w1th the C1ty of Spr1ngf1eld and the requlrements 1f that school became a K-5?
th1ngs would need to be done?
has on f1le
What
I belleve that the Montessorl owners belleve that they wlll be able to brlng In 1-3
portable/modular bU11d1ngs to funct10n as classrooms 1f they are allowed to expand Can
you tell me what would be requlred to br1ng more portables for classrooms on to that
current slte?
1
Wlll ODOT want to get lnto thlS lssue Slnce the K-5 school lS on Maln Street?
thanks,
Bruce
On Apr 30, 2008, at 4 59 PM, GRILE Blll wrote
>
> Bruce
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Blll
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Tel 541 726 3619
> Fax 541 726 3689
> Emall bgrlle@cl sprlngfleld or us
> Internet http //www Cl sprlngfleld or us/dsd/dept_dsd htm
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Blll,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I would strongly suggest a DIM lf more lnfo lS requlred for the slte
> plan reVlew and publlC hearlng procedures
Your call to me was prudent Plannlng Supervlsor Jlm Donovan answers
the questlon, below In short, there are a number of lssues that
would need to be addressed and carefully consldered Jlffi suggests a
"DIM," WhlCh lS a "Development Issues Meetlng" The fee for these lS
around $500 and what happens at them lS that plannlng and englneerlng
staff answer up to flve or SlX questlons presented by potentlal
appllcants I'd llke to walve the fee for a Team Sprlngfleld partner,
but we've not done thlS In the past and I lack authorlty to do so (as
does Glno) However, we ALWAYS glve tender lovlng care to
appllcatlons submltted by Team Sprlngfleld Partners It does appear
that dlscretlonary / appealable land use actlons would be requlred to
expand the school A DIM would allow you to conflrm thlS and narrow
the lssues
I'm off to LA tomorrow afternoon and back late Tuesday You and I can
talk then lf you have questlons Or, ln the alternatlve, feel free to
contact Jlm and go dlrectly to the source Jlm's emall lS above, and
hlS phone number lS 726-3660 You'll flnd hlm especlally helpful If
you do declde to call
RECEIVED
Blll Grlle, Dlrector
Development Servlces Department
Clty of Sprlngfleld
225 Flfth Street
Sprlngfleld, OR 97477
JUN 112008
By:
<unknown glf>From DONOVAN James
Sent Tuesday, Aprll 29, 2008 4 41
To GRILE Blll
Cc MILLER Llz
SubJect RE CHILDREN'S
PM
CHOICE MONTESSORI SCHOOL
The eXlstlng faclllty was approved as a Montessorl daycare and
preschool The proposal to expand lnto a prlvate charter grade school
wlll requlre a slte plan reVlew for cornpllance wlth speclal deslgn
standards and a publlC hearlng for Dlscretlonary Use The slte faces
challenges for ODOT access, lmpervlous coverage and requlred setbacks
2
>
> JD
> <unknown glf>From GRILE Blll
> Sent Monday, Aprll 28, 2008 5 25 PM
> To DONOVAN James
> SubJect CHILDREN'S CHOICE MONTESSORI SCHOOL
> Importance Hlgh
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Jlm
Bruce Smolnlsky, an admlnlstrator at SPS (726-3255) called to ask me
about any 20010g requlrements that would affect expandlng the
Montessorl School located at 5005 Maln St They would llke to double
the bUlldlng and partner wlsh SPS ThlS 18 a questlons from a Team
Sprlngfleld partner and at thls pOlnt doesn't merlt a full DIM I
slmply would llke to know, III summary, what 18 the 200109 for the
subJect property and ffilght they be able to expand? And If so, would
thlS be slte plan reVlew or what? Please let me know the answer by
Wednesday Thanks I
Blll
Note The lnformatlon contalned 10 thlS message may be prlvlleged and confldentlal and
protected from dlsclosure If the reader of thlS message 15 not the lntended reClplent,
or an employee or agent responslble for dellverlng thlS message to the lntended reClplent,
you are hereby notlfled that any dlssemlnatlon, dlstrlbutlon or copYlng of thlS
communlcatlon lS strlctly prohlblted If you have recelved thlS communlcatlon In error,
please notlfy us lmmedlately by replYlng to the message and deletlng It from your
computer
Thank you
SPRINGFIELD SCHOOL DISTRICT 19
RECEIVED
JUN 112008
By:
3
l'
, 'j'~"
\ I
"We've g, verythmg m place to move forward
- CARLA McQUilLAN, DIRECTOR/CHILDREN S CHOICE MONTESSORI SCHOOL
School will make case to state for charter
The fate of Springfield's ChIldren's ChoIce Montessori IS up
to state offiCials after the school board rejected It~ request
By ANNE WILLIAMS
The RegIster-Guard
Commg up on a year smce the
Sprmgfield School Board rejected
Its charter bid, Ctuldren's ChOice
Montesson School will fmally make
Its case for state sponsorship to the
State Board of EducatIOn on Thurs-
day
But the school doesn't have the
clear Signal it had expected from the
Oregon Department of EducatIOn
'"\
J
,
Contrary to the norm, a staff
report to the state board released
last week offers no up-Dr-down ree.
ommendatlOn on whether It should
agree to sponsor the school, saymg
that Will come only after the board
has had a chance to heal from rep-
resentatives of Children's ChOice
and the Sprmgfield School Dlstnct
thiS week
"That surpnsed us," school direc-
tor Carla McQuillan Said And, more
dlsappomtmg to her, It suggests that
'\
,
If the board approves state sponsor-
ShiP, it wouldn't take effect untJf
2009-10
That's problemal1c, McQUIllan
sard, as the school has been I1mp
mg along With essenllally no fund.
mg m anllcipallon of gettmg a state
charter
Ctuldren's ChOice operated under
contract With the Sprmgfield rnstnct
for three years as a pnvate alterna
tIve elementary school, takmg stu
dents - and a majonty of the state
funds attached to !bem - Via refer
ral from the dlstnct New dlrec.
llves from the state put the brakes
Pleaw turn to CHARTER, Page C4
,
.. mgand
ld wastewater systems
ue Alley, between Tyler
s 682 5882
ommlSSlon - 6 p m
trlum BUlldmg, 99 West
pdates, mflll compat
am, opportUnity Sltmg
:hool District Budget
7 pm, EducatIOn Center
>e St Consideration of
ct budget 687 3309
,001 Board and Budget
. 7 pm, District OffIce,
Drive Shasta Middle
tatlon, report on Bethel
:e Center, approve loan
Jnd to debt service fund,
superintendent evalua
superintendent's budget
ew of 2008 09 district
180
~rea Neighbors Board
lashmgton Park Recre
2025 Washmgton St
TUESOAY
eople's Utility District
:0 pm, EPUD offices,
Loop Road ActIon on
11th savmgs plan amend
l
!;Saara Of {;OmmlSsloners - Noon
McNutt Room City Hall, 777 Pearl St
Dlscu" of mter]unsdictional priOri
tIes 6 J82
Crest Drive Citizens Board - 7
P m Morse Ranch, 595 Crest Dnve
345 3110
Jefferson Westslde Neighbors -
7 pm, FIrst United MethodIst Church
1376 Olive St 343 4309
Southeast Neighbors - 7 pm,
Hilyard Commumty Center, 2580
Hilyard St 3457421
Lane County
TODAY
Animal Services AdVISOry Com.
mlttee - 5 30 p m Hams Hall, Public
Service BUilding, 125 E EIghth Ave,
Eugene 682 4035
TUESDAY
Jomt Elected OffiCials - Noon,
McNutt Room Eugene City Hall, 777
Pearl 5t House Bill 3337, TransPlan,
pubhc safety 682 4203
East Lane 5011 and Water Conser
vatlon District - 3 pm 780 Bailey Hili
Road SUIte No 5, Eugene 465 6443,
Ext 102
Budget Committee - 5 15 pm,
Hams Hall Public Service BUIlding, 125
E Eighth Ave, Eugene Public safety
682 4203
,t
~Ixth Ave t.ugene bl:SL j~ol
Lane Rural Fire and Il"scue - 6
P m StatIon 51, 299" lllett St,
Eugene AudIt contract, to. tlve (non
public) session on labor negotiatIons
688 1770 Ext 500
Santa Clara Fire District - 7 p m
3939 River Road Eugene 688 3697
Marcola
TODAY
Marcola School District board -
6 pm Mohawk High School library
38300 Wendling Road Executive
(nonpubhc) session Labor negotla
tlons, personnel 7 pm Regular meet-
Ing Mohawk High block schedule,
faCIlity planmng committee report
933 2512
Oakland
TODAY
City Councll- 5 pm, City Hall, 637
N E Locust St Executive (nonpubllc)
sesSIon to evaluate the Job performance
of the cIty clerk (541) 459 4531
Pleasant HIli
TUESDAY
Rural Fire Protection District
- 7 pm, FIre Station at 36024 High
way 58 PaYing of the monthly bIlls
747 8016
I
City CounCil - 5 30 p m Library
Meeting Room City Hall 225 FIfth St
Work session WlldBh Th~"} reor
gaOlzabon plan ~ wastewa~er fP..es
726 3700
Sutherlm
TODAY
City Council - 7 p m CIVIC Audl-
tonum, 175 E Everett St Public hearing
on water system development charges,
dIscuss Southslde Parkway COrridor
Plan, $350000 housing rehabilitation
grant (541) 459 2856
Veneta
TODAY
Fern Ridge School Board - 5 30
pm, Veneta Elementary School, 88131
Terrltonal Road Work session on ElmIra
High School athletiCS 2008 09 staffing
and actuary analYSIS of early retIrement
benefits, executIve (nonpublic) session
on negotiations for c1asslfled staff
953 2253
Yoncalla
TODAY
School Board - 7 pm, Commu
OIty Center, 400 Main St little Theater
roof bid, superintendent search (541)
849 2782
,
lJ
,. ~
:GION.,Mo~.Yi MAY 12, 2008
Charter: School lost funding, but
donations have helped keep it open
Contmued from Page C1
on that pracllce, promptmg
the school to seek Sprmgfield
dIstnct sponsorshIp as a char-
ter school
The Sprmgfield board
rejected the school's charter
request last May and turned
down a subsequent appeal
the fOllowmg month, cltmg
concerns about a potenllally
adverse unpact on regular
dlstnct schools That left the
school's 50-plus students with
no clear plan for last fall
McQwllan and her board
deCIded to allow eXlstmg first
through fIfth-graders, many
of whom ale from low-lllcome
fanulIes, to contmue tmllon-
free, even though there was no
more state money COmlllg ill
They've kept things afloat
by seeking donatIOns and trun-
mmg expenses, but McQuillan
was expectmg state charter
school sponsorship - or at
least a decIsIOn - by Janu
ary
Teresa SchneIderman, an
educatlOll speCialIst wIth the
department, said the Issues
were complex with Children's
Choice A change m the way
the department contracts with
outSide reviewers also delayed
thmgs a bit, she said
She added that prevIOus
expenence has taught the
state board that takmg on such
sponsorshIp IS a complIcated
process with many details to
ITon out, such as makmg sure
the department IS covered by
msUl ance
McQUIllan plans to explam
the school's plight to the board
Thursday, hopmg for an expe
d1ted tlmelme
'I will emphaSize how
adversely that would affect our
teachers and students, and how
thIs process has already taken
longer than certamly we were
told It would take," she sard
She noted that, unhke a
charter school that's m the
planmng stages, Children's
ChOIce has eXisted as a pll-
vate school smce 1993 "We've
got everylhmg m place to move
forward," she said
Children's ChOIce, which
currently has 30 students
m grades one through five,
hopes to eventually serve 112
students It offers a hands,on,
child dIrected educahon that
IS modeled after the philoso-
phy of Italian educator Mana
MontessoTI
Last year the Spnngfield
board also turned down a
would-be charter school, the
Academy of Teachmg and
Learmng, which would have
offered a multicultural, mulh-
lmgual, SOCIal JustlCe~centered
educatIOn to 300 to 400 stu-
dents m kmdergarten through
grade 12
While the ATL deSign team
had mtended to appeal to the
state board, co project director
Johnny Lake said the group
had qualms about locatmg m
Sprmgfield, given the senti-
ment agamst It He Said theY'Ie
now consIdermg ahgnmg WIth
other dIstncts and will focus
more on theIr next steps ill
commg months "We still are
pretty comlll1tted to startmg a
school," he saId
The state board has spon-
sored only tbree charter
schools prevIOusly, one of
which has smce closed and
one of which opened last fall
m Portland
Charter schools are tax-
payer-funded and operate With
greater autonomy than regular
publIc schools
They receIve a portlOn of
the state's per-pupil fundIng
- 80 percent for elementary
and IDlddle school students
and 95 percent for those m
high school
BRIEFLY
METRO
Bill Clinton to visit
ballroom on UO campus
Former President Bill
Clmton IS scheduled to VISit
Eugene tomght as part of a
two-day swmg through the
state
He IS scheduled to
appear at 8 15 P 10 at the
Erb Me100nal Umon Ball-
room on the Umverslty of
Oregon Campus to enCOUl.
age resIdents to cast theIr
ballots for hiS wue's presI-
dential bid
Clmton will make stops
on behalJ of hIS we, Sen
Hillary Clmton, m Astona,
Tillamook, Newport, Corval,
hs and Eugene today
The campargn said the
Newport stop will be at 330
pm at the Port of Newport
Marma & RV Park, 2120 SE
Manne SCience Dr
All events are free and
open to the pubhc No llck-
ets are reqUIred, Clm,
ton campaIgn organIZers
announced
REGION
Vehicle collision closes
highway near Leaburg
A head.on collIsIOn
between two vehicles about
one nule east of Leaburg
closed both lanes of Hlgh-
1XH1V ,?_~ ~hn"t n ~
THE REGlSTElt-GJ.:.:!!'il CITY/RI
~,
I( '" -:.:,.... "
Former PreSIdent SII. Clinton rallIes support for hIS WIfe, Dem!
Sen HIllary Rodham Clinton, durmg a campazgn stop m Baker I
FOJ.ll1er president ~
Eastern Oregon wJ
May 7, 2008
225 FIFTH STREET
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
(541) 726,3753
FAX (541) 726-3689
WWWCI sprrngfleld or us
Ms Carla McQuillan
Cluldren's Choice Montesson School
522 65th Street
Spnngfield, OR 97478
Dear Ms Mcquillan
The City of Spnngfield has preVlously reVlewed and approved two land use apphcatlOns
for 5005 MaID Street, Map & Tax Lot 17023332 4500 In 1996 a Type II Site Plan
ReVlew (Journal Number 1996-05-101) was approved for a cluld care center and m 1998
a Type II Site Plan ReVlew (Journal Number 1998-06-0127) was "!,!,wied for an
addItIOn to the cluld care center
The site IS zoned Commumty Commercial With Commumty Commercial zonmg abuttmg
to the east and west and Low DenSity Resldennal abuttmg to the south A proposal to
expand an eXlstmg cluld care center m a Commumty Commercial zonmg district would
reqwre a Type II Major Site Plan ReVlew Mod1ficanon mcorporatmg all Site Plan
ReVlew cntena (Spnngfield Development Code (SDC) 5 17-100) and the special use
standards for cluld care centers (SDC 4 7-125) A proposal to add a pubhc or pnvate
elementary school or rmddle school m a Commumty Commercial zonmg dIstnct would
reqwre a Type III Dlscrenonary Use reVlew, winch would be reVlewed by the Plannmg
ComrmsslOn, m conJuncnon With a pubhc heanng and Site Plan ReVlew The cntena of
SDC 4 7-195 (Special Development Standards for Pubhc/Pnvate ElementarylM1ddle
Schools) would be apphcable along With the cntena for Site Plan Review (SDC 5 17-
100)
Please give me a call at (541) 726-2301 rfyou have any questJ.ons or would hke to reVlew
the preVlous land use files for tins P'vp"'~Y The above referenced code secnons from the
Spnngfield Development Code can be reVlewed on our webslte www Ct snrmirlield,or us
Smcerely, RECEIVED
(/,0 {i{ ~ JUN 112008
By:
LlZ Miller
Planner I
cc John Tamuloms, Econormc Development Manager
Jnn Donovan, Plannmg SuperVlsor
04/2Q/08 TUE 17 01 FAX 5417263689
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
~001
**~******************
*** TX REPORT ***
******t***~**********
TRANSMISSION OK
TX/RX NO
CONNECTION TEL
CONNECTION ID
ST TIME
USAGE T
PGS SENT
RESULT
0455.
Q15417263316
SPFLD SD CURCLM
04/2Q 16 5Q
02'13
7
OK
eit!:) of Springfield
Development Services Department
Facsimile Cover F age
Fax: (5+1) 726-)689
T o:b(u Lo- Srrol, f\sJC1J-- fax 54 I -ll(P - 33/0?
. ~ U
Compan~ c;r('n~tf{ltl <;ChoollJi~t(IL+-
From Lr 7____ m \\\~f-- RECEIVCD
Message.
JiY; ! ! 2=~1
0:.::""'\ .'.'~
~ J} .J
Page I of I
MILLER LIz
From DONOVAN James
Sent Tuesday, April 29, 2008 8 26 AM
To JONES Terry (Tara), MILLER Liz
Sublect FW CHILDREN'S CHOICE MONTESSORI SCHOOL
Importance High
Anyone have a read on this one??? Can I get a qUick check on this from one of y'all this morning??
JD
From: GRILE Bill
Sent' Monday, April 28, 2008 S 2S PM
To: DONOVAN James
Subject: CHILDREN'S CHOICE MONTESSORI SCHOOL
Importance: High
JIm
thartr ~chxJl
,
Bruce Smolmsky, an admmlstrator at SPS (726-3255) called to ask me about any zonmg reqUIrements
that would affect expandmg the Montesson School located at 5005 Mam St They would lIke to double
the bUlldmg and partner wIsh SPS ThIs IS a questions from a Team Spnngfield partner and at thIs pomt
doesn't ment a full DIM I sImply would lIke to know, m summary, what IS the zomng for the subject
property and mIght they be able to expand? And If so, would thIS be sIte plan revIew or what?
Please let me know t1~~~ If'rohankSI
BIll R.::.vt:JV t. 11DL~2-0L(500
JUN 112008 l C- Lor\ t r'\ t
, r (I WI t -- fubH C - t//uVlent1
o r'Sr/fi~l{(t wv,j SI/-(fI'^'-
;q1& -tJS-OIO I
Iq1~ - tio-Oll1--
YJ 'S-
Sf L- (Edtr0rd~
(KQU rI {(t4- ,
By:
~l)fL
i 0 vtV 66 f (Ore1-0 --
/1 VhlYLc{ CMz-
\6 CUrl C\..
1-
4/29/2008
NOTICE OF VIOLATION
DATE ISSUED:
February 1, 2008
Lucas and Carla McQuiln
1942 51h Street
Springfield, OR 97477
LOCATION OF VIOLATION: 1942 5th Street, Spfld, OR 97477
NAME:
225 FIFTH STREET
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
(541) 726-3753
FAX (541)726-3689
www.ci.springfield.or.us
CASE#: 2008-59
The City received a complaint that the property listed above is in violation of a Springfield City
Code and/or ordinance. Rather than issuing a citation or taking immediate legal action, it is the
City's standard practice to inform citizens of the violation and request that it be corrected,
SPECIFIC VIOLATION/REQUIRED CORRECTION: Section 8.236(10) of the Springfield City
Code - Prohibited Signs. The sign on the fence at this location is prohibited and must be
removed. No additional signs to be erected until after land use compliance is determined.
Section 3.2-210 Residential Uses. A Montessori School may/may not be a use permitted in this
zoning district. Contact Springfield Planning staff to discuss the ages, grades and number of
children at this location to determine the whaUif any land use provisions need to be addressed.
RECEIVED
JUN 11 2008
By:
In order to avoid actions being taken against you or your property we encourage you to proceed
quickly. In the event that you have not taken corrective action by the assigned time deadline, a
civil infraction citation will be issued to the resident and/or property owner. Civil Infraction fines:
$500.00 first offense/$1000.00 second offense. Each day a violation continues constitutes a
separate offense and citations can be issued daily.
DEADLINE FOR COMPLIANCE: Seven (7) days from the date of this notice for all dead organic
matter and debris; Thirty (30) days from the date of this notice for all used materials and stored,
damaged and/or inoperable vehicles,
Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you wish to discuss the violation, or the required
correction, Code Enforcement staff can be reached by calling 726-3659 between 7:00-9:00 a.m.
Voice mail is available for messages throughout the day.
copy: Liz Miller; and Tara Jones; Planners and David Bowlsby, Building Permit Review Tech.
Page I of2
Children's
&..
1m
O~
Childrell's
Choice
MOlltessori
Schools
Teacher
Education
Program
'I
NFB Camp DOllatiolls COlltact Us
Abl
5th Street Location
--- --
I Brochure Information
I School Locations:
I Elementary Program (SpringfiE
I Main Street (Springfield)
I River Road (Eugene)
1942 5th Street; Springfield, OR 97477
541. 726.2654
Prescbool and Kinderqarten orQgCi:lms
Hours of operation: 7:00 am - 6:00 pm
Meals: Lunch and snacks
Ages: 24 month - 6 years
Emily Yoder - Site Director
RECEIVED
JUN 112008
By:
This program has all the comfort and atmosphere of a quaint old house, with all the benE
of a school. Arched doorways, plaster walls, hardwood floors and big picture windows ac
to the character and charm of the location.
Children's Choice Montessori at 5th Street maintains a small student enrollment with a
teacher to student ratio of 1 to 8. The play area includes a large fenced lawn area, swin~
set, a paved courtyard for tricycles and an indoor play and lunch area for stormy days.
At the back of this acre lot is a beautiful iris aarden that in the future. will orovide the
http://www.mainstreetmontessori.org/CCM-5th.htm!
5/20/2008
Page 2 of2
nn_ ---- _ --. -- -- _ --.-....-. ...- .;1___ ---- -----., ... ---- ------- -, ..... r- - ..-- ----
students of the 5th Street and Main Street locations the opportunity to learn hands-on
botany; incorporate marketing strategies for the sale of irises to the general public; and
review of project proposals and community service work.
Parent's Page
Lunch Menu
Home Page I Contact Us I About Us
http://www.mainstreetmontessori.org/CCM-5th.html
5/20/2008
Page I of2
Child rents
I...''".'''~.
;"H'i
.~...........,........" ;: ~ o{lo~'~'~'
{ C 1 \......A ; 0
......~.;..~..-! ~~-......
?-'''~-'~'
, I ' ....,.,,'.
..;: f C f"e"',
.-;,;. . r
0" ..-........... ...
. . . r
t ........ .':...............
-'
Montessori School
A
~
O~
Children's
Choice
Montessori
Schools
I Teacher
Education
Program
NFB Camp
Donations
Contact Us
Ab(
Main~Stfgl!t LQct)(io.n
-- --.-.-
I Brochure Information
I School Locations:
15th Street (Springfield)
I Elementary Program (Springfie
I River Road (Eugene)
5005 Main Street; Springfield, OR 97478
541.726.2654
Preschool and Kinderaarten oroarams
~ ~
Hours of operation: 6:30 am - 6:00 pm
Meals: Breakfast, lunch, snacks
Ages: 30 months - 11 years
Carla McQuillan - Executive Director
RECEIVED
JUN 11 2008
By:
The original and largest of the Children's Choice Montessori facilities, Main Street is on ,
acre of land, and is the site of 3 preschool and 2 elementary classrooms.
The play area includes 2 large play structures, a grass field, a paved courtyard and alar
indoor play area for inclement weather. There is also a large garden area for spring and
summer planting and harvesting,
Parent's Page
http://www.mainstreetmontessori.org/CCM-Main.html
C;:0
.
';, Ch-~ /1fI. c 0.. ;(CLVl ':::rlG:, --Z("cJL 750_ s"'~
1- a- ;l~f 49 DC; rn~ VI -
\ ( C)W\ Ch~";;.~ c;;: if ;::t::;) - Sch
C(J-41 C6
- -----.- .
1 ,
--t~Jl' "J ~'..."" ~II
t J. '0..) ~,. -. 0-
( w r ....- tJI .)<.
'It! 1
, - ,';: ., <,,-'~<\t~t~ ~&J. J__ (,6
,) ll,\;_;.,~ -. ~
.... -~. II ~ .... -- -
\_.' 1'1') ',"'" ~ U~C~ ~L. too flY-<--<
'J. . -" ~. t:... '-z-
,-,' L '._.1. W~d
~
dvv
~ -1-0 ~ "- .s; ~
~ f-o I ~ ~f'~' ~ C0r k,-~
By~
CL ~s p'(lvC-/(fN~c ~~wJ
. (;XL(ACC ., ~ S~ ~
f\QecR.- ~/SRQ \
fetk.-v V~'y\R. s~ h V- D u L--0/ SPVZ ~
lVl ~ ~ I ~
7>v Cv('Y)- _ ,;2.tP b /t6 I (o L\..t-/j ~
'-- fo/7lT)~ a ~~ /-0 ~ ~'v~ ~ (L-O(L~{)
"~L sf-h ~ .Y.JG~,/G<:l(=iJ ~~
IV' (?LO .~vv/ ~ _ ~ </'g
M U f < Q. - J-r-n;;L SA-<- '" .J>- j'i- .
, ct :
/lttuc- .. ~~, \:J ·
r ~:CG \
rfrrln' )Ad ~ 3
RECEIVED
JUN 112008
)
~ 6\05 l.-OT \....IN.E
~ ~<I<.
\O"O"Kd ~~~,
, ~l:. ~ -
.,' "I
' ,,' ,
,I _ I
-, : ------J
_ !J6~ \.-O'T \.-\NE
,
FI0I. 5 LOT LINES, DE.PTH t WIOl"H
'ST\'Z-EEl" L-\NE
FfO.ONT \.-OT \.-INe.
61"'8 \.-01"
'-INES,j,
-..... .
"
fl-eAl=C-o
J
I, _ ,;
, ,
10'-0" ----0....., -'
11/'
- /' '.1
..... -, ':j
r--:... . , 'I
.....-......:.......:... '1
"'-
llli'Ull!UJA~~h
WIl?TH ---.., A,.,.
"-
DE.PrH '\ "--
, ,
, \
;--" ...
\ ,y.,
" / ,~ '
I' /='
--. -'7 '
,\/ ,:
/' --1,
\~~~
.....~
.
'P-V 6a-<j t<~;
~~ I()l~
po\~ -* r-<:>-r- ~
.e.<<--t... ~d-= ' eu..keJ-
.e..- cA, tP~.......'l ~
\...'t-l"" r€2-V s;.e.t kx<-....L It--...
- g+" \, ~-1
c:; ( ~.RR-cSL. >: ~
~.......,. fvr ~t1.L-(
ST'fZ.EET L-INE
'-"T \.-IN""
OePTH MeA5UfLEt>
M"OI>1 MIOPOINT OF L.-INE
oepTH
WIOTH
YAI"-D
WIt'TH
l?iSPTH
137,
.
E-;czS+;(I.J ~~SdVl g cL-----v
d t:;z5b,~ yvt ~ V\
11--b2-3S-SG/4rcr0 ((L)
~ IV-- OOVV ~ y.,~ I C,9 G.
o j) q-C .s k-m--.f c:! ~J c~ cJv
JY h,'h
O~ VJ/ S(j?Y-kJ $~ Ovyv
+0 (fV"^tk ~ ~c. +v
~ ~-~.--- ~yL~
~6YL- +0 ~ --r;L- ~d Ch-C / ~
~ "Ve rvw-e I _ J..LL
TO WA . tL;Y f- O~
,
'.
PUBLIC '.
City of Springfield
Planning Commission
MAILING ADDRESS PHONE APPOINTMENT RE- EXPIRATION
" DATE APPOINTMENT DATE
DATE
Steve Moe Chair Home 726-7613 05/01/1999 06/05/2003 06/05/2007
3698 Franklin Boulevard
PO Box 847
Spnngfield, Oregon 97477
Intercltv@aol com
B/II Carpenter Vice Chair Home 726-6286 04/20/1998 04/17/2000 03/31/2004
680 T Street
Spnngfield, Oregon 97477
wcaroenter@lac ora
James Burford Home 747-9384 06/03/1996 04/17/2000 03/31/2004
6781 Ivy Street ~
Spnngfleld, Oregon 97478
maa33803@aol com
Lee Beyer Home 746-5889 04/16/2001 9/16/2002 09/22/2006
1439 Lawnndge
Spnngfleld, Oregon 97477
leebever@comcast net
Greg Shaver Home 726-1410 12/2/2002 12/2/2006
1225 Water Street
Spnngfleld, Oregon 97477
area@cvber-dvne com
Gale Decker Home 747-0462 06/02/2003 06/02/2007
415 67'h Street
Spnngfield, Oregon 97478
oldecker@comcast net
Dav/d Cole Home 741-0444 06/02/2003 06/02/2007
.PO Box 70142 (mailing add)
Eugene, Oregon 97401
Enalneenna@helltech com
Note Springfield Planning Commissioners serve four-year terms Two members may reside outside the
SprIngfield City limits and two members may be employed In real estate Representatives to the City
'Council are on a rotatIng basIs
CONTACTS SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
B/II Gn/e, Development Services Director 726-3671
Greg Mott, Planning Manager 726-3774
Mel Oberst, Planning Supervisor, Planning Commission Liaison 726-3783
Brenda Jones, Planning Secretary 726-3610
, ,
Montessori Pre-ScholJ, and Latch-Key Programs
5005 Main Street
Springfield, OR, 97478-6454
541-726-2654
- 'Children's
Carla McOUlI REe E IVE 0
- Aug 8, 1996
JUN 112008
Dear Mayor MOrrisette and the Springfield City Council,
We are In the process of bUilding a new facllrty for our Montessor~~~OI at 50th and
Main Street When completed, ours wfll be the first Child Care Center to be
constructed In Springfield All other child care programs In the Cfty have emerged
from eXisting bUildings In the community We deSigned the bUilding ourselves, taking
care to make ftthe perfect place for both the children and our staff We have all been
extremely excited about the new project since It began last December
Over the past four years, our bUSiness has steadily grown from a small home based
program of 6 students, to a capacity enrollment of 50 students at our current faCIlity
The time had come for us to ffnd some property and bUild a school of our own Last
fall, we applred for and were granted a loan from the Small BUSiness Administration,
coordinated through the Lane Council of Governments ThiS application provided a
detailed budget of proposed project costs, Including the fees for permits and Systems
Development Charges (SDC) Permit fees and Information were provided by
employees of the city of Spnngfleld Attached IS the wntten estimate for the SDC's,
dated December of 1995 You Will note that this estimate was $4700
We had planned to remain In our leased facllrty at 3988 Main Street, until our new
faCIlity was completed Shortly after we ordered the 4 modular bUildings that would be
ready for occupancy In late August, our landlord served an eViction notice, demanding
that we vacate our Child Care faCIlity by June 30 The landlord's daughter opened her
own Child Care Center In the bUilding on July 15 Fortunately, we were able to secure
a temporary locatfon for our summer program In the Head Start space at St Alrce
Church ThiS temporary localron was made available to us only through the end of
August, at which time the Head Start Program resumes
Our sfte plan was approved In mid July When permits were prepared and ffnal fees
assessed on July 25th, the SDC for our project went from $4700 to over $18,439 an
Increase of nearly 400% (See attached fee assessment) The majonty of thiS Increase
was due to a recalculation of the transportalron fees The SBA budget was submitted In
December, uSing the figure of $4700 for the SDC's Submitting a reVised budget for
SBA approval at this pOint, could not be accomplrshed Without delaYing the completion
of the project Our contractor Informed us that the foundation needed adequate time to
cure before the delrvery of the bUildings The Window of opportunfty to meet the
September 3rd deadlrne was qUickly clOSing DelaYing the project by even 5 days,
would leave upwards of 70 children stranded A maJonty of these children are
dependent upon us for care and supervision while thefr parents are at work
, The employees at the CUu, Iter In public works were wonderful I hey seemed to
understand our sltuallon, and finally agreed that we could pay for all of the bUfldlng
permits (a total of $697), plus $5,000 of the SDC's, with the balance to be paid prior to
final occupancy
At this pOint In time, I have some mixed emotions regardfng the situation fn which I find
myself I do not begrudge the fees that the city charges I do, however, expect that an
estimate In wrltfng will be reasonably close to the fee I am charged I also expect the
fees to be assessed In an eqUitable manner that does not prohlbft development,
growth, and expansion
Yet, I ffnd that the SDC's are not necessarily eqUitable For example, banks With drive
up windows are not charged based on the calculated number of customer tripS dUring
peak hours of the day, but rather on an adjusted scale that keeps the SDC's
transportation fees at a more reasonable rate There IS no such fee cap for Child Care
Centers, even though a Center IS far less capable of survfvlng a mighty financial blow
than a bank
In addfllon, there are several formulas for assessing the same business When an
alternate formula IS applied, our fee IS reduced by over $2,000
I am told that there IS a tremendous difference between Child Care Centers and
Schools, when ft comes to SDC's The fees assessed for Transportation are 85 times
higher for a Child Care Center than for a school Now, had our program been
exclusfvely Day Care, With none of our children enrolled In our academiC program, the
SDC In our faCility would have been $31,706, according to the current figures The
Systems Development Analyst did not know the difference at the time of the estimate
I was also Informed that Springfield used to assess SDC's based on 1 5% of the project
cost ThiS practice was brought to a halt several years ago probably because It left
no room for lobbYing, bantering, and bartering for exceptions and exclUSions The
$18,439 represents 5 2% of our total project cost land, Improvements, bUilding, and
landscaping If we were running Child Care programs only, the fees would represent
9% of the project cost
Several queslrons have crossed my mind concerning thiS matter
1) How did the banks come to acqUire a cap on their transportation fees?
2) Are there other busmesses that enJoy slmtlar breaks?
3) What IS the procedure for obtammg such a pnvlleged status?
4) How does the analyst deCide which formula wtll be used to assess the fees?
5) How can I be sure that the appropnate classificatIOn and formulas were used m
my situation?
6) There was a $13,700 difference between the first and second assessment of my
fees How do I know that the second one IS correct, If either?
7) If my project IS delayed while I resubmit a budget to SBA for approval of
additional funds to cover fees that were not accurately presented to me m a
timely fashion, where Will the 70+ children go until the matter IS resolved?
8) How can we prevent thiS from happenmg to others m the future?
I do not know the extent to which the Council has authOrity to handle these matters, but
If It IS pOSSible, ft seems appropriate In thiS Situation, that temporary occupancy be
granted wIthout addlllona, payment of the SDC's, unlll this fSSIJ", IS resolved ThfS
would enable us to provide Child Care beginning September 3, assuming that all other
conditions for occupancy are met
In a society where most families are either single parent or double Income, the number
one concern and cause for absenteeism among working parents, IS the result of
problems with their child care arrangements We In the profession realize thfS We
don't do It for the wealth and fame, but rather to meet a critical need that society tends
to overlook We do It for an opportunity to ensure that the children of today will grow to
be the community leaders of tomorrow ThiS fS achieved by creating an enVIronment
that centers around mutual respect, and accepting responsibility for one's actions
Thank you for your time
~a~
, 12/04/95 1; 22
'/3'503 H 1SSq
SPFD DE' SER
~OOl
SPRINGFIELD
FAXfNFO
/
I
TO
NAME
(AU{.'j
ORGANIZA T101'4
FAX NUMBER
7<-{1 - 143:.5
FROM
NAME
'112.0::-\
hU,-3("SBJ
'-
MESSAGE
~--
NUMBER OF PAGES 3
(INCLUDING COVER SHEET)
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
PUBLIC WORKS
225 N 5TH STREET
SPRINGFIELD OR 97477
PHONE '(503) 726-3759
"f\."''' Ir''''...... ....,"'...... ..........__
12/~4,95 15 22 ~503 720 J689
SPFD DE\ SER
~002
c:;'IIYIATC-
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD SYSTE/1S DEVELOPMENT Cf-!;'.RGE
WORKSHEET F/:',X ~ 1'41 -14!>Z
JOB NO
Nht1E OR cm1~ /l"N'!
CARLA
rd 7\
-I )
r\'o..W[~_~I(
LOCATION
50'05
p..A I t-I ST,
DEVELOPHENT TYPE
':'C.\-lcc\...
BUILDING SIZE
1 aT SIZE
SO Ft
1
STORM nR~[N/lGE / g o,\~" j ,
~ :3.800 -.,- .,...
p"",~ "'~ :.
IHPERVroUS so FT G ':['5GO
,
ra 300 ~
~~
x sO 21 PER SO FT
~1,?53~
'----- ...-----
~.o::..
2 SANTT/lRY SF\1E",Q-rlT(
NO OF PFU'S
(See Reverse)
36
-
X 543 43 PER PFU
~I&>SO '1:)
'-....' -----
3 TRANSPORTATTON
NO OF UNITS X TRIP RATE X COST PER TRIP
0.0\
X
60
X $437.93
0~Z~)
---- ---
x
X $437 93
s
X
X $437 93
$
4 ~ANrTARY SFWFR-MWM(
NO OF PFU' S 36 x $18 75 PER PFU + $10 MWr1C ADHIN FEE
(Use PFU Total From Item 2 Above)
I 'SD
$ 72.'7..:.--
~
SUBTOTAL (ADD ITEliS 1 2 3 & 4)
73
$ 13'-.-
,('" '5' B'1?L '"'\
'-.... ./
$ 'l,,,5S~
~1~lr1C CREDIT IF APPLICABLE (SEE REVERSE)
TOTAl t"\4MC sac:
5
ADMINISTATIVF FEES
BASE CHARGE (SUBTOTAL ABOVE) X 05
~Z2 2'\==>
'--- -----
ESllM P\rE
Date
rz/~/'i!>
Troy McAlllster
SDC Coordlnator
TOTAl snr
12/';4/95
15 23
'0'503 72 '689
SPFD DE\ SER
~003
FIXTURE UNIT CALCULATION TABLE: Number of New Fixtures X Unit EqUivalent
(NOTE For remodels, calculate only the NET additional IIxtures)
NUMBER OF
NEW FIXTURES
== FIxture Units
FIYTU'1E TYPE
UNIT
EQUIV;:' LENT
FIXTURE
UNITS
Bathtub
DrInking Fourtatn
Floor Drain
Interceptors For Grease/Oil/SolldslEIC
Interceptors For Sand/Auto Wasb/Erc
Launory Tub/Clotheswasher
Clotheswasher - 3 Or More
Mobile Home Park Trap (1 Per Trader)
Receptor For Refrrgerator/Water Stanon/Etc
Receptor Forcc;mmerclJiLSloJLP-lsh.'lIashet-'rEtc
Shower, SIngle Stall
Snower, Gang
Sink Bar, Commercial, Resloentlal r<,tCCen
Unnal, Stdll/'N211
Wash Basln/La"aror,r. Single
TOIlet, Public Ir,staIl2t1on
Todet , PI'"fVdte
Miscellaneous
2
1
2
3
6
2
6
6
1
3
2
1/Head
2
3
~
'7
r::::
2
1
6
c;
3<:>
4'::,-
TOTAL FIXTURE UNITS
:
38
CREDIT CALCULATlON TABLE Based on a'ses~"d value If lmprove<nents cccurred after anneyatlon date In table
calculate credIts seoarates
I)
II
Year
Jl.nnexed
Rate per $1,000
Assessed Value
Year
Annexed
Rate per $1,000
Assessed Value
II
II
1979 or bercre
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
$347
339
333
321
306
2.92
274
246
1987 $213
1988 1 76
1989 1 35
1990 0 95
1991 0 58
1992 0.41
1993 0 29
1994 014
-,..
/' ,0;( v./:'of~",,) 0'2. 33 3'Z..;t:.{.s.,}
( 7':>
';3,'17 X $"'38,250 : /32-
(Rate X Assessed Value)
X $
(Rate X Assessed Value)
CredIt for Parcel or LaC'd Only If Applicable
Improvemem {If after annexatIon dete}
:
CREDIT TOTAL = $
73
132-
07 nO/96 16 36
'l?503 726 3669
SPFD DE> SER
~
Post-It' Fax Note 7671
ITo CAf<LPI /'\<QVILL.4N
)CoJUepI
I Phor'"
IF... 7Z(,,- ",SS,,!
/0.....,/301% I':';'. "Z.
From 17lo,:; I
ICo CJ~ 01"" S$H(,~€t."1
(""one. 7U,-s(,1l8 I
1'''''' I
F"'A- )G
ern 011' BPRDH31"J:ELD 8Y3~ OEVELv.r-u,i:.n,j, CBARG:a
(COMMEXCDIL I INDllSTRJ:AL1
Name or Company' LEWIS/SALLY EDMONDS
Loeat~on. 5005 MAIN ST
Developement Type: C Bu~lding Size'
1. S:rOR:ll DRAINlIGB
Imperv>oua Sq Ft ~ 0 X 8552
2. SAm::rARY SSWER - C:rTY
NUmber Of PFUa ~ 0 X 34
(see page 2}
3. TRANSPORTATION
$IlIoG-t,r NUmber Of Un~ ts
."."" -:. ~ 0 X 35 X
10 1 0 35 X
<<= ~...
CA1'U..A l'\C.o.""Ll.ttl-/
Transportatio~ Total
II'%.
'it-
X
(.t>e: 5Z0
{dOt> 5'>S
Tr~p Rate
0.010 X
o 850
4, SAm:TARY SBWER - HWHC
Number Of PFUs
34
X
X
Per P FtT
20 690
MWMC CREDIT If Applicable (aee Page 2}
TOTAL - MWMC SDC
SUBTOTAL. (Add Uems ~, 2. 3 " 4l
5. ADMJ:mS'l'RArIVE J'EES
Base Charge (Sub~otal Above) X
0.50
:rO"1AL SDC
Reviewed By TROY MCALLISTEP
Job No 960980
Lot SJ.ze&
X
0.215
Per Sq Ft =
~
^
44 7S Per Pro .
/.
:S<.1"roC!L...
Dfle:> cA/l4: C0--trcn. f' n
Cost. Per Trip
45~ 26
451 26
S157 .94
Sl3,424 98
T MWMC ~n Fee
+ 10 00
Date 07/25/86
_Jr.r.
IiiJ 001
7'2.~ - G>E:.'d>9
--.
page 1
Sq Ft
$1,847.23
$1,521 SO
" ~ I /srvo&-lr
". 6!:"! ~1VPGHT
(
D;r
$13,582 93
$713 46
$104 10
$609.35
$17,56J..02
$878 05
$J.8,439 07
07/JO/96
'fi'503 ,,,6 3689
16 36
Job Number. 960geO
SPFD DEV SER
"=E tm:I:T CALCl7LATION 'UBLll
Fucture Type
Bathtub
Dr~~ng Founta~
Floor Dra1ll
Interceptors For Grease/Oil/Sol~ds/Etc
Inteceptors For Sand/Auto Wash/Etc
Laundry Tub/Clotheswasher
Clothes~sher - 3 Or More
Receptor For Refrigerator/Water Stat~on/Etc
Receptor for Commerc~l Sink/D~shwasher/Etc
Shower, S~ngle Stall
Sho\lier, Gang
S~nk, Bar, Commerc~al, Residential ~tchen
Unnal, Stall/Wall
Wash Bas~n/Lavatory, S~ngle
Water Closet, Publ~c Installation
Water Closet, Private
MJ.scellaneous
TOTAL FIXTURE UNITS =
Number of
New Flxture
o
1
o
o
o
1
o
o
o
o
o
:<I
o
7
o
5
o
IilI002
Page :<I
UnJ.t F~xture
EquJ.valent Um. ts
:<I 0
1 1
:<I 0
3 0
6 0
2 :<I
6 0
1 0
3 0
2 0
0
:<I 4
2 0
1 7
6 0
4 20
0
34
CREDIT CALCOLATI:ON TABLE: Based en assessed value. If imprO\r~ments occured
after annexat~Cn date, credi~a are calculated separately.
(calculat~ons are by $1000)
Year Annexed. H69
Credit For Parcel Or Land On1y If ~ppl~cab1e
Improvement (if after annaxat~on date) I
30,000
o
CRBDIT TOT,U, =
x
3.47 '=i
104,10
x
3 47 ..,
o 00
(If land value is mult~pl~ed by 1 then the parcel/land cred~t ~s not accurate )
$104.10