HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotice PLANNER 2/6/2009
Notice of Decision - Site Plan Review -Type II
Project Name: Site Plan - Children's Choice Montessori
Project Proposal: Expand the existing day care center, currently approved for a maximum of
sixteen (16) children, to accommodate a maximum ofthirty (30) children.
Case Nu;"'ber: DRC2008-00070
Project Location: The subject property is 1.05 acres in size and is located on the west side of
S"' Street, north of "Q" Street. Assessor's Map: 17-03-26-24 TL 3000
Zoning: High Density Residential - HDR
Overlay Districts: Drinking Water Protection - DWP
Applicable Refinement Plan and Designation: "Q" Street Refinement Plan - Medium
Density Residential - MDR
Metro Plan Designation: High Density Residential - HDR
Pre-Submittal Meeting Date: October 14.2008
Application Submitted Date: September 23, 2008
Decision Issued Date: February 6, 2009
Appeal Deadline Date: February 23, 2009
Associated Applications: PRE2008" 00058
Deputy Fire Marshall
I Community Services Manager
~:OWNE.RIARRLIGZANf[*,,~m!fu,"!F,~~il!f
;,',.. ..__.____,_,_".""_~""",.....4"..,!l."'!,,.~_,,'~_~~_~___=,..ait.0J!,SG',=",Jt;
Lucas & Carla McQuillan
1942 S"' Street
Springfield OR 97477
1dJ,":fili:?fh1El;;:il!fq:C:~""GliJiY;!'0FiSRR/NGF/EI!D~DEVELGRMENf/JiREVIEW~T'EAM\!:'clf1'illiiiii1r::l!:~ddi'lR'l
~oSlTi~o~_o/'md",m"&""'~=~d"~"REV'EW-O'F'LM'd'_d' NAME'dd&_i00:"C%PH~ONE""1
I Planner II Urban Planning Lissa Davis 726"3632 I
I Transportation Planning Engineer Transportation Jon Driscoll 726-3679l
Public Works Engineering Sanitary & Storm Sewer. Eric Walter 736-1034 I
Utilities & Easements
Fire and life Safety Gilbert Gordon 726-2293 I
Building Dave Puent 726-3668 I
Robert L Shaw
6S6 Charnelton Street
Eugene OR 9740 I
Site Plan
DRe 2007-00060
Date Received:~1R J DC{
Planner: W ' !llf'J~
,
I
I t:t I{
BACKGROUND: Staff identified several development challenges with the applicants during
pre-submittal and review procedures. (The applicants opted not to do a Development Issues
Meeting prior to submitting a proposal for development of the subject site.) Throughout the
process, City staff counseled the applicant regarding the issues of access, internal circulation and
traffidpedestrian safety. The applicant chose to stay with the initial proposal for parking and
loading areas, opting not to expand facilities. Upon formal review of the applicant's submittal and
information gathered by the City staff, the City's Development Review Committee concluded
that the proposal does not meet Site Plan Criteria of Approval and Special Site Standards for
Day Care Facilities. (See Page 9 of this Decision.)
DECISION: As proposed. the application is Denied, as of the date of this letter. This is a
limited land use decision made according to city code and state statute. Unless appealed, the
decision is final. Please'read this document carefully. The standards of the Springfield
Development Code (SDC) applicable to each criterion of Site Plan Modification Approval are
listed herein and are not satisfied by the submitted plans and documents.
OTHE.R USES THAT MAY BE AUTHORIZED BY THE DECISION: None.
REVIEW PROCESS: This application is reviewed under Type II (administrative) procedures
listed in Springfield Development Code Section 5.1-130 and the site plan criteria of approval
SDC 5.17-125. This application was accepted as complete upon submittal, September 23,2008.
This decision is issued on the 41 st day of the 120 dayreview period mandated by the state
(ORS 227.178). .
SITE INFORMATION: The property is a 1.05 acre parcel located on the west side of 5th
Street, north of "Q" Street. The east-west oriented parcel has a single family residence and
driveway located at its east end adjacent to 5th Street; the remainder of the lot is vacant to the
west where it abuts a future extension of 3'. Street.
Site Plan
ORe 2007-00060
Date Received: d\ v\ m
Planner: LD' 7\-wJ;.\ l01fo1J
'1A\\. 2
ZONING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES:
Gene..al Zonin.. Information: The Da..cel is bo..de..ed by D"ODertv zoned Hi..h
Densitv Residential to the North. South and West: DrODertv to the East is zoned
Gene....1 Comme..cial and is devefoDed as a shoDDin.. cente...
As evidenced in the D..evious ai.. Dhoto. the weste..lv Dortion of the subiect site and
p..ooerties to the north and south are un-develoDed.
WRITTEN. COMMENTS: Applications for Limited Land Use Decisions require the
notification of property owners/occupants within 300. feet of the subject property allowing for a
, 4 day comment period on the application (SDC Sections 3.080. and 14.030). The applicant and
parties submitting written comments during the notice period have appeal rights and are mailed
a copy of this decision for consideration (see ADDeal~ at the end of this decision.)
In accordance with SDC 3.080 and J 4.030, notice was sent to owner/occupants within 300 feet.
ofthe subject site on September 24, 2008. No written comments were received in response to
the notice.
Site Plan - Criteria of Approval
SDC 5.17-125.
SDC 5.17-125 'CRITERIA OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL states: The Director shall app..ove,
Or app..o've with conditions, a Type II Site Plan Review Application upon
determining that criteria' A th..ough E of this Section have been satisfied. If
conditions cannot be attached to satisfy the criteria, the Di..ector shall deny the
application. .
Site Plan
ORe 1007-00060
Date Receiv~d:.DI~ DCj . V
Planner. UJ ')~~ r1Pf~1(J
. ')UQ\\ .3
Conformance with the Eugene-Springfield Metro Area General Plan, Springfield Development Code
Section 5 - Site Plan Review Standards, Section 4 - Public and Private Improvements, Section 3.2-
210- Residential Zoning District were required for .approval of the applicant's Site Plan.
Finding: The City's Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed plans and
supporting information. City staffs review comments have been incorporated in findings and
conditions contained herein. The Site Plan application as submitted complies with the code
standards listed under each Criterion of Approval unless otherwise noted with specific findings
and conclusions.
Criterion A
SDC 5.17-125 A.
The zoning is consistent with the Metro Plan diagram, and/or the applicable Refinement
Plan diagram, Plan District map, and Conceptual Development Plan.
Finding: The zoning is consistent with the Metro Plan diagram and "Q" Street Refinement Plan
diagram.
Conclusion: The proposal satisfies Site Plan Criterion A.
Criterion B
SDC 5.17-125 B.
Capacity requirements of public improvements, including but not limited to water and
electricity; sanitary sewer and stormwater management facilities; <!nd streets and traffic
safety controls shall not be exceeded and the public improvements shall be available to
serve the site ot the time of development, unless otherwise provided for by this Code and
other applicable regulations. The Public Works Director or a utility provider shall
determine capacity issues.
Criterion C
SDC S.17-12S C.
The proposed development shall comply with all applicoble public and private design
and construction standards contained in this Code and other applicable regulations.
Finding: Criteria Band C require the proposed development to be provided with public and
private improvements which are designed in conformance with all applicable Development Code
requirements and the current Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual. The
applicant's civil engineer shall also be required to provide construction inspection services.
Finding: The intent of Criterion B is to ensure that public improvements are installed and
serve development in accordance with the Metro Plan. The Metro Plan indicates that new urban
development must be served by at least the minimum level of key urban services at the time
development is completed (Eugene-Springfield Metro Area General Plan, III-G-I). Site Plans are
development in accordance with ORS 227.21 5. The City interprets Criterion B to mean that
on-site and off-site public improvements not only have capacity but are also extended to the
developable area for connection. Therefore, in order to ensure the development complies with
Criterion B for the provision of public infrastructure the required public improvements must be
installed and approved before final site plan approval or occupancy of the site. ~l C-
Oate Received:? b \
Planner. (J) . IA (b-1fiYlJ
Site Plan DRCl007-<J0060 A- %\\1) rr-4-
~'
Finding: The Development Review Committee and the Public WorkS Director's
representatives have reviewed the proposed site plan and the surrounding public services. The
site plan application does not comply with the applicable code standards listed under Off-Street
Parking Standards - SDC 4.6-S I 5. It does however, comply wi~h the other sub-element unless
otherwise noted with specific findings and conclusions. The elements, 'sub-elements and code
standards of Criterion B and C~iterion C include but are not limited to:
I. Public and Private Improvements in accordance with SDC Section 4 - Public and
Private Improvements
. Public Street and Related Improvements - SDC 4.2-105 through SDC 4.2-160
. Sanitary Sewer Improvements - SDC 4.3-105
. Storm Water Management and Water Quality Protection - SDC 4.3-110 through 4.3-
115 .
. Utilities and Public Easements- SDC 4.3-120 through 4.3-140
. Public and Private Easements - SDC 32.120( I) and (5)
2. Conformance with standards of SDC Section 5 - Site Plan Review Standards, and
Section, 3.2-400 - Campus Industrial District
. Permitted Uses - SDC 3.2-405.through 3.2-415
. Operational Performance Standards - SDC 3.2-425
. Lot Size and Setback Standards - SDC 3.2-420
. Height Standards - SDC 3.2-420
. Off-Street Parking Standards - SDC 4.6-5 I 5
. Fence Standards - SDC 4.4-115
. Campus Industrial Design Standards - SDC 3.2-445
. Landscaping Standards - SDC 4.4-105
. Screening and Lighting - SDC 4.4-110 and 4.5-100/110
. Parking Standards - SDC 4.6-100 through 4.6-110
3. Applicable. Overlay Districts and Refinement Plan Requirements
. "Q" Street Refinement Plan policies are applicable to this development.
Finding: All public and private site improvements are required to be designed in conformance
with City codes, this decision, and the current Engineering Design Standards Manual. The
applicant's civil engineer shall also be required to provide construction inspection services~
Finding: The Public Works Director's representatives have reviewed the proposed site plan.
City staff's review comments have been, incorporated in findings contained herein.
Public and Private Improvements in Accordance with SDC 5.17-100 and 4.1-100;
4.2-100; and 4.3-100
PUBLIC STREETSITRANSPORTATION FACILITIES AND IMPAaS - SDC 4.2-105 through SDC 4.2-
160
Finding: Site access is provided by 5th Street which is a 2 lane roadway with bicycle lanes that
provides one travel lane in each direction and a two-way center turn lane within a variable-
width right-of-way. This portion of 5th Street is designated as a Minor Arteria. The street is
Date Received:. :) ~llfl .Y
Planner. lD ~*'t.b \~lfV'
Site Plan ORe 2007-00060 5
'G ~~\
improved with curb, gutter, sidewalks and street lighting. The traffic volume on 5th Street is
estimated to be approximately 5.700 vehicle trips per day.
Finding: The proposed use is comparable to ITE Land Use Code 565 (Day Care Center).
Based on that assumption the total trip generation from this development upon completion of
the proposed expansion would be as follows:
. Average Weekday = 79.26 tripsllOOOsf of floor area = 116.8 trips
. PM Peak Hour = 1,474 SF of gross floor area x 13.18 trips per 1,000 SF = 19.4 trips
In addition, the assumed development may generate pedestrian and bicycle trips. According to
the "Household" survey done by LCOG in 1994, 12.6 percent of household trips are made by
bicycle or walking and 1.8 percent are by transit bus. These trips may have their origins or
destinations at a variety of land uses, including this use. Pedestrian and bicycle trips create the
need for sidewalks, pedestrian crossing signals, crosswalks, bicycle parking and bicycle lanes.
Finding: Assuming proper on-site design, existing transportation facilities would be adequate
to accommodate the additional volume of traffic generated by the proposed development.
Conclusion: Existing transportation facilities would be adequate to accommodate additional
. trips generated by the proposed development.
SANITARY SEWER - SDC 4.3
SDC 4.3-1 05.A requires that sanitary sewers shall be installed to serve each new development
and to connect developments to existing mains. Additionally, installation of sanitary sewers shall
provide sufficient access for maintenance activities.
SDC 4.3-105.C requires that proposed sewer systems shall inClude design consideration of
additional development within the area as projected by the Metro Plan. Section 2.02.1 of the
City's Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual (EDSPM) states that when land outside
a new development will logically direct flow to sanitary sewers in the new development, the
sewers shall be public sewers and shall normally extend to one or more of the property
boundaries.
Finding: No work is occurring that will impact the existing sanitary sewer system.
Conclusion: The application, as submitted, meets the criterion of SDC 4.3
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
SDC 4.3-11 O.B states: The Approval Authority shall gr"-nt development ,,-pproval only
where adequ"-te public and/or private stormw,,-ter m"-n"-gement systems provisions
have been m,,-de as determined by the Public Works Director, consistent with the
Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual (EDSPM).
SDC 4.3-110.0 requires run-off from a development to be directed to an approved stormwater
management system with sufficient capacity to accept the discharge. SDC Section 4.3-11 O.E
requires new developments to employ drainage management practices which minimize the
amount and rate of surface water run-off into receiving streams and promote water q~ali7' c:
~=ceL~' ~J~~
lel1:,L\
Srte Plan
ORC 2007-00060
Finding: There is an existing catch basin located in the right-of-way of the driveway. The
proposal does not affect the stormwater drainage system.
Conclusion: The application, as submitted, comply with the criterion of SDC 4.3-11 O.D.
WATER QUAUTYlGROUNDWATER PROTEalON 5 - 10 YEAR TOTZ
Finding: SDC 3.3-225.A requires a Drinking Water Protection (DWP) Permit when I) a site is
affected by a change of use; building permit, or; development application, and 2) that action will
affect the storage of, or increase the amount of, hazardous materials that pose a risk to
groundwater. This proposal does not meet criterion I above.
Finding: This site is located in the 5 - 10 year Time of Travel (TOT) zone. SDC 3.3-235.C,
apply the following standards to the 5 to I O-year TOTZ Standards.
. The storage, handling, treatment, use, production or otherwise keeping on
premises of more than 20 gallons of hazardous materials that pose a risk to
groundwater in aggregate quantities not containing DNAPLs is allowed upon
compliance with containment and safety standards specified by the most recent
Fire Code adopted by the City.
. All hazardous materials that pose a risk to groundwater shall be stored in areas
with approved secondary containment in place (Uniform Fire Code Articles 2
and 8003.1.3.3).
. All new use of DNAPLs are prohibited.
. Any change in type 'of use or an increase in the maximum daily inventory
quantity of any DNAPL is considered a new use and is prohibited.
. Requirements found in Uniform Fire Code Appendix II-E Section 3.2.7 for
inspection and record keeping procedures for monthly in-house inspection and
maintenance of containment and emergency equipment for all amounts of
hazardous materials that pose a risk to groundwater shall be met unless
exempted.
Conclusion: This proposal will meet the above standards.
SDC 4.3-11 O.E states; A development shall be required to employ drainage
management practices approved by the Public Works Director and consistent with
Metro Plan policies and the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual.
Section 3.02 of the City's EDSPM states the Pubic Works Department will accept, as interim
design standards for stormwater quality, water quality facilities designed pursuant to the policies
and procedures of either the City of Portland (BES), or the Clean Water Services (CWS).
Section 3.03.3.B of the City's EDSPM states all public and private development and
redevelopment projects shall employ a system of one or more post-developed BMPs that in} I
Date Received: ~flc 0'1 1_
Planner: (j) S~ ~@'1t\
7~ll
Site Plan
ORe 2007-00060
combination are designed to achieve at least a 70 percent reduction in the total suspended
solids in the runoff generated by that development. Section 3.03.4.E of the manual requires a
minimum of 50 percent of the non-building rooftop impervious area on a site shall be treated
for stormwater quality improvement using vegetative methods.
Finding: The proposal will be sufficiently served by the existing catch basin.
PUBLIC EASEMENTS
Finding: There are no proposed public easements.
Conclusion: Public and private improvements are sufficient to serve the proposed
development.
Conclusion: The proposed site plan satisfies this sub-element of the criteria Band C.
Conformance with Standards of SDC Section 5.17-100, Site Plan Review, Section
3.2-205.C - 3.2-204, High Density Residential Zoning and SDC 4.7-/25, Special
Development Standards for Child Care Centers
Finding: The purpose of Site Plan Review is to: Facilitate and enhance the value of
development; Regulate the manner in which land is used and developed; Ensure' the provision of
public facilities and services; Maintain the integrity of the City's watercourses by promoting bank
stability, assisting in flood protection and flow control, protecting riparian functions, minimizing
erosion, and preserving water quality and significant fish and wildlife areas; Provide for
connectivity between different uses; Utilize alternative transportation modes including and
walking, bicycling and mass transit facilities; Implement the Metro Plan, applicable refinement
plans and specific area plans and development plans; Minimize adverse effects on surrounding
property owners and the general public through specific approval conditions; and Otherwise
protect the public health and safety.
Finding: SDC 3.2-205 through 3.2-204 establishes and regulates residential zoning districts,
including High Density Residential (HDR). Section 3.2-210 lists child care centers as an allowable
use in the HDR, subject to special siting standards as listed in Section 4.7-1 25.B, Child Care
Centers.
Finding: Site specific standards set forth in Section 4.7-1 25.B are:
I. Child Care Centers shall meet CSD regulations.
2. The out door play area shall be enclosed by a 6-foot high sight obscuring
fence. In residential districts, the Director may require up to a 10-foot
wide landscape buffer from an outdoor play area if conflicts with
neighboring properties are identified.
3. Public sidewalks shall be installed in all cases where there are curb and
gutter streets.
Date Received:
Planner: LD
;)i)&lCh
<;Wf{ f20p~
19001\ 8
Site Plan
DRC 2007-00060
4. If possible, each Child Care Center site shall have a circular drive for
drop-offs. L-shaped drives or street side drop-offs may also be
approved.
S. In residential districts, the Child Care Center, shall have a landscaped
front yard setback of 10 feet.
Finding: As detailed below, the submitted proposal fails tc meet standard 4, drop-off and pick-
up.
Conclusion: As submitted, the proposal does not comply with the requirements of 4.7-125.B.
Conformance with Overlay Districts and Applicable Refinement Plan
Requirements
REFINEMENT PLAN REQUIREMENTS
Finding:. The prcposed development is within the "Q" Street Refinement Plan area.
Conclusion: As conditioned, the prcposed development is in accordance with the policies .of
the "Q" Street Refinement Plan, .
Criterion D
SDC 5./7-125 D.
Parking areas and ingress-egress paints have been designed to facilitate vehicular traffic,
bicycle and pedestrian safety to avoid congestion; provide connectivity within the
development area and to adjacent residential areas, transit stops, neighborhood activity
centers, and commercial, industrial and public areas; minimize curb cuts on orterial and
collector streets as specified in this Code or other applicable regulations and comply with
the ODOT access management standards for State highways.
Finding: Installation of driveways .on a street increases the number of traffic conflict points.
The greater number of conflict points increases the probability of traffic crashes. SDC 4.2-
120(A)( I) stipulates that each parcel is entitled to "an approved access to !! public street."
Finding: The Springfield Development Code states that wh,!re a proposed develcpment abuts
an existing or proposed Arterial or Ccllector Street, the development design and off'street
improvements shall minimize the traffic conflicts. SDC4.2-120(B)( I).
Finding: This portion of 5th Street is classified as a Minor Arterial and the speed limit is 35
MPH.
Finding: The site is served by"one driveway which is proposed to remain..The existing 18 foot
wide driveway approach is inadequate to serve 2-way traffic. The proposed driveway approach
, does nct meet the minimum width for a 2-way driveway per the Springfield Development Code.
The minimum required width is 24 feet (Table 4.2-2).
Finding:, The proposed site plan does not provide a turn-arcund wHich is necessary to provide
10' ""'"'~ o~,.. drr,"';=. ",ok of.o .doq"_ 0".';" wm.ro""d ;~~, ~'"
. I oct
Date, Received: lo ((DOID/d-
Site Plan ORe 2007-00060 Planner: (j) . "9 If
9~l\
that vehicles will back out on-to 5th Street attempting to exit the site or back up on Sth Street
waiting for on-site congestion to clear before entering the site. ' This situation creates an
unacceptable potential conflict point on the public street network.
In addition, in response to complaints received regarding vehicles backing out onto and blocking
the southbound travel lane of 5th Street DSD staff conducted a field visit and confirmed that
vehicles were indeed backing out onto 5th street. So an unacceptable situation appears to
already exist at this location.
Finding: Approximately 90 feet of the driveway leading to the parking lot is only 12' wide
which is not wide enough for two-way traffic. This will result in conflicts on-site which may spill
over onto 5th Street, creating an unacceptable conflict on the public street network.
Finding: Parking space #4 and the proposed loading zone space located adjacent to the 12'
driveway do not have adequate room for vehicle access without conflicting with driveway traffic.
Finding: The proposed site plan does not meet the parking/loading requirements of the
Springfield Development Code (Table 4.6-2). The proposed site plan only provides for 4
parking spaces and 2 loading spaces. The Springfield Development Code requires the 5 parking
spaces and 3 loading spaces to be provided on site. Lack of adequate on-site parking and loading
spaces increases the potential that vehicles will back up on 5th Street waiting for on-site
congestion to clear before entering the site. This situation creates an unacceptable potential
conflict point on the public street network.
Conclusion: The Transportation division cannot recommend approval of the
proposed project as submitted. The proposed site circulation must be redesigned
and the required parking/loading spaces provided.
It appears that the site is large enough to accommodate on-site circulation for the proposed
land use and that the site plan can be revised to accommodate on-site parking and circulation.
The following design guidelines are recommended to be considered in the site design:
o Widen the driveway approach to a minimum of 24'.
o Provide for an on-site turnaround. The turnaround must not be located within 100' of
the 5th Street public right of way.
o The number and dimensions of the parking spaces and loading spaces must meet City
Code. Parking and loading spaces must not conflict with the driveway or turnaround.
o Due to the nature of the use, the site plan should provide for separate pedestrian access
ways from all parking and loading spaces to facility entrances. The pedestrian access
must meet ADA requirements.
o The driveway widened to accommodate two-way traffic. The driveway may be
narrowed to one lane to accommodate existing site constraints( such as the fir tree) for
short distances. however a two lane driveway must be provided within the first 100 feet
of the driveway entrance.
o Please provide all dimensions on the plans.
Date Received: 8/wIS:M"..J--
Planner: LD 5-#(1 (~lA
, liD Of; (,1
SITe Plan
ORe 2007-00060
10
Criterion E
SDC 5.17-125 E.
Physical features, including but not limited to: steep slopes with unstable soil orge'ologic
conditions; areas with susceptibility of flooding; significant clusters of trees and shrubs,
watercourses shown on the WQLW Map and their associated riparian areas, wetlands,
rock outcroppings and areas of historic and/or archaeological significance, as may be
specified in Section 3.3-900 or ORS 97.740-760,358.905-955 and 390.235-240, shall be
protected as specified in this Code or in State or Federal law.
Finding: The site is not known to contain areas of historic and/or archaeological significance.
Conclusion: As submitted, the proposal satisfies Criterion' E.
CONCLUSION: Staff has determined that the proposed site plans pose a significant risk to
the motoring public and the clients they intended.to serve. The proposal cannot be reasonably
conditioned without crossing into significant redesign of public improvements. The Site Plan as
submitted is not in conformance with the applicable Criteria 1-5 of SDC 5.17-125 and is
therefore denied. In accordance with SDC 5.4-1 05.G, no new application for the same
development proposal may be filed within I year of the date of the previous denial.
This Decision was prepared on November 10, 2008. The applicants were advised of the
recommendation for denial and chose to waive the 120-day action period as required by ORS
227.178. A waiver was granted to allow the applicants to submit modifications of the parking
and circulation for the site in lieu of this Decision. The expiration date of the Waiver is March
23, 2009 with proposed revisions due to the City no later than January 26, 2009 to allow for a
60-day review period. As of this date, the applicants have not submitted the proposed
modifications to the site plan, accordingly, this decision is issued as agreed.
Pursuant to SDC 5.4-1 05.G, when an application is denied, no new applications for the same
development proposal may be filed within I year of the date of the previous denial, unless the
Approval Authority, for good cause, grants permission to file a new application.
Addition,,-llnformation:. The application, all documents, and evidence relied upon by the
applicant, and the applicable criteria of approval are available for free inspection and copies are
available at a cost of $0.75 for the first page and $0.50 for each additional page at the
Development Services Department, 22S Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon.
ADDeals:, If you wish to appeal this Tentative Site Plan Approval, a Type II Limited Land Use
decision, your application must comply with SDC 5.3-100, APPEALS. Appeals must be
submitted on a City form and a fee of $250.00 must be paid to the City at the time of submittal.
The fee will be returned to the appellant if the Planning Commission approves the appeal
application. In accordance with SDC 5.3-115 which provides for a 15 day appeal period, the
appeal period for this decision expires at 5:00 p.m. on February 23, 2009.
Ouestions:
Please contact Lissa Davis at the City of Springfield Urban Planning Division, 541-726-3632 if
you have questions regarding this process.
Site Plan
ORe 2007-00060
Date Received: ;;>},(p( if! ..n--
Planner: lD ~~8V
\\q}\ II