HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotice PLANNER 2/8/2008
, ,
Date Received:
I
!
'~
FEB - 8 2008
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
. ,
Original SUbmittal~
, STATE OFOREGON )
, I )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 1>R.(Z007-t:.J{)D~O 1lnb); 1)) i1?-{'J~/~ .~ fnt,c/-~
(See attachment nAn) one.2./8 ' .2008 addressed to (see ' 7Co~ ~
Attachment Bn), by causing said 'letters to be ,placed in a U.S. mail box with
postage fully prepaid thereon. '
~/U.#1_b<ad//I' '-
t<A~~ LaFLEUR '
STATE OF ORE~ON, County, of lane
fb.B,
. 2008. PerSonally appeared the above named Karen laFleur,
Program Technician, who acknowledged tl:1e foregoing' instrument to, be their voluntary
act Before me:
r6 ~--~:- - - - -o;;tIM.;E;L----'
I( BRENDA JONES I
I. , NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON j
. i' " COMMISSION NO. 379218 j
L_ __ ~:O:'~~c:.N.:!~E~~~2~~~~
,
My Commission Expires:
-111f(j 87. ~
'City of Springfield
Development Services Department
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
MINOR SITE PLAN MODIFICATION
Staff Report & Decision
Project Name: Rosboro Lumber
Project Proposal: Construct 3,100 sf metal-framed storage shed for
tools and supplies & 60,000 sf concrete slab to house kiln machinery
Case Number: DRC2007-00080
Project Location: 2509 Main Street
17-03-36-00, TL 1 00
Zoning: Heavy Industrial (HI)
Overlay District(s): Drinking Water Protection (DWP)
Applicable Refinement Plan: N/A
Refinement Plan Designation: N/A
Metro Plan Designation: Heavy Industrial (HI)
Application Submittal Date: December 14, 2007
Application Accepted as Complete: January 18, 2008
Decision Issued Dat&: February 8, 2008
Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
Associated Applications: DRC2007-00079 (Final Site Plan Equivalent Map)
~[fEVEr~fiM"ENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
POSITION REVIEW OF
I pranner /I Land Use Plannin!l
I TrljrJpP9rta\ion PI~nninq EL111ipe}lr Trp'J1;portati~n
rpublic Works En~lneer In Tralmnll UtJlitles, Samtary & Storm Sewer
I De,Puty Fire tJla"r:shal Fire and Life Safety
I Dnnkinll Waler Protection Coordinator SUB Water Quality Protection
NAME
Molly M'lrl<arian
Gary McKenney
Jesse Jones
Gilbert Gordon
Amy Chinitz
n~~~~ 1
726-4585
736-1036
726-,/19~
744-~745
~
I
I
I
I
I
rI\Pp(ICXNT'S~[)EVEr:OPMENT.REVIEWTEAM
Applicant
Mark Rainville
Rosboro Lumber
P.O. Box 20
, Sprinllfield, OR 97477-0086
, Applicant's Representative
Mark McKechnie
Oregon Architecture, Inc.
P.O. Box 4460
Medford, OR 97501
Case No, DRC2007 -00080
~~@UUI'
" -g-D8
'Rv L..
. 1cl8
DECISION
This staff report and decision grants approval with conditions to the subject application, as of the date
of this decision. The standards of the Springfield Development Code (SDC) applicable to each criterion
of approval are listed herein and are satisfied by the submitted plans and notes unless specifically
noted in this decision with findings and conditions necessary for compliance. The Final Site Plan,
including the landscape plan, as well as building plans, site development, and the installation of public
and private improvements, must conform to the approved site plan or as conditioned herein. Any
changes to the approved site plan must be approved through the Site Plan Modification application
process. This is a ministerial decision made according to city code and state statutes. This decision is
final and may not be appealed. Please read this document in its entirety.
USES AUTHORIZED BY THIS DECISION
The proposed use of this site for lumber manufacturing and administrative offices is permitted in
accordance with SDC 3,2-410, No other uses are authorized by this decision.
REVIEW PROCESS
This application has been reviewed under the procedures listed in SDC 5.1-125, Type I Applications,
and SDC 5,17-100, Site Plan Review. This application was accepted as complete on January 18,
2008, and this decision is issued 22 days after complete submittal of the application.
SITE INFORMATION
The subject property is a 72,72 acre (3,167,683 square feet), irregular-shaped lot on the south side of
Main Street between 19th Street and 28th Street and is located inside the City limits. Currently, the
property contains buildings, storage areas, and equipment associated with lumber manufacturing, as
well as associated office buildings. While land north of the property is zoned Community Commercial
and Light Medium Industrial, the property is zoned and designated Heavy Industrial, and land
immediately surrounding the property on the west, south, and east is zoned Heavy Industrial.
SITE PLAN REVIEW - MODIFICATIONS
Finding: SDC 5.17-145 A. states that the Site Plan Modification process establishes procedures to
allow certain adjustments to an approved Site Plan and that this process assures that any modification
continues to comply with the approval criteria specified in SDC 5.17-125.
Finding: SDC 5.17-135 states that in the case of developed industrial properties greater than five
acres in size that did not receive Final Site Plan approval prior to the adoption of the SDC, the Director
may approve a Final Site Plan Equivalent Map to allow the property owner to use the Site Plan
Modification process for future additions or expansions.
Finding: Since the approximately 72 acre Rosboro Lumber site was developed prior to the adoption of
the SDC and therefore did not received Final Site Plan approval, approval of a Final Site Plan
Equivalent Map is required so that the Site Plan Modification process can be used for the proposed
changes to the Rosboro facilities. The applicant submitted a Final Site Plan Equivalent Map
concurrently with this application, which was approved concurrently with this decision, The approved
Final Site Plan Equivalent Map is incorporated herein by reference.
Finding: SDC 5,17-135 8.3, states that the applicant shall update the Final Site Plan Equivalent Map
as a condition of the Site Plan Modification preliminary approval and that the applicant shall submit this
revised map prior to final approval of the Site Plan Modification.
Condition 1: Prior to operation of the modified area of the site, submit an updated Final Site Plan
Equivalent Map to reflect the changes made to the Rosboro facilities as part of this Minor Site Plan
Modification.
Findi".g:' As conditioned herein, this application meets the requirements of SDC 5.17~1f@ ~ 0 W ~ ~I
Finding: SDC 5,17-145 D. states that the criteria of approval for a Site Plan Modi! tion application I
shall be the criteria of approval specified in SDC 5.17-125. . '- - - - .1/
Case No, DRC2007 -00080 2 of 8 ~
By Z-g-Dg
SITE PLAN REVIEW - CRITERIA "
SDC 5,17-125 states. that an application shall be approved or .approved with conditions upon
determination that the criteria listed in SDC 5.17-125 A. through E. have been satisfied and that if
conditions cannot be attached to satisfy the approval criteria, the application shall be denied,
Criterion 1tSDC 5.17-125 A.i
The zoning is consistent with the Metro Plan diagram, andlor the applicable Refinement Plan Diagram,
Plan District Map, and Conceptual Development Plan.
Finding: The subject property is zoned Heavy Industrial and is designated l:feC!vy Industrial by the
Metro Plan diagram, and there is no applicable refinement plan, There are no applicable Plan District
maps or Conceptual Development Plans for this property, and no change to the zoning designation or
boundaries is proposed,
Conclusion: This application satisfies Criterion 1 (SDC 5,17-125A.). '
Criterion 2tSDC 5.17-125 B.~
Capacity requirements of public and private facilities, including but not limited to water-and electricity;
sanitary sewer and stormwater management facilities; and streets and traffic safety controls shall not
be exceeded and the public improvements shall be available to serve the site at 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,
Finding: The Development Review Committee (DRC), including representatives from the City's
Development Services Department, Public Works Department, and Fire arid ~ife Safety Department, as
well as the Springfield Utility Board (SUB) reviewed the application, and their comments have been
incorporated into the findings and conditions below,
Finding: Criterion 2 contains two categories of development standards with' sub-sections,' The
application as submitted complies with any applicable sub-sections of the development standards
unless otherwise noted with specific findings and conditions, The development standards relating to
<;:riterion 2 include but are not Ii.mited to the infrastructure standards discussed in SDC 4,1-100, 4,2.
100, and 4,3-100:' " .'
4,2-100 Infrastructure Standards-
Transportation
4:2-105 Public Streets
4,2-110 Private Streets
4,2-115 Block Length
4,2-120 Site Access and Driveways
4,2-125 Intersections
4,2-130 Vision Cle~rance
4,2-135 Sidewalks
4,2-140 Street Trees
4,2-145 Street Lighting
4,2c150 Bikeways
4,2-155 Pedestrian Trails
4,2-160 Accessways
4,3-100 Infrastructure Standards-
Utilities
4.3-105 SanitarY Sewers
4,3-110 Stormwater Management'
4.3-115 Water Quality Protection
4.3-120 Utility Provider Coordination
'4,3-125, Underground Placement ofUtilities
4,3-130 Water Service and Fire Protection
4,3-135 Major Electrical Power Transmission Lines
4,3-140 Public Easements
4,3-145 Wireless Telecommunications Systems Facilities
Storm water Manauement
, '
Finding:,.SDC 4:,3-110 B. states that development approval shall only r~ntQ1 '1I1:ler.e-lfe-'ublic
Works Director has determined that adequate public and/or private ston I r@1~~~l\'ie&t ~ ,tems
provisions, co~.s~stent with the EDSPM, have been made, -. w 1'1
Case No DRC2007-00080 .!J 3 of 8
::.-~.~::'___-__ ,'~,~,! 2-'iS-08"'
,'i,:
"!'
" '
1\'.
--00< _ ~
Finding:, SDC 4.3-110 D, states th, ;un-off from a development shall be acted to an approved
stormwater management system with sufficient capacity to accept the discharge.'
" . . .
Fin,ding: Under Federal regulation of the Clean Water Act (CWA)" Endangered Species Act (ESA),
and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), the City' of Springfield is required to
obtain, and has applied for, a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit. A provision of
this permit requires the City to demonstrate efforts to reduce the pollution in urban stormwater to the
Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP), .
Finding: Federal and Oregon.Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) rules require the City's MS4 '
plan address six, Minimum Control Measures. 'Minimum Control Measure 5, Post-Construction
Stormwater . Management for New Development and Redevelopment, a'pplies to the proposed
development.
Finding: Minimum Control Measure 5 requires the City to develop, implement, and enforce a program
to ensure the reduction of pollutants in stormwater runoff to the MEP. The City must also develop and
implement strategies that include a combination of structural and 'non-structural Best Management
Practices (BMPs) appropriate for the community,
Finding: Minimum Control Measure 5 also requires the City to use an ordinance or other,regulatory
mechanism to address post-construction stormwater runoff from new development and redevelopment
to the e,xtent allowable under State law, Regulatory mechanisms used by the City include the SDC,
EDSPM, afld the future S.tormwater Facilities Master Plan (SFMP),
Finding: SDC 4,3-110 E, states that developments are required to 'employ drainage management
practices approved by the Public Works Director and consistent with the EDSPM that minimize the
amount and rate of surface water run-off into receiving streams,
Finding: EDSPM 3,02 states that the' Public Works Departme[lt 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 Bureau of Environmental Services (BES) or the Clean Water
Services (CWS),
Finding: EDSPM 3,03,3,B, states that all public and private developme~t and redevelopment shall
employ a system 'of one'or more post-development BMPs that, in combination, are designed to achieve
at least a 70% reduction in the total suspended solids in the runoff generated by that development.
EDSPM 3.03.4,E. requires that a minimum of 50% of the non-building rooftop impervious area on a site
be treated for stormwater quality improvement using vegetative methods,
Finding: The applicant proposes to manage stormwater runoff from the 'redevelopment area by
directing the flow to a series of existing catch basins, These catch' basins do not perform any
pretreatment of water before it is discharged into the City's stormwater system,
Condition 2: Prior to operation of the modified area of the site, the applicant shall ,propose and
receive approval from the City of Springfield Public Works Department for a pretreatment upgrade to
, the affected stormwater system. In addition, prior to 'operation of the modified area of the site, 'the
applicant shall upgrade the affected stormwater system'to ensure pretreatment of stormwater runoff
prior to discharge into the public stormwater system.
Finding: As conditioned above, this application'meets the requirements of SDC 4,3"110,
Conclusion: This application satisfies Criterion 2 (SDC 5,17-125 B.) as conditioned herein.
Criterion 3 IS DC 5.17-125 C.)
The proposed development shall comply with all applicable public and private design and constructjon. '_
standWds'po7ta!~e8 i(!:th~~~~de and other apP/~cable r~gulations. ' ~\E@ \E U ~ ~ ~',
Finding: ' Criterion 3 'coritaJ.n. S four categories of development standards and requireTJI' ts, As .suc~" ' ~ I,
the ap.plication must com9Iy:!with the development standards of SDC Chapter 4 n' ~~ ddressed by ~
Case N?, DRC2007-00080 ! Ii" , ,~LJ ~~~8
I . " ,! 2~'if-U'>
I ,~
Criterion 3, as well as'" , development standards for the app",4ble zoning district. In addition, the
application must comply with the requirements of any applicable overlay district arid/or refinement plan,
The application as submitted complies with the applicable development standards and requirements
unless otherwise noted with specific findings and conditions,' The development standards and
requirements relating to Criterion 3 include but are not limited to the following: '
, '
Chapter 4 - o.evelopment Standard~
4.4-100 Landscaping, Screening, & Fence
Standards
4,5-100 On-Site Lighting Standards
4,6~100 Vehicle Parking, Loading, & Bicycle
Parking Standards
4.7-100 Specific Development Standards for
Certain Uses
4.8-100 Temporary Uses
Applicable Overlay District
3.3-200 Drinking Water Protection
3,2-400.lndustrial t,oning Districts
3,2-410 Schedule of Use Categories
3,2-420 Base Zone Development Stan~ards
Applicable Refinement Plan
No refinement plans apply to 'the subject property
Vehicle Parkina. Loadina. & Bicvc/e Parkina Standards
, .1 I > .
Finding: SDC 4,6-140 states tQat safe and convenient bicycle parking is required to encourage the
use of bicycles as a mode of transportation, SDC 4,6-145 and 4,6-150 discuss the City's design,
location, and security' standards for bicycle parking. SDC 4,6-155, states that for industrial
, manufacturing uses, one space is required for every 3,000 square feet of floor area.
Finding:' The, plan set included with this application indicates that bicycle parking exists ,on the west
end of the, southern most row of vehjcle parking; and the applicant's narrative states that existing
bicycle parking is a 26-foot by 16-foot fenced enclosure. However, upon visiting the site's parking area
on January 23, 2007, Planning and Public Works staff found that no bicycle parking exists in the
location shown on the plans. A bicycle rack does exist to the west of the 'gate house, but the rack does
not meet code requirements for design, location, or security and is not fenced on all sides,
Finding: The application indicates that the Minor Site Plan Modification involves con,struction of a new,
shed with a floor area of 3,090 square feet, and construction of an approximately 60,000 square foot
concrete slab to house lumber drying kiln machinery.
, ,
Finding: SDC 4,6-155 states that for industrial l]1anufacturing uses, one bicyCle parking space is
required for every 3,000 square feet of floor area, 25%,of which shall be short-term bicycle parking, and
75% of which shall be long-term bicycle parking, With approximately 63,090 square feet of floor area
proposed to be modified as part of this application, a minimum of 21 bicycle parking spaces is required.
,
Condition 3: Prior to operation of the modified area of the site, the applicant shall install a minimum of
21 bicycle parking spaces, ()f these, a minimum of sixteen shall be for long-term bicycle parking, All
bicycle parking shall be designed and installed in accordance with the design, location, and security
standards outlined in SDC 4,6-145 and 4,6-150. In addition, prior to operation of the modified area of
the site, the plan sets shall correctly identify the location, type, and number of bicycle parking spaces, _
Finding: As conditioned herein, the application meets the requirements of SDC 4,6-140 through 4.6-
1~,' , ,
ADDlicable Overlav District
Fiifdih'fi:,-SDC;3:3-220 A. states that the DWP Overlay District includes four Time of Travel Zones
, (TOTZ}-O-1 year; 1-5 years; 5-10 years; and 10-20 years and that the k ~i2"fDJuit"" "~-1 each
I~ii; wellhead are Sh~W.~ on the Drinking Wate~ Protection Area Map~ on me '^ ~~ ~~t~ U ,~ l1 ')
I Case No DRC2007-00080 ' ; 5 of 8
'. '.j" '..', 2-~-D8
, ,."'
; .~ ;'
'-;~.,~ ....~~,....",.~~......._--~."
Finding: The subject property islocc. j within the 10-20 year TOTZ for me ",and Q Street wellhead
and is thus within the DWP Overlay District.
Finding: SDC 3,3-225A states that a DWP Overlay District D.evelopment application is required when
both SDC 3.3-225 A.1, and A.2.are met. A such, the application is required when there is a change of
land use, occupancy, or tenancy of a property, during the building permit process, or in conjunction with
any development application, In addition, the applicable scenario must affect the storage, use, and/or
production of hazardous materials that pose a risk to groundwater or increase the quantity of hazardous
materials that pose a risk to groundwater.
Finding: SDC 3,3-225 B, states that prior to the submittal of a DWP Overlay District Development
application, an exemption request may be submitted to the Director as specified in SDC 3,3-230 B,1.
SDC 3,3-230 B,1, states that the demonstration of no threat to the aquifer is the responsibility of the
applicant seeking the exemption,
Finding: SDC 3,3-230 A. states that exemptions are as specified in that section unless the Director, in
consultation with SUB, determines that a hazardous material, activity, or facility that is exempt pursuant
to this Section has a significant or substantial potential to degrade groundwater quality, In such a case,
the Director may require compliance with the requirements of that section related to that hazardous
material, activity, or facility.
Finding: In conjunction with the Minor'Site PI.anModification application, the applicant submitted a
written request for exemption from DWP Overlay District' regulations stating that no hazardous
materials'would be stored, used, or produced on the area of the site proposed for modification,
Finding: The 'SUB Water Quality Protection Coordinator reviewed the exemption request and
determined that since the proposed modifications to the 'site do not include the use, storage, or
production of hazardous materials that the modified area of the site is exempt from DWP Overlay
District regulations except as discussed below, The exemption request letter serves as the official
certification that the modification does not involve any hazardous materials, 'and the site may be subject
to verification at any time, "
,
'Finding: While there is no proposed use, storage, or production of hazardous materials on the area of
the site proposed to be modified, general construction practices have the potential to introduce
hazardous materials into the groundwater.' Therefore, reasonable measures must be' taken to
guarantee compliance with SDC 3,3-200.
Finding: SDC 3,3-240 states that the Director may attach conditions of approval that will ensure that
the proposed development can fully meet the standards specified in SDC 3,3-235, These conditions
may include but are not limited to on-site monitoring wells, Wellhead Protectioh Area signs, special
stormwater facilities, or other conaitions to address specific risks associated with thEl' proposed
development.
Condition 4: Prior to operation of the modified area ,of the site, wellhead protection signage in
conformance with'SUB standards shall be placed in conspicuous locationsaild high risk areas such as
pa'rking lots, outside of structures, building ~ntrances, trash enclosure areas, loading docks, and central
receiving areas to alert staff and visitors to call 911 in the event of a release of hazardous materials,
Signs may be field-located with review staff during site inspections, Contact Amy Chinitz at 744-3745
to purchase signs from SUB. ' , ,
Finding:' As conditioned herein, this application meets the requirements of SDC 3.3-200,
Conclusion: This application satisfies Criterion 3 (SDC 5,17-125 C,) as conditioned herein,
Criterion 4/SDC 5.17-125 D.l
Par~if1gcarea5'and./ngress7eg;ess points have been designed to: facilitate vehicula '~~/~dle Wn82lli:~'
peqe~triah,sa(~tyto '!Y,9idic,..,?:n,,:gesti~n; provide con~e.ctivity within the development C", and to adjacent
residentIal areas, tranSIt, stops, neighborhood activity centers, .and commerCIal, II. stnal' and, publIC
, .,:~:, p': ' U
Cas~ No' DRC2007.00080 . : ,; '2 _ ~ iJ" 6 of 8
I , c,' By .
I
,.
areas; minimize drivew~i'~on arterial and collector streets as SJiv ~Ified in this .code or other applicable
regulations and comply with the ODOT access management standards for State highways,
Finding: The DRC,' including representatives from the City's Public Works Department and ODOT,
reviewed the application and found that existing conditions are adequate to meet the requirements of
SDC 5.17-125 D.
, "
:
Conclusion: This <lpplication satisfies Criterion 4 (SDC5:17-125 D,).
Criterion 5 ISDC 5.17-125 E:\
Physical features, including, but not limited to: steep slopes with unstable soil or geologic conditions;
areas with susceptibility of flooding; significant clusters, of trees and shrubs; watercourses shown on the
WQLW Map and their associated riparian areas; wetlands; rockouicroppings;'open spaces; and areas
of historic and/or archaeologicql significance, as m'!y be specified inSection 3.3-900 or ORS 97,7.40-
760, 358.905-955 and 390,235-240, shall be protected af? specified iiJ this Code or in State or Federal
mw .'
Finding: The Metro Plan and any applicable refinement plans, Water QUCility Limited Watercourses
Map, State Designated Wetlands Map, Hydric Soils Map, Natural Resources Map, Wellhead Protection
Zone Map, FEMA Maps, Willamalane Park and Recreation Comprehensive Plan, and the list of Historic
Landmark sites have been consulted, and there are no features needing to be protected or preserved
on the subject property, '
Finding: If any historic or archaeological artifacts are discovered during construction, ORS 97,740-
760; 358.905-955, arid ORS 390,235-240 may apply" If any human remains' are discovered during
construction, ills a Class C felony to proceed under ORS'97,745. ' '
Conclusion: This application satisfies Criterion 5 (SDC 5.12-125 E.).
SUMMARY OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
NOTE: This summary of the conditions of approval is provided as a courtesy to the applicant. The
applicant should, however, carefUlly read the decision in, its entirety to understand, the basis' for each
condition. In addition, as stated earlier, the applicant must comply with the entire decision, and the
Final Site Plan, including the landscape plan, as well as building plans, site development, and the
installation of public and private improvements, must conform to the approved site plan or as
conditioned herein. '
1. Prior to operation of the modified area of the site, submit an updated Final Site Plan Equivalent
Map to reflect the changes made to the Rosboro facilities as part of this Minor Site Plan
Modifi.cation, "
2, Prior to operation of the modified area of the site, the applicant shall propose and receive
approval from the City of Springfield Public Works Department for a pretreatment upgrade to
the affected stormwater system, In addition, prior to operation of the modified area of the site,
the applicant, shaU upgrade the affected stormwater system to ensure pretreatment of
stor'11,w~ter runoff prklr to discharge into the public stormwater system.
i ~, ~ -_. . 'J.l
'j " . '~
3, Priprto operation of itb~ modified area of the site, the applicant shall install a minimum of 21
bicycle parking spacE:liU Of these, a minimum of sixteen shall be for long-term bicycle parking,
All bicycle parking shalllbe designed and installed in accordance with the design, location, and
security'staridards.oHtUned in SDC 4,6-145 and 4,6-150, In addition, prior to operation of the
modified area. of the site,' the plan sets shall correctly identify the location, type, and number' of
bicycle parking spaces,
,,: ''4, ' Prior to <operation of the modified area of the site, vyellhead protecr~~c :, .; ce
with SUB standards shall be placed in conspicuous locations ar ~ wt@i~~n3~s c I ~~ as
parking lots: outside, of structures, building entrances, trash enclc ;~ 'e areas, loa.ding, VI ks,
Case No, DRC2007.00080 . j_ ~I of 8
b_ ~.~~-O8'
"
and central receiving areas,d"'~lert staff and visitors to call 911 in event of a release of
hazardous materials, Signs may be field-located with review staff during site. inspections.
Contact Amy Chinitz at 744-3745 to purchase signs from SUB.
CONCLUSION
The application, as submitted and conditioned herein, complies with the five criteria listed in SDC 5,17-
125 A. through E. The site plan approved as submitted and conditi.oned herein may not be
. substantively changed. Any changes to the approved site plan must be approved'through the Site Plan
Modification application process in accordance with SDC 5,17-145, .
WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE?
, , '.
Within ninety (90) days of this decision, the applicant must submit five (5) copies of a modified Final
Site ~Ian Equivalent Map in substantial conformity with application submittals and as conditioned herein
showing compliance with this decision, In addition, the applicant shall submit a letter listing and,
addressing each condition of approval, detailing the actions taken and current status of each item,
Final Site Plan Modification approval and approval for operations of the modifications shall be granted
when the conditions outlined in this decision are met, ..
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION'
The application, all doculTlents, and supporting evidence are 'available for free inspectioh(copies are
available for a fee) at the Development Services Department. . '
APPEAL
This Type I decision is e~empt from the, Proviliions, of ORS 197,195, 197,763, and 227,173 and
therefore cannot be subject to the appeal provisions of SDC 5.3-100, Appeals. In the eyent that the
applicant disagrees with the application of the development standards in this decision, the applicant
may request a Type III Interpretation or submit a Type II Site Plan Review application, '
QUESTIONS
Please call MollyMarkarian in the DeveloPr1.lent Services Department Planning Divisio'n at 726-4611 or
email tieral.mmarkarian@ci.springfield.or.usif you have any questions, '
, .. . ,
, .. '
PREPARED BY
Molly Markarian
Planner II
Urban Planning Section
]~ @~UW~ J
2 -~ ~<g
By,_,_ ,__._.
,'{
.l "
,;. '
'; ; (.l
- ,\ I,'
'. ,I
:n!j
8018
~
I"
Case,Nd, DRC2007.00080
"
,r
.. .
,
- . ~:>. ,
. -:
)
..
........- ... ._,
'-. "
.L_..,__ ....
.. ..'..iI1. 1......._',
~ '._1
CITY OF SPRIt-lGFIELD
, DEVELOPMENT SEI'lVICES DEPARTMENT
225 5th ST
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
. ,
f,... _.0 "",,.
Mark Rainville
Rosboro L!lmber
PO Box 20
Springfield, OR 97477-0066
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
DEYElOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
2255thS~ ' 'v
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 ,
.
,. .., . III.. 01...,1 I. I __ I
)
Mark McKechnie
Oregon Architecture
PO Box,4460
'Medford, OR '97501
-
t
: '.,.'
18
.1 I .......Il_.~,...........
"
,
",-,'
~ ~ @ ~ 0 ill ~ -/
R - -- 1
, , 2-C(.D<6
By