HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotes, Work PLANNER 4/29/2010
4/29/2010
Mr. Jim Donovan - Planning Dept.
City of Springfield, OR
RE: EMMITT PROPERTIES (Baldwin property...) 14th and Main St / Springfield, OR 97477
Jim:
Thank you for the meeting with the personnel from the City of Springfield and the valued City Council
Person. With the result of the meeting, I have no doubt that Bill will retire and that the City of
Springfield will lose this valued service to the community. Obviously, Drew and I are upset to see Bill
White leave as we felt that his group brought a positive usage to the building. He has been an ideal
tenant and we have worked with him with regard to reduced rent, etc... to keep him there. Both Drew
and I have seen Bill's service to the community as a buffer to the nefarious businesses that seem to
prosper east of our property. Bill has been pivotal in maintaining a strong, "family-friendly" tenant mix.
Drew and I will, therefore, have two spaces (1408 and 1410) coming up for lease that face Main Street.
One ofthe spaces is currently retail (Big Daddy Signage...) but the other is Bill White's group. The
building was designed and built for retail in 1965 and has functioned with the exception of Bill's tenancy
(1 year...) as such. Will your plan to place parallel parking in the front apply if 1408 is filled with a non-
service oriented tenant? IE: Retail.
I would appreciate your direct and speedy communication on this issue as Drew and I have to solidify
our pian of action with the losses that can be anticipated.
Please note that the angle or direction of the front parking (southern/Main St.) was not mentioned in
the review for the Church application. My contention is that if you had such a plan in mind, as property
owners I should have been forewarned about this potential property value-reducing action, before I
allowed Mr. Bill White to sign the lease.
I thank you for your assessment ofthis situation in advance.
Sincerely,
Gary and Drew Baldwin
Date Received: 4~ZCj - 10
Planner. >';.'$\4
". .. L~~,
l ~ ~q p~
I. f't(c;f-~ s,k [pI Ale rvl(~ ,'~ ){C/A=-
,Vtl;!IiOU5 /2bbl ,f _/J U ( )
, CVN /' C~.<<j:?C; I cJo'o f;;.- tjP.<</V5
Z j ~' g iii 6$ (';krth Clvti ,<.!",9V< t& ')
{for 3CJ')if~f- A,/r;) s/k) ,
l'e. )N-bt~j;41.(ID~Vb/ t<~
j, /liMA! (Jgw~/A/J/ jt/;// cfff(rrr a /I~d .J, 6no
}It f<d''O ';"0 "-I/'~ (J~~ !-n-~
{ilk '
f do~ (JWLJ curb cui
1 [f;2P~<7I()~ / Nt~u pc Iv-a.tfU'i? orh~?
(J - U-$L cJ- h1 )41 (kr /! "1? NC?1- #
"
.",. .-.". ... ~.,~----~? -, '
.-- + '- '. .:.,,' '~.:"' ..
Date ReCeived:
Planner. ' -..."
Apr 2~ 10 03:18p
, G Baldwin Marketing
503 760 6805
p,1
Mr. Jim Donovan
~: 5f(>12b",,~(lA
~" ::rM~o""'AtJ
l29r
f'f' So '3 -- / ,,0 - 3>
~~,~ 1-/1)-- iflO" Sn
(b,V. Wh I k -- 5f ( - 6(}6 ~ bY5 ~
As you will note from the previous requests by City Hall in the initial upgrades, the frontage of
the building is 103', If, as property owners, we were to accept your proposal for parallel
parking along Main Street, this would mean that 5 cars maximum could park in the front area 01
the building. Furthermore, cars coming in off of Main Street or 14th would be forced to parallel-
park, a major stumbling block for any planner. (Check it out and see how many cities have in
urban renewal done away with parallel parking to encourage retail visitors.) Essentially, you
would be converting the front spaces of the building to service-only operationswith incredibly
limited and scheduled traffic. I do not need to tell you that this would diminish the property's
value markedly.
,
4/26/2010
Springfield City Planning Division
Mr, Donovan:
The solution is simple and obvious:
1. Angle the front parking more so that the lines are still faced on to Main Street but
angled heavily eastward.
2. Place a protective bumper so that your F 350 cannot back up over the sidewalk during
egress.
3. Close off the southern most entry to 14th Street.
This compromise we are willing to sign and move forward with.
Sincerely,
~\ u.~~t~\~~
Gary L. Baldwin
CC: J. Clifton
~
. Date Received:'
Planner: -
Apr 26 10 03:18p G Baldwin Marketing
1 ~~~~~\ ,.
" \
Pc \ \..e.
.
"
o
:r:
\'
T"~ .
~.
~
I
:)\1
-+1
"'
't)
'0
~
~a.6'"
1-*
~J\lG'l
~p
"4b .
'l"~J\lG
~4s
\-'~4
, ~o
.
\
-."- t;:
ler
. q~/-~. -- J ~>-
'(Y\~\(\ ~-\-\ee}
l
. 503 760 6805
p.2
.....~----~_.-""': ,...
,....
.,
I
i
I
!
"I
I
I
,
!
I
I
;
I
,
.
,
. .
"-":c,
.
,.
~.
"'C ?" <,0
. ~'
3 - fcO~
~<c,~
1t.11;). . '9~~
1;\(' ~,~.:~<c,
~~
. ~~o .~
,..
(+2 -)
I Ie>'
Da e Receive(C
nero
. 04/26/10 MON 17:14 FAX 5417263689
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
Ig] 001
*********************
*** RX REPORT ***
s********************
RECEPTION OK
TX/RX NO 5627
CONNECTION TEL 503 760 6805
CONNECTION ID
ST. TIME 04/26 17:12
USAGE T 01'46
PGS, 2
RESULT OK
Date Received:
Planner:
CUSTOMER CONTACT
Case No.
Address:
MaplLot No.
Phone No.
"
.~
.,
CUSTOMER CONTACT
Case No.
Address: J;!o; jJ!of4tv (~I
Contact: R.w 13<1 ItJ/t; .k
-at?
::) MaplLot No. /7)3,A0!-?2-- 7Z- 3yco
Phone No. ;- 6tJ6- (r/!3&
Planner:
OM _ ..'>,."
DONOVAN James
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
GRILE Bill
Tuesday, March 23, 2010 5:23 PM
GRIMALDI Gino; TOWERY Jeffrey; LAUDATI Niel
WILSON Julie; MOTT Gregory; DONOVAN James
FW: Bill White -541-606-6432 - Hope Community Church
Gino, Jeff, Niel:
Heads up. [Emphasis added.]
n. Bill
From: DONOVAN James
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 3:07 PM
To: LAUDAl1 Niel; GRILE Bill; LEAHY Joe (HL)
Cc: PUENT David; CASTILE Robert; JONES Terry (Tara); DRISCOLL Jon; TAMULONIS John
Subject: PN: Bill White -541-606-6432 - Hope Community Church
Gentlemen,
I called and informed Mr. White that after checking with my Director and City Attorney that there was no change to my
initial discussion and recommended course of action if he desired to move forward (no day care without MDS review,
outcome premised upon traffic, circulation and parking standards is not assured). Herespectfully)nformed me that he
i1a(l7no:other choicefh1'ittOToiiowthe :app~oach7hediscllssed(seek;leg;jFcj)lih;e1~~d use the 'pr~ss)!
___,","'M'~- ..... .. '. . .... .~~__ ~ ~,_"""~~_,_,-,..,.,,,,,__,,,,.......,...~. ........ -- ,"",---~~_~_y-= ~..
I told him we would work with him if he wanted to do the application, we would help him contact the chamber for other
vacant spaces that might work and we would sit down with his counsel before they proceeded if he desired.
I appreciate everyone's help on this one,
JD
From: DONOVAN James
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 10:51 AM
To: PUENT David
Cc: LEAHY Joe (HL); LAUDAl1 Niel; GRILE Bill; BARNETT Brian; DRISCOLL Jon; JONES Terry (Tara); GRIMALDI Gino;
MOTT Gregory
Subject: RE: Bill White -541-606-6432 - Hope Community Church
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I have spoken with Rev. White regarding the need for an MDS review prior to daycare facilities opening at the site. I also
advised him that my professional opinion is that it is unlikely that an MDS approval could be issued given the traffic and
parking situation. In doing so, I did admit that what he is alluding to as "planning approval from Tara Jones" appears to
be a hand written file entry that daycare would be a permitted use at the site. I understand why he is upset, we made a
mistake on the counter call. I told him we have the responsibility to right those mistakes as soon as we become aware.
Rev. White has informed me that he intends to file suit and call the media if he does not have his building permits and
approval to proceed by the end of the day. I am meeting to discuss at 11 am with him. I will advise Mr. Leahy ofthe
results at noon as I am meeting with him on another matter.
1
Date Received:
Planner:
;.:...
I will brief or meet as necessary after lunch,
JD
From: PUENT David
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 10:33 AM
To: LARSON James
Cc: DONOVAN James
SUbject: RE: Bill White -541-606-6432 - Hope Community Church
Jim,
Robert and I met wi Mr. White on site Friday to review "Building Code" items that he would need to install/add for the
"church" use of the property. I believe the real issue is the expansion of the "church" use to now include a commercial
day care facility that is intended as a seven day operation (not just on the normal Sunday). He would again need some
form of Land Use approval for this modification to proceed. This may be difficult to obtain because of the physical
restrains of the property. I believe planning is in contact with Mr. White about this. While we were there on Friday we
also reviewed with Mr. White potential items that would need to be done if he secured Land Use approval for the day
care operation. dave
From: LARSON James
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 9:24 AM
To: PUENT David .
Cc: SOWA Amy; WILSON Julie
Subject: Bill White -541-606-6432 - Hope Community Church
Hello Dave,
, Bill called here complaining that the city had previously told him their church was ok to open, but now the eity is telling
him that it is in violation of city code. He does not understand why he was told one thing previously and now is being
told something different. He is concerned they will have to close down because of this. If possible would you be able to
have someone give him a call. He was upset but cordial. I think he has talked with you before or Robert Castile.
Let me know,
Thanks,
Jim.
James A. Larson
City Manager's Office
City of Springfield
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
(541) 726-3700 (Phone)
(541) 726-2363 (Fax)
i1a rso n @lei .spri ngfield .or. us
Date Received:
Planner.
2
---
DEVELOPMENT SEhVICES DEPARTfiiJENT
225 FIFTH STREET
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
(541) 726-3753
FAX (541) 726-3689
www.ci.springlield.or.us
yC>
{J"
/},-O
I~" - q
:r[c/\{-\
. . ~ r
-z;DIO
---rh ~~ C2-v<-" -&- c; c. -c; ~a~.~ ~
I~ ~~~ ~:v-c)r... (CP~-S.C~) I.-~ 2J..L~.,-S
L\A -d'-'- C c
~
C-o~'Y\~ ') G..,iY\~G.J. ~.s.\--n-c1
Vyv~ dv-. ~\ (J ~CA~
\)c'l..'-~ru..-+ ~ &V~^-
UJ.,~~o
V0-Ovv --vk,-- ~'l(J~ cz..eve
"Lf ' -:t - \'2-\ .
.. \ k ~d L)y1: &J-.r- S~\)/U ~ Cs ()
\2.e--~ \~. ~~ .
'''\\.---e.. OJ~ ~ ~ ~~ be. ~~A
~ c,- G - ~ hit- ~ r-" .. O~C<J<t{) .~.
Olo~~v ~ uf<- &(J~ ].v ~
?nY\<:A. ~ ,;, C4-. t'~) UK -h, tL> "VV\h v- 0&c
.~?< ~c..L_ ?~ ~cY ~ 10fv...J ~2v-<.
"~ cy~M.
C':":~? R~r:eived:
~"J='l~r~~,,;r:
'. ]
~~.: ;~'.. :<':1
+~a~~
n. 0
('0-'lA. .JOheS)
,."
-"".-, .' .
[---- - ----- -- ---- -
!.b St=. Springfield. OR 974n+ PH(S41)726:3753. FAX(S4I)726-3689'i'~~~;;~':_'t)ir'I"=IlI""U","
/.1:" ,,'
~. ~
.lllis permit is issued under OAR 918-460-003I!_ Permits expire if work is uot started within 180 days ofissuanee or irwork is
;; suspended for 180 days.
LOCAl GOVERNMENT AJ>I'ROVAC
This project has final land-use approval.
Signature: Dale:
This project has DEQ approval..
Signature: Date:
Zoning approval verified: es 0 No
Property is wiIhio flood plain: 0 Yes 0 No
. 'CATEGORY;OFCONSTRUCTlON> ., .'
o Residential 0 Government Iiil"Commcrcial
.., . JOBSrrE iNFORrMTlPNANi:t LOCAl!PN
PGE MMiU~ ,'I J
City: A ~ ZIP:
Reference:
Name:
Address:
City:
Phone:
E-mail:
This installation is being made on residential or farm property owned by
me or a member of my immediate family~ and is exem t from licensing
requirements under ORS 701.010. .
Sign here:
~
CONTRACTOR INSTALLATION
Business name:
Address:
City:
Phone:
E-mail:
CCB license no.:
Print name:
State:
Fax:
ZIP:
Signature:
'SiJS-<;ONTRACTORINFORi't1ATlON'" ."
Name
Electrical
Plumbing
Mechanical
Phone Number
CCB u.e... Number
A/tJ
O~~8.1'J. 1.0" .-. ,."f)'AI ~~~- (l
r~ . yo f ce::.4.".;frVf ~,~ ~ IV-
." FEE' SCHEDULE '.
c i.oyafliation information' .... ....
.
(a) Job dcscription:Qt4jV~E tJr tI.s& - )/,:/ /1;iVSTfl!."" c];
Occupancy
Construction type:
Square feet:
Cost per square foot:
Other infonnation:
Type or Heat:
Eoe'1lY Path:
Oncw o alteration o addition
(b) Foundation-only permit? DYes ONo
Total valuation: , I s
'Z; BuildiDgfees '. . ", i ,-..
(a) Penoit fee (use valuation table): S
(b) Investigative fee (equal \0 [2&)): S
(c) Reinspection ($ per hour): S
(numbcrofhoulS x fee per hour)
(d) Enter 12% surcharge (.12 x [2a+2b+2c)): S
(e) Subtotaroffees above (1a through 2d): S
~;Pbiii i'e\iJil1Vrei;$>i,i ",' '.., .- ,''''. .. . . ....,.::...
,...;,' . .,....,
(a) Plan revicw (65% x pennit fee (2&)): S
(b) Fire and life safety (40% x permit fee [2a)): S
(e) Subtotal offees above (3a aad 3b): S
'4, Misi;diiin~jJ,. telf.j ........ .'.:' ,,: 'c. .. . "
(a) Seismic fee, 1% (.OJ x pennit fee [2a]): S
TOTAL fees and surc.barges (2e+3c+4a): $
I
C...A\JC,t:' O~ LhG Ll--lo c.(!),,~n.\)e.ne:
('.,
o.uT_A.~T P.=R'bt'-.!' J f
\~lLL WHITe r \
lr5Yl-"~_("4j~\~
/111l/t"';:~
~ /47,' , - ...",_~rA/".p~".I;Y!""':'
",-.!~/,;:;c- ....j rj,1,'''''',~ /lfp,/-,..o>,.F
&.-.t"I l~' ~'~.' .,:,-' :,,,,,. .. c", ".' "
,,;;[!;_ )7:Z~~~:7':<";~F7:'1,;~ #/0 ,?9~:&.c:-1!/r:r -l)()'l:-~ 4#'f;~r 1fl!:,~~f!JlP'7Z. /iv;;:'1t~~4-.-tr
,~.Lrtf)p? I re/?,~.!}.r.r~-;:l.~r
4.-...~_";,.,,,.#.. ~1--~ ""..."...Ji'}:7S'- . fi/H'h
t,..;f}.- cJJ t.--:~" :....-~.-'!-"',"( . , '" ~
~~/"/-
<7Jt?:':,i'!
41.<'i',
~
f~~~.!'~t'"'-
"
....",......:u1:..i..:_
InS+,.'- ~q:;(j\lJed:~
\.I ,'~:: ~ .'......
Planner:
,'cd.':
.-,.,.".
1/14/10
D}..~..
'\
. r-
..
G. Baldwin Marketing
13593 S E P0I11nnd Vic\\ Place
Ilupp) Valle). OR 97()R6
Cell 4::l5<! J 0-8783 gbnkh\ in43
@msn com
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
"
,I.
.>
When ,this property was inherited in January of 2005 the City of Springfield, OR required that the
property be brought up to City Code. IE: Electrical, Marquee, Signage, Bike Rack, Garbage Enclosure,
etc...) Also, the City of Springfield passed an Urban Renewal Bond and we were required to bring the
building and the landscaping up to new Urban Beautification Standards. The structure was built in 1965
and had to be brought into compliance with the American Disabilities Act. IE: Ramps, Parking Spaces,
Wider Access.
Listed below is a compilation of the re-construction of this property to bring it into compliance with the
various governmental agencies:
1. Electrical Panel and wiring brought up to City of Springfield Code.
2. Green, Energy Efficient Lighting Fixtures.
3. Lighted Signage to conform to City of Springfield Uniform Signage Code.
4. American Disabilities Act - Ramps, Railings, Wider Access, Parking Spaces.
5. Landscaping and re-work of parking lot to comply with Springfield Beautification under Urban
Renewal.
6. Green, High Efficiency Heating and Air Conditioning for Main Street tenants.
7. Painting of interior and exterior of structure to comply with Springfield Beautification under
Urban Renewal.
8. Replacement of wooden marquee with Standing Seam Metal marquee.
9. Garbage Bin Enclosure per Springfield Beautification under Urban Renewal.
10. Bike Rack placement per Springfield Beautification under Urban Renewal.
Please note that the City of Springfield did not assist monetarily or ANY other way in this transformation.
Thank You,
Gary Baldwin
Cell: 425-210-8783
Date Received:
Planner.
,
:.....
:",,"
.
4/26/2010
Mr. Jim Donovan
Springfield City Planning Division
Mr. Donovan:
.I~
.>
As you will note from the previous requests by City Hall in the initial upgrades, the frontage of
the building is 103'. If, as property owners, we were to accept your proposal for parallel
parking along Main Street, this would mean that 5 cars maximum could park in the front area of
the building. Furthermore, cars coming in off of Main Street or 14th would be forced to parallel-
park, a major stumbling block for any planner. (Check it out and see how many cities have in
urban renewal done away with parallel parking to encourage retail visitors.) Essentially, you
would be converting the front spaces of the building to service-only operations with incredibly
limited and scheduled traffic. I do not need to tell you that this would diminish the property's
value markedly.
The solution is simple and obvious:
,
\\~
1. Angle the front parking more so that the lines are still faced on to Main Street but
angled heavily eastward.
2. Place a protective bumper so that your F 350 cannot back up over the sidewalk during
egress.
3. Close off the southern most entry to 14th Street.
This compromise we are willing to sign and move forward with.
Sincerely,
Gary L. Baldwin
CC: J. Clifton
.
Date Receive!t,
Planner: .. .
""'. ...."......{JI ""\"
f;ft!:' ~~~:'.~if1rV'L~ .
~:;:::( A ;;l'QV\ .
,"::'0" ";.I,;t \.
't:;'~.(f/' ,"
A I \.e.
'--", ..----..-...-..-:....
"
.,.
.'
,I.
.'"~
o
:c:
~
. .
~
c}\'
~.
~
'C
~
T
-
~~
-
~a.5""
~ 4-2 -)
1l.{1~
,
_.~~
I
'\~~".::'
. "
..
/'
~ '
.....'> "
<.,7 /.
O~' . /
~~~
. ~~~~
O~~
.i
ate Received:
lanner.
, .
,
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Rev. William White
3805 North Street
Springfield, OR 97478
July 9, 2008
225 FIFTH STREET
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
(541) 726-3753
FAX (541) 726-3689
www.ci.springfield.or.us
RE: Relocation of the Congregation and Minimum Development Standards
Dear Reverend White,
Thank you for working with Planning staff to facilitate the move of your church congregation io the
new location at 14th and Main Street. After our discussions and research of the available
information we have determined that aMinimum Development Standards Application will be
sufficient land use review to allow the move. Below is my summary of the decisi~n making
process.
The Proposal: As discussed, we understand the proposal to include moving church facilities and
a congregation of approximately 50 people to an existing commercial building, using
approximately 3200 square feet of the larger retail structure primarily for Sunday services and
weeknight religious education. Upon visual inspection of the structure and subject site, it appears
that the landscaping, parking and access do meet current standards for retail and church use.
The Code: The proposed church use is a permitted use in the Community Commercial District
(SDC 3.2-310), subject to development standards for screening, landscaping and arterial street
location (SDC 4.7-130). As discussed, the Springfield Development Code provides three tiers of
review procedures to determine compliance with the approval standards: 1) Site Plan Review for
new development or substantial expansion of an existing development (detailed application, 120
days and approximate $4200 fee), 2) Minimum Development Standards (MDS) which minimize
review procedures for permitted changes of use in an existing structure (application and minimum
review information, 3 weeks and approximate $762 fee), and 3) a Land Use Compatibility
Statement (LUCS) check off sheet that is used when a change of use occurs at a developed site
which has gone through a recent MDS or Site Plan Review and is in compliance with previous
approvals (application form, site inspection 3-5 days and approximate $280 fee).
Applicability: The LUCS letter is not an option because no record of recent site plan review or
MDS can be found for the subject site and a review of minimum parking, landscaping and access
standards is necessary to update the site. Full Site"Plan Review is not triggered because
substantial expansion of the structure or parking areas is not proposed.
Determination: The MDS application is the middle ground and the correct tool for review of the
proposed change of use as stated at SDC 5.15-11 0(A)(3.d.). The code section further goes on to
provide the ability' to review a site and assess the required updates proportionally based upon the
tenant infill. The MDS decision will outline the responsibilities of the congregation and the owner's "
responsibilities as other changes of use occur at the site.
Where We Are Now. Staff understands the'concems'oiaffor~.apility and timely continuation of
services for the congregation. Staff is willing to assist you witli'compilation of the plot plans and
other materials necessary to complete the application packet picked up yesterday, and apply the
standards in a pro~ortional and reasonable manner, making every effort to meet the desired
timeline of July 27 for church services if the application is returned as soon as possible.
,.,,,,t.') Rt'~fved:
~--~, :-;;n~}~;,;{,
In closing, I wish to thank you for your appreciation of Planning's responsibilities for development
review in the community during a pivotal and presumably stressful time in the life of your
congregation. It is our sincere desire to be of service to you during this time and ensure your
ongoing presence in the community. I believe that'our goals to serve the community in our
respective ways are inclusive and compliment one and- other. I hope this letter is of assistance to
you and I encourage you to always call on us in a time of need.
We look forward to assisting you and we are available to discuss the matter further at your
convenience.
Cordially, ~. . .'
~dti~
J es P. Donovan, Supervisor
ily of Springfield, DSD Urban Planning Division
Cc: Jeff Towery, Asst City Manager
UPD Planning Staff
Data Received:
Planner.,
. .,
~
Date Received:
Planner: ....
.,
I
tl
II
I:
I
I'
I,
I
ii'
;1,
t
.
J
\.
;s
.
I
o
&:
~
,
r
J
Ii
,A."
.~...-
.~. ~:'..:' '-:
:/.. ',...,,',
"Plann
.....---.----.----.-