Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotice PLANNER 1/29/2008 , -' - AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE . llDfl~ - _ ~ ~ Qc6un 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 ca.used to be. mailed copies of1ll\C.Z=1-,ero75 q. DR..C2oo7-oe6lfo .)i~ cfD>~w;'n5'.J..-Q. jAA4t '!" (See attachment nAn) on 1/02.. q , 2008 addressed to (s~ ~~ Attachment Bn), by causing said letters to be placed in a U.S. mail box with postage fully prepaid thereon. )i~f1tLJ~ STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane ~ L 2008. Personally appeared the above named Karen laFleur, ician, who acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary rc..::",~",-",-",~.~,=,:-~~--:;~ --~.l '. OFFICIAL SEAL ,; , , SANDRA MARX ,. I \. ,/ NOTARY PUBLIC. OREGON I l ' COMMISSION NO, 385725 " l;~ ~M1.l~NOV,12.2008( ~~~ ~ ~~?~~~~ ~L'n1Mf II/rz.. / ZOO r, , I My Commission Expires: 'OJ! ' Received' ,..&14 Planner: SH l-lCr,-c)'D Notice of Decision -Site Plan Review & Tree Felling Project Name: Maple Grade School Project Proposal: Replace existing,public grade school Case Number: DRC2007-00075 (Site Plan review), DRC2007-00076 (Tree Felling) Project Location: 2109 J Street; Property size: 9.4 acres Base Zone: Public Land 'and Open Space (PLO) , Overlay District(s): Drinking Water Protection Overlay (1-5 yr TOTZ) Metro Plan Designation: LDR (Low Density Residential) Refinement PlanfDesignation: n/ a Pre-Submittal Meeting Date: November 30, 2007 Application Submitted Date: December 12, 2007 Decision Issued Date: January 29, 2008 Appeal Deadline Date: February 13, 2008 Other Application(s): Tree felling (DRC2007-00076) I iGITYOF;SPRINGFIELD'DEVIiLOPMENT;REvIEW,TEAM!';)!:*lji:FF';J!~1.'1f;~;![4i;,\A~!!~I~j!:'%%i!r,1'tl!f!g;1 ~f-{'''..d_l.'.I,Tt~,,~,^,~'!'r,Pii_':''Ki,~-':'";:"''-~'';'~\-"',--",,:,,'-,~':'~4'::t,\J'b."!:::i';"":;:;;:::;;:::'\";,,'r'::".,~'l'J~,_,~ ~< _,.J".'~,:.rt''*\t. ; '.,f',"V,')',~ j"-,:~~':-<i<}.'::!,:).~i)_illt\">jJL>,,,~1::;~..::,,;:'.!<\:1."'~~"'f.':~'''0::::H;,-,-:"t;:{+.":'t:;:,_.f:..,_q.:,(.,:;;t~;~:;:"".:::,);!.,"'.,:'i:\c~;@i,;,,''''\'50ct'''<\; I PosmON REVIEW OF NAME PHONE, I I Project Manager Planning Steve Hopkins 726-3649 I I Transportation Planning Engineer Transportation Gary McKenney 726-4585 I I Public Works Civil Engineer I Utilities I Jesse Jones I I Public Works EIT I Sanitary & Storm Sewer Jesse Jones I I Deputy Fire Marshall Fire and Life Safety Gilbert Gordon 726-2293 I I Community Services Manager Building Dave Puent 726-3668 I I _ I IWAPPUIQANT~S'l'iEVEUjpMEN'tJREV:rEW;I'E1\Ml!!'li.f;:~~,j~ili@:j\\lWjl1(if.~Jt~~'1lli~~~:I'~~I ~,.\'rnl.'B{;<::'J-";,@ille:~;t;'!';r-,y:w,1;';t',"I:~)1;i;m~-<t.\m:\;lv.;.~~il"l/:iW~.~~<re1i!il.'.':m-~~m..'t.'fMl';;,fili:f~~~~1*~.ai~,~i~;;,~~4~~1~;JitWAf%:.N~ Owner Representative: Springfield Public Schools Dave Guadagni .Steve Barrett 'Robertson/Sherwood Architects 525 Mill Street 132 E Broadway Springfield OR 97477 Suite 540 Eugene OR 97401 Maple Case No. OR0007-fJ0075 ' Date Receivprl' \ - Z-C1 Planner: SH I' Site: ,~~~~:'Y1:~;i~~ ' , 's.....', ,.,. '" j .~!<i.i::~,{\,-,~'" '.j~'.,;~;:~';;~(YJ2,:;~::};~:;'<~~j " . Summary of, proposal: Demolish existing elementary school ,and replace on existing site. The new site will contain a staff parking lot that will be accessed from 2,3<d street. There wi)l be an 8' chain link fence along the eastern and southern property lines. The dernolition includes felling 7 trees for construction of the new school. ' Decision: Tentative Approval with conditions, as of the date of this letter. The standards of the Springfield Development Code (SDq applicable to each criterion of approval are listed herein and are satisfied by the submitted plans and notes unless specifically noted with findings and conditions necessary for compliance. The Final Site Plan must conform to the submitted plans as conditioned herein. This is a limited land use decision made according to city code and , state statutes. Unless appealed, the decision is final. Please read this document carefully. Other Uses Authorized by the Decision: None. Future development will be in accordance with the provisions of the SOC, filed easements and agreements, and all applicable local, state and federal regulations. Maple Case No. ORC2007~0075 Date Received:. \ - zq Planner: SH 2' Review Process: These applications are reviewed under Type 11 procedUres listed in SDC 5.1- 130, the Site Plan Review Criteria inSDC 5.17-100 and the Tree Felling Criteria in SDC 5.19-100. Procedural Findings: . Applications for Limited Land Use Decisions require the notification of property owners/occupants within 300 feet of the subject property allowing for a 14 day comment period on the applications (SDC Sections 5.1-130 and 5.2-115). The applicant and parties submitting written comments during the notice period have appeal rights and are mailed a copy of this decision for consideration. . Notice was sent to adjacent property owners/occupants within 300 feet of the subject site on December 20, 2007. . On January 15, 2008, the City's Development Review Corrlmittee reviewed the proposed plans. City staff's review comments have been reduced to findings and conditions only as necessary for compliance with the Tentative Site Plan Criteria of Approval contained in SDC 5.17-125 and the Tree Felling Criteria of Approval in SDC 5.19c125. This decision was issued on the 45th day of the 120 days mandated by the state. . In accordance with SDC 5.17-135, the Final Site Plan'shall comply with the requirements of the SDC and the conditions imposed by the Director in this decision. The Final Plat otherwise shall be in substantial conformity with the tentative plan reviewed. Portions of the proposal approved as submitted during tentative review cannot be substantively changed during Final Plat approval. Date Receivecl:_ I - :? q Planner: SA Maple Case No. DRQ007-{)0075 3 Comments Received: The applicant and parties submitting written comments during the notice period have appeal rights and are mailed a copy of this decision for c,onsideration. Table 1 contains the names of the people who signed a petition objecting to the proposal. That petition states: "We object to the opening of 23n1 street for the placement of the new south parldng lot for Maple SchooL We feel it will have a great negative impact on the livability of our neighborhood by allowing excessive through traffic. We also feel the parldng lot should remain on "J" Street where it has traditionally been for 60 years." Table 1 Name Address William Sherlock and Zack Mittge (representing Ronald Herbert) I Marie Calicott I Bill Abshere I Ron and Stacey Anderson I Unreadable sif?7lature I Kaleip;h Morrow I Tina Jahnke Norman Petersen I Kevela Jordan I Lareen Wiseman I Garold Sanders I Unreadable sif?7lature I Nick Devoo?;d I Karen Ritcher I Jennifer (unreadable last name) I Michelle Russell I Christopher, Sarah & Caula Reddin?; I Amy & Leon Morphew I Ronald & Janice Herbert I Yolanda Lindy I Bryan Kreitlow I Charlotte Gillie I Phil Flores I Crai?; Lucart I Paui Ramirez I Jodi Blain 200 Forum bldg 777 High St., Eugene, OR 97401-2782 2325 Dubens Lane 2335 Dubens Lane 2336 Dubens Lane 2355 Dubens Lane 2360 Dubens Lane 2389 Dubens Lane I 817 25th St : 823 25th St" 860 23,d 87423,d 881 23,d 884 23'd 890 25th 891 23'd St 894 N 23t-d St I 895 N 23'dSt I " I 900 25th St I I 905 25th St 910 N 25th St 921 N 25th St " 1008 N 25th St After consultation with the neighbors, their concerns have been addressed through Conditions of Approval #2 and #3, which require an 8' fence and locldng gates at the 23,d Street entrance. MaPle Case No. DRC2007-00075 Date Received: Planner: SH ,. 7Pf 4 SDC 5.17-125 Site Plan Review Criteria of Approval , The Director shall approve or approve with conditions: a Type 11 Site Plan 'Review application upon determining that approval criteria A. through E., below have been satisfied. If conditions cannot be attached to satisfy the approval criteria, the Director shall deny the application. 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 site is zoned Public Land and Open Space (PLO). The Metro Plan designates this area as LDR (Low Density Residential). Because public elementary schools are allowed in both the PLO and the LDR zones, the Metro Plan designation and the zoning are consistent. Conclusion: The proposal complies with SDC 5.17-125(A). 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 availablt; 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 d~;~._Jne capacity issues. SANITARY AND STORM WATER Finding: The applicant has proposed to connect to the existip.g 8" sanitary sewer line at the manhole located in 23'd Street, as shown on plan sheet C-1l3-M. Finding: To comply with Sections 4.3-110.D & E, stormwater runoff from the site will be directed into a series of vegetative swales and filtered catch basins prior to discharge into the public system. The connections to the public system will be around the perimeter of the site as shown on sheets C-ll1-M through C-ll4-M. The vegetative swales and infiltration basins will serve as the primary pollutant removal mechanism for the stormwater runoff. Satisfactory pollutant removal will occur only when the vegetation has been fully established. Condition of Aooroval #1: The vel':etative swales shall be fullv vel':etated with all vef[etation soecies established orior to issuance of the final occuoancv. Altemativelv. is this condition caimot be met, the aoolicantshall orovide and maintain additional interim erosion control/water Qualitv measures acceotable to the Public Works Deoartment that will suffice until such time as the swale vel!etation becomes fullv established. TRAFFIC' Finding: Two partially improved streets, 22nd Street and 23>"d Street, tee into the H Street right-of-way at the south boundary of the school property. 22nd Street is a dead-end asphalt mat street serving 14 residences. The dead-end of 23'd Street north of Dubens Lane serves four residences. Finding: Because'the proposed school construction would replace the existing school building with no enrollment increase, the overall amount of traffic generated by use of the site would not be significantly changed. Maple Case No. DRCl007.a0075 Date Received' \. zCr Planner: SH 5 Finding: The applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) that analyzed anticipated traffic impacts of the proposed development. The city's Traffic Engineer has determined the findings and conclusions of the TIA are accurate and they are adopted by reference. Finding: The new sidewalk on 23'd Street, north of Dubens Lane, will be 5' wide and located entirely within the existing right of way. The curb to curb width of the street will be 28 feet, which prohibits allows parking on only one side. As proposed, parking will not be allowed on the east side of 23,d Street, north of Dubens Lane. This work shall be included in the PIP for the entire school project. PARKING Finding: SDC 4.6-100 requires 44 bike parking spaces. Of thes~, 18 must be covered. It is encouraged, but not required, to cover all the bike parking spaces. If the applicant decides to cover more than 18 spaces, a minor site plan modification will not be required. Finding: The maximum number of vehicle parking spaces is 127. The site plan shows 81 , spaces. Finding: As conditioned, existing and proposed transportation facilities would be adequate to accommodate pedestrian and vehicular traffic generated by the proposed development. Conclusion: As conditioned, the proposal complies with SDC 5.17-125(B). C. The proposed development shall comply with all applicable public and private design and construction standards contained in this Code and other applicable regulations. . Finding: The applicant proposes 7.0' P.D.E. along the 21stSt. and the J St. frontage of the parcel. Finding: The design standards contained in SDC 4.7~195 are applicable to this prqposal and the proposal complies with these criteria because: ' . The staff parking lot is at least 19' from the adjacent residential land, and . Because the site is zoned PLO, this application is being reviewed as a Type 11 application, and . The submitted cut sheets demonstrate the lighting will be directed away from the adjacent properties, and ' .. ,The parking contains less than the maximum number of spaces (127 max, 81 proposed), and . A Traffic Impact Study has been submitted and has been approved by the City Engineer. Finding: All work within the right of way will require a Public Improvement Project (PIP). The PIP will include, but not be limited to, improvements to the street lights, sidewalks, new driveway at 23'd and connection to the public wastewater and to storm water facilities. Conclusion: The proposal complies with SDC 5.17-125(C). MaPle Case No. DRQ007-00075 Date Received' 1- z:Cf Planner: ,SH 6 D. Parking areas and ingress-egress points 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 driveways on arterial and collector streets as specified in this C;ode or other applicable regulations and comply with the ODOT access management standards for State highways. Finding: The neighbors have submitted written comments that include concerns related to public safety. To address these concerns, the applicant has agreed to provide an 8' fence along the southern and eastern property lines and to provide a lockable vehicle gate and a lockable person gate at 23,d Street. Condition of Aooroval #2: Prior to issuance of final occupancy. construct an 8' fence alon!?: the southern and eastern property lines. Condition of Aoproval #3: Prior to issuance of final occupancy. provide a lockable vehicle l!ate and a lockable person !?:ate at23<d Street (to the south parkin!?: areaL Finding: The continued use of 22nd Street and 23m Street north G Streetfor pedestrian access to the school site and the increased use of 23'd Street for access by school staff and service vehicles, create a need to improve street lighting on those routes. Condition of Approval #4: Prior to issuance of final occupancy. complete the followinl! street li!?:htin!?: improvements: · Replace the existin!?: LPS street li!?:ht fixture at the north end of 22nd Street with a 150 watt HPS fixture. and . ., Replace the existin!?: LPS street li!?:ht fixture at the north end of 23,d Street with a 150 watt HPS fixture. and Install a complete 150 watt HPS street li!?:ht at the intersection of 23'd Street and Dubens Lane. and Replace the existin!?: LPS street li!?:ht fixture at the northeast comer of 23rd and G Street with a 150 watt HPS fixture. Finding: An on-site bus and auto pick-up / drop-off lane along the site's J Street frontage , is separated from the street by a ~aised concrete sidewalk. There are multiple driveway openings in this raised sidewalk. Improvements or modifications are allowed to the sidewalk and can be reviewed through the PIP process. However, the continuity of the public sidewalk system along J Street must be maintained. The sidewalk can not be removed. . . Condition of Aooroval #5: Retain the oublic sidewalk alon!?: T Street in front of the school. Modifications are allowed but must maintain the continuity of the public sidewalk svstem alon!?: T Street. Finding: A gate provides pedestrian access to the north end of 22nd Street dead-end. The applicant proposes to retain this access. The schoolyard gate to the paved street surface of 22nd Street is unpaved gravel. This is a dead end road that connects to H Street which is unopened public right of way. The dead end road shall include signage and/ or other design features to maintain and enhance the safe'ty of pedestrians and , v ,Maple Case No, DRQ007~0075 Date Received' )- z:q Planner: SH 7 vehicles. These features may include restricting vehicle access and improving the pedestrian walkway through the unopened right of way. The specific design will be revi~wed and approved during the PIP process. Condition of Aooroval #6: The end of 22nd Street shall inClude silma2:e arid/ or other desi2:Il features to maintain and enhance the safety of pedestrians and vehicles. The specific desi2:Il will be reviewed and apProved durin2: the PIP Process. Finding: The applicant proposes to retain existing pedestrian access at 23'd Street and construct a new driveway to serve delivery trucks and the new staff parking lot. Condition of AOProval #7: Install school speed-zone silnrin2:. crossin2: warnin2: si2:IlS and crosswalk markin2: alon2: the G Street-23,d Street school access route. Conclusion: As conditioned, the proposal complies with SDC 5.17-125(D). 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; rock oU;"~t't'ings; open spaces; and areas of lp.storic 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 within the 1-5 year Time of Travel Zone of the Drinking Water Protection (DWP) Overlay. According to SDC 3.3-225, an application for development within this overlay is required. , Finding: SDC 3.3-235 requires secondary containment for all hazardous materials that pose a risk to groundwater when the total aggregate quantity on site exceeds 20 gallons. Areas shown on the site plan that are likely to need secondary containment are the janitor area, custodial room, and possibly the nurse's office. The DWP application shall be submitted prior to approval of the final site plan. Any structural contairunent issues can be addressed during the building permit process. Condition of ApProval #8: Prior to approval of the final site plan. submit a DwP application. SDC 5.19-125(A)-(H): Tree Felling Criteria of Approval Finding: The seven trees proposed for removal are either directly in the path of the proposed construction or will suffer significant root damage during demolition'of the existing building that will make them hazardous trees. In addition, several trees have been identified by a certified arborist as in poor health with a recommendation for removal and replacement. The site is generally level and no evidence has been submitted that removal of the trees will cause any slope instability. Finding: A landscape plan has been submitted with the site plan review. It proposes 17 new street trees along J and 21st ::::;"cc;", as well as 75 new trees within the site. Finding: Vehicles will use 2151 and J Streets and work will occur between 7 am and 5 pm. Maple Case No. DRQOO7-{)0075 Date Received' 1-?1 Planner: SH 8 Condition of Aooroval #9: The followin2: 2:eneral construction practices apply when tree fellin2: is initiated on site: o Notification shall be Provided to the City at least 5 davs prior to commencement of the tree fellinl!: operation. Please contact Steve Hopkins at 726-3649 or shopkins@ci.sprin2:field.or.us. o All fellin2: activities. includin2: inl!ress and el!ress for the tree fellin2: operations, shall include erosion control measures in conformance with the City's En!lineerinq Desi!llZ Standards and Practices Manual. o Any soil and debris tracked into the street by vehicles and eauipment leavin2: the site shall be cleaned UP with shovels in a timely manner and not washed into the storm drain svstem. Conclusion: As conditioned, the ywyvsed tree felling complies with SDC 5.19-125. DETERMINATION: Based on the evidence in the record, the Director determines the site plan complies with SDC 5.17-125IA)-IE) and the proposed tree fellinl!: comolies with SDC 5.19-125IA)-IHL subiect to the Conditions of Approval attached to this report. What Needs To Be Done? SDC 5.17-135 states: "Within 90 days of an affirmative decision by the Approval Authority, a complete Final Site Plan shall be submitted to the Development Services Department. The Final Site Plan submittal shall incorporate all approval conditions listed in the staff report. The Final Site Plan shall become null and void if construction has not begun within two years of the signing of the Development Agreement required in Section 5.17-140." A Final Site Plan application is charged upon submittal of the complete application and all required documents and after all conditions of approval are met, including the construction of public and private improvements and extension of utilities required through this decision. The Final Site Plan shall comply with the requirements of the SDC and the conditions imposed by the Director in this decision. The Final Site Plan otherwise shall be in substantial conformity with the tentative plan reviewed. Portions of the proposal approved as submitted during tentative review cannot be substantively changed during final site plan approval. Approved' Final Site Plans (including Landscape Plans) shall not be substantively changed during Building Permit Review without an approved Site Plan Decision Modification. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: In accordance with SDC 15.17-140, a Development Agreement is required to ensure that the terms and conditions of site plan review are binding upon both the applicant and the City. Thisao,~~~,ent will be prepared by Staff upon approval of the Final Site Plan and must be signed by the property owner prior to the issuance of a building permit. SECURITY AND ASSURANCES. All required improvements shall be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or final building inspection. Refer to SDC 5.17-150 for details regarding bonding for required improvements. Mapl. Cas. No, DRQ007.{)0075 Date Received: Planner:SH l~lq 9 Summary of Conditions of Aooroval 1. The vegetative swales shall be fully vegetated with all vegetation species established prior to issuance of the tentative occupancy building permit. Alternatively, is this condition cannot be met, the applicant shall provide and maintain additional interim erosion control/water quality measures acceptable to the Public Works Department that will suffice until such time as the swale vegetation becomes fully established. 2. Prior to issuance of final occupancy, construct an 8' fence along the southern and eastern property lines. 3. Prior to issuance of final occupancy, provide a lockable vehicle gate and a lockable person gate at 23,d Street (to the south parking area). 4. Prior to issuance of final occupancy, complete the followIDg street lighting improvements: . Replace the existing LPS street light fixture at the north end of 220d Street with a 150 watt HPS fixture, and . Replace the existing LPS street light fixture at the north end of 23'd Street with a 150 watt HPS fixture, and . Install a complete 150 watt HPS street light at the intersection of 23'd Street and , Dubens Lane, and . Replace the existing LPS street light fixture at the northeast comer of 23rd and G Street with a 150 watt HPS fixture. 5. Retain the public sidewalk along J Street in front of the schooL Modificationsare allowed but must maintain the continuity of the public sidewalk system along J Street. 6. The end of 220d Street shall include signage and/ or other design features to maintain and enhance the, safety of pedestrians and vehicles. The specific design will be reviewed and approved during the PIP process. 7. Install school speed-zone signing, crossing warning signs and crosswalk marking along the G Street-23,d Street school access route. 8. Prior to approval of the final site pian, submit a DWP application. 9. The following general construction practices apply when tree felling is initiated on site: . Notification shall be provided to the City at least 5 days prior to commencement of the tree felling operation. Please contact Steve Hopkins at 726-3649 or shopkins@ci.springfield.or.us. ' . All felling activities, including ingress and egress for the tree felling operations, shall include erosion control measures in conformance with the City's Engineering Design Standards and Practices Mnnual. ' . Any soil and debris tracked into the street by vehicles and equipment leaving the site shall be'cleaned up with shovels in a timely manner and not washed into the storm drain system. Maple Cose No. DRQ007-00075 Date Received' J- zq Planner: SH 10 Additional Information: 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 for a fee at the Development Services Department, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon. Appeal: This Type II Tentative Site Plan Review and Tree Felling decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission. The appeal may be filed with the Development Services Department by an affected party. The appeal must be in accordance with SDC, Section 5.3-100, Appeals. An Appeals application must be submitted to the City with a fee of $250.00. The fee will be returned to the appellant if the Planning Commission approves the appeal application., In accordance with SDC 5.3-115(B) which provides for a 15-day appeal period and Oregon Rules of Civil Procedures, Rule 10(c) for service of notice by mail, the appeal period for this decision expires at 5:00 p.m. on February 13, 2008. Questions: Please call Steve Hopkins in the Planning Division of the Development Services Department at (541) 726-3649 if you have any questions'regarding this process. Prepared by: , Steve Hopkins, AICP Planner II Development Services - Urban Plarining Division' Maple Case No. DRQ007-fl0075 Date Received: /- 7q planner: SH II .. CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 225 5th ST SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 Marie Calicott 2325 Dubens Lane Spri~gfield, OR . 97477 '[\ CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 225 5th 8T SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 ... William Sherlock and Zack Mittge (representing Ronald Herbert) 777 High Street, 200 forum Bldg Eugene, OR 97401-2782 Date Received' / -;::Cr ' Planner: SH Jb " i '.. , ~ . Bill Abshere 2335 Dubens Lane Springfield, OR 97477 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 225 5th ST SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 Ron and Stacey Anderson 2336 Dubens Lane Springfield, OR 97477 , CITY OF SPRINGFIELD . DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT ' 225 5th ST SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 Kaleigh Morrow 2355 Dubens Lane Springfield, OR. 97477 DEvElOPMENTSERVICESDEPAHIM~Ni 225 5th ST ' SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 Michelle Russell 890 25th Street Springfield, OR 97477 I I I . I ), t 1-- [) cei'led:~' , oat0 ,,0 \-\ Plaooef: 5 I' ) , r t ) , urnll..unCLU, un :;'/~~'!:- I . Christopher, Sarah & Caula Redding 891 23rd Street Springfield, OR 97477 . CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 225 5th ST SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 'Amy & Leon Morphew 894 23rd Street Springfield, OR, 97477 ~ CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 225 5th ST SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 . Ronald and Janice Herbert 895 23rd Street Springfield, OR 97477 . CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 225 5th ST SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 I"""". , " Yolanda Lindy Bryon Kreitlow Charlotte Gillie 900 25th Street Springfield, OR 97477 . . /-1.1.- RecelVed.- Date H Planner: S - -... -. -I-III.~"'" .......u DEVELOPMENT SERVlc~r "'\EPARTMENT 225 5th S, SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 - Phil Flores 905 25th Str'eet Springfield, OR 97477' " ~ CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 225 5th ST SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 . Craig Lucart 910 25th Street' Springfield, OR 97477 . , \ , CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 225 5th ST SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 . Paul Ramirez 921 25th Street Sp,ingfield, OR 97477 '\ , CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 225 5th ST SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 Jodi 'Blain 1008 25th Street Springfield, OR 97477 Date Received: Planner: SH l-t4 -. ~ ',T""J''" ",,, "':',~"'''' "I'"U"""'"INti/"Jt:LD', ,'. "DEVELOPMEW ,RVICES DEPARTMENT -_0 5th ST SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 ~ Resident 860 23rd Street 'Springfield, OR 97417 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 225 5th ST SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 Nick Devoogd 874 23rd Str~et, Springfield, OR 97477 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 225 5th ST" SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477. Karen Ritcher 881 23rd Street Springfield, OR 97477 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 225 5th ST SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 . I I ... . .,.. Jennifer 884 23rd, Street Springfield, OR 97477 . ed'1..zt'I Date ReceIV. , 'Planner: SH . . DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEP~RTMENT ' 225511 ,c SPRINGFIELD, UR 97477 Tina Jahnke 2360 Dubens Lane Springfield, OR 97477 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 225 5th ST SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 Norman Petersen 2389 Dubens Lane Springfj.lr, OR 97477 , CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, ' DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 225 5th ST SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 Kevela Jordan 817 25th Street Springfield, OR 97477 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 225 5th ST SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 Lareen Wiseman Garold,Sanders 823 25th Street Springfield, OR ., ...: . .I . 1.' . ed' 1- -r'] 97477 Date Rece''H .- Planner: S ~ .",~.II.~" I. .-.... ~.,.-., .-"... --.,..";..,, CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT , 225 5th ST SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477,< , , ..1. "....... .. Springfield Public Schools Steve Barrett 525 Mill Street Springfield, OR 97477 ,...;...Ilo. . I j . , . " 1111 I II ",lr. , CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 225 5th ST SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 Dave Guadagni Robertson/Sherwood Architects 132 E'Broadway, Ste 540 Eugene, OR 97401 ~ " . )- Zti .--:- " " ' cei\led.~ i'"''~''' {{e L1 ,J" . Sp p\anner.