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.