Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotice PLANNER 1/26/2009 , \ . . ~ RECEIVED AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE JAN 2 6 2009 By: 1l~~~ 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 caused to be . mailed copies of lJRC7.1Y1l-oOb 710 11,,;;tU, <;b 1). ft ; '" ;,'Do- - .A...tA. fl.-tt,t( - n;r (See attachment "A") on 1/2~ .2009 addressed to (see f.3~ Attachment B"), by causing said letters to be placed in a U.S. mail box with postage fully prepaid thereon. ~tVLMC ~d~ KAR LaFLEUR STATE OF OREGON, County of lane t/,fL, d 2009. Personally appeared the above named Karen laFleur, gram T' hnician, who aCknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary act. Before me: . OFFICIAL SEAL _ .' DEVETTE KELL V ". . i NOTARY PUBLIC. OREGON . COMMISSION NO. 420351 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUG. 15, 2011 ~1ir~ uti My Commission Expires: ?, /IS/I! , . . NOTICE OF DECISION - MAJOR SITE PLAN MODIFICATION ,.~.-. Project Name: BRING Project Proposal: Modification to paving area, renovation and demolition of existing' buildings, modification to stormwater facility and relocation of septic system. Case Number: DRC2008-00076 Project Location: 4446 Franklin Blvd/McVay Highway; 17-03-34-44, TL 1500, 1600, 2400. Property size: 2.89 acres Base Zone: CC (Community Commercial) Overlay District: UF10 (Urbanizable Fringe Overlay) Refinement PlanfDesignation: Glenwood Refinement Plan/Commercial Pre-Submittal Meeting Date: December 9, 2008 Application Submitted Date: December 19, 2008 Decision Issued Date: January 26, 2009 Appeal Deadline Date: February 10, 2009 Other Application(s): none . CITY OF SPRINGFIELD .DEVELOPMENTREVIEW TEAM '" POSITION REVIEW OF Pro'ect Mana er Plannin Transportation PJannin Trans ortation Utilities, Sanitary & Storm Sewer De uty Fire Marshall Fire and Life Safe Gilbert Gordon 726-2293 Communi Services Mana er Buildin Dave Puent. 726-3668 '':l~'" ~.r~"""'''';c,'",,,,,,,,,or,,'''''~''''''''''''''''''''~_,. ,......'..,"'~<""w~ '~""'"~"""~""",'''''''''''~,,,,,,,,,;,, <m,.""",.,,-,, .,',,",. (' .=,,,, "....,~'"l< j'f'" 1-'!::ir:'W.'af;I'i l;'t\~:li"'~-iM"':'i~',,;:r"""\""j;,v"'II> .. "~~-\'&l",p' ....~~' y.""-' ~1\PPLIGAN(tSiDEVELOPMENJ'#:REVIEW~TEAM'^'~'i~til~~it:~~~riti,t,~:)~,~.:'"i~~~*}iJR};oi,:&~i?,~t~r~"_~~;~1.~N"M~ t",.,_,,,,_,~,,",,,.,~';''''~''_''"''''''''''i,!i,",,,,,. ~,' ,,",,,.~.",,,--;,,,,,,=!,,~"'-""'CM.k. "~^~~,~~,.-",.<",J!..,.....,,..,,,,~<s.~,,..,,.,,,,,..~ .~1lfJJlJ't~~/'-t'~m.<,.:.iliiJ"">.Mf>>.1B re:.l/,, ,- . :m::..",.".,~lliT~ _.db7""'.f0b.....;tl:M,.',t.~;:ffi:}.,'~~ Owner: Representative: Julie Daniels Ben Rippe BRING Recycling TBG Architects 4446 Franklin Blvd 132 E Broadway, Suite 200 Eu ene OR 97477 Eu ene OR 97401 ;'). oj ., PHONE 726-3649 726-3679 NAME Steve Hopkins Jon Driscoll Public Works Civil Engineer Richard Perry 744-4155 BRING . Case No. DROOOB.o0076 . . .~ Site: City Limits < ~ . z ~ ~ ~ a ~ - Major Metro Roads Railroad ~7 1"''''"1 Bling _ Rivers city limits SPR , ..' Summary of proposal: The existing site plan was approved on June 3, 2008 (DRC2005-00028). The proposed changes to that site plan include demolition of 683 sf and renovation of a portion of Building 4, the addition of a 3,375 sf trash enclosure, demolition of Building 6, addition of permeable pavers, increase of impervious surface area and modification of the associated stormwater facility, relocation and replacement of the septic system, alteration of the landscape plan and alteration of the electrical plan. Decision: Tentative Approval with conditions, as of the date of this letter. 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 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. BRiNG Case Na. DRC200lf-00076 2 . . Other Uses Authorized by the Decision: None. Future development:will be ip accordance with the provisions of the SDC, filed easements and agreements, and all applicable local, state and federal regulations. Review Process: This application is reviewed under the Type II procedme listed in SDC 5.1-130 and the Site Plan Modification Criteria in SDC 5.17-145. Procedural Findings: . Applications for Umited Land Use Decisions require the notification of property owners/occupants within 300 feet of the subject property allowi!tg 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 24, 2008. .. On January 13, 2009, the City's Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed plans. City staff's review comments have been reduced to findings ~d conditions only as necessary for compliance with the Tentative Site Plan Criteria of Approval contained in SDC 5.17-125.. This decision was issued on the 38th 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 Plan approval. Comments Received: No comments were received. CRITERIA FOR SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 5.17-145 Modifications A. The Site Plan Modification process establishes procedures to: allow certain adjustments to an approved Site Plan, either after Preliminary Approval or after Final Approval. This process shall assure that any proposed Major Site Plan Modification continues to comply with the approval criteria specified in Section 5.17-125. D. The criteria of approval for a Site Plan Modification application shall be in compliance with the applicable s.tandard and/or criteria of approval specified in Section 5.17-125. E. The Director may require approval conditions as specified in.8ection 5.17-130. BRiNG Case No. DRClOOB-00076 3. . . F. A Final Site Plan and Development Agreement is required as specified in Sections 5.17-135 and 5.17-140. Finding: The existing site plan was approved on June 3, 2008 (DRC2005-OO028). The proposed changes to that site plan are: o Demolition of 683 sf and renovation of a portion of Building 4, o Addition of a 3,375 sf trash enclosure. o Demolition of Building 6. o Addition of permeable pavers, increase of impervious surface area and associated additional stormwater facility. o Relocation and replacement of septic system. o Alteration of landscape plan. o Alteration of electrical plan. Conclusion: The proposed changes constitute a major modification to the approved site plan. Based on the comments from PW Transportation and County Transportation Planning, this modification is not anticipated to increase the number of vehicle trips. The modification constitutes a revision of the approved site plan and not an expansion of the business. SDC 3.3-825 UFlO Urbanizable Fringe Overlay: Additional Provisions B. The Lane County Sanitarian shall certify that the proposed individual waste water disposal srstem meets D.E.Q. standards prior to Development Approval. C. Lane County is considered an affected party and shall be notified of all development applications. F. Uses requiring Discretionary review, uses requIrIng specific development standards, new permitted uses and expansion of permitted uses in commercial and industrial districts shall demonstrate that the use will not generate singly or in the aggregate additional need for key urban services. G. New permitted uses and expansions of permitted uses in commercial and industrial districts shall demonstrate that the use will not generate singly, or in the aggregate, additional need for key urban services. Finding: Based on the comments from PW Transportation and County Transportation Planning, this modification is not anticipated to increase the number of vehicle trips. Finding: The existing septic system is being replaced because it is failing. It is not being replaced to serve any increased use. BRING Case No. DRC200IJ-{J0076 4 . . Conclusion: Based on these findings and because there will not be additional need for key urban services, the propose modification is considered a revision to the site plan and not an expansion of the approved use. The proposal complies with SDC 3.3-825. SDC 5.17-125 SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA OF APPROVAL The Director shall approve or approve with conditions: a Type II Site Plan Review application upon determining that approval criteria A. through E., below have been satisfied. If conditions cannot be attached to satisfithe 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 CC (Community Commercial). This area is designated Commercial by the Metro Plan and the Glenwood Refinement Plan. 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 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. SANITARY SEWER Finding: Section 4.3-105.E of the SDC requires that proposed developments in unincorporated urbanizable land shall have the approval of the Lane County Sanitarian for all septic system deSigns. Finding: The applicant has proposed a new septic drain Held, including a new sanitary pressure line with pump and included a faxed copy of the Lane County Septic permit. A septic permit (SP087276) approved by the Lane County Sanitarian was subinitted on January 7. Finding: Pursuant to Chapter 3.03.4.A of the City's Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual and Section 4.4 of Portland' s Stormwab~r Management Manual, solid waste storage areas shall be covered and hydraulically isolated from potential stormwater runoff, and directed to the sanitary sewer system. ' Finding: The new trash enclosure will be approximately 3375 sf with multiple receiving . bins. The solid waste storage area will need to be hydraulically isolat~d from the floor drain. In addition, a spill control and maintenance plan is needed to address any liquids that may leach out of the containers to prevent them from entering the storm drain system. The plan should also address regular sweeping of solids to prevent them from entering the s~orm drain system. The purpose of this is to prevent contaminants from BRING Case No. DRGOOB-00076 . s . . entering the storm drain and insure continued proper functioning of the storm drain system. The maintenance and spill control plan shall be submitted with the final site plan. Condition 1: The solid waste storage area shall be hydraulically isolated from the floor drain. With the final site plan, submit a spill control and maintenance plan for the solid waste storage area. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Finding: Section 4.3-110.B of the SDC requires that the Approval Authority shall grant development approval only where adequate public and/ or private stormwater management systems provisions have been made as determined by the Public Works Director, consistent with the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual (EDSPM). Finding: Section 4.3-110.C of the SDC states that a stormwater management system shall accommodate potential run-off from its entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside of the development. Finding: Section4.3-110.D of the SDC requires that run-off from a development shall be directed to an approved stormwater management system with sufficient capacity to . accept the discharge. Finding: Section 4.3-110.E of the SDC requires new developments to employ drainage management practices, which minimize the amount and. rate of surface water run-off into receiving streams, and which promote water quality. Finding: To comply with Sections 4.3-110.D & E, stormwater runoff from the site will be directed into a series of both physical and vegetative filtration via double filtered catch basins, a vegetated swale and an infiltration pond prior to discharge into the public system. The public system is a drainage ditch located at the southern edge of the property near the railroad line. Finding: The existing public stormwater system, to which the applicant proposes connection, has limited capacity. The applicant has turned in hydrologic stormwater calculations, consistent with the City's EDSPM, showing that the proposed detention pond will1ip:tit the peak stormwater discharge rates to the pre-developed 2-year storm event for both the 2 and 25-year post-developed storm event, thereby limiting the flow into the existing system. 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: As shown on Map #2, the subject property is located outsi~e the city. limits but. .' BRiNG Case No. DRClOOB.,O0076 6 . . inside the Urban Growth Boundary of the City of Springfield. The property abuts McVay Hwy, a state facility inside the city. The closest county road is 19th Ave. The intersection of 19th Ave and McVay Hwy is about 180 feet from the subject property. Finding: On January 6, 2009, the Springfield Utility Board (SUB) electric service center submitted comments that requested a 5' PUE along the southern property line and a 5' PUE beginning at the southwest property comer then north along the west property line for approximately 200'. Condition 2: Dedicate the easements as requested bv SUB and detailed in the' letter dated January 6, 2009. Finding:SDC 4.110 requires screening where the commercial district abuts the residential district. The submitted planting plan (sheet 11) shows a variety of trees and shrubs will be planted to supplement the existing mature arborvitae. Finding: The existing 6' chain link fence will remain but does not contribute to the required screening unless it contains slats. Slats may be added but are not required. Conclusion: The proposal complies with SDC 5.17-125(C). 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; minilluze driveways on arterial and collector streets as specified in this Code or other applicable regulations and comply with the OOOT access management standards for State highways. General Finding: There is not enough room to turn around a vehicle in the parking lot in front stalls 40-46 if those stalls are filled; however, a vehicle could back out of that area and turn around on the west half of the site without causing conflicts at the highway entrance of the site. Since this would not affect the public streets, no turn around area will be required, though the applicant is encouraged to consider it. Finding: The proposed modification will generilte no additional vehicle trips to or from the site, nor will it modify the existing approved site access to the major arterial, Franklin Boulevard. Finding: Permission to operate, maintain and use the driveway to access the state highway was granted by OOOT under Permit #52782 on October 12, 2006. Finding: The employee parking area which has the proposed permeable paving to the west of Building 10 has different dimensions from the original site plan submitted as part of Journal No. 2001-07-0143. This employee parking lot does not meet the requirements of Table 4.6-1 in SOC 4.6-115 for the stalls numbered 40-46. Specifically, the drive aisle to the west of those stalls is only 20 feet wide but the code requires 24 feet. The parking lot could be widened by four feet at the north end, tapering as it went BRlNG Case Na. DRC200B-O.o076 7. . . south. Another possible solution would be-providing the number of standard parking stalls is met-to widen the aisle by two feet and mark the stalls as compact. Condition 3: The final site plan shall show the employee parking in conformance with Table 4.6-1 of SDC 4.6-115. LANE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING (TP) Finding: Since the access to the property is taken from McVay Hwy and the nearby County facility 19th Ave is not adjacent to the subject property, the proposal is unlikely to impact directly to the County facility. However, TP notes that the railroad intersection is very close to both the subject property access and the county road intersection. It is important that the driveway to the subject property remain unblocked . all the time for safe operation of the intersection of 19th Ave and McVay Hwy. TP believes that the permitting agency (ODOT) have taken this safety issue into consideration when the driveway was permitted. County has no further comment on the proposal.. 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 outcroppings; open spaces; and areas of historic and/or archaeological significance, as may be specified in Section 3.3-900 or ORS 97.740-760, 358.905-955 and 390.235-240, shall be protected as specified in this Code or in State or Federal law. WATER QUALITY Finding: Under Federal regulation of the Clean Water Act (CW A), Endangered Species Act (ESA), and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), the City of Springfield has obtained a Municipal Separate Stow Sewer System (MS4) permit. A provision of this permit requires the City demonstrate efforts to reduce the pollution in urban stormwater to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP). Finding: As required in Section 4.3-110.E of the SDC, "a development shall be required . to employ drainage management practices approved by the Public Works Director and consistent with Metro Plan policies and the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual." Finding: Section 3.02 of the City's EDSPM states the Public Works Department will. accept, as interim design standards for stormwater quality, water quality facilities designed pursuant to the policies and procedures of either the City of .portland (BES), or the Clean Water Services (CWS). BRING Case No. DRClOOB-00076 . . 8 . . Finding: Section 3.03.3. B of the City's EDSPM states all public and private development and redevelopment projects shall employ a system of one or more post-developed BMPs that in combination are designed to achieve at least a 70 percent reduction in the total suspended solids in the runoff generated by that development. Sectiop. 3.03.4.E of the manual requires a minimum of 50 percent of the non-building rooftoplimpervious area on a site shall be treated for stormwater quality improvement using vegetative methods. Finding: The applicant's proposal will require the Oregon DEQ to issue a 1700B permit allowing for drainage and treatment of water from a vehicle wash down station. The permit restricts the applicant to bio-degradable, phosphate free cleaners and cold water in addition to other restrictions. Condition 4: Submit a copv of an approved 1700B permit from the Oregon DEQ. Complv with the requirements of that permit at all times. Finding: The applicant proposes to install a double filter catch basin in building 4 as well as within the paved areas of the development. Install an Oil/Water separator at the downstream drainage pipe from building four. Include a cut-off valve at the outlet of the Oil/Water separator to act as containment in the event of a spill or contamination of the system, to prevent such contaminants from entering the water quality treatment area. The use of this valve should be incorporated into the spill prevention plan. Condition 5: Revise the drainage plan to include a cut-off valve at the outlefof the oil/water separator. The valve shall be placed downstream of the oil/water separator and the spill prevention plan shall incorporate the use of this valve. Finding: Prior to approval of the final site plan; an operations and maintenance plan is required to ensure the long-term maintenance and operation of the proposed Double Filter Catch Basin, as well as the Oil/Water Separator. The plan shoulCl designate maintenance responsibility for operating and maintaining the system, .and should be distributed to all property owners and tenants of the site. Condition 6: Submit an operations and maintenance plan to the City for review to ensure the long-term maintenance and operation of the Double Filter Catch Basin as well as the Oil/Water Separator. Finding: To meet the requirements of the City's MS4 permit, the SpringHeld Development Code, and the City's EDSPM, the applicant has proposed one private vegetative water quality swale and one infiltration pond. Proper seed"mixes have been proposed for both systems, but the actual application rates have not b~en specified, Finding: The vegetation proposed for use in the swales will serve as the primary pollutant removal mechanism for the stormwater runoff, and will rerrwve suspended solids and pollutants through the processes of sedimentation and filtration. Satisfactory pollutant removal will occur only when the vegetation has been fully established. BRiNG : Case No. DRClOOB-00076 9 . . Finding: To ensure a fully functioning water quality system and meet objectives of Springfield's MS4 permit, the Springfield Development Code and the EDSPM, the proposed private vegetative water quality'swale shall be shall be fully vegetated with all vegetation' species established prior to approval of Final Site Plan. Alternatively, if 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. Condition 7: Submit proposed seed application rates for the vegetative water quality swale, the : infiltration pond and the septic drain field. The seed mix application rates shall meet the requirements of the City's interim design standards as required in Section 3.02 of the EDSPM. The application rates must meet the minimum rates as required by manufacturer of the seed mix. Condition 8: . The private vegetative water quality swale shall be shall be fully vegetated with : all vegetation species established prior to approval of Final Site Plan, orthe propose interim erosion control/water quality measures acceptable to the Public . Works Department that will suffice until the swale vegetation becomes fully established. Conclusion: As conditioned, the proposed 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 5.17-125(A)-(E). subject to the Conditions of Approval attached to . this report. What Needs To Be Done? SOC 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 ~ 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. BRiNG Case No. DRClOOB-00076 10 . . 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. This agreement 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 ~or required improvements. . Summary of Conditions of Approval Condition 1: The solid waste stora'ge area shall be hydraulically isolated from the floor drain. With the final site plan, submit a spill control and imaintenance plan for the solid waste storage area. il Condition 2: Dedicate the easements as requested by SUB and detailed in the letter dated January 6, 2009. Condition 3: The final site plan shall show the employee parking in conformance with Table 4.6-1 ofSDC4.6-115. Condition 4: Submit a copy of an approved 1700B permit from the Oregon DEQ. Comply with the requirements of that permit at all times. . Condition 5: Revise the drainage plan to include a cut-off valve at the outlet of the oil/water separator. The valve shall be placed downstream of the oil/water separator and the spill prevention plan shall incorporate the use of this valve. . Condition 6: Submit an operations and maintenance plan to the City for review to ensure the long-term maintenance and operation of the proposed Double Filter Catch Basin as well as the Oil Water Separator. Condition 7: Submit proposed seed application rates for the vegetative water quality swale, the infiltration pond and the septic drain field. The seed mix application rates shall meet the requirements of the City's interim design standards as required in Section 3.02 of the EDSPM. The application rates must meet the minimum rates as required by manufacturer of the seed mix. . Condition 8: The private vegetative water quality swale shall be shall beifully vegetated with all vegetation species established prior to approval of Final Site Plan, or the propose interim erosion control! water quality measures acceptable to the Public Works Department that will suffice until the swale vegetation becomes fully established. BRING . Case No. DRQOOB-00076 II . . 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 11 Tentative decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission. The appeal may be rued 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 s~bmitted 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 I5-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 10, 2009. 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. "S;;/lL Steve HopkinS, AlCP Plarmer 11 Development Services - Urban Planning Division BRING Case Na. DRC200EJ.O0076 12 ....-... "i_': . .. ...... .c:.... . . 'J , .; . jl '. :' e',>. /'..~"'11. ~. . 4iJ C/TYOFSPRIN .. ...,"'. ..".f.. ic:;(.~ DEVELOPMENT GFIElD: . .,,,. .'. .;,,/. . . SERVICES DEP" '."" II ~. ...., ~.,' . ART "',' ,'. " . , , . , 2255thST.MENT,.... SPRINGFIELD 'OR' . " ',r" . ,,~I, , 97477 ,,' , " " ", a ~ li' . Julie Daniel BRING R s 4446 ecycling E Franklin BlVd ugene, OR 97477 '. . ...' . ..' u I .. ., _ \.,. ..' J\." l.,~. . CITY OF SPRINGFIELD , . r/!.' . , DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT ;1", . . .225 5th ST '.., ~ ::'." . SPRINGFIELD;'OR 97477.. .;';; .'," . II" " i " , ~ "-, . -... '. . 'j , .. .. ..': .-.;': . ',.'. Ben Ripp'e TBG Architects 132 E Broadway, Suite 200 Eugene, OR 97401 J3