HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 03 Appeal of the Planning Commission's Approval of the Marcola Meadows Master Plan Application
Meeting Date: January 28, 2008
Meeting Type: Regular Session
Department: Development Services
Staff Contact: Gary M. Karp 6'K -
S P R I N G FIE L D Staff Phone No: 726-3777 ~4r
C I T Y C 0 U N C I L Estimated Time: 60 minutes
ITEM TITLE: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMISSION'S APPROVAL OF THE MARCO LA MEADOWS MASTER
PLAN APPLICATION.
1) The City Council is requested to address some procedural issues. 2) Then; either a) uphold the
December 20th Planning Commission approval of the Marcola Meadows Master Plan application as
conditioned, or b) approve the application with modified conditions of approval, or c) if the Council
finds it cannot affirm th~ Planning Commission's decision, or otherwise approve it with modified
conditions, then deny the application.
Seven persons, including the property owner (SC Springfield LLC) and 6 individuals, have appealed
the December 20th Planning Commission's approval of the Marcola Meadows Master Plan. As
permitted by the Springfield Development Code (SDC), and for ease of review, staff has combined
all appeals into one staff report.
A TT ACBMENTS: Attachment 1: Staff Report: Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision
Attachment 2: Master Plan Conditions of Approval '
Attachment 3: Letter to Applicant's Attorney Jim Spickerman from City Attorney Dated January 8, 20m
Attachment 4: Planning Commission Minutes, December 20, 2007
Attachment 5: Draft Planning Commission Minutes, December 11, 2007
Attachment 6: Transportation Graphics
Attachment 7: Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 197.763
Attachment 8: Appeal Submittals - (Seven Statements)
ACTION
REQUESTED:
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
DISCUSSION:
On June 18, 2007 the City Council by a vote of 4-2 approved Metro Plan diagram and Zoning Map amendments to allow a
mixed use commercial/residential development on the former "Pierce" property on Marcola Road. An approval condition of
these applications was the submittal of a Master Plan application to guide the phased development of the property over the
next 7 years. The Master Plan application was submitted on September 28, 2007. The Planning Commission conducted
public hearings on this application on November 20, 2007; December 11, 2007; and December 20, 2007. At the conclusion
of the December 20th hearing, the Planning Commission voted 7-0 to approve the Master Plan; this action included 53
conditions of approval. On January 4, 2008 seven separate appeals of this decision were submitted to the Development
Services Department; six of these appeals are from 6 individuals and one is from the applicant of the Master Plan, SC
Springfield LLC. '
The attached staff report divides the issues raised in these appeals into the following general categories: 1) procedural
challenges; and 2) challenges to findings and conditions of approval. Issues raised by the 6 individuals fall largely into this
first category and include notice, participation at hearings, etc., but do not raise objections to any of the 53 conditions of
approval. Issues raised by the applicant/appellant include: adequacy of findings demonstrating proportionality, imposition
of conditions not justified by the criteria of approval, and delegation of decision-making authority to the City Engineer, but
raise no challenges to procedure. '
Of the numerous issues raised in these appeals the most significant, if upheld by the Council, is Condition #27 which
requires the Master Plan to depict an access lane adjoining the residential properties along the south side of Marcola Road
and a roundabout at the intersection at Martin Drive and Marcola Road. Attendant to this requirement is the dedication of
sufficient land to accommodate the access lane and roundabout scheduled to occur during the Master Plan's Phase 1
development. The construction of the access lane would occur within existing right-of-way, but to maintain the existing
cross-section of Marcola Road, the portion of Marcola Road abutting the development site would need to shift north onto
this property. This shift would occur just west of the intersection of 28th and Marcola and would transition back into the
existing alignment just west of the new roundabout at Martin Drive. The staff's recommendation of this condition was
supported by the Planning Commission and is based on: 1) the authority granted by the Springfield Development Code to
require such improvements; 2) the proposed development is the only reason improvement to Marcola Road is necessary;
3) the applicant offered no reasonably workable solution to the traffic and safety conflicts along Marcola Road created by
the proposed development; 4) access at any point along the development site's frontage with Marcola Road creates traffic
safety conflicts with the residential property along the paralleling south frontage of Marcola Road; and 5) the only
successful mitigation of the impacts to these nearby properties, whether by using a roundabout or a traditional intersection
design, is the inclusion of the access lane. Without all these improvements staff cannot support the Master Plan as
submitted by SC Springfield LLC, and the Planning Commission unanimously concurred with this conclusion after
evaluating the facts.
STAFF REPORT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Appellant: SC Springfield, LLC
Case Number: ZON2008-00002
Appellant: Donna Lentz
Case Number: ZON2008-00003
Appellant: Phillip M. Newman .
Case Number: ZON2008-00004
Appellant: Dennis Hunt
Case Number: ZON2008-00005
Appellant: Clara Shevchinski
Case Number: ZON2008-00006
Appellant: Wesley O. Swanger
Case Number: ZON2008-00007
Appellant: Nick Shevchynski
Case Number: ZON2008-00008
Property Location: Northwest Corner of Marcola Road and 28th/31st Streets
Assessor's Map#: 17-02-30-00, Tax Lot 01800 and 17-03-25-11, Tax Lot 02300
Zoning: Community Commercial; Medium Density Residential; and Mixed Use Commercial.
Metro Plan Designation: Community Commercial; Medium Density Residential/Nodal Development
Area; and Commercial/Nodal Development Area
Site Map
Attachment 1-1
II. PROJECT BACKGROUND
In July, 2005, the Martin Co. submitted a Development Issues Meeting application (ZON 2005-00028) to
generally discuss a prop~sed commercial/residential development on the development site.
In May, 2006, Satre Associates, PC submitted a Pre-Application Report application (ZON 2006-
00030) as the required prerequisite for Master Plan approval (SDC 5.13-1158.). Staff had a
number of concerns about that proposal and contracted with Crandall Arambula, a Planning
consultant in Portland, for a peer review. The application was placed on hold until approval of
the Metro Plan diagram and Zoning Map amendments occurred.
In September, 2006, Satre Associates, PC submitted the Metro Plan diagram and Zoning Map amendment
applications (LRP 2006-00027 and ZON 2006-00054). These applications were determined to be complete
for review on January 11, 2007. The City Council approved these applications on June 18, 2007
(Ordinance Nos, 6195 and 6196). Master Plan approval is required by terms of Condition #1 of Ordinance
No. 6196 (Zoning Map Amendment).
On July 20, 2007, Satre Associates, PC resubmitted the Pre-Application Report application. The majority
of Crandall Arambula's recommendations were incorporated into the current proposal.
On September 6,2007, City staff held a meeting with the applicant's representatives and interested
outside agencies to review the Pre-Application Report application.
On' September 24,2007, the Pre-Application Report staff report was issued.
On September 28, 2007, the applicant submitted this Master Plan application.
On October 10, 2007, the Master Plan application was accepted as complete for review.
On November 20,2007, the Planning Commission held the first public hearing regarding the Master Plan
application. The record was open for the receipt of evidence, both written and oral. The public hearing
was continued until December 11, 2007.
At the December 11, 2007 public hearing, the record was again open for the receipt of evidence, both
written and oral. The public hearing was continued until December 20,2007.
At the December 20, 2007 public hearing, staff presented their summation and the Planning Commission
approved the Master Plan by a vote of 7-0, with 53 conditions of approval.
III. PROCESS ISSUES
I
Prior to discussing the merits of the combined appeals, there are several process issues the City Council
must address:
1. STANDING
Springfield Development Code (SDC) Sec:tion 5.3-1108. states: "The Planning Commission's quasi-
judicial decision, which is a Type /11 procedure, maybe appealed to the, City Council by a party as
specified in Section 5.3-120. n
SDC Section 5.3-120A. states: "Standing to Appeal. Only those persons who participated either orally or
in writing have standing to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission. Grounds for appeal are
limited to those issues raised either orally or in writing before the close of the public record. n
ATTACHMENT 1 - 2
Upon review of the Notice of the Planning Commission's December 20th Master Plan approval Notice of
Decision Affidavit of Service, the following appellant's do not have standing because they did not submit '
oral or written testimony into the record: Phillip M. Newman; Dennis Hunt; and Clara Shevchinski. The
remaining appellants do have standing because they did submit oral and/or written testimony.
2. NON-PAYMENT OF APPEALS FEES
SDC Section 2.1-1358. states: "Payment of these fees is required at the time of application submittal. No
application will be accepted without payment of the appropriate fee in full, unless the applicant qualifies for
a fee waiver, as specified in Subsection c., below.
SDC Section 2.1-135C. states: "Fee Waivers. The following fee waivers apply only within the Springfield
city limits to the following agencies and/or persons: 1. Non-profit affordable housing providers. ... 2. Low
income citizens. Development fees required by this Code may be waived by the Director when the applicant
is considered to be low income, as determined by the HUD income limits in effect at the time of submittal. n
The property owner, SC Springfield LLC paid the $2,254.00 appeal fee. None of the 6 individuals paid the'
fee. Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 227.175(1) states: "... The goveming body shall establish fees
charged for processing permits at an amount no more than the actual or average cost of providing that
service. n Appellant Nick Shevchynski, in his submittal, raises a valid point regarding requiring all 7
appellants to pay the full fee. See the discussion below for additional comments on fee waivers.
3. STATUS OF NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS REGARDING FEES
The Springfield Municipal Code Sections 2,650 through 2.662 establishes a process for neighborhood
association recognition within the City that requires a written request to the City Council and proposed
bylaws. These regulations also allow the City Council to revoke the neighborhood association charter and
consider inactive status. Appellant Nick Shevchynski signed his appeal form referring to the North
Springfield Citizens' Committee. Appellant Newman, Hunt and Clara Shevchinski also refer to this
Committee. '
Appellant Nick Shevchynski stated in his submittal that the Committee "...is duly recognized by the City. n
Staff cannot find any record of this Committee being recognized by the City. Mr. Shevchynski has not
offered any information or evidence to support his statement Staff thought about whether the North
Springfield Citizens' Committee may have been a neighborhood association recognized by Lane County.
Staff contacted Kent Howe, Lane County Planning Director, regarding this question. Mr. Howe indicated
such a Committee has not been or is now registered with Lane County.
The SDC fee schedule, which is adopted by separate resolution, exempts neighborhood associations from
paying an appeals fee. Fee Schedule Footnote (7) refers to an appeal of the Director's decision to the
Planning Commission (Type III Appeal) and the fee is limited to $250.00. The footnote states: "This is the
fee established by ORS 227.175. Council acknowledges that Neighborhood Associations shall not be
charged a fee for an appeal. n However, this is an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision (Type IV
Appeal). There is no fee limitation or fee waiver for Neighborhood Associations for this level of appeal.
4. THE 120 DAY REVIEW PERIOD AND WHETHER THE CITY COUNCILS PUBLIC HEARING IS ON
THE RECORD OR DE NOVO
ORS 227.178(1) states: ".. .the governing body of a city or its designee shall take final action on an
application for a permit, limited land use decision or zone change, including resolution of all appeals under
ORS 227. 180, within 120 days after the application is deemed complete. n SDC subsection 5.3-120'(0)
provides as follows: "Review. The review [of an appeal of the Planning Commission's Type III decision]
shall be as determined by the City Council.' (emphasis added) The City Council is authorized to conduct
this hearing "on the record" of the Planning Commission proceedings (no new evidence; no participants
without standing) or de novo (a new). A de novo hearing allows anyone who is interested in this matter,
ATTACHMENT 1 - 3
whether they have previously participated or not, to submit written or oral testimony regarding the Planning
Commission's decision.
SC Springfield LLC submitted the Master Plan application on September 28, 2007. Staff accepted that
application as complete for review on October 10,2007. The 120 day review period expires on January
26, 2008, However, SC Springfield LLC hand delivered to staff a 4 day waiver to January 30, 2008 at the
December 11th Planning Commission public hearing. This allows this appeals public hearing to take place
on January 28, 2008 without the possibility of the appellant filing a writ of mandamus provided a final
decision is made by Council by January 30th.
On January 8, the City Attorney mailed a letter to SC Springfield LLC's attorney asking for an additional
waiver of 12 days, until February 11, 2008 (see Attachment 3) to allow the City Council u.. .more time to
deliberate and consider this matter. n As of January 17, 2008, when this staff report was completed, SC
Springfield LLC had not responded to this request.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL
With respect to process issues, staff recommends:
1.. THE 120 DAY REVIEW PERIOD AND WHETHER THE CllY COUNCILS PUBI,.IC HEARIMG IS ON
THE RECORD OR DE NOVO
Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a de novo pubic hearing (ORS 227.175); SDC 5.3-
120(0). Oe novo status is consistent with the expectations of SC Springfield LLC and the neighbors; a
de novo hearing moots issues related to notice raised in the appeals and the question of standing and
non-payment of application fees for several of the appellants.
2.STANDING
Staff recommends that the appeals of Phillip M. Newman, Dennis Hunt and Clara Shevchinski be
denied for lack of standing. As discussed earlier in this report, these individuals did not submit oral or
written testimony into the Planning Commission record, and therefore do not have standing to appeal
under SDC,Section 5,3-120A. However, although these individuals cannot be considered appellants in
this appeal, they may provide oral or written testimony at the City Council's de novo public hearing.
3. NON-PAYMENT OF APPEALS FEES
Appellants Donna Lentz, Wesley Swanger and Nic~ Shevchynski did not submit the required fee with
their respective appeals application; SDC Section 5.4-105B requires payment of fees with the submittal,
of an application. Failure to pay this fee does not obviate "standing" of these individuals as they each
participated in the hearings before the Planning Commission. There are reasonable arguments to
mitigate ,non-payment participation of multiple appellants: "the Director may consolidate them to be
heard as one preceeding," (SDC 5.3-11 O(C); a fee has been submitted by Appellant SC Springfield
LLC; the Council's decision to review this matter as a de novo public hearing allows anyone to
participate and raise any issues related to the Planning Commission's decision
4. STATUS OF NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS REGARDING FEES
There is no evidence to corroborate appellants statements that the North Springfield Citizens'
, Committee is duly recognized by the City (SMC Section 2.650); there is no evidence that a similar
status was ever established with Lane County and therefore could be a basis for recognition by Council
as a result of jurisdictional transfer of land use authority in 1986; there is no basis for fee waiver as may
be allowed for neighborhood associations; however, this appeal conducted as a de novo public hearing
allows anyone interested in this matter to testify; therefore there is no prejudice to those individuals who
have purported to belong to the North Springfield Citizen's Committee.
ATTACHMENT 1 - 4
111I. MASTER PLAN CRITERIA OF APPROVAL
These are the criteria the Planning Commission utilized in order to grant Master Plan approval
through the public hearing process: November 20, 2007, December 11, 2007 and December 20,
2007.
SDC.Section 5.13-125 states:
UA Master Plan may be approved if the Planning Commission finds that the proposal conforms
with all of the following approval criteria. In the event of a conflict with approval criteria in this
Subsection, the more specific requirements apply.
A. The zoning of the properly shall be consistent with the Metro Plan diagram and/or
applicable Refinement Plan diagram, Plan District map, and Conceptual Development ,
Plan;
B. The request, as conditioned, shall conform to applicable Springfield Development Code
requirements, Metro Plan policies, Refinement Plan, Plan District, and Conceptual
Development Plan policies.
.
C. Proposed on-site and off-site improvements, both pUblic and private, are sufficient to
accommodate the proposed phased development and any capacity requirements of
public facilities plans; and provisions are made to assure construction of off-site
improvements in conjunction with a schedule of the phasing.
D. The request shall provide adequate guidance for the design and coordination of future
phases;
E. Physical features, including but not limited to steep slopes with unstable soil or geologic
conditions, areas with susceptibility to flooding, significant clusters of trees and shrubs,
watercourses shown 'on the WQLW Map and their associated riparian areas, .wetlands,
rock outcroppings and 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;
and
F. Local public facilities plans and local street plans shall not be adversely impacted by the
proposed development. n
I IV. THE SEVEN APPEALS
Appellant: SC Springfield, LLC
Case Number: ZON2008-00002
Appellant SC Springfield, LLC states:
UMaster Plan Approval Condition #27:
1. Is without basis in the applicable criteria for Master Plan approval;
2. imposes upon the applicant a burden disproportionate to the impact of the development; and
3. unlawfully delegates to the, City Engineer the discretion to impose exactions without reference to
standards and without findings of proportionality. n
Staff Response:
ATTACHMENT 1 - 5
BackQround and Summary of Response
In late October, 2007 SC Springfield LLC requested that their application be processed as submitted,
within 30 days of the submittal, as allowed in Oregon land use law. As SC Springfield LLC was unwilling
to extend the 120 review period (including local appeals), the first Planning Commission hearing was
scheduled for November 20, 2007 to hear public comments. Staff then prepared a staff report by
December 4, 2007 and the Planning Commission reconvened the public hearing on December 11, 2007.
On December 20, 2007 the Planning Commission deliberated and approved the application with 53
conditions. SC Springfield LLC's appeal of the approval Condition #27 was filed January 4, 2007.
Staff has been clear, both in meetings and communications with SC Springfield LLC's representatives
and in the record of the Planning Commission proceedings, that SC Springfield LLC's proposed
improvements at the Marcola Road/new collector street location and at the Marcola Road/Lowe's
driveway location Are Not safe and workable as submitted.
SC Springfield LLC's proposal for traffic signal control at both of these locations in fact creates significant
operational and safety problems for traffic using Marcola Road (including additional development traffic)
and for vehicles trying to turn in and out of the residential development on the south side of Marcola
Road. Attachment 6-A shows SC Springfield LLC's proposed signalized intersections in relation to
property lines and south side residential property. The red lines on Attachment 6-A show the area in the
left turn lanes that is occupied by cars tuming left into the development site as described in SC Springfield
LLC's traffic analysis. Attachment 6-B is SC Springfield LLC's intersection concept submittal from
December 2007.
The key safety issue is that the south side of the proposed development intersections includes multiple
driveways, in violation of safe signalized intersection design. Further, queues of development traffic
heading east on Marcola Road and waiting to tum left into the propose'd new collector street (Martin
Drive) and the proposed Lowes driveway intersections would prohibit residents of ten or more existing
homes on the south side of Marcola Road from tuming left into or out of their driveways. Because SC
Springfield LLC's submittal is concept in nature, the exact details of impact would not be known until the
time subdivision and Public Improvement Project plans are submitted as part of Master Plan Phase 1.
Staff works har9 to balance private interests with those of the broader public during review of
development proposals. Staff met with SC Springfield LLC twice between the first Planning Commission
hearing (November 20, 2007) and deliberations (December 20, 2007) to continue to review and discuss
these safety and design issues and their possible resolution. SG Springfield LLG's position was that
already existing residential development and/or the public was responsible for. safety and design impacts
caused by SC Springfield LLC's proposed intersections. Staff did not agree that existing development
was responsible for safety and design problems brought about by SC Springfield LLC's submitted
development application, and proposed an access lane to provide existing south side residents with the
ability to safely access their driveways and then access Marcola Road at one or two shared access
points. Staff also proposed a roundabout intersection at the Marcola Road/Martin Drive intersection as a
form of intersection control that is statistically safer and demonstrates greater capacity, than a signalized
intersection. Staffs proposal has the added operational benefit of slowing traffic along this area of
Marcola Road, further contributing to safety in mitigation of SC Springfield LLC's added traffic. At the
December 20, 2007 public hearing, in testimony to the Planning Commission, SC Springfield LLC agreed
to the staff concept, and noted that agreement in the record of the Planning Commission proceedings -
with the understanding that design details would be worked out during the subsequent subdivision phase
and the Public Improvement Project (PIP) design and approval process, and that staff would work to
minimize impacts on the development site.
SC Springfield LLC has now appealed Condition #27 without providing a reasonably workable solution to
the issues addressed above. Absent Condition # 27, as clarified below, staff recommends denial of the
Master Plan as submitted.
Appellant SC Springfield, LLC states:
ATTACHMENT 1 -,6
"1. Condition #27 is without basis in the applicable criteria for Master Plan approval"
Staff Response:
On page 2, the appeal document states, "The applicant believes that there is no authority in the criteria
for Master Plan approval to require the roundabout intersections." However, SC Springfield LLC does
demonstrate the need for intersection traffic control at the new collector/Marcola Road intersection in its
Traffic Impact Analysis and has proposed a traffic signal intersection as the method of traffic control.
Below are relevant citations from State law, the Springfield Charter, the Springfield Municipal Code, and
the Springfield Development Code that taken together demonstrate that the City, and its Public Works
Department, has the authority to specify the design of all public improvements. Relevant parts are
underlined.
OREGON REVISED STATUTE
Oregon Revised Statute 221.924 Authority to make public improvements. "The council may.
whenever it deems it expedient, improve the public grounds within any city referred to in ORS 221.906,
and establish and open additional streets and allevs therein. The power and authority to improve streets
includes the power and authority to construct. improve. pave. repair. and keep in repair. sidewalks and
pavements. and to determine and provide evervthina convenient and necessary concemina such
improvements and repairs. "[Amended by 1969 c.429 95]
Oregon Revised Statute 810.010 Jurisdiction over highways; exception. "This section desianates the
bodies responsible for exercisina ;urisdiction over certain hiahwavs when the vehicle code requires the '
exercise of ;urisdiction bv the road authoritv. This section does not control where a specific section of the
vehicle code specifically provides for exercising jurisdiction in a manner different than provided by this
section. Except as otherwise specifically provided under the code, the responsibilities designated under
this section do not include responsibility for maintenance. Responsibility for maintenance is as otherwise
provided by law. The followina are the road authorities for the described roads:
(3) The Qovernina body of an incorporated city is the road authority for all hiahwavs. roads.
streets and allevs. other than state hiahwavs. within the boundaries of the incorporated citv. "
SPRINGFIELD CHARTER
CHAPTER II. POWERS
Section 4. Powers ofthe City. "The City has all powers that the constitutions, statutes and common law
of the United States and of the State of Oregon now or hereafter expressly or impliedly granted or allowed
the City, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers. "
Section 5. Construction of Powers. "In this Charter no specification of power is exclusive or restricts
authority that the City would have if the power were not specified. The Charter shall be Iiberallv
construed. so that the City may exercise as fullv as possible all powers possible for it under this Charter
and under United States and Oreaon law. A power of the City continues unless the grant of the power
clearly indicates the contrary. n
Section 6. Distribution of Powers. "Except as this Charter provides otherwise and as the Oregon
Constitution reserves municipal legislative power to the voters of the City, all powers of the City are
vested in the City Council. n '
SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE
CHAPTER 3 PROCEDURE FOR AUTHORIZING AND MAKING IMPROVEMENTS
ATTACHMENT 1 - 7
"Section 3.000 Specifications.
(1) The city of Sprinqfield Standard Construction Specifications as compiled by the city and from
time to time amended, are hereby adopted and shall be the Standard Construction Specifications to be
used in connection with all public improvement contracts. Not less than biennially the council shall review,
and by resolution approve, all changes to such specifications.
(2) All public improvement contracts hereafter executed shall contain a reference to said
specifications, and incofPorate the same into,each such public improvement contract by reference.
(3) True and exact copies of the specifications are on file in the offices of the city enaineer at city ,
hall.
(4) This section shall not be construed as limiting or preventing the application of special
conditions for such public improvement contracts as may be required from time to time by the city in the
event of special or unique considerations involved in any particular contracr'.
"Section 3.014 Plan Approval Required.
(1) Enaineered plans for all public works proiects proposed for construction within the city shall be
submitted to the public works department for approval prior to start of any construction work. The cost of
review for approval and preliminary testing for design shall be deemed to be part of the engineering
services. For policies where the council has adopted a resolution of intent to initiate the project and to
assess the costs of the project, such costs shall be assessed against the benefiting properties. For all
other projects the estimated cost of review for approval and prelimi~ary testing for design of the proposed
project shall be deposited with the public works department at the time of application for such approval.
(2) The final charges shall be computed from the actual employee hours, laboratory fees and
other direct expenses, including an allowance for indirect costs, spent in connection with the approval of
the plans, and the surplus (if any) will be refunded to the depositor. Overruns will be due prior to issuing a
, '
construction permit for the project. n [Section 3.014 amended by Ordinance No. 5948, enacted December
. '
6, 1999.]
"Section 3.016 Permit Required.
(1) Prior to the start of any construction for public works within the city, a permit will be
required from the public works department. The cost of inspection, testing, and other services related to
the construction for which the permit is requested shall be deemed to be a part of the cost of engineering
and superintendence. For projects where the council has adopted a resolution of intent to initiate the
project and to assess the costs of the project, such costs shall be assessed against the benefiting
properties. For all other projects the estimated total of such costs of inspection, testing and other services
related to the construction shall be deposited with the city prior to the start of any construction.
(2) The final charges shall be computed from the actual employee hours, laboratory fees and
other expenses related to the construction of the project, including an allowance for indirect costs, and the
surplus (if any) shall be refunded to the depositor. Overruns shall be due prioito acceptance of the
project by the city. n [Section 3.016 amended by Ordinance No. 5948, enacted December 6, 1999.]
SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE (SDC)
"SDC Section 2.1-110 Purpose
The regulations contained in this Code are intended to ensure that development is:
ATTACHMENT 1 - 8
A. Sited on property zoned in accordance with the applicable Metro Plan diagram and/or applicable
Refinement Plan diagram, Plan District map, and Conceptual Development Plan;
B. Served by a full range of key urban facilities and services that can be provided in an orderly and
efficient manner; and
C. Consistent with the applicable standards of this Code."
"SDC Section 2.1-115 Applicability
A. Land may be used, or developed by land division or otherwise, and a structure may be used or
developed by construction, reconstruction, alteration, and occupancy or otherwise, only as this Code
permits. "
"SDC Section 4.1-110 Applicable Documents
B. Construction and design references for public improvements under City jurisdiction. Specifications for
the design, construction, reconstruction or repair of streets, alleys, sidewalks, bus turnouts,
accessways, curbs, gutters, street lights, traffic signals, street signs, sanitary sewers, stormwater
management systems, street trees and planter strips within the public right-of-way, medians, round-
abouts and other public improvements within the city limits and the City's urbanizable area are as
specified in this Code, the Springfield Municipal Code, 1997, the City's Engineering Design Standards
and Procedures Manual and, the Public Works Standard Construction Specifications. The Public
Works Director retains the riqht to modify their cited references on a case-by-case basis without the
need of a Variance when existinq conditions make their strict application impractical. "
"SDC Section 4.2-105 Public Streets
A. General Provisions.
1. The location, width and grade of streets shall be considered in their relation to existing and planned
streets, to topographical conditions, and to the planned use of land to be served by the streets. The
street system shall assure efficient traffic circulation that is convenient and safe. Grades, tangents,
curves and intersection angles shall be appropriate for the traffic to be carried, considering the terrain.
Street location and design shall consider solar access to building sites as may be required to comply
with the need for utility locations, and the preservation of natural and historic inventoried resources.
Streets shall ordinarily conform to alignments depicted in TransPlan, the Regional Transportation
Plan (RTP), applicable Refinement Plans, Plan Districts, Master Plans, Conceptual Development
Plans, or th.e Conceptual Local Street Map. The arrangement of public streets shall provide for the
continuation or appropriate projection of existing streets in the surrounding area, unless topographical
or other conditions make continuance or conformance to existing street alignments impractical.
3. Development Approval shall not be qranted where a proposed application would create unsafe traffic
conditions. n
"SDC Section SDC 5.13-125 Criteria
A Master Plan may be approved if the Planning Commission finds that the proposal conforms with all of
the following approval criteria. In the event of a conflict with approval criteria in this
Subsection, the more specific requirements apply.... n
"8. The request, as conditioned. shall conform to applicable Sprinqfield Development Code requirements.
Metro Plan policies. Refinement Plan, Plan District, and Conceptual Development Plan policies.
C. Proposed on-site and off-site public and private improvements shall be sufficient to accommodate the
proposed phased development and any capacity requirements of public facilities plans: and provisions
shall be made to assure construction of off-site improvements in coniunction with a schedule of the
phasinq, n '
The required street improvements were reviewed under Criterion. C. The language is clear that the
required access lane, an off-site improvement, and as conditioned, is required to comply with this
criterion. However, any SDC requirement can be utilized under Criterion 8.
ATTACHMENT 1 - 9
In view of the regulations cited above, it is clear that the City has the authority to condition the Master
Plan application as approved by the Planning Commission on December 20, 2007.
Appellant SC Springfield, LLC states:
"2. Master Plan Approval Condition #27 imposes upon the applicant a burden disproportionate to the
impact of the development;n
Staff response:
Condition #27 is not disproportionate to the impact of the development. The following analysis is based
on the best information staff has from SC Springfield LLC and the time constraints imposed by the review
timeline.
In the year 2015, Marcola Road without development traffic will carry 10,6831 average daily trips (ADT).
Site development traffic, reduced as described below, will generate an additional 16,850 trips on Marcola
Road. The impact of new trips over projected trips is a 158 per cent increase, or an impact factor of 1.58.
SC Springfield LLC's September 28, 2007 Traffic Impacts Analysis (TIA) demonstrates that anticipated
year 2015 build out of the 100.3 acre site will generate 21,6282 vehicle trips on average each day '"
(Average Daily Traffic, ADT). Of the total 21,628 ADT, 3,5103 trips are expected to occur internally on the
100.3 acre site, and are subtracted from the ADT which results in 18,118 (21,628 - 3,510) development
tiips on the surroundin~ system. These 18,118 trips are distributed across the surroundin~ street network
in the TIA. About 93% of the 18,118 will use Marcola Road fronting the site (between 28\ and 23rd
Streets). Thus, 16,850 (93% x 18,118) new trips generated by the proposed development are expected
on Marcola Road at site build out in 2015.
The area of exaction to address the trip increases and associated operational and safety problems on
Marcola Road is estimated to be between 0.56 and 2.0 acres5. This is an estimate because final design
will occur after Master Plan approval, during the subdivision (Master Plan Phase 1 development) and
public improvement project approval processes. Site exaction area for Condition #27 ranges from "24,394,
sq. ft. (0.56 x 4"3,560) and 87,120 sq. ft. (2.0 x 43,560).
The impacted area, i.e. the public right of way area impacted, is estimated to be 1,680 lineal feet6 of
Marcola Road at 75 feet6 of right of way width, or 126,000 sq~ ft. (1,680 x 75).
Using the maximum exaction of SC Springfield LLC's land area produces the highest possible exaction
ratio, i.e. the most impact on SC Springfield LLC, the ratio of exaction area to impact area is 0.697.
1 Calculated from Marcola Meadows Master Plan Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), September 28,2007, Appendix A,
Figure 3, by averaging the east/west peak hour movements at intersections 1 and 4 for year 2007 and multiplying by
a factor of 10 to convert from peak hour to average daily traffic (ADT) and then increasing by 2% per year for eight
years to yield the ADT expected in year 2015. The factor of 10 is used in TIA Appendix F for the traffic signal
warrant analysis to convert peak hour (or design hour) volume to ADT.
2 TIA page 7, Table 2. "
3 Calculated from Internal Trips for Peak Hour (TIA page 8, Table 3) and multiplying,QY a factor,of 10 to c~nvert
from peak hour to average daily traffic (ADT)
4 TIA, Appendix A, Figure 3 where the average of trips inbound and outbound from the west, the east and the south
of the development respectively are (57% + 20% + 12% = 89% inbound) and (62% + 22% + 13% = 97% outbound).
89% + 97% divided by 2 = 93%.
5 Written Appeal Statement - Marcola Master Plan LRP 2007-0028, prepared on behalf of SC Springfield, LLC (SC
'Springfield Appeal), Page 1, Item 3. a. '
6 Measurement of applicant's Marcola Road frontage and existing public right of way width from Springfield
Graphic Information System tool "MapS pring".
ATTACHMENT 1 - 1 0
Using the minimum exaction of SC Springfield LLC's land area produces the lowest possible exaction
ratio, i.e. the least impact on SC Springfield LLC, the ratio of exaction area to impact area is 0.198.
Comparing the impacts of development using the impact factor of 1.58 described above, (158% increase
in traffic) to the largest exaction ratio of 0.69, it is clear that the development traffic impact is at least 2.29
times (1,58/0.69 = 2.29) larger than the exaction required of the development, and therefore meets the
rough proportionality test. If the smallest exaction ratio was used, the development traffic impact is 8.32 .
times (1.58/0.19 = 8.32) larger than the exaction required.
, When looking at the exaction area compared to the total site, the exaction area is between 0.56% (0.56 1
100.3) and 1.99% (2.0/100.3) of the total 100.3 acre site.
SC Springfield LLC states in the January 4, 2008 Appeal Statement that realignment of Marcola Rd. to
accommodate an access lane on the south side and a roundabout intersection would cost $2,000,000
more than the cost to construct the signalized intersections as proposed. Staff understands that
intersection construction at the new collector location on Marcola Road necessitates the, frontage lane
whether or not the new collector intersection is a roundabout or a signalized intersection. There is no
evidence to support the assertion of the $2,000,000 cost of realignment. Detail design has not yet
occurred and it is reasonable to project such costs as a range that falls between $1,000,000 and
$2,000,000. It is SC Springfield LLC's burden to pay for improvements to cure the safety and operational
problems brought about by the Master Plan application and future development as described above.
Further, as shown above, the impact test demonstrates that impacts to Marcola Road are between 2.29
and 8.32 times larger than the exaction of land. The addition of cost to make roadway improvements on
Marcola Road of between $1,000,000 and $2,000,000.does not push the proportion of impact to exaction
beyond any measure of rough proportionality.
This analysis is based on the best information staff has from SC Springfield LLC and the time constraints
imposed by the review timeline. .
There are also direct benefits of Condition #27 to the property owner and site development. The first and
most important is the provision of direct site access from two new locations on Marcola Road. This access
is essential to site development. The second benefit is that these two new accesses to Marcola Road
can be configured, as conditioned, to mitigate the identified safety problems of multiple neighbor
driveways (10 -15) in or impacted by new intersections as proposed by SC Springfield LLC, restricted
turn movements to south side neighbor driveways resulting from the new intersections as proposed, and
a 158% increase in vehicle volumes. This improved safety and operation of the roadway is accomplished
primarily via the conditioned access lane for south side neighbor driveways, and also via the roundabout
form of traffic control at the neW collector intersection with Marcola Road. The exaction area for these
improvements is sufficient to reduce vehicle conflicts among vehicles entering and exiting existing south
side neighbor driveways, vehicles entering and exiting the two new north side access points proposed
with development, and all vehicles traveling easUwest on Marcola Road.
Taken together, these facts demonstrate that the exaction meets the Dolan test and is in fact,
proportionate to the impacts brought about by the approved Master Plan.
Appellant SC Springfield, LLC states:
"3. Master Plan Approval Condition #27 un/~wfu"y delegates to the City Engineer the discretion to impose
exactions without reference to standards and without findings of proporlionality. n
Staff response:
7 {(87,120)/(1,680 x 75)} = 0.69
8 {(24,394)/(1,680 x 75)} = 0.19
ATTACHMENT 1 - 11
As stated in previous conversations with SC Springfield LLC staff is not proposing a roundabout now, or
in the future at the driveway south of Lowes on Marcola Road. Staff recommends Condition #27, Item 5)
be clarified consistent with the Planning Commission deliberation and decision on this condition, as
follows:
5) Provide financial security acceptable to the City Enqineer in an amount equal to the cost of siqnalized
traffic control to provide for future traffic control at the arterial/site driveway intersection location. The
form and timinq of future traffic control will be based on traffic operational and safety needs as
determined bv the City Enqineer. and shall not include a roundabout form of control.
The above condition as clarified in this report responds to SC Springfield LLC's request for certitude
regarding no requirement for use of a roundabout form of traffic control at the driveway south of Lowes on
Marcola Road. As conditions change in the future, the City of Springfield needs the discretion to exercise
engineering judgment in evaluating the proper roadway treatments to mitigate safety and operational
issues. SC Springfield LLC's proposed revision to the condition is not responsive to the safety and
operational issues described above.
Appellant: Donna Lentz
Case Number: lON2008-00003
Appellant Lentz states:
"1. Offers retail, residential & home improvement that are already plentiful in area.
2. Concem that land be used wisely if there is only so much of it to use.
3. Project would possibly adversely effect urban renewal plan.
4. Possibility of impending recession would prove inopportune for this project. "
Staff Response:
1. Master Plan approval cannot limit, add to or change the uses permitted in the underlying zones. All of
the proposed uses shown on SC Springfield LLC's submittal are permitted within their respective
zoning districts.
2. Master Plan approval is intended to: .Provide preliminary approval for the entire development area in
relation to land uses. a ranae of minimum to maximum potential intensities and densities,
'arranaement of uses. and the location of public facilities and transportation systems when a
development is proposed to be developed in phases. " SDC 5.13-105(8)( 1)." Although "wise use" is
not specific to any of the criteria of approval, the subsection of Master Plans cited here clearly has an
objective of "wise use" (giving broad deference as to what the appellant might believe these terms
mean) based on consideration of these development elements; SC Springfield LLC's submittal
contains each of these elements.
3. The City has two urban renewal districts each with its own plan and neither of which has boundaries
within two miles of the subject property; the appellant does not indicate which of these urban renewal
plans, if not both, might be affected; the appellant does not say why these urban renewal plans might
be adversely affected; the appellant does not explain how a Master Plan approval will adversely affect
these urban renewal plans; the appellant does not explain how the success or failure of urban
renewal plans is related to a Master Plan approval for land several miles away from any urban '
renewal districts; the appellant does not indicate which Master Plan approval criteria addresses
potential effects on urban renewal plans.
4. The Master Plan application does not require an economic forecast or a demonstration of the
potential success or failure of the businesses that may occupy the development area. The appellant
does not indicate which of the approval criteria requires a consideration of such economic factors.
ATTACHMENT 1 - 12
Appellant: Phillip M. Newman
Case Number: ZON2008-00004
. Appellant Newman states:
.
"1. I am a properly owner in the City of Springfield. I could have gone to hearing if I would of had notice.
2. There was no notice posted on the Marcola Road property (Pierce properly) as required by SDC 5.2-
115." ,
Staff Response:
These issues do not address the criteria of approval or the conditions of approval.
AppellQnt Newman lives in Creswell and did not state the address of his property in Springfield. Staff
reviewed the notice affidavit for the Marcola Meadows Master Plan application and could not find his
name. Staff also checked the Regional Land Database of Lane County under Philip Newman and could
find no property listed under his name in Springfield.
SDC 5.2-115A.' states: "Mailed Notice, Where required, notice of a public hearing will be sent by mail at
least20 days before the date of the hearing. If two public hearings are required, notice may be sent 10
days before the first hearing. The mailed notice will be sent to: the applicant and the owners of record of
the subject properly; all properly owners and occupants within 300 feet of the subject properly; the
appropriate neighborhood association; and any person Who'-5ubmits a written request to receive notice.
In addition, the applicant shall post one sign, approved by the Director, on the subject properly.
Information pertaining to properly ownership shall be obtained from the most recent properly tax
assessment role. The mailed notice shall contain the following: . ... "
The applicant (SC Springfield LLC) is responsible for posting the sign. Staff was responsible for mail and
newspaper notice.
See also Appellant Nick Shevchynski's issues and staff response.
Appellant: Del"!nis Hunt
Case Number: ZON2008-00005
Appellant Hunt states:
"The Planning Commission denied me the opportunity to participate by not following their own rules
requiring posting of notice in SDC 5.2-115. I live near the proposed development and drive on the streets
affected by the decision daily. A posted notice would have allowed me to participate and express my
concerns. "
Staff Response:
This issue does not address the criteria of approval or the conditions of approval.
Please see staffs response to Appellant Newman above. In this case, however, after reviewing the
notice affidavit for the Marcola Meadows Master Pian application, staff determined properties on the
south side of Yolanda Avenue received notice (because they were within the 300 foot notice area). Since
Appellant Hunt lives on the north side of Yolanda Avenue, he was beyond the 300 foot notice area.
See also Appellant Nick Shevchynski's issues and staff response.
Appellant: Clara Shevchinski
Case Number: ZON2008-00006
ATTACHMENT 1 -13
Appellant Clara Shevchinski states:
"Same as those of Philip M. Newman Trustee, Dennis Hunt, Les Swanger and Nick Shevchynski; and by
r~ference I incorporate their statements and affidavits. n, ,
Staff Response:
Please respond to the named appellants issues.
Appellant: Wesley o. Swanger
Case Number: ZON2008-00007
Appellant's issues:
"1. The proposed Marcola Road improvement project will provide an extreme negative impact on my
property at 2415 Marcola Road.
2. My access to Marcola Road, 19th Street and 1-105 will be very negatively impacted by the proposed
Marcola Road improvement project.
3. The notification process for the Marcola Meadows project was not done according to the rules. n
Staff Response:
Issues 1. and 2., above are addressed in staff's response to Appellant SC Springfield LLC regarding
Master Plan Condition #27, above.
Issue 3. does not address the criteria of approval or the conditions of approval. Please see staff's
response to Appellant Newman above. In this case, however, Appellant Swanger's name appears on the
notice affidavit for the Marcola Meadows Master Plan application.
Appellant: Nick Shevchynski
Case Number: ZON2008-Q0008
Appellant Nic~ Shevchynski states (there are 24 issues):
"1. The appeals application states that, "The Planning Division staff can be of assistance in helping you
fill out this section.' Since it doesn't state the staff "will" be of assistance I asked how and/or what
assistance? The question was met with silence.
2. ' . .. all of the sections on the opposite side of this page must be filed out. ' There is.no opposite side.
3. Explaining "the specific points that are appealedn in "one sentence statement" is undue restriction and
an almost impossibility. This application, for appeal procedure is unduly restrictive, contradictory,
confusing, and unlawful. n ' '
Staff Response:
Issues 1-3. These issues do not address the criteria of approval or the conditions of approval.
"4. The City seems to believe in a policy that it doesn't have to abide by the, law unless it gets caught and
litigated. The City states that if an issue or violation was not raised below it can not be "appealedn to
the next level of rubber stamping. Under the plain error rule unpreserved claims of error do not
necessarily prevent them form being raised on review. An "error of law apparent on the face of the
recorrr falls under the plan error rule. The Oregon Supreme Court issued an opinion on Dec. 13, '07
in State v Fults overturning the Oregon Appeals Court because the plain error rule was not applied to
unpreserved claims of error. n
Staff Response:
ATTACHMENT 1 - 14
Appellant Nick Shevchynski's statement of the City's belief is incorrect. The hearing before the City
Council is de novo and the Appellant is free to submit any information in support of his appeal.
Notwithstanding the above, the Appellant has demonstrated no harm.
"5. Karp's memorandum of 12-11-07, pg. 10, cites SDC 5.2-115: ". . .the applicant shall post one sign,
approved by the Director, on the subject property. "Pg. 11: "Staff's Response/Finding" which finds that
this was not done. "Wait," you will say, "This wasn't preserved." It's an error of law apparent on the
face of the record. Don't you follow your own laws? Never mind that question. In any event it was
preserved. Page 7, Karp's 12/20/07 memorandum: ". *. and the applicant not contacting the property
owners prior to the public hearing. " See attached affidavit. Was this a procedural or statutory
requirement? Lawyer Leahy may say procedural in order to ignore the requirement and I say it's
statutory because it's the law and your law Golf v McEachron."
Staff Response:
See staffs response to Issue #4, above.
"6. There was a public hearing on this matter on 12-11-07. Because the record was still open for public
comment the public should have been granted the opportunity for comment. Notice of this hearing
was never timely mailed as required by SDC,5.2-115."
Staff Response:
, The first public hearing was held on November 20, 2008. The intent was to let the neighbors testify
so that staff could prepare a staff report that included their information and concerns, but the Planning
Commission did not make a decision. That hearing was continued until December 11th and additional
public testimony was entered into the record The December 11th public hearing was continued until
December 20th to hear staffs response and allow the Planning Commission to make their decision.
No additional public notice was required.
"7. The issue of schools being overcrowded was addressed by a couple of letters from a couple of
alleged officials. It was written that there is and will be no "overcrowding" without ever defining what
that means.. They say there is no overcrowding on one hand and beg for more taxes because of
overcrowding on the other. These people should have testified on the record allowing the commission
to ask questions and the public to hear and see them. It was an error not to consider that after
absorbing the students from the proposed development any additional students from anywhere would
cause overcrowding. "
Staff Response:
School District 19 determines school capacity. Their two letters are in the record. The record consists
of both oral and written testimony.
"8. During the 12-20-07 hearing no new material was suppose to be introduced in order to keep out
public comment. New material was introduced. At one point lawyer Spickerman walked up to lawyer
Leahy" and whispered his objection. Leahy said out loud that there was an objection because new
material was introduced. Commissioner Carpenter added additional new language to the "plan" which
the public was not allowed to comment on. Notice of this hearing being open Was not mailed in a.' .
timely manner pursuant to SDC 5.2-115." ,
Staff Response:
Staff distributed a diagram to the Planning Commission to help explain the operation of the proposed
access lane. This diagram was discussed by staff and SC Springfield LLC at a meeting prior to the
December 20th public hearing. The diagram was illustrative of discussions which occurred between
ATTACHMENT 1 - 15
SC Springfield LLC and staff and also served to clarify staffs response to inquiries from members of
the planning Commission.
"9. Kinda difficult to preserve an error as stated hereinabove when one is not allowed to speak. The
issue of speech is so one-sided it's ludicrous. Rick Satre droned on and on for hours and hours ahd
on and on. Gary Karp droned on for hours. The City's staff droned on for hours and hours.
Commissioner Evans droned on. Commissioner Carpenter droned on for hours and on and on. The
public got 3 minutes! It's obvious the government doesn't want to hear from the public. the decisions
were already made. The issue is that the city staff and friends control what is. placed on the record by
not notifying the pl,lblic and additionally allowing supporters to have their unrestrictive say. In my
opinion this process is just wasting tax money and creating jobs and retirement benefits for staff and
lawyers. "
Staff Response:
This issue does not address the criteria of approval or the conditions of approval.
"10. Commissioner Nancy Moore was not qualified to vote. She told me she drove on this part of Marcola
Rd. daily to her job at a grade school up Marcola. On the last day she said she didn't know if there
were sidewalks on this part of Marcola. She stated with what appeared to be an attempt at humor that
the City would take 17 ft. from the front of citizens' properties. It's suppose to be on the recorded
record. This is shameful. "
Staff Response:
This issue does not address the criteria of approval or the conditions of approval. However, the public
right-of-way for Marcola Road extends approximately 17 feet behind the existing sidewalk. The City
will not be taking private property along the south side of Marcola Road. The first item in Master Plan
condition of approval #27 confirms the City's position on this issue: "Prior to the approval of the Final
MasterPlan, the applicant shall: 1) Demonstrate that the improvements specified in the Final Master
Plan shall not require' any property dedication south of the existing southern Marcola Road right-of-
way line. "
"11. The issue of the waterway was never properly addressed. Rather than have Sunny Wash bum and/or
her sidekicks Kim and Phil of the city staff answer questions the city staff presented a young man who,
acted clueless. Or maybe it wasn't an act When he was asked by a commissioner where the water
comes from he answered, "I don't know. n This is an embarrassment and shameful. According to the
person in the city manager's office "they are all engineers. n
Staff Response:
The drainage issue has been addressed. See Master Plan conditions of approval #38, 40, 41, 42,
and 48, which all pertain to drainage.
"12. Written notice of the decision was not mailed. "
Staff Response:
The Notice of Decision was mailed on December 21, 2007. The appellant's name is on the mailing
list.
"13. There were about 56 additions made without equal opportunity for comment on all of them. n
Staff Response:
ATTACHMENT 1 - 16
ORS 197.195(3)( c)(B) states: "Issues shall be raised with sufficient specificity to enable the decision
maker to respond to the issue;" The "56 additions" cited by Appellant Nick Shevchynski most-likely
refer to the Master Plan conditions of approval in the December 11th Planning Commission staff
report. This repost was made available to the public 7 days prior to the public hearin~. The public
was given an opportunity to testify and submit written comments at the December 11 h hearing.
"14. There was nothing that addresses what will be done with the bike lanes which are part of the city's
overall plan. Especially since it's planned to have them torn out.
15. There was nothing that addresses what will be done with the bus stops which are part of the city's
overall plan. Especially since it's planned to have them torn out. "
Staff Response:
ORS 197.195(3)( c)(B) states: "Issues shall be raised with sufficient specificity to enable the decision
maker to respond to the issue;" The "bike lanes and bus stops" cited by Appellant Nick Shevchynski
most-likely refer to the reconstruction of these facilities caused by the required access lane. These
issues will be addressed during the design of the access lane.
"16. There waslis nothing, not a peep, about the impact on the environment andlor environmental
controls. "
Staff Response:
ORS 197.195(3)(c)(B) states: "Issues shall be raised with sufficient specificity to enable the decision
maker to respond to the issue;" The "impact on the environment and/or environmental controls"
statement is so vague, staff can not respond.
"17. There was nothing that reasonably described the city's final action and it was not mailed. "
Staff Response:
The Notice of Decision was mailed on December 21, 2007. The appellant's name is on the mailing list.
"18. There was no input and no opportunity to question or comment on what the utility providers' positions
are. Utilities are part of the city's overall plan. "
"
, Staff Response:
ORS 197.195(3)( c)(B) states: "Issues shall be raised with sufficient specificity to enable the decision
maker to respond to the issue;" In response to "utility provider's positions" staff is unsure of the
context. If the context is to the entire site, SUB comments appear in the December 11th staff report
(see Master Plan condition of approval #16). If the context is to the access lane project, see staffs
response to Issues 14 + 15.
"19. The city staff cuts-off comment and the raising of any "new" issues because it's claimed the staff are
not able to open the record for rebuttal. This is false. The record may be opened by statute and
otherwise when-ever the staff and Joe Leahy feels like it. The staff and Joe Leahy controls
everything. " - -
Staff Response:
The City follows the requirements of ORS 197.763 which are incorporated in SDC Section 5.2-100
regarding the conduct of public hearings.
"20. Gary Karp and Rick Satre argued that the number of trips and thusly the traffic will be below the
arbitrary alleged unprovided copies of traffic studies with the addition of 512+ homes and the constant .
ATTACHMENT 1 -17
traffic due to one of America's largest major retailers. Yet Gary Karp and staff advocate major
highway expansions to accumulate alleged non-existing rise in traffic. "
Staff Response:
ORS 197.195(3)(c)(B) states: "Issues shall be raised with sufficient specificity to enable the decision
maker to respond to the issue;" It is unclear what Appellant Nick Shevchynski is raising regarding
traffic, except that copies of the traffic studies in the record have always been available to the public.
During the Metro Plan diagram and Zoning Map amendment process which considers State-wide
,Planning Goal 12 (Transportation) issues, Zoning Map amendment Condition #9 stated: uSubmittal of
preliminary design plans with the Master Plan application addressing the proposed mitigation of
impacts discussed in the TIA. The plans shall show the proposed traffic control changes allowing left-
turns from the eastbound ramp center lane at the eastbound ramps of the Mohawk
Boulevard/Eugene-Springfield Highway intersection. The intent of this condition is to have the
applicant demonstrate to ODOT that the proposed mitigation is feasible from an engineering
perspective and will be constructed on a schedule that is acceptable to ODOT. Provided that
construction of the proposed mitigation is determined to be feasible, then during Master Plan review
and approval a condition shall be applied requiring the mitigation to be accomplished prior to the
temporary occupancy of any uses in Phase 1 of the development." The following Master Plan
conditions of approval address the Uhighway expansion" concern: "2. Concurrent with the Subdivision
Tentative Plan application required for proposed Phase 1, the applicant shall submit a letter from
ODOT stating that plans for the eastbound ramps of the Mohawk Boulevard/Eugene-Springfield
Highway intersection plans have been approved." and "3. Construction of the required mitigation
improvements at the sole expense of the applicant and shall be complete and accepted by ODOT
prior to final occupancy of the proposed home improvement center shown in Phase 2. II
"21. The city alleges it has alligator tears and no money for street repairs yet has more money to tear-up
perfectly good sidewalks, curbs, etc. in order to please a developer and investors in Reno who want
someone else to pay for their improvements. "
Staff Response:
ORS 197.195(3)(c)(B) states: "Issues shall be raised with sufficient specificity to enable the decision
maker to respond to the issue;" The "tearing up of perfectly good sidewalks, curbs, etc."" cited by
Appellant Nick Shevchynskimost-likely refer to the reconstruction of these facilities caused by the
required access lane. These issues will be addressed during the design of the access lane.
However, staff has stated more than one that the property owners on the south side of Marcola Road
will not incur any cost of the required access lane. Any relocation of sidewalks, curbs, etc. will be
bome by SC Springfield LLC.
"22. Have I said written notices of the hearing and decisions were not mailed or posted timely pursuant to
Oregon Statute?"
Staff Response:
Notice of the first Planning Commission public hearing (November 20, 2007) on the Marcola
Meadows Master Plan application was mailed on November 1,2007. The Notice of Decision was
mailed on December 21 ,2007. The appellant's name is on,both mailing lists..
"23. What about those fire hydrants? Pursuant to a court order by a federal judge a maintenance report
was furnished and half of the hydrants on Marcola Road were non-operational. Fire protection is part
of the city's overall plan and this was not even mentioned. "
Staff Response:
ATTACHMENT 1 -18
This issue does not address the criteria of approval or the conditions of approval. All specific
questions regarding SUB infrastructure must be directed to the Springfield Utility Board.
Appellant's issue:
"24. This issue of traffic is one of being relative. Is not traffic rated by various levels? Which level is it now
and what lev.el will it be? This is part of the city's overall plan and was never addressed. "
Staff Response:
ORS 197.195(3)( c)(B) states: "Issues shall be raised with sufficient specificity to enable the decision
maker to respond to the issue;" Staff cannot respond to this issue because it is so vague.
Appellant's Additional Submittal:
"I, Nick Shevchynski, being duly swom on oath say: I walked/jogged the perimeter of the former Pierce
property which is the proposed "'Villages' at Marcola Meadows" on almost a daily basis throughout Nov. &
Dec. of '07 and during the Marcola Meadows Master Plan application case # CRP 2007-00028. At no
time was there a "sign approved by the Director, on the subject property" as required by SDC 5.2-115."
Staff Response:
Appellants Nick Shevchynski, Newman, Hunt and Clara Shevchinski submitted the same affidavit. Staff
has stated previously that under SDC 5.2-115A. The appliCant (SC Springfield LLC) is responsible for
posting the sign. Staff was responsible for mail and newspaper notice.
I V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
1. Issues raised by the six neighboring property owners fall largely into procedural issues and include
notice, and participation at hearings etc., but do not raise objections to any of the 53 conditions of
approval. Staff has addressed all issues raised by the neighboring property owners. '
2. Issues raised by SC Springfield LLC include adequacy of findings demonstrating proportionality,
imposition of conditions not justified by the criteria of approval, and delegation of decision-making
authority to the City Engineer, but raise no challenges to procedure. Of the numerous issues raised in
these appeals the most significant, if upheld by the Council, is Condition #27 which requires the
Master Plan to depict an access lane adjoining the residential properties along the south side of
Marcola Road and a roundabout at the intersection at Martin Drive and Marcola Road. Attendant to
this requirement is the dedication of sufficient land to accommodate the access lane and roundabout
scheduled to occur during the Master Plan's Phase 1 development. The construction of the access
lane would occur within existing right-of-way, but to maintain the existing cross-section of Marcola
Road, the portion of Marcola Road abutting the development site would need to shift north onto this
property. This shift would occur just west of the intersection of 28th and Marcola and would transition
back into the existing alignment just west of the new roundabout at Martin Drive. The staffs
recommendation of this condition was supported by the Planning Commission and is based on: 1).
the authority granted by the Springfield Development Code to require such improvements; 2) the
proposed development is the only reason improvement to Marcola Roa.d is necessary; 3) SC
Springfield LLC offered no reasonably workable solution to the traffic and safety conflicts along
Marcola Road created by the proposed development; 4) access at any point along the development
site's frontage with Marcola Road creates traffic safety conflicts with the residential property along the
paralleling south frontage of Marcoia Road; and 5) the only successful mitigation of the impacts to
these nearby properties, whether by using a roundabout or a traditional intersection design, is the
inclusion of the access lane. Without all these improvements staff cannot support the Master Plan as
submitted by SC Springfield LLC, and the Planning Commission unanimously concurred with this
conclusion after evaluating the facts.
ATTACHMENT 1 - 1 9
..
3. Based upon the findings in this staff report and in the previous record, the City Council should either:
A. Uphold the December 20th Planning Commission approval of the Marcola Meadows Master Plan
application, as conditioned;or
B. Approve t~e application with modified conditions of approval; or
C. If the Council finds it cannot affirm the Planning Commission's decision, or otherwise approve it
with modified conditions, then deny the application.
ATTACHMENT 1 - 20
ATTACHMENT 2
MASTER PLAN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
There are now 53* conditions of Master Plan approval as recommended by staff and approved by the .
Planning Commission on December 20, 2007: .
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #1. Prior to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall
prepare a deed restriction stating that the applicant or any successor owners shall provide
Willamalane Park and Recreation Distrjct an opportunity to review and comment on future plans for
specific improvements to the proposed Oak Prairie Park, in order to better ensure that the design is
compatible with and complimentary to planned improvements at Willamalane's Pierce Park during
the life of the Master Plan.
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #2. Concurrent with the Subdivision Tentative Plan application
required for proposed Phase 1, the applicant shall submit a letter from ODOT stating that plans for
the eastbound ramps of the Mohawk Boulevard/Eugene-Springfield Highway intersection plans
have been approved. .
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #3. Construction of the required mitigation improvements at the
sole expense of the applicant and shall be complete and accepted by ODOT prior to final
occupancy of the proposed home improvement center shown in Phase 2.
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #4. Prior to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall prepare
a deed restriction to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and Development Services Director stating
that the appliCant or successor owners shall address basic underlying assumptions approved by the
Planning Commission when applying for a Master Plan modification as specified in SDC Section
5.13.135.
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #5. Concurrently, with the submittal of the Subdivision Tentative
Plan application that is required for proposed Phase 1, the applicant shall submit the required legal
descriptions to the satisfaction of the City Surveyor for the approved Master Plan diagram and
Zoning ~p amendments.
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #6. Prior to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall
prepare a deed restriction to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and the Development Services
Director that states: any change in the mix of housing units, any change in the location of housing
types, or any increase in the 518 residential dwelling units shown on the approved Final Master
Plan by the applicant or successor owners shall require a Master Plan modification as specified in
SDC Section 5.13.-135.
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #7. Prior to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall
prepare a deed restriction to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and the Development Services
Director that states: the applicant and successor owners shall address the Multi-Family Design
Standards specified in SDC Section 3.2-240 in a revised Attachment 2, Design Guidelines.
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #8. Prior to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall
evaluate and address to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director any open space,
requirement conflicts between SDC Sections 3.2-230 and 3.2-240. The more strict open space
standards shall apply to the proposed townhouses. The results of this evaluation shall be made part
of a deed restriction approved by the Development Services Director and the City Attorney. The
applicant shall also calculate all required opEm space for the MDR portion of the site to demonstrate
that the open space standard can be met and how the open space standards will be addressed in
the Phasing Plan over the life of the Master Plan.
ATTACHMENT 2 - 1
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #9 Prior to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall
prepare a deed restriction to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and the Development Services
Director that states: no proposed residential structure shall exceed the 35-foot maximum height
standard specified in SDC 3.2-215.
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #10. Prior to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall
prepare a deed restriction to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and the Development Services
Director that states the applicant or successor owners shall agree that the design of the uniform
fence along the north property line that abuts the EWEB Easement/Bike Path shall be as shown in
revised Attachment 2, Design Guidelines.
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #11. Prior to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall
submit elevations drawings for the proposed home improvement center with the required Final
Master Plan to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director and specify which design
standards have been utilized. .
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #12. Prior to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall
prepare a deed restriction to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and the Development Services
Director that states: except for the FAR standard the applicant and successor owners shall utilize all
MUC design standards in all CC zoned portions of the site other than the home improvement center
development area. In this case, only specific building design standards shall apply. The applicant
shall utilize one of the following: the building design standards of SDC Section 3.2-445; the building
design standards of SDC Sections 3.2620 through 630 or design standards similar to the existing
Lowe's in Scottsdale, Arizona based on photos already in the record.
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #13. Prior to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall
prepare a deed restriction to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and the Development Services
Director that states: the applicant and successor owners shall be required to submit a Zoning Map
amendment application if any such person proposes to establish uses that may be permitted in the
GO District but are not allowed under the use list in the MUC District. If this is the case, the
developer shall also apply for a Master Plan modification as specified in SDC Section 5.13-135.
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #15. Prior to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall
, prepare a deed restriction to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and the Development Services,
Director that states that no' commercial building shall exceed the 30 foot building height standard in
the Low Density Residential District for a distance of 50 feet. This restriction shall apply to the
existing residential development at the interface of the proposed commercial area west of Martin
Drive.
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #16. Prior to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall
prepare a deed restriction to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and the Development Services
Director that states except for the requirement pertaining to pervious surfaces in the parking lots,
the applicant and successor owners shall comply with the following requirements requested by SUB
at the time of Site Plan Review application submittal for the home improvement center proposed in
Phase 2 and for any additional commercial development proposed that is within the Drinking Water
Protection Overlay District as shown in Phase 4.
As noted in the report, each individual developer will need to follow the requirements of SDC
Section 3.3-300 Drinking Water Protection Overlay District Applications may be required.
SDC Section 3.3-300requires that all hazardous materials that pose a risk to groundwater be
stored in secondary containment In order to meet the secondary containment requirement, the
ATTACHMENT 2 - 2
developer of the home improvement store will need to incorporate secondary containment into the
design of the building floor and any other areas where hazardous materials, including fertilizers
and other landscaping products, will be stored. Chemicals stored outdoors (fertilizers, pesticides,
etc.) must be covered and placed in secondary containment
The north-central portion of the site for the home improvement store lies within the 0 - 1 TOTZ.
The 0-1 year TOTZ standards, including the 500-gallon storage limit, will apply to the facility
unless no hazardous materials are stored in or within 50 feet of the portion of the site that lies
within the 0-1 TOTZ. (Hazardous materials offered for sale in their original sealed containers of'
five gallons or less are exempt from the 500-gallon storage limit)
All lease agreements for the commercial spaces must include language requiring compliance with
Article 17 Drinking Water Protection (DWP) Overlay District of the Springfield Development Code.
, Occupants may need to complete a DWP Overlay District Application.
No fill materials containing hazardous materials shall be used on this site.
Injection wells are prohibited within the two-year TOTZ. Any injection wells outside the two-year
TOTZ (if applicable) must be approved by both the City of Springfield and DEQ based on
proximity to domestic/public drinking water wells, soils type, and depth to groundwater.
The pictures in the application suggested that parking lots will have pervious surfaces. Please
consult with the City of Springfield Public Works Engineering regarding specific guidelines and
restrictions for pervious pavement within wellhead protection areas.
This developmenfs emphasis on waterways and natural processes offers a unique voluntary
opportunity for public education about stormwater quality and groundwater protection. Special
educational signage would fit nicely into the plans for the waterways and open spaces.
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #17. Prior to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall
prepare a deed restriction to the satisfaction of the City Attomey and the Development Services
Director that states no pervious pavement shall be permitted in any parking areas on the entire site.
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #18. Prior to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall
prepare a deed restriction to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and the Development Services
Director that states lists all uses on the Nodal Development Overlay District prohibited use list
specified in SDC Section 3.3-10108. applicable to the MUC District.
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #19. Prior to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall
prepare a deed restriction to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and the Development Services
Director that states that the applicant and successor owners shall submit Subdivision Tentative Plan
applications that comply with the approved Final Master Plan.
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #20. Prior to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall
prepare a deed restriction to the satisfaction of the City Attomey and the Development Services
Director that states that the applicant and successor owners shall submit Site Plan Review
applications that comply with the approved Final Master Plan.
MASTER PLAN CON DITION #21. Prior to the approval of the Final Master Plan the applicant
shall provided designs for revised street widths for sections of the east-west streets that meet the
requirements of SDC Table 4.2 to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #22. Prior to Final Master Plan approval, and consistent with
SDC Section 4.2-105.G.2, the applicant shall revise the proposed Phasing Plan to the satisfaction of
the Development Services Director to include construction of 213 street improvements along their
entire property frontage of 31 st Street in Phase 1. Construction of these street improvements,
including any necessary relocation of the existing ditch along 31st Street, shall occur under
proposed Phase 1 Public Improvement Project.
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #23. Prior to the approval of the Final Master Plan, the applicant
shall depict a design to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that provides 30 feet of paved width
ATTACHMENT 2 - 3
(two 15-foot lanes) with no on-street parking for the section of Belle Boulevard north of the Parcel
sn access.
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #24. Prior to the approval of the Final Master Plan, the applicant
shall depict a design to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that provides a minimum 41-foot wide
street width to provide two 15-foot through lanes and an 11-foot wide left-tum lane where needed
for the section of Belle Boulevard south of the Parcel 6n access.
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #25. Prior to the approval of the Final Master Plan, the applicant
shall comply with all street improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer to resolve all
identified street width issues in order to comply with SDC Table 4.2-1.
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #26. Concurrent with the submittal of the Subdivision Tentative
Plan application for Phase 1, the applicant shall also submit a Street Name Change application in
order to allow the use of the proposed street names in this Master plan application. '
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #27. Prior to the approval of the Final Master Plan, the applic,ant
shall:
1) Demonstrate that the improvements specified in the Final Master Plan shall not require any
property dedication south of the existing southern Marcola Road right-of-way line.
2) Provide preliminary design acceptable to the City Engineer for a roundabout intersection at
the arteriaVcollector intersection of Marcola Road and Martin Drive, and include the
dedication of right-of-way necessary to construct the improvements. The intersection
improvements as specified by the City Engineer shall be constructed as part of the proposed
Phase 1 infrastructure improvements. Final design shaH be approved during the normal .
Public Improvement Project (PIP) process associated with proposed Phase 1 infrastructure
Development.
3) Provide a preliminary design acceptable to the City Engineer and the Springfield Fire Marshal
for a frontage road located within the existing Marcola Road right-of-way that provides safe
and efficient access for vehicles using residential driveways on the south side of Marcola
Road opposite the development site. These improvements as specified by the City Engineer
shall be constructed as part of the proposed Phase 1 infrastructure improvements.
~}J:i~il~~~i1fJ~~Y:qmO:~i2I~I~ffmfie~J2Rn.ggnt3t9~f~l[J!l~lmImmafiamojJnf\5fIIgi1lfOf~y.
5) Provide financial security acceptable to the City Engineer in an amount equal to the cost of
signalized traffic control to provide for future traffic control at the arteriaVsite driveway
intersection location. The form and timing of future traffic control will be based on traffic
operational and safety needs as determined by the City Engineer.
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #28. Prior to the approval of the Final Master Plan, the applicant
shall coordinate with L TD regarding the location of required bus stops. The conceptual bus stops
shall be shown on the appropriate Plan Sheet.
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #29. Direct vehicular driveway access to 28th/31st Streets shall not
be shown on the final Marcola Meadows Master Plan. The number, location and design of such
driveways, if any, s~all be determined during the subdivision and/or site plan review process for
specific developments within the Marcola Meadows Master Plan area.
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #30. Prior to the approval of the Final Master Plan, the applicant
shall record a deed restriction to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and the Development Services
Director stating that the applicant and successor owners shall adhere to the approved Street Tree
List.
ATTACHMENT 2 - 4
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #31. Prior to the approval of the Final Master Plan, the applicant
shall prepare a deed restriction to the satisfaction of the City Attomey and the Development Services
Director that states that all paths and accessways proposed to be constructed by the applicant and
successor owners shall be private. The applicant shall also prepare a pathway/accessway
maintenance agreement as part of the required deed restriction.
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #32. Prior to approval of the Subdivision Tentative Plan for the
subject property and any associated construction, the applicant shall submit an agreement
designating maintenance responsibility of the proposed private pathways as shown on Plan Sheet 8
to the satisfaction of the City Attomey, the Development Services Director and the Public Works
Director.
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #33. Prior to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall
furnish documentation to the City from EWES satisfactory to the City Attorney and the Development
Services Director demonstrating the applicant has'permission to construct the three proposed
private accessways on EWES property. milerGiro:wm;work.rWi@ti1~faP-Qiicaliit!TmorcferTtmmrtaln:tne
'ne~~~~~~~p~ '-'-~>-"~~ ._~,-"'~~-"'-_..'._, - ,~~,-~,.,"-~-..._~'"'_..
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #34. Prior to Final M~ster Plan approval, the applicant shall
prepare a deed restriction stating to the satisfaction of the City Attomey and the Development
Services Director that any maintenance of the accessways shall be the sole responsibility of the
applicant or successor owners.
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #35. Prior to the approval of the Final Master Plan, the applicant
shall provide an executed operati9n and maintenance agreement for the proposed accessways that
meets the approval of the City Attomey, the Development Services Director and the Public Works
Director.
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #36. Prior to the approval of the Final Master Plan, if EWES
requires bike way improvements, the applicant shall describe the extent of those improvements and
submit construction plans with the Subdivision Tentative plan required for the implementation of
Phase 1.. The construction shall be complete and approved by the appropriate agency prior to the
occupancy of the home improvement center proposed as part of Phase 2.
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #37. Prior to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall
submit a sanitary sewer study in accordance with Section 2.02.2 of the City's Engineering Design
Standards and Procedures Manual.
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #38. Prior to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall show
on the Plan Set the existing 10 inch public sewer pipe on the westerly property line in a location
outside of the enhanced drainage swale. The associated construction for either moving the swale
or relocating the existing sewer pipe shall be the responsibility of the applicant and shall occur
during the Phase 1 improvements. Any necessary easements associated with said construction
shall be shown on the Subdivision Tentative Plan, required to implement Phase 1.
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #39. Prior to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall
furnish information to the City for review, indicating how the existing building located on the subject
property receives sanitary sewer service. If the building is served by a septic tank and drain field,
the applicant or successor owners shall be responsible to remove and decommission the tank and
drain field in accordance with applicable state requirements. The existing building shall be removed
prior to the recording of the Subdivision Plat required to initiate Phase 1.
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #40. Prior to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall
submit a revised drainage study to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, which incorporates all the
supplied supplemental information for the tentative drainage study in one final document
ATTACHMENT 2 - 5
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #41. Prior to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall
revise the drainage study recommendation that the minimum street grade on the site be 464.38
feet. The applicant shall recommend that minimum street grade on the site be 464.38 feet plus all
applicable hydraulic losses associated with pipe length, friction, bends, etc. to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer.
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #42. Prior to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall supply
drawdown results in the drainage study for the two proposed detention ponds, verifying they meet the
minimum required drawdown time of 48 hours for the 25-year, 24-hour storm event, as specified in
Section 4.12.8.3 of the City's Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual.
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #43. Prior to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall submit
additional information regarding the proposed swale along Marcola Road. Specifically, the applicant
shall indicate why this swale is proposed to be public and located in a public easement.
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #44. Prior to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall submit
a revised street cross section detail which shows area for a proposed roadside water quality swale, as
shown in plan view on Plan Sheet 9.
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #45. Prior to the recording of the Subdivision Plat, and prior to
City Council acceptance of the Phase 1 Public Improvement Plan review, the applicant shall enter
into a maintenance agreement with the City to the satisfaction of the City Attomey and the City
Engineer for the re-Iocated storm channel and associated Phase 1 water quality features,
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #46. Prior to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall
designate on the Plan Set specific areas set aside for water quality management on each proposed
parcel to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Specifically, the applicant shall show that adequate
space is available on each parcel to meet the City's requirement of 50% vegetative treatment of non-
buildable rooftop area, as required by the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual.
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #47. Concurrently with the submittal of the Subdivision Tentative
Plan required to initiate Phase 1, the applicant shall submit a detailed planting plan in compliance
with the City's stormwater quality standards.
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #48. During construction of the Phase 1 improvements, the
applicant shall, at their expense, install the required plantings in the relocated drainage ditch, as
required and approved in the Joint Permit Application by the Army Corps of Engineers and Division
of State Lands.
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #49. Prior to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall
provide additional detail, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, showing that installation of the 12
inch water line paralleling the existing 42 inch sanitary sewer line will not impede maintenance
access or replacement of the existing 42 inch sanitary sewer line.
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #50. Prior to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall
prepare a deed restriction to the satisfaction of the City Attomey and the Development Services
Director that requires the applicant and successor owners to comply with the additional MUC
District development standards specified in SDC Section 4.7-180.
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #51. Prior to the submittal of the Final Master Plan, the applicant
shall submit the Phasing Plan conceptually agreed to by staff and the applicant on December 18,
2007, which provides a logical phasing proposal. The Phasing Plan may require additional
modification to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director and the Public Works Director.
ATTACHMENT 2 - 6
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #52. Prior to the. submittal of the Final Master Plan, the applicant
shall submit a proposal to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director, the Public Works
Director and the City Attorney to guarantee that the Phasing Plan required by this condition can be
achieved.
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #53. Prior to the submittal of the Final Master Plan. the applicant
shall reconcile discrepancies between Plan Sheets 7 and 8.
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #54. Concurrent with Subdivision Tentative Plan application
required as part of Phase 1, the applicant shall submit the following information: 1) a permit from
the Army Corps of Engineers and/or DSL for the relocated watercourse and work within the
wetlands; 2) the approved Mitigation/Monitoring Plan for the watercourse; 3) a copy of any
contingency bond and an explanation of how compliance with the Monitoring Plan will occur with
any subsequent change in ownership over the life of the Master Plan; and 4) any other condition
imposed by either the Army Corps of Engineers or DSL. The contingency bond and the explanation
of compliance shall to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and the Development Services Director
and shall be made part of a deed restriction.
*
The Planning Commission deleted condition #14.
ATTACHMENT 2 - 7
SUITE 0, 223 A STREET
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
(541) 746-9621
FAX (541) 746-4109
www.ci.springfield.or.us
January 8, 2008
Jim Spickerman
Gleaves Swearingen Potter &
Scott LLP
975 Oak Street, Suite 800
PO Box 1147
Eugene, OR 97440
RE: Marcola Meadows Master Plan LRP 2007-00028
Appeal of SC Springfield, LLC
Filed January 4, 2008
Dear Mr. Spickerman:
Thank you for your above referenced Appeal. In reviewing the 120-day time line on
this matter, it is our understanding that you have provided an extension of four days,
from January 26, 2008 until' January 30, 2008.
This Appeal is scheduled to be heard by the City of Springfield Common Council on
January 28, 2008.
Without any further extension of the 120-days by the Applicant, SC Springfield, LLC, the
Council will need to make a decision on the Appeal on January 28, 2008. I am
concerned that the Council may wish more time to deliberate "and consider this matter.
Accordingly, I am inquiring as to whether the Applicant would be willing to extend the
120-day period by another 12 days, that is until February 11, 2008. That would permit
the Council to extend its deliberation for two more weeks until the February 11, 2008
Council meeting.
Please inquire of your client whether such an extension would be provided. I would like
to be able to inform the Council well ahead of the Council meeting that, if necessary, it
may continue its deliberations to the February 11, 2008 meeting.
II /1A TT ACHMEN-T~ ~ AA "
Jim Spickerman
January 8/ 2008
Page 2 .
Thank you for your anticipated courtesy and cooperation.
Sincerely,
LEAHY & COX/ LLP
...
"'-')~'~ :J ',,-~\~
"'___1 \
Joseph J. Leahy
JJL:llk
cc: Gino Grimaldi
Bill Grile
Gary Karp
N:\Cty\Planning Zoning\Man:ola Meadows Appeal\Llr to Splckennan.wpd
ATTACHMENT 3 - 2
Minutes approved by the Springfield
Planning Commission: 1-15-2008
City of Springfield
Regular Meeting
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
TIIE SPRINGIELD PLANNING COMMISSION
THURSDAY,. December 20, 2007
The City of Springfield Planning Commission met in regular session in the Council Meeting
Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon on Thursday, December 20, 2007 at 6 p.m., with
Frank Cross as Springfield Planning Commission Chair.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Chair Frank Cross, Vice Chair Bill Carpenter and Planning Commissioners Lee
Beyer, Johnny Kirschenmann, Lee Beyer, Sheri Moore, Eric Smith and Terri Leezer. Also
present were Development Service Director Bill Grile,Planning Manager Greg Mott, Planning
Supervisor Linda Pauly, Planning Secretary Brenda Jones, and ,City Attorney Joe Leahy.
ABSENT
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chair Frank Cross.
BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE
· None..
OUASI-JUDICAL PUBLLIC HEARING
Chair Cross announced the meeting was a continuation of the December 11, 2007 public hearing
for the Marcola Meadows application. He said that no public testimony or applicant rebuttal
would be accepted as the meeting was intended for commission deliberations.
Master Plan - Marcola Meadows - LRP2007-00028 -
On December 11 th, the Planning Commission reopened the Master Plan public hearing
continued from November 20th. The Planning Commission heard testimony from staff, the
applicant and the public, but did not make a decision on December 11 th, instead, the Planning
Commission voted to defer staff's response and the applicant's rebuttal until December 20th and
make its decision on the Marcola Meadows Master Plan on that date.
Chair Cross. called for ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Commissioner Carpenter
indicated he had listened to the tapes of the last meeting and would be able to participate in the
1
ATTACHMENT 4 - 1
commission discussion. He had received three e-mails that afternoon in regard to the application
that he had not reviewed and had forwarded to Ms. Jones, so did not consider them to be a
contact. Commissioner Moore indicated she had received the same e-mails and forwarded them
to Ms. Jones without reviewing them. Commissioner Smith indicated he had received the same
e-mail messages and also had a contact with staff regarding the issue of property rights.
Commissioner Kirschenmann said he had been' out of town and h~d not had he opportunity to
review his e-mail.
Commissioner Leezer indicated she had listened to the tapes of the last meeting and believed she
could participate in the hearing. She had received the e-mails previously mentioned and had
forwarded them to Ms. Jones. Commissioner Beyer indicated he had received the previously
mentioned e-mails and deleted them. Chair Cross had received the e-mails mentioned and did
not think they would affect his voting.
Mr. Karp said the document before the commission was staff's response to the testimony
submitted by the applicant, who focused on eight conditions of approval. In meetings with the
applicant, staff found there were two other conditions affected by the eight conditions in
question. He requested the commission leave the two conditions and modify the second
conditions as explained in the staff report.
At the request of Commissioner Beyer, Mr. Karp briefly reviewed the conditions of concern.
Condition 27 - regarding the roundabout. The intent was for one roundabout to be
constructed as part of the application; that condition would be reserved for the future
and the City would require the applicant to supply a bond for any signalization
improvements.
Condition 51 - options for phasing. The applicant submitted a revised phasing plan,
which staff was in accord with.
Condition 56- regarding adaptive reuse. Staff determined the condition could not be
applied and requested the commission to delete it.
Condition 55 - request by Lane County for off-site street improvements. He requested
that the commission delet~ the condition because Lane County had failed to provide
Dolan findings.
Condition 1 - concerning Willamalane Parks and Recreation District. The intent of the
condition was that the applicant would discuss park issues with the district and that had
been modified.
Condition 12 - concerning use of miXed use commercial design standards in the
Community Commercial (CC) district. That was clarified to apply in the case of Lowe's
portion of the CC district to the building design itself
2
ATTACHMENT 4 - 2
Condition 16 - pertaining to the drinking water protection overlay district. The
condition had not been modified.
Condition 18 - the application of the nodal development overlay district prohibited use
list in the CC district. Staff agreed with the applicant's concern and revised the
condition accordingly.
Condition 14 - regarding the 30-foot setback The applicant had agreed to install a 30-
foot wide building setback buffer between the buildings and the properties on the south
side of Marcola Road, but due to the dedication required for the roundabout, staff revised
the condition to provide an exception to make up for the loss of right-of-way.
Responding to a question from Commissioner Beyer as to why the 3D-foot setback waS
proposed, Mr. Karp said the former zone included a 3D-foot landscape setback and the applicant
volunteered to retain it during the zone change process to address neighbors' concerns that the
development would be visible from their residences.
Responding to a question from Commission Carpenter, Mr. Karp said the applicant agreed to
provide bonding to pay for traffic signals. Commissioner Carpenter asked what would happen to
that money since the intersection was to be converted to a roundabout; he suggested that it
should be used to purchase land rather than grant the applicant a setback offset. Mr. Karp
anticipated that the costs incurred by the applicant for the street improvements, internal collector
,street, the roundabout design, and the access road on the south side of Marcola Road would be
roughly equivalent to the costs that the applicant would have otherwise incurred. Mr. Karp said
that staff had never determined how much property would be required for the dedication and no
fIrm figures had been discussed. That would not be fIrm until the subdivision application was
submitted.
Commissioner Carpenter questioned why the City should trade land for a setback in the absence
of:firm information about the amount of land needed for the roundabout. Mr. Karp said the
setback could be up to 20 feet but acknowledged staff did not know what it would be for sure at
this time. Staff was trying to deal with the current situation in that the applicant had decided to
use the 30-foot setback on their own volition because it was similar to the Campus Industrial
setback. If the City required the dedication of right-of-way on top of the setback, that would take
more l~d. Commissioner Carpenter argued that the City could buy the land with the traffic
signal funding. Mr. Mott said that the issue was not that of buying the land, but making sure
there was sufficient area for the roundabout. The City was not discussing buying property. Mr.
Karp added that there was no monetary exchange contemplated for anything.
Commissioner Carpenter asked if staff objected to adding text to ,the condition that read "The
, setback lands would only equal the amount of land that additionally had to be included for the
roundabout or other needed traffic improvements." He maintained that the text was vague as to
how much land the applicant could take into the setback. Mr. Karp said that it was vague
because it was conceptual. Commissioner Carpenter said there was a 30-foot zoning setback.
Mr. Karp reiterated that the 30-foot setback was volunteered by the applicant to be consistent
with the setback required by the Campus Industrial zone; the CC zone had a ten-foot setback.
3
ATTACHMENT 4 - ~
The City did not want to penalize the applicant for the setback when it was in excess of what was
required by the code.
Mr. Mott said that the only area where there would be a reduction was the area of the
roundabout, not the entire frontage of Marcola Road. The setback where the arch of the
roundabout intersected with the private property would be 10 feet. Commissioner Carpenter
questioned if the text was sufficiently clear as to that point.
Attorney Leahy spoke to Condition 55, saying that he had seen some e-mail messages indicating
that the County might renew the request with the provision of additional information when the
application was forwarded to the City Council.
Commissioner Carpenter had some questions about conditions not mentioned by staff. He
referred to Condition 15, which discussed a 30-foot building height in the low-density residential
(LDR) district. He said that it appeared some of the residential district would have a ground
level elevation raise of three feet from the current elevation. Mr. Karp concurred that the raise
could be two to three feet for the residential portion of the site. The intent of the co~dition was
to make sure that any proposed commercial development did not exceed the residential height
standard. At this time, the applicant was proposing parking lots in the setback area, and that was
not likely to occur because it would require a modification to the master plan to move the
buildings closer to the line. Mr. Karp pointed out the area where fill would occur on a map.
Commissioner Carpenter determined from Mr. Karp a 30-foot home could be built in the LDR
zone.
Mr. Karp clarified that the condition applied only to the area where the commercial area
interfaced with residential development to the west. Commissioner Carpenter asked why it
should apply only there given the three foot grade height and the potential someone could build a
30-foot home at the setback. Mr. Karp pointed out that such a house would be measured from
the grade height of the property in question, not another person's property. Commissioner
Carpenter suggested that the commission might decide such a condition was warranted for the
neighbors west of the property. It could state the grade used must be that in place now and for
20 or more years. Commissioner Beyer asked why Commissioner Carpenter would want to
make that condition. Commissioner Carpenter said that neighbors would be facing a 33-foot
setback house rather than a 30-foot setback house. Mr. Karp pointed out that regularly occurred
in Springfield where elevations varied.
Commissioner Carpenter referred to Condition 22 and said he saw nothing in the record
justifying a two-thirds stre,et improvement. Mr. McKenney said that the applicant's property was
located on one side of a street not built to urban standards, and the code stipulated the minimum
two-thirds improvement, which provided sufficient pavement for travel in two directions: He
acknowledged that in an ideal world the entire street would be improved but the City could not
compel those improvements from the property owners on the opposite side of the street.
4
ATTACHMENT 4 - 4
Responding to a question from Commissioner Beyer about whether the street improvements
would impel changes to the drainage channel, Mr. Stouder replied that the ditch will need to be
piped.
Commissioner Carpenter referred to Condition 33, which addressed the connection to the Eugene
Water & Electric Board (EWEB) bicycle path. The condition indicated that ifEWEB did not
reach agreement with the applicants about an easement, there would be no connection. Mr. Karp
said that Springfield could not compel action on the part of EWEB. Commissioner Carpenter
pointed out that the development was a nodal development and given the location of the schools,
he considered it "ridiculous" that 500 houses would not have access to the bicycle path because
EWEB deoided it did not want to grant eight-foot rights-of-way in three different places. He
recommended the commission add a provision to the condition that read "The City shall assist
the applicant in any way to make sure the right-of-way can be acquired at fair market value."
Attorney Leahy asked Coinmissioner Carpenter who he envisioned acquiring the property.
Commissioner Carpenter anticipated that the City would buy it as it constituted a transportation
facility and meet a nodal development goal of taking people out of their vehicles. Attorney
Leahy that the commission could recommend to the council that it direct staff to negotiate with'
EWEB for the property; if that was not successful he supposed the City could consider eminent
domain. Attorney Leahy said that condition could be amended to read that the applicant would
endeavor to obtain rather than acquire an easement and that the City Council assist the applicant
in that endeavor. '
Speaking to Condition 43, Commissioner Carpenter questioned the lack of mention in the record
as to why the area of the swale was a public easement. He asked why the City could not get an
answer about that now. Mr. Stouder said the condition was included because it was not clear
from the drawings where the water was coming from. He pointed out the area in question on a
map. He said-the answer could be simple. If the water was coming from a private site, the City
would not want the responsibility of maintaining the swale.
Commissioner Beyer asked that staff explain the condition regarding the roundabout. Mr.
Barnett said that all transportation infrastructure including the roundabout and frontage road,
would be constructed in Phase I. Staff also included a provision for financial security to
construct any necessary traffic controls at the Lowes driveway on Marcola Road in the future.
Commissioner Beyer asked if traffic signals would work at the intersection. Mr. Barnett said
that signals would work, but he reminded the commission of the discussion it heard previously
regarding roundabouts. The distinction between the two approaches was less important than the
frontage road that would provide driveway access. The applicant's proposal with traffic signals
did not adequately address driveways and due to the unsafe conditions that created, staff
recommended the proposal that led to Condition27.
Commissioner Kirschenmann asked if it was possible to have the frontage road without a
roundabout or traffic signals. 'Mr. Barnett suggested the first question to answer was whether a
frontage road was needed, and if the answer was yes, what type of controls were needed at the
intersection. If the answer was no, the question was still the controls needed. He said staff could
5
ATTACHMENT 4 - 5
conceive of a way to deal with the intersections with a roundabout that addressed the driveways;
it was less clear how that would occur with no traffic signals or frontage road.
Commissioner Smith asked if the applicant and City were in agreement. about Condition 27. Mr.
Barnett said yes.
Commissioner Carpenter saw no justification for the frontage road outside the general concept of
safety, and pointed out that 14 residences would use the road. He asked how many of the '
residences were between Marcola and Martin roads. Mr. Barnett did not know. He clarified that
the frontage road would serve driveways along the south side of Marcola Road starting at the
west propertyJine of the applicant's property and run to the eastern most driveway on,Marcola
Road. The frontage road would l?e approximately 1,200 feet long.
Commissioner Beyer determined from Mr. Barnett that the existing Marcola Road would be
essentially shifted to the north. Commissioner Beyer observed that the configuration of the
existing shopping center to the north seemed to work rme. He questioned whether the property
in question would generate more traffic than that. Mr. Barnett said the development would
generate'more traffic than currently existed. He said those activities that are occurring south of
Marcola Road in front of Rite-Aid, the existing southern development that is opposite of the
northern development, in all cases people could drive out of the driveways head forward and did ,
not have to back out of the driveway to reach the public street. Commissioner Beyer observed
that the lots in question were q.uite deep. People on deep lots such as the ones found on Q Street
freqilently did not back out on such lots but turned around on their property and went out
headways. Mr. Barnett said that would require reconstruction of the driveways on the private
parcels.
Commissioner Carpenter determined from Mr. Barnett that the typical residential trip generation
was about ten trips per day.
Commissioner Cross remarked that Q Street and Hayden Bridge lacked the commercial traffic to
be found on Marcola Road, which was one of his concerns. Mr. Barnett said volumes would be
higher on Q Street, but truck volumes were higher on Marcola Road. He noted that trucks
exiting at Mohawk must use the route and could not go south from the freeway. Commissioner
Beyer assumed that trucks would go down to 42nd Street. Mr. Barnett said that current traffic
patterns did not support that assumption.
Commissioner Carpenter suggested that 28th Street between Centennial and Main streets could
be an example to consider given the truck traffic that street experienced. That street did not have
sufficiently long driveways to allow for automobiles to turn arollIl;d. Mr. Barnett said that there
were some residences that accessed 28th Street directly, but most residents accessed the side
streets that led to 28th Street.
Mr. Barnett referred the commission to Attachment 3-1, which discussed the issues associated
with residential driveways on Marcola Road. He said that where vehicles attempted to gain
access to the driveways, in certain instances there would be queues of vehicles attempting to
reach the applicant's land area, and those queues would block left-turning access in and out of
6
ATTACHMENT 4 - 6
those driveways, and the frontage road resolved that issue. If there was no queue and a vehicle
could still make the left turn in the driveway, they would be blocking the westbound through
movement of the roadway in several locations, those closest to the intersections of public streets.
Because the public streets would have to have a dedicated left turn lane into the applicant's
property, one would be unable to make a left tUrn from the left turn lane. A left turn into a
residential driveway would have to be made from the through lane because of the fact of the
dedicated left turn lane. Commissioner Carpenter suggested that one would have to drive to the
roundabout and go back east. Mr. Barnett said yes.
Continuing, Mr. Barnett said that to prevent problems associated with motorists trying to turn left
across two lanes and occupying the westbound through lane while trying to make the turn, it was
likely the City would require a curb to separate the left turn lane from the westbound through
lane, which would prohibit the left hand turn and there would not be left turn access in or out of
those driveways.
Commissioner Carpenter pointed out that the frontage road would not allow access to Marcola
Road anyway; motorists would have to detour down the frontage road to reach Marcola Road.
Mr. Barnett concurred. He said there would be minor out-of-direction travel to use the frontage
road. Chair Cross pointed out that the City would be able to limit that to two locations at either
end of the frontage road and at a point that did not interfere with traffic coming from the north.
Mr. Barnett said staff had not yet identified the location of the connections.
Responding to a question from' Commissioner Moore, Mr. Barnett said the frontage, road would
be a two-lane, two-way road. The intent of the road was to separate the relatively low speed
access movements occurring at the driveways from the high-speed, high truck volume road.
At the request of Commissioner Beyer, staff shared the diagram showing the concept of the
roundabout. ..
Chair Cross remarked that initially, he had envisioned the frontage road as being only in the area
of the roundabout, but now it appeared that the frontage road would be along the full length of
the property, leading to a different setback along Mohawk. Mr. Barnett said that the applicant
had demonstrated what the original condition required in regard to the roundabout, and itwas the
applicant's suggestion as reflected in the diagram that the frontage road only occur at the
roundabout. However, the diagram did not address the driveways not serviced by the frontage
roads, so all the difficulties he described would still apply to them. Chair Cross agreed a
frontage road was safer, but questioned what happened to the 30-foot setback, as all ofMarcola
Road had been pushed into the applicant's property. Mr. Barnett said there was about 77 feet of
existing right-of-way, and the frontage road would require 20 feet plus some additional footage
for sidewalks. The remnant right-of-way was available for the relocated Marcola Road, with
some additional right-of-way dedication needed along the northern edge of Marcola Road to
accomplish the relocation. He said that the 30-foot setback would only be affected in the area of
the roundabout.
Commissioner Beyer confIrmed with Mr. Barnett that he was talking about a 20-foot frontage
road that ran the entire length of the applicant's property. Responding to a follow-up question
7
ATTACHMENT 4 - 7
from Commissioner Beyer, Mr. Barnett said that a nine-foot travel lane was not uncommon in
low-volume situations. The width would be sufficient for garbage and delivery trucks. It would
include a median whose width was unknown at this time. The offset associated with the
construction of the roundabout at Martin Drive would move Marcola Road up to the northto
some extent; that offset was necessary because the entirety of the roundabout would be
constructed within the existing right-of-way, and there would be no right-of-way obtained from
any of the existing residential properties to the south. Commissioner Beyer asked if residents
could enter and exit the frontage road at the intersections where the roundabouts were. Mr.
Barnett said that was a possibility; it was a detail yet to be detenllined. He thought there was
also potential for a connection at the point where Marcola Road transitioned to the south to
connect with the existing Marcola Road.
Responding to a question from Commissioner Moore about additional easements that might be
available, Mr. Barnett said there was approximately seven feet between the back sidewalk and
property line, and it was already dedicated right-of-way.
Commissioner Carpenter asked if reducing the frontage road to one-way would reduce the
amount of property needed. Mr. Barnett said that if the road could be narrowed, which would be
a question for the Fire Marshall; it would reduce the amount of land needed. He could not
speculate on what the Fire Marshal would require.
Commissioner Cross solicited comments from the commission.
Commissioner Beyer was unsure about the concept of the frontage road as he was unsure it made
conditions safer for. residents, as opposed to realigning how they left their driveways. He
thought from an aes~etical viewpoint, the frontage road was worse for the residents and could
reduce their property values. He was not convinced about the value of the frontage road, or
convinced the- residents were better of with a roundabout as opposed to traffic signals.
Commissioner Moore pointed out that a frontage road increased traffic safety for residents as
children on bicycles leaving a property could go right out onto Marcola Road, whereas otherwise
they would enter a low-volume frontage road. She recalled the closure of a street that intersected
with Pioneer Parkway that led to improved residential conditions, even though residents lacked
access to the main street they had at one time. She envisioned that planted with trees, the
frontage street could be a positive addition for the residents.
Conimission Carpenter favored the proposed roundabout at Martin Way because he thought
traffic volumes would move more slowly. He thought it ~ossible that residents of Ambleside
might use the route as a shortcut to avoid the signal at 28 Street and Marcola Road because of
the turning circle, but he thought the roundabout could handle the traffic well. He was glad to
see the other roundabout eliminated.
Commissioner Carpenter was very concerned with the amount of pavement and the right-of-way
that would be required in association with the frontage road. He suggested that the commission
add a condition that allowed the residents who wished it to have a paved turnaround funded by
the applicant. He suggested that alternatively, the City could consider 300 feet of asphalt in
8
ATTACHMENT 4 - 8
small turnarounds located by driveways versus 1,200 feet of asphalt 20 feet wide bounded by
sidewalks. He could not envision such a facility for 120 trips a day. He did not think the
frontage road would cut down on the noise from Marcola Road given the narrow distances
involved.
Transportation Planning Engineer Gary McKenney spoke to the purpose of the frontage road.
He said that the applicant's original proposal was for traffic signals at the two locations.
Whether traffic signals or roundabouts were installed, the same issues arose. The residents on
the south side of the road within a certain ' distance of those points would be prohibited from
turning left into their property or left out Qftheir property. The City's objective was to mitigate
. the impact that would fall to those affected residents. The frontage road was aimed at mitigating
the loss of that convenience to those residents and provide them with a way to get off and onto
, their properties safely either from the east or west as they were able to do today.
Chair Cross recalled that some residents would have driveways entering into an intersection, so
they would be backing out into the middle of an intersection. Mr. McKenney said that those
residents would be left with right hand, right out, access only. It was clear that several residents
would experience a significant impact if not provided with some mitigating facility. Mr.
Barnett's suggestion for a frontage road essentially created a private driveway for residents.
,
Commissioner Beyer asked if elimination of the direct driveway to Lowe's would lessen the
problem. Mr. McKenney said that it would eliminate the problem caused by that specific
driveway.
Mr. McKenney said that what was envisioned at the two locations being discussed was not
similar to locations to the west, where only un-signalized driveways were involved and the City
had not experienced any problems. In this instance, the City was creating a major intersection at
Martin Drive and a major commercial driveway intersection on Marcola Road, and it was that
creation and the way that they needed to be controlled that generated the issue about impacts to
driveways on the south side of the road.
Commissioner Beyer pointed to one of the maps on the wall and asked what would happen if one
of the roundabouts was eliminated, which would reduce the size of the frontage road. Mr.
McKenney said that a roundabout made a u-turn more straightforward than at a signalized
intersection, which would allow residents to go to the roundabout, make a u-turn, and returp. to
their properties. Commissioner Beyer explained that he was having a difficult time accepting a
frontage road along the length of Marcola Road as he perceived it would result in a significant
diminution in value for those property owners. Mr. McKenney said to the extent the frontage
road was limited, residents would be forced to do more out-of-direction travel. A frontage road
the entire distance from the Martin Drive intersection to the home improvement intersection
would add convenience for all residents, who would no longer have to use Marcola Road to
access their properties. It would essentially be a publicly owned and maintained private
driveway, and it could be accessed from either end. It would eliminate unsafe movements from
driveways out onto Marcola Road.
9
ATTACHMENT 4 - 9
Attorney Leahy asked Commissioner Beyer if his concerns related to the frontage road regarded
the impact of the two roads as the road would not take from any properties and was within the
existing right-of-way. Commissioner Beyer perceived it as a much more restrictive access to the
properties.
Commissioper Carpenter suggested that Mr. McKenney's conclusions were in error because the
frontage road would connect to Marcola Road and the left turn onto the frontage road would be
no less safe than a left turn outside the impact area of the roundabout than making a left hand
turn onto their own driveway without a frontage road. Mr. McKenney said that the City was
trying to provide residents with a safer route than they have now. It could be the south side of
the roundabout or the south side of the commercial drive.
Chair Cross observed that residents would be better able to control where they entered the public
street system. Commissioner Carpenter pointed out that Harvest Lane ( sic) did not have access
to the roundabout. Mr. McKenney confmned that Commissioner Carpenter was referring to
Wayside Lane at the MKL/Harlow Road roundabout, and confirmed that Wayside Lane has both
exit and entrance access to the roundabout. He observed that the system being discussed had not,
yet been designed, which made it difficult to evaluate it in detail.
Mr. Barnett shared a sketch of the proposed configuration that was discussed with the applicant.
Attorney Leahy noted an objection from the applicant's representative, James Spickerman"to
what he perceived was new evidence being entered into the record. It was Attorney Leahy's
opinion that staff could answer the question and the record would reflect the objection from the
applicant. He wanted to make it clear that the sketch provided to the commission was not a
design but provided in response to the question as to whether motorists could be directed onto
Marcola Road safely. Mr. Barnett said the sketch did not represent a connection between the T
intersection at-Lowe's and the frontage road; there was a thin line showing that separation.
Commissioner Smith endorsed the approach proposed by staff. He thought the residents would
gain from a well-designed frontage road. He acknowledged that residents were giving something
up but given that adaptive reuse had been dropped, the City was showing it was looking out for
the rights of both properties. He thought the frontage road a big win for those offering
testimony. If the applicant was in agreement, he thought the outlook good.
Responding to a question from Commissioner Carpenter, Transportation Manager Tom Boyatt
testified that he was in attendance at both of the meetings where the design was discussed with
the applicant and it appeared at the conclusion of the most recent meeting the concept outlined in
the sketch was workable and the applicant did not object. The City had also committed to
tightening up the design to minimize the impact on the north side. There were many design
details to be worked out.
Commissioner Beyer believed that the proposed design could work but one of the tradeoffs that
might be needed on the part of the City was reconsideration of the 30-foot setback. He
acknowledged Its origin in the zoning but suggested that the issue could be addressed through
extra buffering. He did not see the setback as consistent with City policies related to building
10
ATTACHMENT 4- 10
location and pedestrian-friendly design. Attorney Leahy agreed the setback could be revisited,
and encouraged the staff to work with the applicant to minimize the impact of the design on the
north side.
Commissioner Carpenter suggested to Commissioner Beyer that the nodal concept called for the
buildings to be located away from the street face rather than against it. Commissioner Beyer did
not think that made sense as they would be less pedestrian friendly. Commissioner Carpenter
suggested that one "node from the center of the node out" rather than "node outside the node in."
Mr. Karp said that there were design standards for commercial and industrial buildings and some
setback standards, which would be complied with. He said that the question that continued to
come up was that of the 30 foot setback, which was a condition established through the zone
change and carried forward to the Mater Plan application. He thought that the City was "stuck"
with that.
Responding to a question from Commissioner Beyer, Mr. Karp confmned the setback was 30
feet from the property line. Commissioner Beyer noted the adjustment to the road location and
asked if staff interpreted that to mean that that it would be narrowing the setback to ten feet the
whole length of the roundabout until it tapered back to the existing roadway. Mr. Karp thought
the intent was that it would be around the radius of the roundabout.
Mr. Karp asked Attorney Leahy to speak to the City's ability to respond to a change in
circumstances (the dedication of additional right-of-way) after the fact of the zone change
condition to allow the setback to be reduced. Attorney Leahy indicated he would have to
research that question in time for the council's review and determine if the condition could be
modified. He asked how it came to bea condition of the zone change. Mr. Mott said the
applicant agreed to it as an offset for the change from Campus Industrial. In regard to the
setback from the street, he said that in a nodal designation there, was a maximum building
setback, 20 feet for commercial and 25 feet for residential. He said the Lowe's property was not
part of the node, which created an interesting contradiction in that the building must be setback a
maximum of25 feet and there was a 30-foot setback.
Commissioner Beyer thought the setback would cost the applicant somewhere between 800 and
900 feet of frontage.
Commissioner Carpenter suggested a solution might be that the Lowe's entrance be a right-in,
right-out entrance, and the left-turn lane would not be needed. He would want the applicant to
be involved in that discussion. Mr. Barnett said that it would be a safe way to connect Lowe's
but would also cause the heavy left turn entry volume to relocate to Martin Drive. He did not
know how the applicant would respond, but he did not think it would be favorable. In regard to
the amount of frontage that would be lost with the proposed approach, Mr. Barnett suggested it
was premature to assign a number to that as the sketch was not done in relationship to the actual
property line. Since the sketch was done he had learned the property line was not directly on the
back side of the sidewalk. The angles of the approaches are 90 degrees to the north-south street
in the roundabout on the sketch, and that was not necessarily required in the [mal design. There
were other areas where the design could be refined to reduce the impact. The sketch showed
11
ATTACHMENT 4 -11
approximately two acres of right-of-way, and that was an overstatement of how much would be
necessary for a 100 acre parcel.
Chair Cross expressed concern that by specifying a frontage road and then pushing back the
property line to the north, the commission created a conflict with Condition 14, where the City
was requiring the 30-foot setback. Cpmmissioner Carpenter observed that Mr. Mott had already
noted the conflict because of the node setback. Chair Cross asked if the setback requirement
applied to Lowe's given it was not in the node. Commissioner Carpenter said no, but it 'applied
to the properties between Lowe's and the street.
Commissioner Carpenter indicated he would not object to retaining the 30-foot setback with a
note it should be as narrow as possible and take the least amount of property possible from the
applicant.
Chair Cross asked if the commercial properties in front of Lowe's were in the node. Mr. Karp
said yes. They were zoned Mixed Use Commercial.
Commissioner Beyer asked the applicant's representative his reaction to the discussion. Rick
Satre wanted to note that the sketch reviewed by the commission was not on the record and there
was no consensus about the sketch. It was presented to the applicant's development team as a
concept and copies were not provided to the team at the end of the meeting.
Commissioner Beyer asked Mr. Satre to speak to the issues of the frontage road, signalization,
and the roundabout. Mr. Satre said his research indicated there was 17 feet south of the existing
curb line of Marcola Road in public ownership. He did not believe a roundabout was an
appropriate or justifiable solution. However, in negotiations with staff, he had agreed verbally to
a compromise of a roundabout at Martin Lane if staff dropped the roundabout on the private
commercial driveway, retained the 30-foot setback, employed the entire amount of right-of-way
starting with that 17 feet south of the existing curb line, made everything as skinny as possible,
which involved buyoff from the Fire Marshal, adopted the concept of a one-way street with a
sidewalk on the south side only, and did not impact the pad sites.
Mr. Satre noted that staff had stated in hearings that the master plan was not about a design
solution for traffic mariagement in the area, and that the appropriate venue for specific
engineered design. solutions was the subdiVision and public improvement process, which
followed the master planning process. In meetings with staff, the two new intersections were
discussed and it was clear that one was not independent of the other. It was agreed that the
roundabout on the private commercial driveway was no longer a topic of discussion. Mr. Satre
said that he and Mr. Boyatt had agreed to'work together to minimize the impact on the north side
of the road. The applicant offered up the 30-foot setback with the message that the entire
community could benefit from a 100-acre mixed use development, or not. He noted the lack of a
minimum setback in the nodal overlay and suggested there was no reason the buildings could not
be right on the property line. He questioned why the 30-foot setback should be retained and said
he could not attest to the fact that it was included as a condition. He believed whether it was or
not, the applicant and City could figure out a way to deal with it.
12
ATTACHMENT 4 - 12
Commissioner Beyer asked Mr. Satre if Condition 27 was acceptable to the applicant. Mr. Satre
reviewed the condition aloud. He said there was consensus as a process, not a design, and
suggested that tonight was not the time to identify specific design solutions.
Attorney Leahy suggested to Commissioner Beyer that he confme his questions to determining if
there was consensus between the applicant and the City. He was concerned about the potential
of new evidence. '
Commissioner Carpenter observed that it appeared there was a conditional consensus.
Mr. Satre said that the condition he reviewed contained no dimensions and merely stated an
intent. He believed it documented the intent the applicant and City had agreed to.
Commissioner Beyer said that he understood the sketch to be conceptual and was employed by
staff to respond to his question. He agreed that this was not the time to design the system.
Chair Cross expressed concern about the potential the commission could adopt conflicting
conditions.
Speaking to Condition 14, Mr. Karp referred the commission to page 1-3 of the staff report and
the text underlying the condition, which was sufficiently general to be construed as going beyond
the roundabout and encompassing other issues. Chair Cross asked abqut potential conflicts with
the MUC or the CC districts. Mr. Karp agreed with Mr. Satre's conclusions about the location of
the buildings on the property lines and suggested that could also take care of the concerns
expressed by the applicant in regard to the pad sites, which were all zoned MUC. The question
of how much of the 30 feet would still be available in the area to be dedicated would then be less
vague.
Responding to. a question from Commissioner Carpenter about Condition 14, Mr. Karp suggested
that it could be modified by deleting the reference to the CC district. Attorney Leahy said he
would examine that condition and determine how it worked with the zone change requirement. .
He also suggested that the condition be amended to read ". . .and in the event that the 30' setback
requirement is deleted from the zone change." Commissioner Beyer suggested the condition be
amended to include both Martin Way and the frontage road.
In regard to a question from Commissioner Moore about possible changes to Condition 33, Mr.
Karp said it could be modified with a statement that read, "The City could work with the
applicant in order to obtain the easement."
Responding to a question from Commissioner Moore, Attorney Leahy suggested that Condition
27 be modified with a statement that read that "Staff shall work with the applicant to obtain the
minimal amount of right-of-way necessary."
Mr. Karp noted comments about the application,going to the City Council, and clarified that the
application would not be considered by the City Council unless the Planning Commission's
decision was appealed.
13
ATTACHMENT 4 -13
Commissioner Carpenter referred to Condition 51, which regarded the phasing plan. He said the
applicant offered text for the condition that indicated a master plan amendment would be
obtained if certain changes occurred. That seemed better than the staff text, which offered more
general language as to the phasing plan. He recalled the commission's discussion of the
potential the residential development would outpace the commercial development, meaning that
people would not be able to shop within the node. He thought it appropriate to tie the last part of
the residential development to some minimal amount of commercial development. The
commission could also add a condition allowing the applicant to seek an amendment to the
master plan. He was not comfortable with the current approach, and was unsure whether the
applicant's phasing plan, presented in September 2007, was the actual plan the commission was'
discussing in Condition 51. He asked why staff did not use the "reopener provision" in the event
"things skewed sideways" on the balance of residential and commercial development. Mr. Karp
said such a condition "fell through the cracks" in the press of work.
Commissioner Carpenter said that optimally, the commercial and residential would develop at
the same pace. However, because that might not occur, he proposed that the commission impose
a condition that reflected the applicant's intent to develop 3A-3C fIrst, followed by 3D. He also
wanted the condition to state that before the developer could begin work in 3D, that whatever
percent of the residential development that 3A-3C equaled, they would have to have half of the
commercial developed to serve those three areas. He wanted to ensure the development had
commercial development before full residential build-out. Mr. Karp thought it evident there was
more than that for commercial development. Commissioner Carpenter was not concerned about
the speed of commercial development as it would not affect the nodal plan of limiting trips but
rather about the potential the housing development would outstrip the commercial development,
forcing people to leave the node to reach those commercial services that were supposed to be
credited to the node to eliminate traffic impacts. Chair Cross said that he did not think the City
could force the commercial. Commissioner Carpenter indicated he was seeking to restrict the
residential development because he wanted the commercial development to follow along.
The commission took a brief recess.
Mr. Karp referred the commission to the page that accompanied the phasing plan, which stated
that Phase 3D could only occur after 3A was built, and asked if that addressed Commissioner
Carpenter's concerns. There was some flexibility that allowed 3A, 3B, or 3C to be built, but 3D
could only be subdivided after Phase 3A was built out. Commissioner Carpenter said "yes and .
no." He had selected 3D because it was the largest of the residential subdivisions and before the
developer embarked on it, he wanted to ensure there was some level of commercial in place. He
did not think the condition spoke to that issue. There was no restriction creating a tie between
the commercial and residential development; although it made it clear that 3D would be
developed after 3A.
Commissioner Carpenter suggested that the condition be revised to read "If the applicant or
successor owners wish to amend this phasing plan option to allow further flexibility in phasing,
the applicant or successor owners shall propose a master plan amendment to allow phasing
modifIcations as specifIed in SDC Section 5.13-135. . Prior to the 3D residential phase beginning,
the applicant or successor owners shall have completed' at least a percentage of commercial build
14
ATTACHMENT 4 - 14
out that is at least one-half the percentage of the residential units completed in proportion to the
total residential unit build~out."
Mr. Mott said there was a substantial difference between platting a future residential
development and compelling a future commercial development. Although there was an
investment in a subdivision, there was no artificial imposition inconsistent with the market. He
did not see how the City benefited by requiring actual commercial construction to occur ahead of
market demand. He questioned precluding residential deve'lopment until commercial
development occurred if there was a demand for residential development. The issue of balance
was to ensure that residential development occurred, not just commercial development or one
type of commercial development. It made him somewhat apprehensive to try to impose
something that might not be sensitive to the market at a particular time, hurting both commercial
and residential development.
Commissioner Beyer did not share Commissioner Carpenter's concerns. He believed the plan
would be built out and that build out was a matt~r of time.
Chair Cross reiterated he did not think the City could force commercial development.
Commissioner Carpenter believed the City could require the commercial development because
of the trip credits the development received due to the'fact of the nodal development and because
people would not be driving out of the node. If the area was not a node, he would agree.
Chair Cross believed that at some point there would be a balance between the commercial, and
residential, but he did not think it should be forced.
Commissioner Moore pointed to the statement in the condition that stated the phasing plan could
require additional modification and suggested that gave the phasing some flexibility for
modification. - -Commissioner Carpenter said that it provided an opportunity, but it did not mean
anything would occur.
Commissioner Carpenter asked Mr. McKenney if the trip cap associated with the development
would be met if all the residential development was built-out but not the commercial
development. Mr. McKenney clarified that there was no trip cap on the development. There
was no condition of approval related to a trip cap. The applicant suggested a trip cap at one point
but the City chose not to use it.
Speaking to Commissioner Carpenter's question, Mr. McKenney said that the Lowe's store was
in the first phase of development. While he agreed that most of the residents would have to
travel out of the node to reach services, and that benefit of the nQde would be lost, in terms of
absolute numbers, if the entire area of Phase 4 was not built, there was a great deal of traffic that
would never come to the site. The City's primary interest was what happened when the site was
fully built out and that it functioned like a node. In the interim, in the absence of the land being
developed, there would be fewer trips overall.
Commissioner Beyer believed that Commissioner Carpenter was concerned that there would be a
traffic problem if the residential development occurred in advance of the commercial
15
ATTACHMENT 4 -15
development. Mr. McKenney did not think so. He said that when the commercial development
occurred, residents could easily change their travel behavior and would in all probability visit
commercial establishments closer to them.
Commissioner Carpenter determined that Mr. McKenney did not anticipate a reduction in Level
of Service from the development.
Commissioner Moore asked if the letter dated December 17 represented the phasing plan that
was agreed upon. Mr. Karp said yes.
Responding to a question from Commissioner Carpenter, Mr. Karp confirmed that the applicant
could request that the master plan be amended at any time.
Commissioner Carpenter endorsed the proposal as a project that would benefit Springfield in the
long run. He thought the amendments made by staff would result in a development that could be
accepted by all and would lead to positive development on a site that had lain dormant for years.
Commissioner Carpenter, seconded by Commissioner Beyer, moved that the commission
approve the master plan application with the 53 conditions; deleting Condition 14; adding text to
Condition 27 that stated that the City staff shall work with the applicant to obtain the minimum
amount of right-of-way necessary; and adding text to condition 33 that stated the City shall
endeavor to assist the applicant in any way it may to acquire the necessary right-of-way from
EWEB. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0:0
BUSINESS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR
Development-Services Director Bill Grile reminded the commission of the code requirement for
annual elections.
Commissioner Beyer, seconded by Commissioner Carpenter, nominated Frank Cross to continue
as Chair for another year. There was general consensus to select Mr. Cross as chair. .
Commissioner Carpenter, seconded by Commissioner Beyer, nominated Mr. Kirschenmann as
Vice Chair. The commission unanimously elected Mr. Kirschenmann.
REPORT OF COUNCIL ACTION
Chair Cross distributed the outline of work session topics generated by commissioners and Mr.
Mott. He asked the commission how they would like to proceed. Commissioners reviewed the
listand discussed the possible order of the topics to be addressed and the background
information members would require. Commissioners added topics to the list, including
commercial design standards and standards related to street aesthetics.
16
ATTACHMENT 4 -16
Mr. Mott reminded the Planning Commission that Mr. Boyatt had offered to present information
to the commissioners to help them understand what transportation was all about.
BUSINESS FROM THE COMMISSION
- None
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
(Minutes recorded by Brenda Jones/Kimberly Young)
17
ATTACHMENT 4 -17
Minutes approved by the Springfield
Planning Commission:
City of Springfield
Regular Meeting
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
\ THE SPRINGIELD PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, December 11,2007
The City of Springfield Planning Commission met in regular session in the Council Meeting Room, 225
Fifth Street, Spririgfield, Oregon on Tuesday, December 11, 7 p.m., with Frank Cross as Springfield
Planning Commission Chair.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Chair Frank Cross, Vice Chair Bill Carpenter and Planning Commissioners Lee Beyer,
Johnny Kirschenmann, Sheri Moore, and Eric Smith. Also present were Development Service Director
Bill Grile, Planning Manager Greg Mott, Planning Supervisor Mark Metzger, Plaimmg Secretary Brenda
Jones, and City Attorney Joe Leahy. ' '
ABSENT
Terri Leezer
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
, .
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chair Frank Cross.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
. '" .
Commissioner. Beyer moved, seconded by CommissiOlierSmith, to approve the minutes of the June 5,
2007, work and regular session as written. ,The motion passed, 5:0:0, Commissioner Steve Moe
abstaining."
BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE, '
None
QUASI-JUDICAL PUBLLIC HEARING
Master Plan Marcola Meadows - LRP2007-00028-
The applicant requests MaSter Plan approval for a phased, mixed-use development on 100.3 acres
formerly known as the "Pierce" property, now called the ''Villages at Marcola Meadows". The proposed
development consists ofa total of5l8 homes on 54.7 gross acres, and a total of 449,600 square feet of
retail/office use on 45.6 grosses. There are 11.4 acres of proposed common open space proposed.
The Marcola Meadows Master Plan public hearing was opened on 11/20 and by direction of the Planning
commission the written record was left open until 11/27, the applicant and staffhas until 12/4 to respond
to the record and prepare the staff report, respectively, and on 12/11 the Planning commission is
ATTACHMENT 5 - 1
scheduled to reopen the hearing to allow testimony on this record and to consider the entire record
preparatory to a decision to approve, approve with modifications or deny the proposal.
Planning Director Greg Mott reminded the commission of the deadlines established for the submittal of
written testimony following the public hearing on November 20,2007. Public testimony would be
reopened that evening for testimony on the record directed at the criteria.
Mr. Mott directed the audience to the Criteria of Approval displayed behind the Planning Commission,
taken from sections 5.13-125 of the Springfield Development Code. He reviewed the criteria for the
benefit of those not present on November 20, when the criteria were first read. He asked that those
offering testimony do so with enough specificity to allow the commission and other parties to the hearing
to understand the issue and respond to it. Failure to raise an issue at the hearing could preclude an
individual's ability to raise the issue upon appeal to the State Land Use Board of Appeals.
Mr. Mott reviewed the order of the proceedings. He anticipated a request from the applicant to deliberate
on the matter at a future date, tentatively scheduled for December 20. '
, '
Chair Cross determined that no commissioners had conflicts of interest or ex parte contacts to declare.
.....'.
Senior Planner Gary Karp entered the staff report into the record. Mr. Karp addressed the issues raised in
the staff report executive summary: 1) phasing; 2) traffic; and 3) adaptive reuse. He noted that Planner
Matt Stouder would address phasing, transportation staff Gary McKenny and Brian Barnett would
address transportation, and he would address adaptive reuse. He indicated that Mr. Barnett would address
the e-mail on roundabouts sent by Commissioner Moore.
Mr. Karp recalled the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan General Area Plan Diagram and zoning change
amendments that changed the designation and zoning from Campus Industrial to Mixed Use Commercial
(MUC) and Medium-Density Residential. Master plan approval was the next step. He reviewed the
purpose of a master plan, found at Section 5.131 O( 5)(b), which spoke to the arrangement and coordination
of land uses, d~velopment iritensity, location of public facilities, and transportation in a large phased
development. Mr. Karp noted the acreage ofthe property zoned MUC and then reviewed the defmition of
nodal development included in the staff report. He said the intent of the master plan was to meet the
requirements of nodal development. '.
Mr. Karp recalled there were 14 conditions of approval associated with the zone change for the property,
and he reviewed Condition 10, which called for submission of a phased master plans. Mr. McKenney
would address the condition at greater length. He emphasized Criteria 5 .13125( d), which addressed
phasing. Mr. Karp referred the commission to Plan Sheet 7, mounted on the meeting room wall,
reflecting plans submitted by the applicant on September 28 and illustrating four development phases. He
reviewed the four phases. Figure 10, also mounted on the wall, was a phasing plan based on the traffic
study produced by the applicant. Mr. Stouder would address the issue in his presentation. Plan Sheet 8,
also on the wall, showed the first phase of the subdivision. It was not quite congruent with the Phasing
Map on Plan Sheet 7.
Mr. Karp said staff and the applicant had discussed a possible scenario related to the residential
development. Typically in such a development, residential development would occur prior to or
concurrent with commercial development, but the housing market slowdown impelled staff to try to make
the plan work for the applicant. Staff decided to look at a phasing scenario that included an agreed-to
percentage of commercial development to be offset by subdivision plats for the residential portion of the
proposal. That did not bound the applicant to build the housing now.
ATTACHMENT 5 - 2
Commissioner Beyer determined from Mr. Karp that the infrastructure for the area shown in pink on the
maps would be installed in 2008, and the subdivision would be fIled as part of Phase 1 to ensure the
dedication of right-of-way and construction of the water feature.
Mr. Karp said none of the phasing plan scenarios submitted to date provided appropriate guidance or
specific assurances that the phasing would occur in compliance with nodal development regulations
because of the arrangement of residential and commercial development ill a node. Commissioner Beyer
determined from Mr. Karp that the larger commercial area would be platted by parcel number.
Commissioner Beyer observed that all the master plan provided was the plots, with no assurance the
building designs would ever be built because it would be up to a future owner. Mr. Karp concurred to a
point; he said there were development standards in the code for commercial and residential development.
He agreed with a statement from Commissioner Beyer that all the City knew now was that it would be
commercially developed.
Mr. Stouder addressed criterion 5.13-125(d). Responding to a question from Chair Cross regarding the
level of difference between maps 7 and 8, he was not sure how different Plan Sheet 7 was from Plan
Sheet 8, but Plan Sheet 8 was different from Figure 10, the most recent phasing pan submitted by the
applicant.
Mr. Stouder said that following Phase 1 construction, all the infrastructure necessary to serve the
commercial development would be in place. However, there would be additional infrastructure required
for the MDR portion of the property. He said that beyond Phase ill, there was no financial obligation for
construction by the applicant.
Mr. Stouder said that the phasing plan shown in Figure 10 was characterized by the applicant as a
conceptual phasing plan in that Phase IV was conceptual and was not to be developed in any certain way.
Figure 10 differed from Plan Sheet 8 in that Figure 10 required subsequent subdivisions with potential
multiple property owners rather than one owner. Responding to a commission question, Mr. Stouder said
that staff preferred Plan Sheet 8 if it could be built all at once. He said that 4A was not required to
develop prior to the other parcels. He said that some of the phasing lines on Figure 10 were in the middle
or'the streets, which could cause an issue as the City wanted to see full street construction during the
phased construction to avoid the issue of who was [mancially responsible for building the street. Mr.
Stouder said the fact the application did not phase construction of 4A before 4B, etc., meant the
application did not meet Oregon Fire Code requirements for secondary access; if the phase exceeded 30
units, it was required to have a secondary access. The same was true for 4D; in that case, Parcel 10 could
not be constructed until the infrastructure for 4A or 4B was installed. The phasing plan did not make
sense in that regard.
Mr. Stouder spoke to the phasing plan as it regarded grading. The topography of the site dictated the area
north of the channel to have two to three feet of fIll. If someone wished to construct Parcel 4B or 4C
prior to 4A or 4D, it could cause an issue. The natural drainage on the site ran from the southeast to the
northwest, and given that, he would like to see a more logical phased plan.
Mr. Karp said Phase 3 was the residential development, arid Staffwas seeking a logical extension of the
residential because of the issues mentioned by Mr. Stouder. If the applicant wanted to start Phase 3 from
west to east the City would be open to that. The applicant would have to subdivide, fIle a plat, and the
residential portion would be in compliance with nodal regulations. The other option was to subdivide all
the residential property now, but the City would want the applicant to install all the infrastructure and
utilities, with the exception of paving the streets. The entire site could then be graded to protect
neighboring properties from some of the drainage issues discussed.
ATTACHMENT 5 - 3
Commissioner Beyer asked the effect of the proposed fill as it regarded raising the property in elevation.
Mr. Stouder said that the site would two to three feet higher than the adjacent properties. Commissioner
Beyer asked if that was a better option than pump stations. Mr. Stouder said the code included a
prohibition on the use of lift stations if not required; in this case, it was reasonable to bring in a small
amount of fill and not require lift stations due to both construction and maintenance costs.
Commissioner Carpenter joined the Planning Commission meeting at 7:30 pm.
Commissioner Cross asked how the fill would affect the surrounding neighbors. Mr. Stouder said the lots
to the west drain to the west and it was possible the fill could affect that drainage. However, the staff
concern was that if one were to develop Phase 4 B on Parcel 10 it could interrupt the natural drainage flow
and impact properties 4A and 4B. It would be better to grade the site all at one time.
Mr. Karp reviewed the approval criterion found in SDC Section 513.125-C, related to proposed on site
and off-site public improvements. "
Traffic Engineer Brian Barnett reviewed his professional background, highlighting that related to the use
of roundabouts.
Mr. Barnett shared a picture of a traffic circle in Kingston, New York, distinguishing that type of facility
from the roundabout being contemplated and emphasizing the differing nature of their operations. He
said a roundabout had four characteristics not shared by a traffic circle: 1) to enter a roundabout, a
motorist must yield, 2) a roundabout ha~ a significant amount of deflection in the form of a curve before
one entered the roundabout, 3) that deflection led to low travel speeds of 15 to 25 miles per hour, and 4)
the roundabout would have no lane changing or weaving. Mr. Barnett acknowledged that in this case,
traffic circles were being removed and replaced with rolltidabouts.
Mr. Barnett spoke to the benefits of roundabouts. He noted the generic description provided to the
commission, which was for background only. He cited five principle benefits: 1) safety; 2) capacity; 3)
economy; 4) environmental benefit; and 5) aesthetics. Speaking to the issue of safety, he noted that
roundabouts reduced vehicle speeds, conflict points, and the number of choices a driver had to make,
leading to improved pedestrian and motorist safety. A roundabout was the safest at-grade intersection
available due to the lower speeds. Pedestrians were safer because of the reduced speeds, one-way traffic,
and reduced roadway width. He noted the information he cited was drawn from the Federal Highway
Administration publication ''Roundabouts and Information Guide."
, '
Speaking to the issue of capacity, Mr. Barnett said roundabouts typically carry about 30 percent more
vehicles than similarly sized signalized intersections and caused almost no traffic delays during off-peak
hours. Motorists aiso could enter the roundabout from several directions simultaneously.
Speaking to the issue of economy, Mr. Barnett said that roundabouts saved money because the operations
and maintenance expense of roundabouts was less than that of traffic signals. Motorists saved through
reduced delay and lower fuel consumption. The community saved through reductions in insurance costs,
medical costs, and the human cost of injury and death. '
Speaking to the issue of environmental benefit, Mr. Barnett said roundabouts conserved land by allowing
narrower road systems. Fuel consumption and air pollution were reduced significantly due to the reduced
travel delay, especially during off-peak travel times. He noted that some communities were employing
federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program to replace t,raffic signals with roundabouts.
ATTACHMENT 5 - 4
Speaking to the issue of aesthetics, Mr. Barnett said that the central island provided an opportunity for
landscaping or sculpture. "Splitter" islands could be landscaped. Roundabouts also avoided the visual
clutter of signal poles, controller boxes, and pavement cuts.
Mr. Barnett said that while roundabouts bad benefits, the City considered all forms of control possible.
Staff carefully evaluated development proposals for their impacts on the transportation system. Staff then
recommended the appropriate form of traffic control from among a range of choices.
Mr. Barnett said that Springfield had local experience that confirmed the experience of other
communities. It had experience with high-volume roundabouts on arterial and collector streets. He
suggested that in general, signals worked best when there were few left turning movements, and
roundabouts worked best when there were many such left turning movements. He reiterated that each
situation was evaluated on its merits and the most appropriate action recommended.
Mr. Barnett noted precedents for roundabouts in Springfield at 58th Street and Thurston Road, South 42nd
Street at Jasper Road, and Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway at Hayden Bridge. He indicated each was
working well.
. " .
.. '
Responding to a question from Commissioner Moore, Mi.B~ett said that Springfield looked at
roundabouts as one of many options for managing traffic flow in such situations. Each site had unique
characteristics that staff must consider.
Responding to a question from Commissioner Beyer, Mr. McKenney identified the location of~e
proposed roundabout associated with the proposed development and a potential future roundabout ona
map posted behind the commissioners. He said the roundabout was farther from the intersection at
Marcola Road and 28th Street than it appeared. He further indicated that intersection at Marcola Road and
28th Street worked quite well right now and staff had not considered converting it to a roundabout. In
addition, the intersection in question was already in place and the costs already incurred.
Mr. McKenney.said the City had identified two issues in its review of the traffic analysis: 1) the analysis
indicated traffic signals would not be warranted, and the City preferred not to build and maintain them if
not warranted; 2) access concerns created by the inteniction of the traffic signals and the residential
driveways on the south side of Marcola Road. Depending on the placement of the signals and the
crosswalks, some of the residential driveways woul4 be restricted in regard to the movements that could
be made in and out ofthem. They would not operate safely or legally. Some would have to be restricted
to "right in, right out" movements or relocated.
Mr. McKenney said the City and applicant had exchanged ideas on those concerns but the issue of how to
deal with the driveways had been unresolved. He said staffhad concluded that roundabouts were the
most appropriate form of control at the two locations in question.
Mr. McKenney referred the commission to Master Plan Condition 27 on page 37 of the staff report and
said the discussion surrounding that was a compendium of Mr. Barnett's remarks on roundabouts and the
specifics of the application in question.
Commissioner Carpenter likened the development in question to Wal-Mart and Jerry's development on
Olympic Street, which had not become a traffic problem. He asked if staff had done traffic counts to
compare what those developments generated to their projections. Mr. McKenney said no. He noted that
the development had been in place for eight or more years. Commissioner Carpenter did not see that
development as having a detrimental impact on traffic flow. He suggested that if the impact contemplated
was similar, he questioned whether there would be a big traffic impact. Mr. McKenney agreed. The
ATTACHMENT 5 - 5
signals would not be warranted with the fIrst three phases of development, and staff did not think signals
would be the best form of control at the end of construction. Installing them now would preclude other
options.
Commissioner Carpenter suggested that the intersection could be more easily converted to a roundabout
that a roundabout converted to a signalized intersection. Mr. McKenney did not feel qualifIed to
speculate.
Commissioner Kirschenmann asked about the size of the roundabout. Mr. Barnett indicated that a single
lane roundabout would be adequate for this size of a development. It could accommodate the largest legal
sized truck. Commissioner Beyer asked if it would accommodate truck traffic volume. Mr. Barnett said
yes. He said that the roundabout could be designed to accommodate both capacity and truck size.
Commissioner Beyer suggested that the roundabout could encourage trucks to travel down 420d Street to
use the roundabout. Mr. Barnett concurred that could be an outcome.
Chair Cross asked how much property was needed for a roundabout. Mr. Barnett said the typical
roundabout in such a setting would require about 100 feet in diameter, with some additional space needed
to accommodate sidewalks and the linkage between intersections. The linkage between two roundabouts
often only needed to be two lanes rather than three because ti.1esystem could accommodate left turns via
u-turns at the roundabout. The land needed for a roundabout was often less required by an intersection.
Commissioner Beyer asked if it was possible to offset the roundabout on the north side so it mostly
impacted the developable property. Mr. Barnett said that was a design detail staff had not investigated
but he thought it a reasonable option.
Commissioner Moore asked about the impact offue propo~ed'~oundabouts on the intersections at 19th
Street and Marcola Road and Q Street and Marcola R~ad as well ~s the off-ramp at Highway 126. Mr.
McKenney responded the ,traffic analysis indicated those intersections would continue to work well
because the development was not expected to have much impact. In regard to the off-ramp, Mr.
McKenney said that as a result of the earlier land use process, the applicant had submitted its proposal for
improvements to the off-ramp to the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to confIrm that its
proposal was feasible. If ODOT approved the proposal, the applicant would build them.
Mr. McKenney discussed project phasing. He said the previous Metro Plan amendment included another
condition of approval, Condition 10, which was intended to assure that assumptions about trip generation
inside the node previously made remained valid. He posited a situation where the commercial area
developed frrst,meaning there were no residents driving to those commercial uses. If all the commercial
developed and attracted the type of trips such development generally attracted, and then all the housing
was built, it did not seem logical that people coming from out of the area would stop going to the
commercial uses and be replaced by the residents of the neighborhood. Staff had addressed that through
conditions 51-53, found on page 57 of the staff report. Staff wanted to assure that it was reasonably likely
that the property would develop in a coordinated way so the traffic benefIts of the mixed use development
would actually occur.
Commissioner Beyer suggested that Mr. McKenney's point was immaterial because whether or not the
housing was in, place it would not have an impact on the traffic generated offsite. He suggested that the
outcome would be "less people in the parking lot." Mr. McKenney said that if all the nonresidential
development was not related to the residential development, or need not be, he would accept the
argument. Staff was operating from the standpoint that the mixed use characteristics being sought argued
a goal of mixed use development and he anticipated that when the housing was built there would be more
trips going to and from the residential area to the commercial area. Chair Cross suggested that the, timing
ATTACHMENT 5 - 6
of the residential construction did not matter as the trips generated were already accounted for and no
more commercial would be added. He said if the commercial went in without the residential
development, there would be no trips. Commissioner Carpenter said the trips could come from outside
while the applicant had taken credit for internal trips. Chair Cross said the commercial development was
not specific to the residential development and would generate outside trips.
Commissioner Carpenter posited a situation in which a store in the development was so full with local
residents of the fully built out housing that nonresidents went to other stores, removing the external
traffic. Chair Cross and Commissioner Beyer acknowledged the possibility with some doubts.
Commissioner Beyer suggested that one could assume that if the commercial was built first, less traffic
could be expected for that use than one would expect at full build out. That argued that how'one phased
the project did not make much ofa difference. Mr. McKenney agreed to a point. He said staff was not
concerned about congestion arising if the commercial developed, but rather that the entire project could
be built and would not perform the way it was forecast to perform. Staffwasless concerned about
interim conditions than the fmal condition and whether the as'sumptions used to support the analysis of
the fmal condition remained valid. Chair Cross asked how the phasing helped that. Mr. McKenney
responded that to this point the focus was on extremes, such as whether the commercial was all built out.
He suggested a different scenario involving the construction of all the residential development but no
commercial development. Any trips the residents made to a commercial use would require them to leave
the site. If the residents were already in place, it was likely those travel habits would change when the
commercial was built. '
Mr. McKenney said in his experience of the few similar projects in the area, the most successful were
those where the residential was built first, followed by the commercial that was supported by the
residential development. He cited Valley River Village and Crescent Village as examples.
Commissioner Beyer questioned whether construction ofthe commerCial before the residential at Valley
River Village would have made a difference in the eventual development.
\ Chair Cross asked how conditions 51, 52 and 53 fit into the discussion. Mr. McKenney said the
conditions spoke to the fact the phasing was~ unresolved issue. The conditions were an effort to get
such a phasing plan not just for tnlnsportatioD. purposes, but for purposes of the other infrastructure
required to serve the development. .
Commissioner Beyer acknowledged staff's comments but speculated that in reality the developer had
only one tenant and its strategy was to install infrastructure so the other parcels could be sold off. He
further speculated that the first phase of the residential ax:ea would occur as planned but the remainder
might not. The commercial wo~ld only develop in a way similar to Valley River Village if some retailer
or office use determined there was a demand, and the uses and buildings would be dependent on who
bought the land. Trying to be too specific about what came first, second, or.third was problematic as that
was essentially a market function. Mr. McKenney did not disagree. He said staffwas not trying to
achieve an ideal or make the project undoable. What occurred would be governed by economics.
Commissioner Carpenter likened the proposed development to Orenco Station in the Portland
metropolitan area and suggested that staff investigate how that community dealt with that issue in its
master planning process and the outcome. Did that community, for example, condition that the
commercial be available to be developed at the same ratio as the residential? Commissioner Beyer did
not think there was a problem with availability once services were in. Commissioner Carpenter said that
if the City wanted commercial development other than Lowe's, it could forced the applicant to have two
or three commercial establishments in place before the applicant could built more than 50 percent of the
ATTACHMENT 5 - 7
residential units, "market or not." He averred that "one could adjust the market to ensure that it became a
nodal development,", which was what the City was seeking through the master plan.
Mr. Karp clarified that staff proposed two options in lieu of a phasing plan that created a connection
between the commercial and residential development. Staffwas seeking to ensure that the subdivision
was platted and lots created so the residential could be built. That approach would add flexibility to the
phasing process.
Mr. Karp discussed the issue of adaptive reuse, saying that staff included a condition that address the
possible closure of Lowe's within a short period of time by requiring reuse of the structure or its
demolition.
Mr. Karp said that staff had worked with the applicant to get to "yes" and believed the conditions attached
to the staff report would make the development work. He recommended approval of the application as
conditioned in the staff report. ' '
Chair Cross solicited additional questions from the commission.
, ' '
At the request of Commissioner Moore, Mr. Stouder provided an overview of the proposed water feature,
which was a major part of the on-site drainage system. Mr. Karp noted that more detail would be
forthcoming in the subdivision application. Commissioner Moore was concerned about the potential
hazard created by the feature, and asked what steps have been taken to, ensure the safety of those living
near the development. Chair Cross asked if similar water features were used in Springfield. Mr. Stouder
did not think so. He thought it would be nicer than the Q Street Channel in that it would be wider and
shallower, and would include plantings. Mr. Karp noted there was a property at the south end of Gateway
containing a smaller version of what was proposed. '
Chair Cross called for testimony from the applicant.
Rick Satre, Satre and Associates, 132 East Broadway, Suite 536, speaking on behalf of the applicant,
thanked Springfield staff for itS hard work during the application review process. He indicated he would
confme his remarks to the evidence on the record.,', .
'"
Mr. Satre identified several areas of concern related to the conditions and indicated he would provide
additional written testimony in regard to th~ other conditions:
'.,
Speaking to Condition 51, Ph~ipg, Mr. Satre said that the applicant realized that there was still work that
needed to be done. He appreciated the staff acknowledgement of that as recognized in the condition.
Regarding Figure 10, hepointeci out that it was excerpt from the Traffic Impact Analysis and was not
submitted as a plan sheet. It:Was illustrative of one way that Phase 4 could occur in smaller increments
within the parameters ofth.e vehicle trip allowance.
Responding to' a question from Commissioner Beyer, Mr. Satre,indicated that conditions 52 and 53 were
acceptable to the applicant.
Mr. Satre discussed some of what he termed the finer points of the phasing issue. With regard to a
linkage between certain percentages of commercial development and percentages of residential
development, he pointed out that the entitlement that existed with respect to commercial development
rested with the zoning ordinance. It placed a capacity not on the number of dwelling units or commercial
square footage, but on the amount of trips to be generated. The zoning placed a cap on the trip amount.
Mr. Satre said that 87 percent of the commercial area would have to be developed and occupied and
ATTACHMENT 5 - 8
generating trips before the development would reach the threshold of the internal trip capture. Only 13
percent of the commercial trips were identified as being internal. He was not proposing to be allowed to
develop 87 percent of the commercial, but merely pointing out how much of one could happen before the
other.
Mr. Satre indicated he had prepared alternative text for Condition 51 that he would submit to staff.
Continuing, Mr. Satre said that Mr. McKenney referred to the trip cap, or trip credit as a legitimate
methodology to use in establishing transportation impacts, and indicated staff was not overly concerned
with what happened in the interim. He appreciated the staff focus on end conditions. He agreed with the
presentation made by staff in regard to the phasing plan. He thought a "constructability logic" needed to
be applied to the plan and that would occur with the assistance of staff,
Mr. Satre said there were limits in the zoning ordinance to the trip bank. There were only "so many trips
in the bank" and the applicant was completely willing to live within 'that limitation.
Commissioner Carpenter referred to the traffic impact analysis prepared by the applicant ~d asked if Mr.
Satre had the impression the City was concerned the numbers were erroneous or would prove to be so at
the end of construction, or was the City concerned that the numbers ''would not comply" as more
residential was built. Mr. Satre said that the numbers Commissioner Carpenter referred to were
illustrative of what could occur in Phase 4A or Phase 4B. It did not correlate to the overall total trips.
Commissioner Carpenter understood that the credit set the trip cap, and had the applicant not had the
credit, it could have had a different trip cap based on the number of acres it was trying to develop. If the
credit "did not come to be true" because the nodal concept did not work after build-out, was it Mr. Satre's
assertiqn that the trip cap would "kick in" and the applicant would not be able to develop the last ten acres
of residential because the other residents were not "nodally traveling" as the applicant had received credit
for. Mr. Satre said yes. The [mal phasing plan would not allow that to happen. There was an allowance
in the zoning decision for so many trips that could be generated by the residential and commercial
elements of the development.
Commissioner Cross said the applicant appc;:ared to be saying when the development neared Phase 4, and
it was already close to the top of the limit in: trip caps, there would be segments of both residential and
commercial that would not be built out. Mr. Satre said he was saying the master plan and phasing plan
were being designed so that did not happen. No one wanted to see the last 5 acres of a 100 site lie empty
because the credits were all used up. He discussed the range of residential densities anticipated on the site
and the anticipated open space set-asides, and said it was clear that at some point it was physically not
possible to build more dwelling units that what was included in the zoning allowance. With regard to the
commercial side, the calculations indicated it was also physically impossible to build more commercial
than what was included in the zoning allowance. That meant the phasing had to be logical and that it
ensured enough of the trip capacity to be available for future phases.
Mr. Satre observed that the applicantwould have to build 730 dwelling units and construct 471,000
square feet of commercial before it met the trip cap, and that would be very dense development, much
more so than that before the commission. '
Responding to a question from Commissioner Carpenter about whether the residential development could
outpace the commercial development to the degree there were no internal trips, Mr. Satre indicated he
would provide that response in writing. Responding to a follow-up question from Commissioner
Kirschenmann, Mr. Satre said that ~aff and the applicant acknowledged there was an upper limit on the
number of dwelling units and the amount of commercial square footage. The origin of the upper limit
began from a traffic management perspective, and the applicant had long agreed that limit was acceptable.
ATTACHMENT 5 - 9
Speaking to Condition 27, traffic signals, Mr. Satre noted staff's request for the dedication of right-:of-way
for a roundabout at the intersection of the Marcola Road and. Martin Drive and dedication of right-of-way
and financial security to cover the costs of a roundabout at the home improvement center driveway
intersection with Marcola Road when the City Engineer decided one was warranted. He clarified that the
applicant was .not against roundabouts, but was against roundabouts in this development. He referred to
page 1-36, where staff stated that signalized intersections were sufficient to meet applicable standards.
Staff then indicated that roundabouts met mobility standards, but so did signalized intersections; Staff
indicated that roundabouts provided greater safety had not demonstrated that signalized intersections were
unsafe. Staff suggested they were less expensive to operate, and while that could be true, it was not an
applicable standard. Speaking to the issue that the signals would not be warranted, Mr. Satre agreed but
said staff also acknowledged that constructed intersections in 2008 without signals would still operate
within acceptable levels. He proposed to address the issue of the cost to the City by constructing the
streets, the intersections, the underground infrastructure, and would bond for the construction of signals
when the day arrived when they were warranted.
Mr. Satre spoke to the issue of the conflicts with the existirig residential driveway on the south side of
Marcola Road. He pointed out that the situation concerned a pre-existing, nonconforming access situation
on an arterial street. The roundabouts did not solve that problem. The only way staff could see to address
those conflicts was through the proposed frontage road. He noted the question asked by Commissioner
Beyer in regard the possibility the roundabouts be offset to the north on the undeveloped property and
said that staff had already proposed to shift c~mstruction and-right-of-:way to the north to accommodate
the access road because it realized it could not require an exaction of nght-of-way to the south.
, '
, '
Mr. Satre shared a sketch of the area that he shared with the commission as part of applicant's rebuttal.
He acknowledged that staff had indicated it was likely only one roundabout would be built, although the
City was requiring the dedicatio~ of right-of-way and [mancial secUrity if it was found to be needed. He
said that shift to the north required the dedication of more than an acre of land. If Marcola Road was
realigned, the amount needed was more than two acres. He said that the proposed collector, Martin
Drive, was in the adopted TransPlan as Project 777. The applicant was proposing to construct the
collector where-TransPlan placed it.' In the pre-application report, staff encouraged the applicant to place
the collector precisely where the applicant hadit'- No matter where it was, there would still be conflicts
with the driveways. Staffhad stated that the sole purpose of the proposed collector was to serve the
project. He believed thatwas incorrect as the street was a collector street, not a local street, and included
in the TransPlan. Collector streets were defmed in that document as streets designed to provide land
access and service and traffic circulation within residential neighborhoods and commercial and industrial
areas. Their primary function was to collect and distribute local trips to the arterial system. They served
more than one project and connected as well as collected. He said that it was incorrect to state the street's
sole purpose was to serve the project because it was included in TransPlan and would have been built no
matter what was beirig built in the location. '
Mr. Satre said that it was necessary to have a connection between a condition of approval and the
standard served by that condition. The ~ite in question was recently the subject of a Metro Plan
amendment and zone change wherein certain conditions were imposed on the master plan and constituted
a part of the standards on which the plan should be judged. Zoning Condition 9 stated that the submittal
of preliminary designs and the master plan application needed to address the proposed mitigation of the
impacts discussed in the traffic impact analysis. The analysis submitted- at that time showed traffic
control would be necessary at the intersections of Martin Drive, Marcola Road, and Marcola Road and the
home improvement center driveway. In order to meet capacity requirements to satisfy Goal 12, the
applicant proposed to dedicate the right-of-way and complete all improvements needed for the collector
street as well as provide the signalized intersections envisioned by the traffic analysis. There was no
ATTACHMENT 5 - 10
authority in the criteria to require the roundabouts, and no nexus between the impact from the
development and the burden that the condition placed on the application. He saw no basis for the
condition whatsoever.
Commissioner Carpenter asked if the collector in TransPlan traveled south of Q Street. Mr. Satre said no.
Commissioner Carpenter saw the City's point in that the street collected nothing from the east. He said
the road may be a collector in TransPlan, but it would solely collect from the property in question. Mr.
Satre did not want to debate the decision that led to the street's inclusion in TransPlan, but pointed out
that nonetheless, it was there. A collector was a community roadway, not a local street.
Mr. Satre noted Commissioner Carpenter's mention of the unsignalized intersections on Olympic Street
and said that the applicant envisioned a similar situation; the t-intersections along Marcola would be
unsignalized until they met warrant requirements.
Commissioner Moore said that Olympic Street seemed wider than Marcola Road as it included a center
lane. Mr. Satre did not know. He added that Marcola Road also included a center lane.
Speaking to Condition 55 on page I-59, Mr. Satre said that the applicant was not as concerned about the
condition as the fact it was imposed at all. While he did agreed that 33rd Street needed to be improved,
the impact was "off-off site." Such facilities were to be considered during the plan amendment process.
Following the conclusion of that planning process, the applicant voluntarily performed additional traffic
analysis and Lane County had asked the applicant to look at some of its facilities north of its project.
That was done and the information reflected in one of the three traffic analyses provided to the City. The
applicant submitted its results to the County, which then indicated it reviewed the results and found its
facilities to be performing within standard, and it had no further comments to offer. He said the same
analysis indicated that only 15 percent of the trips generated by full build-out of the development was
projected to go in that direction. There was no staff arialysis of the proportionality of that impact relative
to the burden placed on the applicant. Regardless of whether one believed the road should have been
addressed during the planning process, any improvement would require the dedication of additional right-
of-way because the existing right-of-~ay was inadequate now to accommodate the improvement. He
argued that the case had not and could be made for that condition.
, . ',' .
Speaking to Condition 56, regarding adaptive reuse, Mr. Satre said that the condition had no connection
or basis in any criteria to be found in the Springfield Development Code.
Mr. Satre concluded his presentation by saying an opportunity of the scale contemplated was not within
risk or anxiety. It was normal for people to feel anxiety as the project moved forward. He said the
newness of the master plan experience should not be allowed to get in the way of the opportunity before
the community. He asked that the City not impose conditions on the application that turned the
opportunity into a lost one. He noted that the [mal master plan was recorded as a deed restriction in its
entirety, and it did not matter how many property owners were involved. He referred the commission to
Attachment 2 of the master plan application, which included the design guidelines for the entire acreage.
Those guidelines would be part of the deed restriction. He pointed out that this was not the last time the
applicant would be before the City of Springfield. Future developments would have to go through other '
City development processes. He thought the commission could be confident in approving the master plan
and "unburdening it" from unjustifiable conditions. -
Mr. Satre invited questions. Commissioners had no more questions.
Chair Cross solicited testimony from the audience.
ATTACHMENT 5 - 11
Chris Clemow, 1515 SE Water Avenue, Suite 100, Portland, Oregon, represented Lowe's Home
Improvement Stores. He said that Lowe's was concerned that Condition 27, calling for the roundabouts.
He said that the applicant proposed to construct traffic signals at the time they were warranted. He said
that such facilities were quite expensive. While warrants did not exist for roundabouts, they faced
roughly the same tests. He said that staff had indicated the Springfield Development Code requirements
were met by the signals, and the code required nothing more. He said that the issues of the environment
and aesthetics mentioned by Mr. Barnett were nice but they were also not included in the code. The
question came down to operational related issues, which were level of service and delay, which all
acknowledged the roundabouts met, and safety and queuing. Staff's analysis indicated that queuing was
met with signals and he believed that safety issues were addressed. Roundabouts might be a safer option,
but there was no demonstrated safety deficiency to address in the area.
Mr. Clemow pointed out that there had been one crash along the section of road in five years, with
approximately 14 driveways on the south side. He did not think traffic signals would create an unsafe
condition. Mr. Clemow said the applicant was very concerned about the right..of-way necessary'to
accommodate the roundabouts. All the land needed was to come off the north side, when in an idea
situation itshou1d come offboth sides of the roadway. He submitted written testimony.
Nancy Falk, 2567 Marcola Road, expressed support for taking the land needed for the roundabout from
the north side of the road. She said it was not fair to take the 'neighbors' front yards for the purpose. She
expressed appreciation for the staff comments about the need to be cognizant of residents' needs. She
recalled testimony offered by resident Peggy Thompson suggesting a roundabout at Mar-cola Road but she
was speaking of 28th Street because of the impact of the trucks with jake breaks traveling past her house;
she did not think Ms. Thompson was serious and was sorry staff had picked up on that.
Wesley O. Swanger, 2415 Marcola Road, was very concerned about the potential of a roundabout at
Martin Drive because of the impact on his property. He said that traffic flowed smoothly on Olympic
Street because of a lack of truck traffic. However, a considerable volume of truck traffic came down
Marcola Road and onto other roads in the area, such as 28th Street. He recited a list of the truck types that
traveled through the area and their intended destinations and said the' two areas were not comparable. He
hoped that the Planning Commission kept the residences in mind when making its decisions.
Nick Shevchynski, 2347 Marcola Road, objected to all previous and future, past and present, objections
made by anyone to the land use changes and to the proceedings of the proposed application; he objected
to the staff report because it did not reflect what he said at the last hearing; he objected to having any of
his property taken for right-of-way; he objected to Condition 27 because it only benefited the developer;
he objected to the artists' renderings provided by the applicants because "they were not accurate"; he
objected to the three-minute time limit for speaking as it was not adequate; he objected to the fact of the
development proposal itself as "once this starts, you can't take it back."
Mr. Shevchynski wanted the applicant to acknowledge that the homeowners on Marco1a Road existed and
to ask them what they need or want.
Ms. Falk asked that the record remain open until January 3, 2007. Attorney Leahy indicated there were
limits created by the 120-day rule established by the State for action on the application. The commission
was scheduled to act on December 20, 2007. He recommended that the commission retain that time
frame.
Chair Cross closed the public hearing.
ATTACHMENT 5 - 12
Commissioners Carpenter indicated he would be listening to the tapes of the last'meetings to be able to
participate in the vote on December 20,2007. It was noted that Commissioner Leezer planned to do the
same.
Responding to a question from Chair Cross, Attorney Leahy indicated that the applicant's representative
would be able to submit a summary of his testimony within the next seven days that would be provided to
the commission prior to the next meeting.
BUSINESS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR
Chair Cross deferred the item.
REPORT OF COUNClL ACTION
Chair Cross deferred the item.
BUSINESS FROM THE COMMISSION
Chair Cross deferred the item.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
(Minutes recorded by Brenda Jones and Kim Young)
ATTAr.HMFNT ~ -1~
Auacnment OA
. Signalized Intersection Conflicts
""'~
"
~ ~
* ~
if,
I
Standing queue of vehicles waiting
to turn left into Marcola Meadows at
proposed traffic signal (95% tile queue
data table from Satre Associates, PC.,
supplemental information letter and
attachments, November 13, 2007).
.. II
II
a
E
g
ill
"Il
11II
III
.
Attachment 68
Provided by applicant
December 2007
I
I
'.I
tli
M
'I!*
.........
~.
~
g
~~o.""='''"'''' _...Jmc:::l:::'.... ~_~
-.'..,
4.....+"'..,.,;,.O,..J'".'''.,''''''--~ _, .._ IlIl'l
~~...
'.'{. ~.....i'''~'',,~~,__
-
i
",!'"_,~L="
'~~";'~'--'""='!""'::-
,.._."',."....,~~...
.
..
....-
f~
~ ...
... ~~ '
"", It
;t',
'.... 1
:~!'
4.4c....,
.'~ ,""
[ ~. ... .
w
Z
---l
J:
0
r-
<(
:2
0
r-
0 +
J:
0....
---l
<(
0::: 1 " - 100'
w
<(
rJI
..
c.
SKETCH LEVEL DRAWING
NOT DESIGN
;'"t
~
:'! ~ ~
Oil '#
J
[1'
tt
~
,~..~
~~
III
Ii
II
=
~- :;" t'tJ '=
~
~,:
" ...
i ># J .,
;4 ~ D)4~
H l!
J~
,
'"
~'
.l:;
=~-=:':'l ,e~
IjIIh -....
- -- M.<
I:J
~
..."
1
::!
lillliiiiIiiiiiiio _ ....
. I
.
ATTACHMENT 7
OREGON REVISED STATUTES (ORS) 197.763
197.763 Conduct of local quasi-judicial land use hearings; notice requirements; hearing
procedures. The following procedures shall gover:n the conduct of quasi-judicial land use hearings
conducted before a local governing body, planning commission, hearings body or hearings officer on
application for a land use decision and shall be incorporated into the comprehensive plan and land use '
regulations:
(1) An issue which may be the basis for an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals shall be raised
not later than the close of the record at or following the final evidentiary hearing on the proposal before
the local govemment. Such issues shall be raised and accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient
to afford the governing body, planning commission, hearings body or hearings officer, and the parties an
adequate opportunity to respond to each issue.
(2)(a) Notice of the hearings governed by this section shall be provided to the applicant and to owners
of record of property on the most recent property tax assessment roll where such property is located:
(A) Within 100 feet of the property which is the subject of the notice where the subject property is
wholly or in part within an urban growth boundary;
(B) Within 250 feet of the property which is the subject of the notice where the subject property is
outside an urban growth boundary and not within a farm or forest zone; or
(C) Within 500 feet of the property which is the subject of the notice where the subject property is
within a farm or forest zone.
(b) Notice shall also be provided to,any neighborhood or community organization recognized by the
governing body and whoSe boundaries include the site.
(c) At the discretion of the applicant, the local government also shall provide notice to the Department
of Land Conservation and Development.
(3) The notice provided by the jurisdiction shall:
(a) Explain the nature of the application and the proposed use or uses which could be authorized;
(b) List the applicable criteria from the ordinance and the plan that apply to the application at issue;
(c) Set forth the street address or other easily understood geographical reference to the subject
property;
(d) State the date, time and location of the hearing;
(e) State that failure of an issue to be raised in a hearing, in person or by letter, or failure to provide
statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue
precludes appeal to the board based on that issue;
(f) Be mailed at least
(A) Twenty days before the evidentiary hearing; or
(B) If two or more evidentiary hearings- are allowed, 10 days before the first evidentiary hearing;
(g) Include the name of a local government representative to contact and the telephone number
where additional information may be obtained;
(h) State that a copy of the application, all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the
applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable
cost;
(i) State that a copy of the staff report will be available for inspection at no cost at least seven days
prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost; and
U) Include a general explanation of the requirements for submission of testimony and the procedure
. for conduct of hearings.
(4)(a) All documents or evidence relied upon by the applicant shall be submitted to the local
government and be made available to the public. ' .
(b) Any staff report used at the hearing shall be available at least seven days prior to the hearing. If
additional documents or evidence are provided by any party, the local government may allow a
continuance or leave the record open to allow the parties a reasonable opportunity to respond. Any
continuance or extension of the record requested by an applicant shall result in a corresponding
extension of the time limitations of ORS 215.427 or 227.178 and ORS 215.429 or227.179.
(5) At the commencement of a hearing under a comprehensive plan or land use regulation, a
statement shall be made to those in attendance that
(a) Lists the applicable substantive criteria;
ATTACHMENT 7 - 1
(b) States that testimony, argumentsand evidence must be directed toward the criteria described in
paragraph (a)' of this subsection or other criteria in the plan or land use regulation which the person
believes to apply to the decision; and '
(c) States that failure to raise an issue accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to afford the
decision maker and the parties an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the board
based on that issue. '
(6)(a) Prior to the conclusion of the initial evidentiary hearing, any participant may request an
opportunity to present additional evidence, arguments or testimony regarding the application. The local
hearings authority shall grant such request by continuing the public hearing pursuant to paragraph (b) of
this subsection or leaving the record open for additional written evidence, arguments or testimony
pursuant to paragraph (c) of this subsection.
(b) If the hearings authority grants a continuance, the hearing shall be continued to a date, time and
place certain at least seven days from the date of the initial evidentiary hearing.An opportunity shall be
provided at the continued hearing for persons to present and rebut new evidence, arguments or
testimony. If new written evidence is submitted at the continued hearing, any person may request, prior to
the conclusion of the continued hearing, that the record be left open for at least seven days to submit
additional written evidence, arguments or testimony for the purpose of responding to the new written
evidence.
(c) If the hearings authority leaves the record open for additional written evidence, arguments or
testimony, the record shall be left open for at least seven days. Any participant may file a written request
with the local government for an opportunity to respond to new evidence submitted during the period the
record was left open. If such a request is filed, the hearings authority shall reopen the record pursuant to
subsection (7) of this section.
(d) A continuance or extension granted pursuant to this section shall be subject to the limitations of
ORS 215.427 or 227.178 and ORS 215.429 or 227.179, unless the continuance or extension is requested
or agreed to by the applicant.
(e) Unless waived by the applicant, the local governmentshall.allow the applicant at least seven days
after the record is closed to all other parties to submit final written arguments in support of the application.
The applicant's final submittal shall be considered part of the record, but shall not include any new
evidence. This seven-day period shall not be subject to the limitations of ORS 215.427 or 227.178 and
ORS 215.429 or 227.179.
(7) When a local governing body, planning commission, hearings body or hearings officer reopens a
record to admit new evidence, arguments or testimony, any person may raise new issues which relate to
the new evidence, arguments, testimony or criteria for decision-making which apply to the matter at issue.
(8) The failure of the property owner to receive notice as provided in this section shall not invalidate
such proceedings if the local government can demonstrate by affidavit that such notice was given. The
notice provisions of this section shall not restrict the giving of notice by other means, including posting,
newspaper publication, radio and television.
(9) For purposes of this section:
(a) "Argumenf means assertions and analysis regarding the satisfaction or violation of legal
standards or policy believed relevant by the proponent to a decision. "Argumenf does not include facts.
(b) "Evidence" means facts, documents, data or other information offered to demonstrate compliance
or noncompliance with the standards believed by the proponent to be relevant to the decision. [1989
c.761 910a (enacted in lieu of 197.762); 1991 c.817 931; 1995 c.595 92; 1997 c.763 96; 1997 c.844 92;
1999 c.533 912]
ATTACHMENT 7 - 2
j.
City of Springfield
Development Services Department
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Phone: (541) 726-3759
Fax: (541) 726-3689
Appeals Application, Type IV
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to City Council
SPRINGFIELD
Name, Journal Number and Date of the Decision Being Appealed
Marcola Meadows Master Plan LRP 2007-00028
Planning Commission Decision Date December 20, 2007
Date of Filing the Appeal January 4, 2007
(This date must be within 15 calendar days of the date of the decision.)
Please list below, in summary form, the specific issues being raised in the appeal. These should be the
specific points where you feel the Approval Authority erred in making the decision, Le., what approval
, criterion or criteria you allege to have been inappropriately applied.
Issue #1 Master Plan Approval Condition #27: 1) is without basis in the
applicable criteria for Master Plan approval;
Issue #2
2) imposes upon the applicant a burden disproportionate to the impact
of the development; and
Issue #3
3) unlawfully delegates to the City Engineer the discretion to impose
exactions without reference to standards and without findings of proportionality.
Issue #4
(List any additional issues being appealed on an attached sheet.)
The undersigned acknowledges that the above appeal form and its attachments have been read, the
requirements for filing an appeal of a land use decision is understood and states that the information
supplied is correct and accurate.
Appellant's Name SC Springfield, LLC
Address' 7510 Longley Lane, Suite
Statement of Interest
(j
i
Phone 775 - 8 53 - 4 714
102, Reno, Nevada 89511
Signature
lication
I
Journal NO::i"~ 2sof6 - D~'-Received By
l1-02~30~CO
Assessor's ap No. \1-03 -2.S ~ II Tax Lot No.
Date Accepted as Complete
~
lBoo
'23 t)I)
PR3200Co-~3'='
ATTACHMENT 8 - 1
~
WRITTEN APPEAL STATEMENT
MARCOLA MASTER PLAN LRP 2007-0028
The applicant appeals Condition #27 of the Planning
Commission approval of the applicant's Master Plan.
Requirements of Master Plan Condition #27
This condition would require a roundabout at the intersection of
Marcola Road and Martin Drive and construction of a frontage road on
the southern portion of the Marcola Road right-of-way, requiring the
applicant to dedicate the land necessary for all traffic improvements
and complete all improvements at the applicant's expense. The
condition would also delegate all authority to the City Engineer to
determine the form and timing of future traffic control at the private
commercial driveway and Marcola Road intersection.
Summary of Issues Raised bv Condition #27
The applicant appeals Condition #27 based upon the following
facts and PC?ints of law:
1.
The applicant has proposed to dedicate the necessary right-of-
way and improve Martin Drive for its entire length and provide
signalized intersections at Martin Drive and the private
commercial driveway.
The City Traffic Engineer acknowledges these improvements will
'meet applicable performance standards.
The City proposes a roundabout at Martin Drive and, perhaps,
at the private commercial driveway as well. The roundabouts
will necessitate a frontage road on the south side of Marcola
Road. Consequences for such requirements are as follows:
2.
3.
a. The taking for a public purpose of between .56 and 2.0 acres'
of the applicant's commercially zoned property;
b. Demolition of 1,200 to 1,700 lineal feet of a publicly
improved arterial street;
ATTACHMENT 8 - 2
Phone:
(541)686-8833
Fax:
(541) 345-2034
975 Oak Street
Suite 800
Eugene, Oregon
97401-3156
Mailing Address:
P,O. Box 1147
Eugene, Oregon
97440-1147
Email:
info@gleaveslaw,com
Web-Site:
www.gJeaveslaw.com
Frederick A. Batson
Jon V. Buerstatte
Joshua A. Clark
Daniel P. Ellison
Michael T Faulconer"
A. J. Giustina
Thomas p, E, Herrmann'
Dan Webb Howard"
Stephen 0, Lane
William H, Martin'
Walter W. Miller
Laura T Z, Montgom~ry'
Tanya C. O'Neil
Standlee G. Potter
Martha J. Rodman
Robert S, Russell
Douglas R. Schultz
Malcolm H Scott
James W Spickennan
Kate A. Thompson
Jane M, Yates
'Also admitted
in Washington
,. Also admitted
in'Califomia
c. Construction of a new arterial street for a distance of
approximately 1,200 to 1,700 feet generally north of the
existing Marcola Road at the sole expense of the applicant;
d. Construction of a frontage road with improvements on the
south side of Marcola Road at the applicant's expense (this
road will occupy 17 feet of presently unimproved right-of-
way which exists now as front yard, setback area and buffer
for the residences along the south side of Marcola Road).
As discussed below, the requirements sought to be imposed by
Condition #27, beyond the practical issues, raise three legal issues:
1. The requirements of the condition are not based on criteria for
approval of a Master Plan as required by Oregon law.
2. The requirements constitute a disproportionate burden upon the
applicant relative to the impact of the development on public
facilities. This is contrary to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in
Dolan v. City of Tigard and subsequent Oregon court and Land
Use Board~of Appeals decisions.
3. The condition would also delegate to the City Engineer the
authority to determine the form and timing of future traffic
control at the private commercial driveway and Marcola Road.
This could include the alternative of a roundabout at that
ih tersection.
Arlnlment .
Lack of Authority for the Requirement of Roundabouts
The applicant has proposed traffic signals at the intersection of
Martin Drive and Marcola Road. The infrastructure for this
signalization would be put in place at the time of construction of the
first phase of the development and the signals installed as the
intersection "meets warrants" for traffic signals.
The applicant believes that there is no authority in the criteria
for Master Plan approval to require the roundabout intersections. In
addition to the lack of basis for this requirement in the criteria, there
is no nexus between the impact of the development and the financial
burden the requirement places upon the applicant.
It is necessary that there be a connection between a condition
imposed and the standard served by the condition. This is a case of
whether the condition involves an exaction, as does that here, or not.
See Olson Memorial Clinic v. Clackamas County, 21 Or LUBA 418
2- WRIITEN APPEAL STATEMENT - MARCOLA MASTER PLAN LRP 2007-0028
January 4, 2008
ATTACHMENT 8 - 3
(1991), Sky Dive Oregon v. Clackamas County, 25 Or LUBA 294
(1993). Where private land is sought for a public purpose, there must
be the "essential nexus" between the' condition and the tentative
purpose sought to be achieved. See Schultz v. City of Grants Pass,
131 Or App 220, 884 P2d 569 (1994) and J.C. Reeves Com. v.
Clackamas County, 131 Or App 614,887 P2d 360 (1994).
This site has recently been the subject of a comprehensive plan
amendment and zone change wherein certain conditions were imposed
for approval of a Master Plan for the site. Those conditions constitute
a por~ion of the standards that are applicable and the basis for
imposition of conditions of Master Plan approval. The other applicable
standards are the Master Plan approval criteria set forth in SDC 5.13-
125.
The zoning map amendment conditions of approval include
condition 9 which requires:
"Submittal of preliminary design plans with a Master Plan
application addressing proposed mitigation of impacts
discussed in the TIA."
SDC Section 5.13-125 sets forth the Master Plan Criteria of
Approval. The following is among those criteria:
"C. Proposed on-site and off-site improvements, both
public and private, are sufficient to accommodate the
proposed phased development and any capacity
requirements of public facilities plans; and provisions are
made to assure constructi9n of off-site improvements in
conjunction with a schedule of the phasing."
In the TIA submitted at the time of rezoning, it was shown that
traffic control would be necessary at the intersections of Marcola
Road/Martin Drive and Marcola Road/private commercial driveway.
In order to meet capacity requirements to satisfy Goal 12
Transportation, the applicant has proposed to dedicate the right-of-
way for and to complete all improvements to Martin Drive and provide
the signalized intersections contemplated by the TIA.
The staff report for the December 11, 2007 Planning
Commission meeting states with regard to the proposed signalized
intersections:
"... from a capacity standpoint existing and proposed
transportation facilities would be sufficient to meet
applicable performance standards...." Staff Report, p. 35.
3- WRIITEN APPEAL STATEMENT - MARCOLA MASTER PLAN LRP 2007-0028
January 4, 2008
ATTACHMENT 8 - 4
The staff simply prefers roundabouts at these two intersections
on the basis that the City "has had success with roundabout
intersection designs in lieu of signalization." Since the applicant's
proposed improvements satisfy requirements, there is no nexus
between the more onerous alternative and the impact of the
development.
In a memorandum of December 18, 2007, Mr. McKenney,
Transportation Planning Engineer for the City, attempts to find
authority for the requirement of the roundabout in ,the language of
SDC 4.2-1 OS.A.1, which speaks to Transportation Infrastructure
Standards. The language quoted in Mr. McKenney's memo is.out of
context and is inapplicable to the Marcola Road and Martin Drive
intersection. The "criteria" cited are set forth under the following
introductory paragraph:
"a. The following street connection standard shall be
used in evaluating street alignment proposals not shown in
or different from an adopted plan or that are different from
the Conceptual Local Street Map...." (Emphasis added.)
The standards cited in the December 18, 2007 memorandum
simply are not applicable. Both Marcola Road and Martin Drive are
shown in the proposed location on both the Conceptual Local Street
Map and TransPlan.
Dolan Issue
Dol8.1i v. City of Tigard, S12 US 374, 375, 391,114 S Ct 2309,
2319-2320,2322, 129 LEd 2d 304 (1994) and a line of Oregon cases
which followed require that a local government show rough
proportionality, both in nature and extent, between the burden
imposed on the applicant and the impact of the proposed development.
Basically, a private landowner cannot be required to bear a greater
burden than that which would be proportional to the problem caused
by the applicant's development.
Applied to the present situation, the burden that is
proportionate to the impact caused by the proposed development is
the burden to provide a signalized intersection in order to meet
requirements of the Statewide Transportation Goal and City Code. The
City staff has agreed that, from a capacity standpoint, the proposed
signalized intersection would meet applicable performance standards.
A disproportionate burden would be imposed by the requirement of
roundabouts, which would increase the applicant's burden in the form
of the cost of realignment of Marcola Road and the loss of one-half to
two acres of commercial hmd. While the cost of two signalized
4- WRlTIEN APPEAL STATEMENT - MARCOLA MASTER PLAN LRP 2007-0028
January 4, 2008
ATTACHMENT 8 - 5
intersections could be approximately $500,000, a roundabout with full
frontage road would be $2,500,000 plus the "taking" of two acres of
land.
The Planning Commission heard testimony from Brian Barnett,
the City's Traffic Engineer, indicating the reasons the City found
roundabouts desirable. Among those reasons was that: "... the
community at large saves ...." It was indicated that some communities
even use federal funds for roundabouts based upon environmental
considerations. The City does think that roundabouts are safer but
does not specifically identify those concerns. Generally, the City staffs
comments indicate a preference for roundabouts rather than
signalized intersections for a number of public policy reasons.
If there are good policy reasons for roundabouts that are
important to broaden the public's objectives, these are costs that must
be borne by the public as a whole and not the individual property
owner. These are the types of costs that are not proportionate to the
impact of the particular development and, if a more onerous
alternative is to be chosen, public funds would be required to acquire
the additional right-of-way and for the cost of improvements over and
above the cost of signalized intersections.
Requirement of Frontae:e Road
Master Plan Condition #27, paragraph 3, would require:
"Provide a preliminary design acceptable to the City
Engineer and the Springfield Fire Marshal for a frontage
road located within the existing Marcola Road right-of-way
that provides safe and efficient access for vehicles using
residential driveways on the south side of Marcola Road
opposite the development site. These improvements as
specified by the City Engineer shall be constructed as part
of the proposed Phase 1 infrastructure improvements."
The Traffic Impact Analysis for the project, accepted by ODOT
and the City, found that the development will not "significantly affect"
the transportation system off site, with the exception of the eastbound
off ramp of the Eugene-Springfield Highway (which the applicant has
agreed to address). The existing situation at the south side of Marcola
Road was not identified in the TIA as a location off site where the
development would "significantly affect" the transportation system.
Marcola Road is classified by the City of Springfield as a minor
arterial roadway and does not currently have any access control on the
south side of the roadway, which has resulted in approximately 14
5- WRITTEN APPEAL STATEMENT - MARCOLA MASTER PLAN LRP 2007-0028
January 4, 2008
ATTACHMENT 8 - 6
residential driveways on that side of the roadway. This conflict with
intersections to Marcola Road was inevitable in terms of future
transportation plans. Both the TransPlan and the Conceptual Local
Street Plan call for a collector to be located approximately where
Martin Drive is proposed and to intersect at Marcola Road at
approximately the same point as shown in the Master Plan.
Someplace, at some time, along this portion of Marcola Road, there
was to be a collector street to not only serve the property involved in
this application but other properties to the north and east. '
To the extent there is a problem, it exists with or without the
development. The Dolan findings set forth at page 38 of the Staff
Report to the Planning Commission do not purport to address the
exaction for the roundabout, just the right-of-way for the proposed
development. The development will be responsible for only a portion of
the traffic utilizing that intersection. Obviously, improvements at the
intersection should not be the sole responsibility of the applicant but
the applicant has not raised this issue relative to providing a
signalized intersection.
The Master Plan as proposed by the applicant would incorporate
the existing south-side driveways to the extent possible with the traffic
signal proposal. The applicant's traffic engineers do not anticipate an
unsafe condition, although sonie turning movements may be restricted
from certain driveways.
Unlawful Dele~ation
Master Plan Condition #27, paragraph 5, would require:
"Provide,financial security acceptable to the City Engineer
in an amount equal to the cost of signalized traffic control
to provide for future traffic control at the arterial/ site
driveway intersection location. The form and timing of
future traffic control will be based on traffic operational
and safety needs as determined by the City Engineer."
This condition would give complete discretion to the City
Engineer as to whether a roundabout and the necessary right-of-way
to accommodate a roundabout would be required at this intersection.
As with the Martin Drive intersection, the traffic data indicates the
signalized intersection for the private drive, when put in place as
warrants require, will operate as well or better than a roundabout.
The condition, as proposed, would not require any particularized '
analysis of the proportionality of the burden imposed, as required by
the Dolan line of cases. The condition is also objectionable in that it
6- WRITTEN APPEAL STATEMENT - MARCOLA MASTER PLAN LRP 2007-0028
January 4. 2008
ATTACHMENT 8 - 7
.
constitutes an unlawful delegation of authority by deferring
development approval to a later stage where there is no opportunity for
public hearing. See Tenlv Properties Corp. v. Washington County, 34
Or LUBA 352 (1998).
The objections above made to the roundabout at the Martin,
Drive intersection are made here: there is no logical connection
between applicable criteria and the requirement and the burden would
be disproportionate to the impact of creation of a driveway.
Conclusion
The applicant's proposal for signalized intersections address
traffic capacity and safety requirements. The requirement of
roundabouts 'is not only impractical but is an unlawful exaction.
The applicant proposes the attached alternative for Master Plan
Condition #27.
James W. SplC
Of Attorneys for Applicant
Attachment: Proposed Master Plan Condition #27
7- WRITTEN APPEAL STATEMENT - MARCOLA MASTER PLAN LRP 2007-0028
January 4, 2008
ATTACHMENT 8 - 8
APPLICANT'S PROPOSED MASTER PLAN CONDmON #27
MASTER PLAN CONDmON #27. 'Prior to the approval of the Final Master Plan,
the applicant shall:
1) Demonstrate that the improvements specified in the Final Master Plan
shall not require any property dedication south of the existing southern
Marcola Road right-of-way line.
2) Provide preliminary design acceptable to the City Engineer for a signalized
intersection at the arterial/collector intersection of Marcola Road and
Martin Drive, and include the dedication of right-of-way necessary to
construct the improvements. The intersection improvements as specified
by the City Engineer shall be constructed as part of the proposed Phase 1
infrastructure improvements. Rnal design shall be approved during the
normal Public Improvement Project (PIP) process associated with
proposed Phase 1 infrastructure development.
3) Provide financial security acceptable to the City Engineer in an amount
equal to the cost of signalized traffic control to provide for future traffic
control at the arterial/site driveway intersection location. The applicant
may choose to put in place the necessary infrastructure for signalization at
the time of construction of the intersection. At such time as warrants are
met, signalized traffic controls shall be put into place at the applican~s
expense.
ATTACHMENT 8 - 9
City of Springfield
Development Services Department
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Phone: (541) 726-3759
Fax: (541) 726-3689
-Appeals Application, Type IV
Appeal ofplanning Commission Decision to City Council
SPRINGFIELD
e Received:
JAN .. ~ 2008
NlRJOP; N;~ -;d D; b~ 2cision Being 13'eaIed
~~
I: 1/ p~
re~
~~
Dale of Filing the Appeal ~~ a.r ~ 08
(ibis date .ust be ~ 15 ""....~ ~~th. date otlhe dedsl~")
Issue # 1
j () ar~,
The undersigned acknowledges that the above appeal form and its attachments have been read, the
requirements for filing an appeal of a land use decision is understood and states that the information
supplied is correct and accurate.
. if! ~I.
) n9 if-Iot'_f
eg r dA./l"1"'
Signature
Journal No. LoN :L0c9.-o~ 3
11-02-30'-00
Assessor's Map No. 11- 03-;,l5 -II
Date Accepted as Complete
Received By
077- I Boo
Tax Lot No. 17-' Z~o(""J
'::Pr:\3 ~OO(o- OCb30
ATTACHMENT 8 -10
City of Springfield
Development Services Department
225 Fifth Street (
Springfield, OR 97477
Phone: (541) 726-3759
, Fax: (541) 726-3689
Date Received:
SPRINGFIE" ,
Appeals Application, Type IV
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to City Council
IAN - 4 2011.-
Name, Journal Number and Dare of the Decision Being Appealed Original Submittal ~ . 2 _ ""
!1JE;rE;p Ph4-1J TVtJ~ IiI A,,'LC*7lqV/ t.RP .zoo7-0002Kj' if J '?f1
N:-c..2D, '),00// "t)UYIJV'~~.4T MAI2t::ch4 MGf-lu>w~
Date of Filing the Appeal
~ ~ 2. t:)c) Is'
(This date must be within 15 calendar days of the date of the decision.)
Please list below, in summary form, the specific issues being raised in the appeal. These should be the
specific points where you feel the Approval Authority erred in making the decision, i.e., what approval
criterion or criteria you allege to have been inappropriately applied.
Issue#! tJil.~ I~ :siX s.2 - US:- (sea. o-Huv .ridL)
>g #7ll:>4rvrr
Issue #2
Issue #3
Issue #4
(List any additional issues being appealed on an attached sheet.)
The undersigned acknowledges that the above.appeal form and its attachments have been read, the
requirements for filing an appeal of a land use decision is understood and states that the information
supplied is correct and accurate. UN.bE~ ~ r;;~IPc;.qQ.b OT/2G"J.(S ~1Ct"'17iT
Appellant's Name ? h \" l r r o~. N UAJ Md' ~ . Phone ~q ...r - l{ J j 7
Address 2..k 0 ,)0 Y\tt ( ~ ( {1 resVt).{ lA.
Statem~nt ofTii~st. .~ ~~d \J v'" ~t
Signature ". (
Journal No. ZD.t11 nox - 0000+
l7-b2.-~-OO
Assessor's Map No. 17-D3-J..? -/I
Received By
Tax Lot No.
II00D
230D
~
ATTACHMENT 8 -11 .
.l.. e-U{ 19 fJ (~ tltvlUtv ~ 'I-tu ci-iy of
~v-w.J.fu Id" r (Joule) twit' J'1//vC-..fo tU8v~
tf I wou \cl 0+ l1? (J . f\JO~~ ,
. IiLW{ Wc-S n.o luok~ POJ+e.0 ON --fu W,?(OVI2
YOQct ~{O(2w1 C P~YLL p~ 2:,:>yqvwcd
'0,/ ~\)CS.1..- )15""7,:,- .7a~
-r\(\I.~~ f'KrJuu~/vu{f
.:::r~ / f){JV J-
. ., .
ATTACHMENT 8 - 12
Date Received:
1-4-08
JAN -~ m
To City of Springfield
Original Submittal KL
4:ZSpr'l1
Re: Appeal fee for '"VIllages' at Marcola Meadows" Master Plan Type ill application,
LRP 2007-00028, decision of 12-20-07
The city of Springfield has mentioned an appeal fee. The amount of the fee is to be taken
from "Development Code Application Fees" blurb. I have copies of the one "Effective 12-3-
2007." There is nothing on this sheet which directly addresses an appeal from the planning
commission. On Wednesday, 1-2-08 a meeting was held to explain and "answer" questions as
to how much property the City will take and/or destroy and how badly the residents were going
to get screwed by the City and the developer. It was reported that the City danced and deflected
questions rather than answering them.
At this meeting Gary Karp said the appeal fee was $250. The only $250 fee on the
aforesaid sheet is an "Appeal of Type II Director's Decision (7) ORS 227.175." We are not
appealing a director's decision but the planning commission so this does not apply. If it does
apply it should be "Appeal of Type ill Decision to City COUncil" as this removes "Director's"
from the fee description and this is a Type ill Decision not Type II. Thusly Newman Trustee
would pay $2,254 as he is appealing no notice. Dennis ~unt is, another $2,254 for the same
issue. Wes Swanger, Clara Shevchinski, and myself is another $6,762 for a total of $11,270.
I argue that this amount is excessive, arbitrary, captious, and unlawful. I read the statute that
.states how the amount 'of fee should be determineci.
I understand that the City may wave the appeal fees and it is petitioned herein for this t?
be done.
Pursuant to Oregon Revised Statute it is herein petitioned that the fees be waved as all
of the attached appeals are bundled under the North Springfield Citizens' Committee which has
been duly recognize as such by the City.
k~
Nick Shevchynski
11~~
Nick Shevchynski
North Springfield Citizens Committee
ATTACHMENT 8 - 13. . .
Date Received:
JAN - ~ 2008
1
Assignments of Error
Original Submittal ~~ z.'S~ ~
1. The appeals application states that, "The Planning Division staff can be of assistance in
helping you fill out this section." Since it doesn't state the staff "will" be of assistance I asked
how and/or what assistance? The question was met with silence.
2. ". . . all of the sections on the opposite side of this page must be filed out." There is no
opposite side.
3. Explaining "the specific points that are appealed" 'in "on~ sentence statement" is undue
restriction and an almost impossibility. This application for appeal procedure is unduly
restrictive, contradictory, confusing, and unlawful.
4. The City seems to believe in a policy that it doesn't have to abide by the law unless it
gets caught and litigated. The City states that if an issue or violation was not raised below it can
not be "appealed" to the next level of rubber stamping. Under the plain error rule unpreserved
claims of error do not necessarily prevent them form being raised on review. An "error of law
apparent on the face. of the record" falls under the planrerror rule., The Oregon Supreme Court
issued an opinion on Dec. 13, '07 in State v Fults overturning the Oregon Appeals Court because
the plain error rule was not applied to UJ?preserved claims of error.
5. Karp's memorandum of 12-11-07, pg. 10, cites SDC 5.2-115: ". . . the applicant shall post
one sign, approved by the Director, on the subject property." Pg. 11: "Staffs Response/Finding"
which finds that this was not done. "Wait," you will say, "This wasn't preserved." It's an error
of law appar~nt on the face of the record, Don't you follow your own laws? Never mind that
question. In any event it was preserved. Page 7, Karp's 12/20/07 memorandum: ". . . and the
applicant not contacting the property owners prior to the public hearing." See attached affidavit.
W as this a procedural or statutory requirement? Lawyer Leahy may say procedural in order to
ignore the requirement and I say it's statutory because it's the law and your law. Golf v
McEachr.on.
6. There was a public hearing on this matter on 12-11-07. Because the record was still open
for public comment the public should have been granted the opportunity for comment. Notice
of this hearing was never timely maired as required by SDC 5.2-115.
7. The issue of schools being overcrowded was addressed by a couple of letters from a
couple of alleged officials. It was written that there is and will be no "overcrowding" without
ever defining what that means. They say there is no overcrowding on one hand and beg for
more taxes because of overcrowding on the other. These people should have testified on the
record allowing the commission to ask questionrand the public to hear and see them. It was an
error n~t to consider that after absorbing the students from the proposed dev'elopment any
additional students from anywhere would cause overcrowding.
ATTACHMENT 8 -14
2
8. During the 12-20-07 hearing no new material was suppose to be introduced in o~der to
keep out public comment. New material was introduced. At one point lawyer Spickerman
walked up to lawyer Leahy and whispered his obj ection. Leahy said out loud that there was an
objection because new material was introduced. Commissioner Carpenter added additional new
language to the "plan" which the public was not allowed to comment on. Notice of this hearing
being open was not mailed in a timely manner pursuant to SDC 5.2-115.
9. Kinda difficult to preserve an error as stated hereinabove when one is not allowed to
speak. The issue of speech is so one-sided it's ludicrous. Rick Satre droned on and on for hours
and hours and on and on. Gary Karp droned on for hours. The City's staff droned on for hours
and hours. Commissioner Evans droned on. Commissioner Carpenter droned on for hours and
on and on. The public got 3 minutes! It's obvious the government doesn't want to hear from
the public, the decisions were already made. The issue is that the city staff and friends control
what is placed on the record by not notifying the public and additionally allowing supporters to
have their unrestrictive say. In my opinion this process is just wasting tax money and creating
jobs and retirement benefits for staff and lawyers.
10, Commissioner Nancy Moore was not qualified to vote. She told me she drove on this part
of Marcola Rd. daily to her job at a grade school up Marcola. On the last day she said she didn't
know if there were sidewalks on this part of Marcola. She stated with what appeared to be an
attempt at humor that the City would take 17 ft. from the front of citizens' properties. It's
suppose to be on the recorded record. This is shameful.
11. The issue of the waterway was never properly addressed. Rather than have Sunny
Washburn and/or her sidekicks Kim and Phil of the city staff answer questions the city staff
presented a y.oung man who acted clueless. Or maybe it wasn't an act. When he was asked by
a commissioner where the water comes from he answered, "I don't know~" This is an
embarrassment and shameful. According to the person in the city manager'~ ~ffice "they are all
engineers. " '
12,
Written notice of the decision was not mailed.
13.
them.
There were about 56 additions made without equal opportunity for comment on all of
. . ,
14. There was nothing that addresses what will be done with the bike lanes which are part
of the city's overall plan. Especially since it's planned to have them torn out. .
15. There was nothing that addresses what will be done with the bus stops which are part of
the city's overall plan. Especially since it's planned to have them torn out.
ATTACHMENT 8 -15
3
16. There was/is nothing, not a peep, about the impact on the environment and/or
environmental controls.
17. There was nothing that reasonably described the city's final action and it was not mailed.
18. There was no input and no opportunity to question or comment on what the utility
providers' positions are. Utilities are part of the city's overall plan.
19. The city staff cuts-off public comment and the raising of any "new" issues because it's
claimed the staff are not able to open the record for rebuttal. This is false. The record may be
opened by statute and otherwise whenever the staff or Joe Leahy feels like it. The staff and Joe
Leahy control everything.
20. Gary Karp and Rick Satre argued that the number of trips and thusly the traffic will be
below the arbitrary alleged unprovided copies of traffic studies with the addition of 512+ homes'
and the constant traffic due to one of Americas..1argest major retailers. Yet Gary Karp and staff
advocate major highway expansions to accumulate alleged non-existing rise in traffic.
21 The city alleges it has alligator tears and no money for street repairs yet has more money
to tear-up perfectly good sidewalks, curbs, etc. in order to please a developer and investors in
Reno who want someone else to p.ay for their improvements.
22. Have I said written notices of the hearing and decisions were not mailed nor posted timely
pursuant to Oregon Statute?
23. What. about those fire hydrants? Pursuant to a court order by a federal judge a
maintenance report was furnished and half of the hydrants on Marcola Road were non-
operational. Fire protection is part of the city's overall plan and this was not even mentioned.
24. This issue of traffic is one of being relative. Is not traffic rated by various levels? Which
level is it now and what level will it be? This is part of the city's overall plan and it was never
addressed.
Nick Shevchynski
Nick Shevchynski,
North Springfield Citizens' Committee
ATTACHMENT 8 - 16
Affidavit
I, Nick Shevchynski, first being duly sworn on oath say:
I walkedjjoggedthe perimeter of the former Pierce property
which is the proposed "'Villages' at Marcola Meadows" on. almost a,
daily basis throughout Nov. & Dec. of '07 and during the Marcola
Meadows Master Plan application case # CRP 2007-G0028. At no time
was. there a "sign approved by the Director, on the subj ect
property" as required by SDC 5.2-115.
()~
Nick Shevchynski
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me a Notary for the State of Oregon
on this 2nd day of January, 2008.
~
.
MY
OFFICIAL SEAL
DUSTIN HAHN
NOTARY PUBUC -OREGON
COMMISSION NO. 412362
EXPIRES tOI. 29.2010
~ --iI--z-
Date Received:
JAN - 4 2008
Original Submittal t< L
Lf: 2A>ft1'\
ATTACHMENT 8 -17
Appeals Application, Type IV
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to City Council
SPRINGFr '.D
City of Springfield
Development Services Department
225 Fifth Street .
Springfield, OR 97477
Phone: (541) n6-3759
Fax: (541) 726-3689
Name, Journal Number and Date of the Decision Being Appealed
I1/f-Slf~ 4.A-N NPc 7iI tfpPL/C/f!101// LteP
~(. 20 2-elo7; ~l/o.J;r.( 4 J?1~ ~c)t.v'j
Date of Filing the Appeal ~ . If,1 "J.-(:) C)i'
(Ihis date must be within 15 calendar days of the date of the decision.)
JAM - ~ 2008
Original Submittal t<<
.L{: Z5frYI
2.007 - OCJe:12..?;
,.
Please list below, in summary form, the specific issues being raised in the appeal. These should be the
specific points where you feel the Approval Authority erred in making the decision, i.e., what approval
criterion or criteria you allege to have been inappropriately applied.
Issue #1 ~ 4- ~ { P4~\{,{;.)U, tJA-~ ~~I ~lt"rr
1{\A.1'; ~ s:.-~~J ~ tUci-< ~C'~(~," ~ by-
Issue#2 ~..{~ :1: /~~V'fvV';;f..L tk'c,.. '5.~ ~~
~~
Issue #3
Issue #4
(List any additional issues being appealed on an attached sheet.)
The undersigned acknowledges that the above appeal form and its attachments have been read, the
requirements for filing an appeal of a land use decision is understood and stateS that the information.
supplied is correct and accurate. . ~ lk"""- ::P""''''S t,,~ ct.~f;glZW.! e:.,"--' ~~
Appel1ant'sNameC~ ~'w; tr; Phone 74-6 -;-.l. ~cJ
Address :1.-~IS-- JM.~ M,
Statement of Interest fr ~ O-oAoAr';J...t-, 1.."..1....1 1,1 p...,'A-.j-.
SIgnature C. j!Y/..>.c'~ luJ . ~
JournalNo. ."ZOrJ.a.OOS - ODDO~
. 1'7-0~-3 0 - 0 P
Assessor's Map No. 11-0 "',",,5- J
Date Accepted as Complete
Received By
1L , ~O()
Tax Lot No. .J ~nt')
~ .-
PRS~oOh -(){)03(:,
ATTACHMENT 8'-18
~
Date Received:
1-4-08
JAN -~ m
To City of Springfield
Original Submittal KL
4: ZSpr'l1
Re: Appeal fee for "'Villages' at Marcola Meadows"Master Plan Type ill application,
LRP 2007-00028, decision of 12-20-07
The city of Springfield has mentioned an appeal fee. The amount of the fee is to be taken
from "Development Code Application Fees" blurb. I have copies of the one "Effective 12-3-
2007." There ,is nothing on this sheet which directly addresses an appeal from the planning
commission. O'n Wednesday, 1-2-08 a meeting was held to explain and "answer" questions as
to how much property the City will take and/or destroy and how badly the residents were going
to get screwed by the City and the developer. It was reported that the City danced and deflected
questions rather than answering them.
At this meeting Gary Karp said the appeal fee was $250. The only $250 fee on the
aforesaid sheet is an "Appeal of Type II Director's Decision (7) ORS 227.175." We are not
appealing a director's decision but the planning commission so this does not apply. If it does
apply it should be "Appeal of Type ill Decision to City Council" as this removes "Director's"
from the fee description and this is a Type ill Decision not Type II. Thusly Newman Trustee
would pay $2,254 as he is appealing no notice. Dennis Hunt is, another $2,254 for the same
issue. Wes Swanger, Clara Shevchinski, and myself is another $6,762 for a total of $11,270.
I argue that this amount is excessive, arbitrary, captious, and unlawful. I read the statute that
.states how the amount of fee should be determined.
I understand that the City may wave the appeal fees and it is petitioned herein for this to
be done.
Pursuant to Oregon Revised Statute it is herein petitioned that the fees be waved as all
of the attached appeals are bundled under the North Springfield Citizens' Committee which has
been duly recognize as such by the City.
/;!. ~
Nick Shevchynski
11~~
Nick Shevchynski
North Springfield Citizens Committee
ATTACHMENT 8 - 19
Appeals Application, Type IV
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to City Council
ceived:
SPRINGFlr '.D
City of Springfield
Development Services Department
225 Fifth Stre~t
Springfield, OR 97477
Phone: (541) n6-3759
Fax: (541) 726-3689
Name, Journal Number and Date of the Decision Being Appealed
I1If.Slf~ !4.A-IV Me 7iI tfpPL/C/f/la// LIf!P 2..007 - Oc)f02.~:
!J.pCr 20 W07; ~'//o.J~.( ~ ;r;~ ~c2CJ/~
Date of Filing the Appeal ~ 'l.f.1 'J-(:) c:;)!'
(This date must be within 15 calendar days ofthe date ofthe decision.)
JAN - 4 2008
Original Submittal I<<
J.{ ~ l5fn1
Please list below, in summary form, the specific issues being raised in the appeal. These should be the
specific points where you feel the Approval Authority erred in making the decision, i.e., what approval
criterion or criteria you allege to have been inappropriately applied.
Issue #1 ~ 4 ~ { /J4I'{ttp .iU. tJ..&-u.u- ~~/ ~1tt.-'r
J{\A.1'/ ~ ~tn.-~I ~. Met< ~~t..~... ~ by-
Issue#2 r;..{~ :2 /'k.~vrvV'.;f..L ~'t,. 5.~ .a-.,{
~~1-s
Issue #3
Issue #4
(List any additional issues being appealed on an attached sheet.)
The undersigned acknowledges that the above appeal form and its attachments have been read, the
requirements for filing an appeal of a land use decision is understood and states that the information
supplied is correct ~nd accurate. . lk."f( ~"...""S t.,~ <!(f;J~M.f Co_....J~..oot..
Appellant'sNameC~ ~LC4.'wsk,; ~ Phone 7+6~)."c:)
Address ;2..}IS' JIt{~ ;ed.
Statement ofIntere~ fr~ O..,.;~f~f;./p.,:f /u.,fJd~ b, PV'#/'A.J',
Signature C.""l}1~.""luJ. f
JoumalNo. .-ZONd-.D03 - ODOO~
/1-0~-3 0 - 0 P
Assessor's Map No. 17-0 "',-1.5- J
. Date Accepted as Complete
Received By
7L / ~OD
Tax Lot No. .;J~nt')
.~ ,-
PR.J2ooh -0003<='
ATTACHMENT 8. - 20
1-4-08
To City of Springfield
~
Date Received:
JAN -~ m
Original Submittal KL
4: ZSpr'l1
Re: Appeal fee for IIIVillages' at Marcola Meadows" Master Plan Type ill application,
LRP 2007-00028, decision of 12~20-07
The city of Springfield has mentioned an appeal fee. The amount of the fee is to be taken
from "Development Code Application Fees" blurb. I have copies of the one "Effective 12-3-
2007." There ,is nothing on this sheet which directly addresses an appeal from the planning
commission. On Wednesday, 1-2-08 a meeting was held to explain and "answer" questions as
to how much property the City will take and/or destroy and how badly the residents were going
to get screwed by the City and the developer. It was reported that the City danced and deflected
questions rather than answering them.
At this meeting Gary Karp said the appeal fee was $250. The only $250 fee on the
aforesaid sheet is an "Appeal of Type II Director's Decision (7) ORS 227.175." We are not
appealing a director's decision but the planning commission so this does not apply. If it does
apply it should be "Appeal of Type ill Decision to City Council" as this removes "Director's"
from the fee description and this is a Type .ill Decision not Type II. Thusly Newman Trustee
would pay $2,254 as he is appealing no notice. Dennis Hunt is, another $2,254 for the same
issue. Wes Swanger, Clara Shevchinski, and myself is another $6,762 for a total of $11,270.
'I argue that this amount is excessive, arbitrary, captious, and unlawful. I read, the statute that
.states how the amount of fee should be determined.
I understand that the City may wave the appeal fees and it is petitioned herein for this to
. be done.
Pursuant to Oregon Revised Statute it is herein petitioned that the fees be waved as all
of the attached appeals are bundled under the North Springfield Citizens' Committee which has
been duly recognize as such by the City.
ATTACHMENT 8 - 21
/4.~
Nick Shevchynski
11~~
Nick Shevchynski
. North Springfield Citizens Committee
Date Received:
JAN - 4 2008
1
Assignments of Error
KL.
Original Submittal 4 : z. 'S~ "'1
1. The appeals application states that, liThe Planning :Division staff can be of assistance in
helping you fill out this section. II Since it doesn't state the staff llwill" be of assistance I asked
how and/or what assistance? The question was met with silence.
2. II. . . all of the sections on the opposite side of this page must be filed out." There is no
opposite side,
3. Explaining "the specific points that are appealed" in "one sentence statement" is undue
restriction and an almost impossibility. This application for appeal procedure is unduly
restrictive, contradictory, confusing, and unlawful.
4. The City seems to believe in a policy that it doesn't have to abide by the law unless it
gets caught and litigated. The City states that if an issue or violation was not raised below it can
not be "appea~edll to the next level of rubber stamping. Under the plain error rule unpreserved
claims of error do not necessarily prevent them :form being raised .on review. An II error of law
apparent on the face of the record II falls under the planCerror rule.. The Oregon Supreme Court
i~sued an opinion. on Dec. 13, '07 in State v Fults overturning the Oregon Appeals Court because
the plain error rule was not applied to unpreserved claims of error.
5. Karp's memorandum of 12-11-07, pg. 10, cites SDC 5.2-115: II. . . the applicant shall post
one sign, approved by the Director, on the subj ect property. II Pg. 11: II Staffs Response/Finding"
which finds that this was not done. "Wait," you will say, "This wasn't preserved." It's an error
of law appar~nt on the face of the record. Don't you follow your owri laws? Never mind that
question. In any event it was preserved. Page 7, Karp's 12/20/07 memorandum: II. . . and the
applicant not contacting the property owners prior to the public hearing,lI See attached affidavit.
Was this a procedural or statutory requirement? Lawyer Leahy may say procedural in order to
ignore the requirement and I say it's statutory because it's the law and your law. Golf v
McEachron.
6. There was a public hearing on this matter on 12-11.07. Because the record was still open
for public comment the public should have been granted the opportunity for comment. Notice
of this hearing was never timely mailed as required by SDC 5.2-115,
7. The issue of schools being overcrowded was addressed by a couple of letters from a
couple of alleged officials. It was written that there is and will be no 1I0vercrowdingll without
ever defining what that mem:ts. They say there is no overcrowding on one hand and beg for
more taxes because of overcrowding on the other. These people should have testified on the
record allowing the commission to ask questionrand the public to hear and see them. It was an
error not to consider that after absorbing the students from the proposed development any
additional students from anywhere would cause overcrowding.
ATTACHMENT 8 -22
2
8. During the 12-20-07 hearing no new material was suppose to be introduced in order to
keep out public comment. New material was introduced. . At one point lawyer Spickerman
walked up to lawyer Leahy and whispered hi:; objection. Leahy said out loud that there was an
objection because new material was introduced. Commissioner Carpenter added additional new
language to the "plan" which the public was not allowed to comment on. Notice of this hearing.
being open was not mailed in a timely manner pursuant to SDC ~.2-115.
9. Kinda difficult to preserve an error as stated hereinabove when one is not allowed to
speak. The issue of speech is so one-sided it's hidicrous. Rick Satre droned on and on for hours
and hours and on and on. Gary Karp droned on for hours. The City's staff droned on for hours
and hours. Commissioner Evans droned on. Commissioner Carpenter droned on for hours and
on and on. The public got 3 minutes! It's obvious the government doesn't want to hear from
the public, the decisions were already made. The issue is that the city staff and friends control
what is placed on the record by not notifying the public and additionally allowing supporters to
have their unrestrictive say. In my opinion this process is just wasting tax money and creating
jobs and retirement benefits for staff and lawyers.
10. Commissioner Nancy Moore was not qualified to vote. She told me she drove on this part
of Marcola Rd. daily to her job at a grade school up Marcola. On the last day she said she didn't
know if there were sidewalks on this part of Marcola. She stated with what appeared to be an
attempt at humor that the City would take 17 ft. from the front of citizens' properties. It's
suppose to be on the recorded record. This is shameful.
11. The issue of the waterway was never properly addressed. Rather than have Sunny
Washburn and/or her sidekicks Kim and Phil of the city staff answer questions the city staff
presented a y.oung man who acted clueless. Or maybe it wasn't an act. When he was asked by
a commissioner where the water comes from he answered, "I don't know." This is .an
embarrassment and shameful. According to the person in the city manager's office "they are all
engineers."
12. Written notice of the decision was not mailed.
13. There were about 56 additions made without equal opportunity for comment on all of
them,
14. There was nothing that addresses what will be done with the bike lanes which are part
of the city's overall plan. Especially since it's planned to have tliem torn out.
15. There was nothing that addresses what will be done with the bus stops which are part of
the city's overall plan. Especially since it's planned to have them torn out.
ATTACHMENT 8 - 23
3
16. There was/is nothing, not a peep, about the impact on the environment and/or
environmental controls.
17. There was nothing that reasonably described the city's final action and it was. not mailed.
18, There was no input and no opportunity to question or comment on what the utility
providers' positions are. Utilities are part of the city's overall plan.
19. The city staff cuts-off public comment and the raising of any "new" issues because it's
claimed the staff are not able to open the record for rebuttal. This is false. The record may be
opened by statute and otherwise whenever the staff or Joe Leahy feels like it. The staff and Joe
Leahy control everything.
20. Gary Karp and Rick Satre argued that the number of trips and thusly the traffic Will be
below the arbitrary alleged unprovided copies of traffic studies with the addition of 512+ homes
and the constant traffic due to one of Americas..1argest major retailers. YetGary Karp and staff
advocate major highway expansions to accumulate alleged non-existing rise in traffic.
21 The city alleges it has alligator tears and no money for street repairs yet has more money
to tear-up perfectly good sidewalks; curbs, etc. in order to ple1l5e a developer and investors in
Reno who want someone else to pay for their improvements.
22. Have I said written notices of the hearing and decisions were not mailed nor posted timely
pursuant to Oregon Statute?
23. What. about those fire hydrants? Pursuant to a court order by a federal judge a
maintenance report was furnished and half of the hydrants on Marcola Road were non-
operational. Fire protection is part of the city's overall plan and this was not even mentioned.
24. This issue of traffic is one of being relative. Is not traffic rated by various levels? Which
level is it now and what level will it be? This is part of the city's overall plan and it was never
addressed.
L1.
Nick Shevchynski
Nick Shevchynski,
North Springfield Citizens' Committee
ATTACHMENT 8 - 24
Affidavit
I, Nick Shevchynski, first being duly sworn on oath say:
I walked/jogged the perimeter of the former Pierce property
which is the proposed "'Villages' at Marcola Meadows" on almost a
daily basis throughout Nov. & Dec. of '07 and during the Marcola
Meadows Master Plan application case # CRP 2007-00028. At no time
was there a "sign approved by the Director, on the subj ect
property" as required by SDC 5..2-115.
t:l~
Nick Shevchynski
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me a Notary for the State of Oregon
on this 2nd day of January, 2008.
OFFICIAL SEAL
DUSTIN HAHN
NOTARY PUBUC - OREGON
COMMISSION NO. 412382
MISSION EXPIRES NOV. 29 2010
~~~
---
Date Received:
JAN - 4 2O(B
Original SU!;.;inmal /(~
4- :z.fJ
ATTACHMENT 8 - 25
City of Springfield
Development Services Department
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Phone: (541) 726-3759
Fax: (541) 726-3689
ived:
SPRINGFlr 'D
Appeals Application, Type IV
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to City Council
JAN - ~ 2008
1\ L
Original 5uDmlnal r . if: 25ft1'\.
Name, Journal Number and'Date of the Decision Being Appealed '
mttS'J'"ex ?~'TWe:ur ~pt;~~,^~~-O~5
b" ~ . a 0) :J /)6. '-'. \ h.y~ \L.i fY\.6<":;:Q.0~"'" r1l ~Jn \<IS'
Date of Filing the Appeal
(This date must be within 15 calendar days ofthe date of the decision.)
Please list below, in summary form, the specific issues being raised in the appeal. These should be the
specific points where you feel the Approval Authority erred in making the decision, i.e., what approval
criterion or criteria you allege to have been inappropriately applied.
Issue #1 --rh~ ~r-o~os~.J fY\o..V"~olo. 'R1i" "",~~Je.V'f\e..""-<( rprc;~~rr t0l[( pV"~n<.l~ o...vu
r6 ~ @S{' ~ Z J fY1 . ~
e; , t'l cl Si .I - I ~L _
b e \l """" "P.O &X~" e \.. . ~~~ ~ ~ ~ :;~ 'I/l'''f~' 111~ ~~ ~,)'"'~ '\)l-"..;J <4'
Issue #3 'lh~, "'):[.'~: c,~ ~ '\In:.,,-'' <i'i ~.I- 'T\'.p, ,~'<> I g ;
'\'(\~~W.:\ ? rbJ ~ '( l~<U' y\'(f( d CY'\..fJ, <"l..<' e..o v-lLY--\ -6 'C\"JL ,\u,...,\Q.S
Issue #4 .
(List any additional issues being appealed on an attached sheet.)
The undersigned acknowledges that the above appeal form and its attachments have been read, the
reqnirements for filing ail appeal of a land nse decision is understood and states that the information
supplied is correct and accurate. "-,
Journal No. 2orJ2.CO~-Oc()OJ
17-02 -~D'oD
Assessor's Map No. 11-03-7 S - J I
Date Accepted as Complete
Received By
1600
Tax Lot No. c23QD
. .-
f0"2CiXa- 000%
ATTACHMENT 8 - 26
Appeals Application, Type IV
Appeal ofPlanning Commission Decision to City Council
SPRINGFII D
. .
City of Springfield
. Development Services Department
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Phone: (541) 726-3759
Fax: (541) 726-36a9
. . . Original Submittal
Name, Journal Number and Date of the DecIsIon Bemg Appealed
I1AS?l:.-n ~ 7f:i>15. 77L .I!PI'JlcA17tJt.! / LN P 2007- ~V~.2.y-
k 'Mi Ii "/
. ').0. ),"0'7 "'l/,lllJ..c.L!..S" a:;t- ~LA: ~bd)~
. u
JAN - 4 2008
KL
i.f... Z&5f tl')
Date of Filing the Appeal . -> ~. ~ ?~O 7
(fhis date must be within 15 calendar days of the date of the decision.)
Please list below, in summary form, the specific issues being raised in the appeal. These should be the
specific points where you feel the Approval Authority erred in making the decision, i.e., what approval
criterion or criteria you allege to have been inappropriately applied.
Issue # 1
~ A-7f/k..HM.t:"-pry) !l1Y::/IJArVt-,- -~Tk~ tCJ~ ~P.J2o(l
I
/
I
Issue #2
Issue #3
Issue #4
,
(List any. additional issues being appealed on an attached sheet.)
The undersigned acknowledges that the above appeal form and its attachments have been read, the
requirements for filing an appeal of a land use decision is understood and states that the information
supplied is correct and accurate.. . ~ ~ c;'~Ii'AJfREe.~ CI17~E',GIS. C.t>,i",Uf/1-S~
Appellant'sName Me/<. s,erlCH/Psltt . . Phone "OU..e.-
Address '2.s4 7 f111ft~OlA ~b
Statement of Interest . A 'b""~7" fWtJPE1f.7f-' OWJm
Signature-11.~~_ ___
JoumalNo. ZOtJ ;(.Q)g-oOOO8
, 17-02.. -30 '00
Assessor s Map No. 17-11~-2 ~ - fl
Date Accepted as Complete
Received By
Tax Lot No. '.f:soD9J
~ ,-
720oC:,-COO3bATTACHMENT 8 - 27
Date Received:
1-4-08
JAN - ~ 2008
To City of Springfield
Original Submittal KL
4: ZSpr'l1
Re: Appeal fee for "'Villages' at MarcolaMeadows" Master Plan Type IIT application, .
LRP 2007-00028, decision of 12-20-07
I
The city of Springfield has mentioned an appeal fee. The amount of the fee is to be taken .
from "Development Code Application Fees" blurb, I have copies of the one "Effective 12-3-
2007." There is nothing on this sheet which directly addresses an appeal from the planning
commission. On Wednesday, 1-2-08 a meeting was held to explain and "answer" questions as
to how much property the City will take and/or destroy and how badly the residents were going
to get screwed by the City and the developer. It was reported that the City danced and deflected
questions rather than answering them.
At this meeting Gary Karp said the appeal fee was $250. The only $250 fee on the
aforesaid sheet is an "Appeal of Type IT Director's Decision (7) ORS 227.175." We are not
appealing a director's decision but the planning commission so this does not apply. If it does
apply it should be "Appeal of Type ITI Decision to City Council" as this removes_ "Director's"
from the fee description and this is a Type ITI Decision not Type IT. Thusly Newman Trustee
would pay $2,254 as he is appealing no notice. Dennis Hunt is. another $2,254 for the same
issue. Wes Swanger, Clara Shevchinski, and myself is another $6,762 for. a total of $11,270,
I argue that this amount is excessive, arbitrary, captious, and unlawful. I read the statute that
states how the amount of fee should be determined.
I understand that the City may wave the appeal fees and it is petitioned herein for this to
be done.
Pursuant to Oregon Revised Statute it is herein petitioned that the fees be waved as all
of the attached appeals are bundled under the North Springfield Citizens' Committee which has
been duly recognize as such by the City.
k~
Nick Shevchynski
11~~.
Nick Shevchynski
. North Springfield Citizens Committee
ATTACHMENT 8 - 28
Date Received:
JAN - 4 2008
1
Assignments of Error
I KL
Original submitta. 4: 2.'S~~
1. The appeals application states that, "The Planning Division staff can be of assistance in
helping you fill out this section." Since it doesn't state the staff "will" be of assistance I asked
how and/or what assistance? The question was met with silence,
2. ". , . all of the sections on the opposite side of this page must be filed out." There is no
opposite side,
3. Explaining "the specific points that are appealed" in "one sentence statement" is undue
restriction and an almost impossibility. This application for appeal procedure is unduly
restrictive, contradictory, confusing, and unlawful. '
4. The City seems to believe in a policy that it doesn't have to abide by the law unless it
gets caught and litigated. The City states that if an issue or violation was not raised below it can
not be "appealed" to the next level of rubber stamping. Under the plain error rule unpreserved
claims of error do not necessarily prevent them form being raised on review. An "error of law
apparent on the face of the record" falls under the planrerror rule.. The Oregon Supreme Court
issued an opinion on Dec. 13, '07 in State v Fults overturning the Oregon Appeals Court because
the plain error rule was not applied to unpreserved Claims of error. '
5. Karp's memorandum of 12-11-07, pg. 10, cites SDC 5.2-115: ". . . the applicant shall post
one sign, approved by the Director, on the subject property." Pg. 11: "Staffs Response/Finding"
which finds that this was not done. "Wait," you will say, "This wasn't preserved." It's an error
of law apparent on the face of the record, Don't you follow your own laws? Never mind that
question. In any event it was preserved. Page 7, Karp's 12/20/07 memorandum: ", . . and the
applicant not contacting the property owners prior to the public hearing," See attached affidavit.
Was this a procedural or statutory requirement? Lawyer Leahy may say procedural in order to
ignore the requirement and I say it's statutory because it's the law and your law. . Golf v
McEachron,
6. There was a public hearing on this matter on 12-11-07. Because the recor.d was still open
for public comment the public should have been granted the opportunity for comment. Notice.
of this hearing was never timely mailed as required by SDC 5.2-115.
7. The issue of schools being overcrowded was addressed by a couple of letters from a
couple of alleged officials. It was written that there is and will be no "overcrowding" without
ever defining what that means. They say there is no pvercrowciing on one hand and beg for
more taxes because of overcrowding on the other. These people should have testified on the
record allowing the commission to ask questionrand the public to hear and see them. It was an
error not to consider that after absorbing the students from the proposed development any
additional students from anywhere would cause overcrowding.
ATTACHMENT 8 - 29
i...
2
8. During the 12-20-07 hearing no new material was suppose to be introduced in order to
keep out public comment. New material was introduced~ At one point lawyer Spickerman
walked up to lawyer Leahy and whispered his objection. Leahy said out loud that there was an
obj ection because new material was introduced. Commissioner Carpenter added additional new
language to the "plan" which the public was not allowed to comment on. Notice of this hearing
being open was not mailed in a timely manner pursuant to SDC 5.2-115.
9. Kinda difficult to preserve an error as stated hereinabove when one is not allowed to
speak. The issue of speech is so one-sided it's ludicrous. Rick Satre droned on and on for hours
and hours and on and on. Gary Karp droned on for hours, The City's staff droned on for hours
and hours. Commissioner Evans droned on, Commissioner Carpenter droned on for hours and
on and on. . . The public got 3 minutes! It's obvious the government doesn't want to hear from
the public, the decisions were already made. The issue is that the city staff and friends control
what is placed on the record by not notifying the public and additionally allowing supporters to
have their unrestr{ctive say. In my opinion this process is just wasting tax money and creating
jobs and retirement benefits for staff and lawyers.
10. Commissioner Nancy Moore was not qualified to vote. She told me she drove on this part
of Marcola Rd. daily to her job at a grade school up Marcola. On the last day she said she didn't
know if there were sidewalks on this part of Marcola. She stated with what appeared to be an
attempt at humor that the City. would take 17 ft. from the front of citizens' properties. It's
suppose to be on the recorded record, This is shameful.
11. The issue of. the waterway was never properly addressed. Rather than have Sunny
Washburn and/or her sidekicks Kim and Phil of the city staff answer questions the city staff
presented a young man who acted clueless. Or maybe it wasn't an act. When he was asked by
a commissioner where the water comes from he answered, "I don't know." This is an
embarrassment and shameful. According to the person in the city manager's office "they are all
engineers. "
12. Written notice of the decision was not mailed,
13. There were about 56 additions made without equal opportunity for comment on all of
them.
14. There was nothing that addresses what will be done with the bike lanes which are part
of the city's overall plan. Especially since it's planned to have them tom out.
15. There was nothing that addresses what will be done with the bus stops which are part of
the city's overall plan. Especially since it's planned to have them tom out.
ATTACHMENT 8 - 30
3
16. There was/is nothing, not a peep, about the impact on the environment and/or
environmental controls.
17. There was nothing that reasonably described the city's final action and it was not mailed.
18. There was no input and no opportunity to question or comment on what the utility
providers' positions are. Utilities are part of the city's overall plan.
19. The city staff cuts-off public comment and the raising of any "new" issues because it's
claimed the staff are not able to open the record for rebuttal. This is false, The record may be
opened by statute and otherwise whenever the staff or Joe Leahy feels like it. The staff and Joe
Leahy control everything.
20.' Gary Karp and Rick Satre argued that the number of trips and thusly the traffic will be
below the arbitrary alleged unprovided copies of traffic studies with the addition of 512+ homes
and the constant traffic due to one of Americas.largest major retailers. Yet Gary Karp and staff
advocate major highway expansions to accumulate alleged non-existing rise in traffic.
21 The city alleges it has alligator tears and no money for street repairs yet has more money
to tear-up perfectly good sidewalks, curbs, etc. in order to please a developer and investors in
Reno who want someone else to pay for their improvements.
22. Have I said written notices of the hearing and decisions were not mailed nor posted timely
pursuant to Oregon Statute?
23. What about those fire hydrants? Pursuant to a court order by a federal judge a
mainteI:lance report was furnished and half of the hydrants on Marcola Road were non-
operational. Fire protection is part of the city's overall plan and this was not even mentioned.
24. This issue of traffic is one of being relative. Is not traffic rated by various levels? Which
level is it now and what level will it be? This is part of the city's overall plan and it was never
addressed.
l1..
Nick Shevchynski
Nick Shevchynski,
North Springfield Citizens' Committee
ATTACHMENT 8 - 31
Affidavit
I, Nick Shevchynski, first being duly sworn on oath say:
r walked/jogged the perimeter of the former Pierce property
which is the proposed "'Villages' at Marcola Meadows" on almost a
daily ba~is throughout Nov. & Dec. of '07 and during the Marcola
Meadows Master Plan application case # CRP 2007-00028. At no time
was there a "sign approved by the Director, on the subject
property" as required by SDC 5.2-115.
It
Nick Shevchynski
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me a Notary for the State of Oregon
on this 2nd day of January, 2008.
_OFFICIAL SEAL
, DUSTIN HAHN
\.. ./ NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGor.; .
COMMISSION 00.412362
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES NOV. 29.2010 .
~ -th/
Date Received:
JAN - 4 2008
Original Submittal j(.L
tf:Z5 ffY\ .
ATTACHMENT 8 - 32
Appeals Application, Type IV
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to City Council
SPRINGFlr .D
City of Springfield
Development Services Department
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Phone: (541) n6-3759
Fax: (541) 726-3689
Original Submittal
Name, Journal Number and Date of the Decision Being Appealed
(vtAsn;y{ ~ WPG J1L ~p~C4nQV /' L-IfP ,201J7-()f)o.21'; h~c. 2.-07 ')..00;)-
, "')
"1//",," A:~O kr HA;e(!f;..OLA f{;;A])OlO!' ~/
JAN - 4 2008
t<:~
4:'Z;.~r~
I. .
Date of Filing the Appeal
~ 'I-: U'<J K
(This date must be within 15 calendar days ofthe date of the decision.)
Please list below, in summaryform, the specific issues being raised in the appeal. These should be the
specific points where you feel the Approval Authority erred in making the decision, i.e., what approval
criterion or criteria you allege to have been inappropriately applied.
Issue # I
...
tV D Tl C-.~ 0 F Y'-1.e: tt.~' rv
b .s'( c.. 5" , :J... - J I S-
:;eR Cf.:~.J4-.1 4~~"t' f- - "ST'A~';-VT au ~1kK::.
as
Issue #2
Issue #3
Issue #4
(List any additional issues being appealed on an attached sheet.)
The undersigned acknowledges that the above appeal form and its attachments have been read, the
requirements for filing an appeal of a land use decision is understood and states that the information
supplied is correct and accurate. It.~ POtetl-( <;;~A1~a.1> Cn~M5 a~,~
1:' .
Appellant'sNameJ)-enn.i--:5 ~u ~+- S'-V 1-7 Y' (,'- ~~
Address. 0 OLA/\J PA v-e.- 1
Statement ofIn,tere ~ 4, ^ G Y'....c <....J "1--), c.$) ~ '" d T2
S. tw:~~In-J .{'l~IJ Y?/U,e-1Z1<4 c......
19na ..,~ v
~~-
Journal No. 20 ru 200S -fYX)Q5
, 1'7-DZ~30-00
Assessor s Map No. 11-b~' JA'" II
Date Accepted as Complete
Received By
TL L gOD
Tax Lot No. 2:;00
.~
~ .-
p~ 2.co0- oq,3h
A TT ACHMENT 8 - 33
The..... f}4" ..','. ~:J (p.... ~ q. fL<l "'" de ,(\ : eJ2 v>--<!- ~ ~
{) f fl 0"'- T'-< "';; tJ-Io f' ,eTl c..,~.~'t ~ b ~^' 0: ~ /I",,,, '::J
J. _' ' . ~)<25 rL€q'-\If2-1/"\.q fc:)S7~~1 c-P-/UO\,)c:...'~.
1 ~ I ~ 0 '-0..:> ..,,- D.J. .J
^ . J :&... r . I~ N S '1) C .5", 2... - 1 1 S' ·
c,. yt..e.~ ''-1'" J ,.
.:J:- 1t've. y..J~/Z- I~ rADrOJ.~d Je.~lo~.~.t-- d""lj
J /Z- ~ &.oQ... 0 ~ f'i..a- ~..J..n.. -e e.d.~ S CJ p-.(:e.c.;~ cQ. b) ,'h.a. J.e <... 'LS , ; ~
jl.Ll"L. \:)_ A fOS fe.D ,vo1-~(€.- ~ o___l J h~~ d.llc4JeQ. ~
-tv r"^ "- +. c. ; f <vT ~ 6. ~ f) .<:2.;>,; r.n.-e s 5 '-'-'.J CD ~c e /L...-.J 5 .
': ..,.
; \.
~. I
. I,
.1
ATTACHMENT 8 - 34
Date Received:
1-4-08
JAN -~ m
To City of Springfiel,d
Original Submittal KL
4: ZSpr'l1
Re: Appeal fee for "'Villages' at Marcola Meadows" Master Plan Type ill application,
LRP 2007-00028, decision of 12-20-07
The city of Springfield has mentioned an appeal fee. The amount of the fee is to be taken
from "Development Code Application Fees" blurb. I have copies of the one "Effective 12-3-
2007." There is nothing on this sheet which directly addresses an appeal from the planning
commission. On Wednesday, 1-2-08 a meeting was held to explain and "answer" questions as
to how much property the City will take and/or destroy and how badly the residents were going
to get screwed by the City and the developer. It was reported that the City danced and deflected
questions rather than answering them.
At this meeting Gary Karp said the appeal fee was $250. The only $250 fee on the
aforesaid sheet is an "Appeal of Type II Director's Decision (7) ORS 227.175." We are not
appealing a director's decision but the planning commission so this does not apply. Ifit does
apply it should be "Appeal of Type ill Decision to City Council" as this removes "Director's"
from the fee description and this is a Type ill Decision not Type II. Thusly Newman Trustee
would pay $2,254 as he is appealing no notice. Dennis Hunt is. another $2,254 for the same
issue.Wes Swanger, Clara Shevchinski, and myself is another $6,762 for a total of $11,270.
I argue that this amount is excessive, arbitrary, captious, and unlawful. I read the statute that
.states how the amount of fee should be determined.
I understand that the City may wave the appeal fees and it is petitioned herein for this to
be done.
Pursuant to Oregon Revised Sta~ute it is herein petitioned that the fees be waved as all
of the attached appeals are bundled under the North Springfield Citizens' Committee which has
been duly recognize as such by the City,
/1.~
Nick Shevchynski
11~~.
Nick Shevchyn~ki
North Springfield Citizens Committee
ATTACHMENT 8 - 35
Date Received:
JAN - \ 2008
1
Assignments of Error
Original Submittal ~ z.~~ ~
1. The appeals application states that, "The Planning Division staff can be of assistance in
helping you fill out this section." Since it doesn't state the staff "will" be of assistance I asked
how and/or what assistance? The question was met with silence.
2. n. . . all of the sections on the opposite side of this page must be filed out." There is no
opposite side.
3. Explaining ,ithe specific points that are appealed" in "one sentence statement" is undue
restriction and an almost impossibility. This application for appeal procedure is unduly
restrictive, contradictory, confusing, and unlawful.
4. . The City seems to believe in a policy that it doesn't have to abide by the law unless it.
gets caught and litigated. The City states that if an issue or violation was not raised below it can
not be "appealed" to the next level of rubber stamping. Under the plain error rule. unpreserved
claims of error do not necessarily prevent them form being raised on review. An" error of law
apparent on the face of the record" falls under the planCerror rule.. The Oregon Supreme Court
issued an opinion on Dec. 13, '07 in State v Fults overturning the Oregon Appeals Court because
the plain error rule was not applied to unpreserved claims of error.
5. Karp's memorandum of 12-11-07, pg. 10, cites SDC 5.2-115: ". . . the applicant shall post
. one sign, approved by the Director, on the subject property." Pg. 11: "Staffs Response/Finding"
which finds that this was not done. "Wait," you will say, "This wasn't preserved." It's an error
of law appar~nt on the face of the record. Don't you follow your own laws? Never mind that
question. In any event it was preserved. Page 7, Karp's 12/20/07 memorandum: ". . . and the
applicant not contacting the property owners prior to the public hearing." See attached affidavit.
Was this a procedural. or statutory requirement? Lawyer Leahy may say procedural in order to
ignore the requirement and I say it's statutory because it's the law and your law. Golf v
McEachron.
6. There was a public hearing on this matter on 12-11-07.. Because the record WaS still op(m
for public comment the public should have been gran~ed the opportunity for comment. Notice
of this hearing was never timely mailed as required by SDC. 5.2-115.
7. The issue of schools being overcrowded was addressed by a couple of letters from a
couple of alleged officials. It was written that there is and will be no "overcrowding" without
ever defining what that means. They say there is no overcrowding on one hand and beg for
more taxes because of overcrowding on the other. These people should have testified on the
record allowing the commission to ask questionrand the public to hear and see them. It was an
error not to consider that after absorbing the students from the. proposed development any
additional students from anywhere would cause overcrowding.
ATTACHMENT 8 - 36
2
8. During the 12-20-07 hearing no new material was suppose to be introduced in order to
keep out public comment. New material was introduced. At one point lawyer Spickerman
walked up to lawyer Leahy and whispered his objection. Leahy said out loud that there was an
objection because new material was introduced. Commissioner Carpenter added additional new
language to the "plan" which the public was not allowed to comment on, Notice of this hearing
being open was not mailed in a timely manner pursuant to SDC ~.2-115.
9. Kinda difficult to preserve an 'error as stated hereinabove when one is not allowed to
speak. the issue of speech is so one-sided it's ludicrous. Rick Satre droned on and on for hours
and hours and on and on. Gary Karp droned on for hours. The City's staff droned on for hours
and hours. Commissioner Evans droned on. Commissioner Carpenter droned on for hours and
on and on. The public got 3 minutes! It's obvious the government doesn't want to hear from
the public, the decisions were already made. The issue is that the city staff and friends control
what is placed on the record by not notifying the public and additionally allowing supporters to
have their unrestrictive say. In my opinion this process is just wasting tax money and creating
jobs and retirement benefits for staff and lawyers. .
10. Commissioner Nancy Moore was not qualified to vote. She told me she drove on this part
of Marcola Rd. daily to her job at a.grade school up Marcola. On the last day she said she didn't
know if there were sidewalks on this part of Marcola. She stated with what appeared to bean
attempt at humor that the City would take 17 ft. from the front of citizens' properties. It's
suppose to be on the recorded record. This is shameful.
11. The issue of the waterway was never properly addressed: Rather than have Sunny
Washburn and/or her sidekicks Kim and Phil of the city staff answer questions the city staff
presented a y.oung man who acted clueless. Or maybe it wasn't an act. When he was asked by
a commissioner where the water comes from he answered, "I don't know." This is an
embarrassment and shameful. According to the person in the city manager's office '!they are all
engineers. "
12. Written notice of the decision was not mailed.
13. There were about 56 additions made without equal opportunity for comment on all of
them,
14. There was nothing that addresses what will be done with the bike lanes which are part
of the ci~'s overall plan. Especially since it's planned to have them torn out.
15. There was nothing that addresses what will be done with the bus stops which are part of
the city's overall plan. Especially since it's planned to have them torn out.
ATTACHMENT 8 - 37
3
16. There was/is nothing, not a peep, abo.ut the impaGt on the environment and/or
environmental controls.
17. There was nothing that reasonably described the city's final action and it was not mailed.
1.8. There was no input and no opportunity to question or comment on what the utility
providers' positions are. Utilities are part of the city's overall plan.
19. The city staff cuts-off public cOII?-ment and the raising of any "new" issues because it's
claimed the staff are not able to open the record for rebuttal. This is false. The record may be
opened by statute and otherwise whenever the staff or Joe Leahy feels like it. The staff and Joe
Leahy control everything.
20. Gary Karp and Rick Satre argued that the number of trips and thusly the traffic will be
below the arbitrary alleged unprovided copies of traffic studies with the addition of 512+ homes
and the constant traffic due to one of Americas..targest major retailers. Yet Gary Karp and staff
advocate major highway expansions to accumulate alleged non-existing rise in traffic.
21 The city alleges it has alligator tears and no money for street repairs yet has more money
to tear-up perfectly good sidewalks, curbs, etc. in order to please a developer and investors in
Reno who want someone else to pay for their improvements.
22. Have I said written notices of the hearing and decisions were not mailed nor posted timely
pursuant to Oregon Statute?
23. What. about those fire hydrants? Pursuant to a court order by a federal judge a
maintenance report was furnished and half of the hydrants on Marcola Road were non-
operational. Fire protection is part of the city's overall plan and this was not even mentioned.
24. This issue of traffic is one of being relative. Is not traffic rated by various levels? Which
level is it now and what level will it be? This is part of the city1s overall plan and it was never
addressed. .
Nick Shevchynski
Nick Shevchynski,
North Springfield Citizens' Committee
ATTACHMENT 8 - 38
Affidavit
I, Nick Shevchynski, first being duly sworn on oath say:
I walked/jogged the perimeter of the former Pierce property
which is the proposed "'Villages' at Marcola Meadows" on almost a
daily basis throughout Nov. & Dec. of '07 and during the Marcola
Meadows Master Plan application case # CRP 2007-00028. At no time
was there a "sign approved by the Director, on the subject
property" as required by SDC 5.2-115.
/;L~
Nick Shevchynski
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me a Notary for the state of Oregon
on this 2nd day of January, 2008.
~
.
OFFICIAL SEAL
DUSnN HAHN
NOTARY PUBUC - OREGON !
COMMISSION NO.412362 , I
EXPIRES NOV. 29 2010
~~~
Date Received: ,
JAN - 4 2008
Original Submittal ~
ATTACHMENT 8 -39