HomeMy WebLinkAboutAIS PLANNER 1/18/2008
.'
,~
~
~{)N. 'JmJ g-- ---OWo I
..
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVI~E
STATE OF OREGON }
} 55.
County of Lane }
I, Brenda Jones, being first duly sworn, do hereby depose and say as follows:
1. I state that I am a Secretary for the Planning Division of the Development
Services Department, City of Springfield, ()regon,
"
2. I state that in my capacity as Secretary, I prepared and caused to be
mailed copies of Copies of AIS for Marcola Meadows Appeal's to the
City of Springfield City Council, mailed; to the seven (7) appellants
(See attachment "A") on January 18, 2008 addressed to (see Attachment
"B"), by causing said letters to be placed ii) a U,S. mail box with postage
fully prepaid thereon.
~~~~
Brenda Jones U
Planning'Secretary
RECEIVED
JAN 182008
By:fh?~~~
"
STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane
, ~ '~~-,g , 2008 Personally appeared the above named Brenda Jones,
\2 ~cretaryljlho acknowledged the foregoing instrument:,to be their voluntary act. Before
me: '
f~ Dc~~~c~,:;- ~~tL y
~ Ng~~i:syg~l~o04~~~N
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUG, 15, 2011
. ,
. ~pl;:;4I
My Commission Expires: <6//S III
I ,
Meeting Date: January 28, 2008
Meeting Type: Regular Session
Department: Development Services
Staff Contact: Gary M, Karp c; I(,;~
S P R I N G F I EL D Staff Phone No: ,726-3777
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 MARCOLA 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 oUhe Marcola Meadows Master Plan application as
conditioned, or b) approve the application with m()dified 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,'; ,
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 (~DC), and for ease of review, staff has combined
all aopeals into one staff reoort,
ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1: Staff Report: Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision
Attachment 2: Master Plan Conditions of Approval
Attachment 3: Letter to Applicant's Attomey Jim Spickerman from City Attorney Dated January 8, 2008
Attachment 4: Plan'ning Commission Minutes, December 20, 2007
Attachment 5: Draft Planning Commission Minutes, December 11, 2007
Attachment 6; Transportation Graphics "
Attachment 7: OreQon Revised Statutes (ORS) 197,763
/.
,/'
,
AGENDA ITEM SUll'J.MARY
ACTION
REQUESTED:
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 20'~ hearing, the Planning Commission voted 7.{J 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 r
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 applicanVappellant include: adequacy of findings demonstrating proportionality, imposition
of conditions not justified by the criteria of approval, and delegation of df3Cision-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 lami would occur within existing right-<lf-way, but to maintain the existing
cross-section of Marcola Road, the portion of Marcola Road abutting the developmeQt site would need to shift north onto
this property, This shift would occur just west of the intersection of 28'h 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 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 residentiarproperty along the paralleling south frontage of Marcola Road; and 5) the only
successful mitigation of the imp~cts to these..!learby 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, '
".'C, .
... -. '.-.. ~ .
1
':- -_.
. .....__ .L.____......._..,_._.._.. ,'...._
1...,,_,
It
J
> CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
225 5th ST '
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
.
--- .~- ......... ..., ....... ""',...-... I .. .... ........ .11., _, .., .._ 4
Nick S~vchinski
2347 Marcola Road
Springfield, Oregon 97477