HomeMy WebLinkAboutAIS PLANNER 1/23/2008
,
>
,>'
--,
14u'l
~ <\
~
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
,"
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, Oregon,
2, I state that in my capacity as SecretarY, I prepared and caused to be mailed
copies of Appeal of Marcola Meadows AIS - Attachment S and corrected
Agenda Item Suinmary sent to Appellants}ZON200S-0000S),(See
attachment "A") on January 23, 200S addressed to (see Attachment "B"),by
causing said letters to be placed in aU,S, mail,box with postage fully prepaid
.....'\'- .
thereon,
Brenda Jones
Planning Secreta
RECEIVED
"
"
JAN 2 32008 ,
~i:~
By:~:h ,
STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane
~ ~ 6J,~ ,2008 Personally appeared the above nam!3d Brenda Jones, Secretary,
~'o acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary act. Before me:
,
OfFICIAL SEAL
DEVETTE KELLY
NOTARY PUBLIC. OREGON
COMMISSION NO, 420351
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUG, 15, 2011
, /V~~;Jdr
My Commission Expir~l;: 'i! II!;;! /f
. I; I I
-
Meeting Date:
Meetinl pe:
Department:
Staff Contact:
Staff Phone No:
Estimated Time:
January 28, 2008
Regular Session
Development Services
Gary M. Karp 6'1( -
726-3777 cer~'
60 minutes
.~
"
A-GENDA ITEM SUMMAFY
SPRINGFIELD
CITY COUNCIL
ITEM TITLE:
ACTION
REQUESTED:
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
ATTACHMENTS:
DISCUSSION:
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 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 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 (SDC), and for ease of review, staff has combined
all appeals into one staff report,
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, 2008
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)
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'h 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 28'h 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, '
.'
City of Springfield,
Development Services Department
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Phone: (541) 726-3759
Fax: (541) 726-3689
SPRINGFIELD
Appeals Application, Type IV
Appeal:ofPlanning Commission Decision to City Council
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 Januarv 4, 2007
(fhis date must be within 15 calendar days of the date of the decision,)
Please list below, in summary fonn, 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 Engine~r the discretion to impose
i 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 its1attachments have been read, the
requirements for filing an appeal'ofa land use decision is underst~~d and states thaUbe information
supplied is correct and accurate. "
Appellant's Name SC Sorinafield, LLC
Address 7510 Lonalev Lane, Suite 102,
Phone 775'-853-4714
! .
Reno, Nevada 89511
Statement oftnterest Pfooerty; ,?wmEr@:Qolicant
Signature 9!!/I~ I~ j~ '
I J '
for oriainal annljC'''tion
r
li'n,r Offirp rl..." ()nlv.
Journal NO';:C::J. ./A'iDfl? - Ot:o<:::iCReceived By .'~
\1-02-30-00' 18C>O
Assessor's pNO,.L1-o3-25-11 TaxLotNo,~
Date Accepted as Complete
PRS200(.,-CCV3~
ATTACHMENT 8 - 1
.
'i\
I,.
WRITI'EN APPEAL STATEMENT
. i
MARCOLA MASTER PLANLRP 200'7-0028
,
The applicant appeals Condition #27 of the!;Planning
Commission'approval of the applicant's Master Plan.
!i
Reauirements of Master Plan Condition #27
This condition would .r;-equire a roundaboutiiat 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'si'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 driv,eway and Marcola Road intersection. '
Summaiv of Issues Raised bv Condition #27
I
The applicant appeals Condition #27 based'upon the following
facts and p<?ints of law:
l.
The applicant has pr~posed to dedicate the inecessary right-of-
way and improve Martin Drive for its entireilength and provide
signalized intersections at Martin Drive and the private
commercial driveway,
2,
The City Traffic Engineer acknowledges these improvements will
meet applicable performance standards,
, I
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 sou~ side of Marcola
Road, Consequences for such requirements are as follows:
3,
a, Tile 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; I, ' ,
ATTACHMENT 8 - 2
Phone:
(541) 6.86,8833
Fax;
(541) 34s.2034
975 Oak Street
Suite BOO
Eugene, Oregon
97401-3156
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 1147
Eugene, Oregon
97440-1147
Email:
info@gleaveslaw.com
Web-Site:
www.gleavl:s\aw.com
Frederick A. Batson
Jon V. Buerstatte
Joshua A. Clark
Daniel P. Ellison
Michae1T. Faulconer"
A.]. Giustina
Thomas p, E. Hemnann*
Dan Webb Howard".
Stephen Q. Lane
William H. Martin.
WalterW.Miller
Laura T. Z. Montgomery.
Tanya C. O'Neil
Standlee G. Potter
Martha}. Rod~an
Robert S. Russell
Douglas R. Schultz
Malcolm H. Scott
James W, Spickerman
Kate A. Thompson.
JaneM. Yates
.Also admitted
in Washington
.. Also admitted
in"California
.'
c.
Construction of a new arterial street for a distance of
approximately 1,200 to I, 700 feet generally north of the
existing Marcola Road at the sole expense of the applicant;
d,
i
Construction of a frontage road with improvements on the
south side of Marcola Road at the applicant's expense (this
road will occupy 17 fee't of presently uriimproved right-of-
way which exists now as front yard, setback area and buffer
for the residences along the south side :pf Marcola Road),
As discussed below, the requirements sought to be imposed by
Condition #27, beyond the practical issues, raiseithree 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 Til!ard and subsequent Or~'gon court and Land
Use Board of Appeals decisions, ' ,
3" The condition would also delegate to the City Engineer the
authority to dete~mine the form arid timing of future traffic
control at the private commerCial driveway and Marcola Road,
This could include the alternative of a roundabout at that
~ntersection,
ArlnIment '
Lack of Authoritv for the Requirement of Roundabouts
The applicant has proposed traffic signals 4t the intersection of
Martin Drive and Marcola Road, The infrastructJre for 'this
signalizatiop 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, Ii
' .
The applicant believes that there is no autHority in the criteria
for Master Plan approval to require the roundabout intersection's, In
addition to the lack of basis for this requirement ip the criteria, there
is no nexus between the impact of the development and the financial
burden the requirement places upon the applicari,t.
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 Countv,.21 Or LUBA 418
2, WRITTEN APPEAL STATEMENT - MARCO LA MASTER PLAN LRP 2007-0028
\
January 4, 2008 '
ATTACHMENT 8 - 3
;"
'-.,
(1991), SkY Dive Oree'on v, Clackamas County, 2;5 Or LUBA 294
(1993), Where private land is sought for a public purpose, there must'
be tpe "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 614,8,87 P2d 36,0 (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 portion of the standards that are applicable and the basis for ,
. " I
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 witl1 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: I'
"C; Proposed on-site and off-site improveIl1ents, both
public and private, are sufficient to accommodate the
proposed phased development and any cap':acity "
requitements of public facilities plans; andl;provisions are
'made to assure construction 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,
('
T,he st~freport for the December 11, 20071:Planning
Commission meeting states with regard to the pr?posed'signalized
intersections: , !:
1
"... from a capacity standpoint existing and proposed
transportation faCilities would be sufficientl'to meet'
applicable performance standards...." Staff Report, p, 35,
3- WRITTEN 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." Sinc:e 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 4,2c105,A,l, 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
intersec,tion, The "criteria" cited are set'forth under the followi~g
introductory paragraph:
"a, The following street connection standard shall be
used in evaluating street alignment proposals not shown in
, qr 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 TransI;'lan, '
Dolan Issue
Ii
Dolan v. City of Tieard, 512 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 !Jrder to meet
requirements of the Statewide Transportation Goal and City Code. The
City staff has agreed that, from a capacity standp!Jint, the proposed
signalized intersection would meet applicable performance standards,
A disproportionate burden would be imposed by the'requirement of
roundabouts, which would increase the applicaIlt'~ burden in the form
of the cost of realignment of Marcola Road and the loss of one-half to
two acres of commercial land, While the cost of tWo signalized
, '\"
4- WRITTEN 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 reason~ 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 rounda9outs that are
important to broaden the public's objectives, the~e 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 in~ersectioI'l;s,
Requirement of Frontae:e Road
Master Plan Condition 1127, paragraph 3; vJould 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 comitructed as part
of the proposed Phase 1 infrastructure improvements, ~
The Traffic Impact Analysis for the project, Oiiccepted 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 - MARCO LA MASTER PLAN LRP 2007 -0028 ,
Januwy 4, 2008 'i
ATTACHMENT 8 - 6
residential driveways on that side 'of the roadway" This conflict with
intersections to Marcola Road vJas inevitable in t~tms 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 saine 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,
'Toithe extent ther~ 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 top~oviding a
signalized intersection, '
,
The Master Plan' as proposed by the applicdnt would incorporate
the eXisting south-side driveways to the extent po'ssible with the traffic
signal proposal. The applicant's traffic engineers do not 8.i1ticipate an
unsafe condition, although sonie turning movements may be restricted
from certain driveways,
Unlawful Delee:ation
Master Plan Condition #27, p'aragraph5, would require:
, I
"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 arid timing of
future traffic control will be based on traffic operational
and safety needs as determined by theCity:Engineer,'
, ,
This condition would glve complete discretion to the City
Engineer as to whether a roundabout and the nec;essary 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, ~henput 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- WRITIEN 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 applieant'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, Splcl",
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
i
MASTER PLAN CONDmON #27. Prior to the approval qf 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 Ecngineer in an amount
equal to the cost of signalized traffic control to provide for future traffic
control at the arterial/site driveway,intersection 19cation. The applicant
may choose to put in place the necessaryinfrastr;ucture for signalization at
the time of construction of the intersection. At such time as warrants are
met, signalized traffic controls shall be put into pjace at the applicant's
expense,' ,
ATTACHMENT 8 - 9
, ,
,
II
City of Springfield
Development Services Department
225 Fifth Street '
Springfield, OR 97477
Phone: (541) 726-3759
Fax: (541) 726-3689
SPRINGF,IELI)
,
'Appeals Application, Type IV
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to, City Council
e Received:
JAN - 42008
J\~
I: IJ p>I'V
re~
b.j~
, ':' OrIGinal Supmlttal
Name, Journal Number and Date of the Decision Being ~aled ", CbLf\ hq {e..r.-r-c..
lR p 2C)O(-0002~ UPLe.Mb-u- 20.2001 "
Date of Filing the Appeal
\~G1ar~ ,2 J20D8.
(This date must be within 15 &Ie';dar .Jys of the date 01 the decision.) ,
,
c
Please list below, in summary form, the specific issues being raised in th,e appeal. These should be the,
specific points where you feel the Approval Authority erred in making the decision, i.e., 'Yhat approval
:::~oOr{:;~Oha;:t~J~:~M~::e~~+1 ' '~ ho~
, "yy\ r,((')~~ -t h~ O-r€- o..f r V . ~)~"h.-\-~
~sue#2 C~C-e.r n ~~cdJ (OJ\d ~ '-'f, ,vv'Sf. r (.r-
I R -d(.oX' -e. I ~ (')-f) 11..0 <;? 0 r<'I C/l cJ!v crt- i -f fo fA Y>/ _
Jssue#3 ?,ro ie-c/\i rrJf)~, fd pOS's;"', b!/.;f ~dll'ers-ejLf"'
e..-\-..I\"p~ck v..rb~ren8WaJL D1CJJ\,
hsue#4 P05~ I hI \ 'I-j:c,-~ 0+' "MP~d \()Q '('~~eSS-J~
vvC)\~.{ [c\ Dro'"....e... InClDrnr'\r+lAf),L' -\0) -f1\J.s"" Pro\ ec...T
, (Lis! any additional issues being ~tt3ch~d sheet.) . ~ ,
i 11 ar eL!\
The und ., "',,, . J acknowledges that the above appeal form and its attachments have heen read, the
' requirements for filing an appeafofa land use decision is understood and states that the int'orm~tion
supplied is correct and accurate. '
Appellant's Name , Do V') Y1iA Le.h-f '2.. , ,none 7 '-(,) - s 7 '( >
Address ) !;L(LJE 5-1- Sfr,nwr,-llM IGJr_q Ii..{? / ,
StatementofInt~t -Y,\) U-v~ C;, ~ J~t~~~e\ ~,. 1- is -"0..g/'''!'':.t:;;n9ii~rJ' ,
Signature ~ ~ ,. ,.,' Ke_og-fd-tlh1-
li'AP Offif"p TT!IilP Onlv~
Journal No. Zo N 2.0dl-cx:x:A() 3 Received By
17-02-30'"00 7Z- ~,iBoo
Assessor's Map No. -,7- 0'3-:.1"'-11 Tax Lot No, 77_' Z =>,,;-,..-,
Date Accepted as Complete
':PF\3::2-000- O0::l3ko
, '
,
ATTACHMENT 8 - 10
City of Springfield
Development Services Department
225 Fifth Street .
Springfield, OR 97477
Phone: (541) n6-3759
Fax: (541) 726-3689
SPRINGFI~ '...
'.
'Appeals Application, Type IV
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to City Council
Date Received:
1M! - 4 'WD.8-
Name, Journai Number and Date of the Decision Being Appealed i: OriRinal Submittal J:!:i.-
'" . if ' 29""
'11k::rE"rv r'?A1J TV.oG:: llr Ap,L,'i4:7fcW';' t.RP 2oo7-0002Y.' ' - (
ire, 2D, 2..00/1" 'f);/OV"-C"'",,- A7 ;V1MCD~' MalJDW"'" I
/
Date of Filing the Appeal
~~4, 2~Ii'
(Ihis 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 makin'g the decision, Le., what approval
criterion or criteria you allege to have been inappropriately aPplied, J' ,
~ I ,I ' ,1.1 II fC?f2. ,Ii, '" ~l' L)
Issue #1 (VI} =o.5tkilJ U'J(JAF ,")C>C S ;~ - i' S- ~ ()-1'1(.t,1J' (!.(.
>u A-tlM-vrr
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. UNiJFI? ~ q~~~ OT/2.OfS ~Ut"'I?tT
Appellant's Name ,:Y h \' II P I:'. N e.MJrVl.t?- c.... , p~Orie <iN S- - L( J) 7
,Address 2.Jp 0 ..S:a fVt ( ~ ( {\reSVtJi (,...{
Statem~ntorrny~ ?(J~~ ~J:u..J~,.\3V"''''~ly ,t7(/)i\ Ih)
Signature \""".J:1/{(' )/ll. (:nt't/~ '.
lrnr Offif'p. TTs:p On lv-
Journal No. 7''JN''J (\f)'fi,-.DOOO4-_ Recei~edBY
~30-00 . l'ObD
, Assessor's Map No, ..l.1.::1)~- z" -[I , Tax Lot No. 2~lJD
Date Accepted as Complete
i>R..31Iflr....- n(')f) ?,(",
..J,.;,
~ '-
ATTACHMENT 8 - 11
'.
, ,
IoW{ {9 ? (~ t;Jt<JlLtv tM 'feu C>/y of
~vw.J&/dfi ' r tJDu)d ~W J'Pf~ ,10 JLf,SVUU
tfI wou IJ 0+ k9t1 '~~ . '
, , I1LW( \A)c\S vtO /uo{.1-Le P()J+e.C\: ON 4Ut ~U2~6V12
,YO~ct ~{O(2lv-/T C p~Y{Z p~M) 2~' 'yc5Uvvcd
'), "I
, ~"\ V 'S Dc... 5.1..- }I S- ' /' ,"" /!
J; :'" .c7aw~
-r I(\/,~ ~ " ri2 Nv.unJ.M".:/ vud
_\ J:.-
--..J~ I (J{JV 0
/
ATTACHMENT 8 - 12
,
Date Received:
1-4-08
JAN -~ 21m
To City of Springfield
Original Submittal KL
4:ZSp"'l
Re: Appeal fee for '''Villages' at Marcola Meadows" Master Plan Type III application,
LRP 2007-00028, decision of 12-20-07
The city of Springfield has mentioned an a~peal 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 nofapply, If it does
apply. it should be "Appeal of Type III Decision 'to City CoUncil" as this removes "Director's"
from the fee description and this is a Type III 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,
/;1,~
Nick Shevchynski
I1J~
Nick Shevchynski
North Spril1gfield Citizens Committe~
ATTACHMENT 8 - 13 '
-.+"',
"
Date Received:
JAN - ~ 2008
1
Assignments of Error
Original Submittal
KL-
4:z.'Sp"'l
I. 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 arid 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 overtuming'the Oregon Appeals Court because
the plain error rule was not applied to unprtlser':'ed 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, II: "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 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 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 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 devdopment any
additional students from anywhere would cause overcrowding.
ATTACHMENT a -14
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 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 IT)ade. The issue is that the city staff and friends control ~
what is placed on the record by not notifying the public arid 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, I'
10, Commissioner Nancy Moore was not qualified to vote. She told me she drove on this part
of MarcolaRd. daily to her job at a grade school up Marcola, On the last day she said she didn't
know if there were side~alks 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. Ii's
suppose to be on the recorded record, This is shameful. :
II. 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 equa" 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 torn out.
15, There was nothing that addresses what will be don~, with the bus stops which are part of
the city's overall plan, EspeCially since it's planned to ha~e them tom 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.
I
20, ,Gary Karp and Rick Satre argued that the number:rof trips and thusly the traffic will be
below the arbitrary alleged unprovided copies ~ftraffic shldies with the addition of 512+ homes'
arid the constant traffic due to one of AmericasJ,argest major retailers. Yet Gary Karp and staff
advocate m'ajor 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 t9 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 ~ 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 plb and this was not even mentioned.
24, This issue of traffic is one'ofbeing relative, Is not fraffic 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. l,;b'
'Nick Shevchynski
,Nick Shevchynski,
morth Springfield Citizens' Committee
r
ATTACHMENT 8 -16,
"'.
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 1~7 and during the Marcola
Meadows Master Plan application ca~e# CRP 2007-0002&. At no time
was there a "sign approved by the Director, on the subject
property" as required by SDC 5.2-115.
a~
Nick Shevchynski
SUBSCRIBED'AND SWORN to before me a Notary for the state of Oregon
on this ~nd day of January~ 2008.
,
. OFFICIAL SEAL
DUSTIN HAHN '
'. ',; NOTARYPUBUC - OREGON
'",' COMMISSION N0-412362
MY CllllWION EXPIRES NQV, 29,2010
~Jrh
Date Received:
JAN - 4 2008
Original Submittal t< L
If: ~'"
/
ATTACHMENT 8 - 17
City of Springfield
Development Services Department
, , 225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Phone: (541) 726-3759
Fax: (541) 726-3689'
i
SPRING,FI'
.
~
ceived:
Appeals Appliqation, Type IV
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to City Council
JAN - 42008
~
Original SUbm,itta'
-4:Z5f'iYl
Name, Journal Number and Date of the DecisionBeing Appealed ,
I1A-SlffL fJL,4.M McJIL tfpPL/C/fJ1a/: LJteP
])Pc. 20, W07, Ud/c.r~.,,;;f J11~ /JU~.c.&/cv~
/ ' . :,
Date of Filing the Appeal ~ ,<1/ 7-(::) ~i'
(This date nlUst be within 15 calendar;'days of the date of the decision.)
2007 - t?oc::>2.f"
/
Please list below, in summary form, the specific issues being raised ~ 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 alle~e to have been iDapl'wy.:ately applied. ,;
Issue #1 ~-" <4.. Lp ~ Ptz;(tlo' iJ..{. 1.Jft-.ku- ~"f--, &~c..rr
/{<-<-..:f--.j U/~ ~......:~, 0 Mcu ~c.i.~: o-..J b1~
Issue#2 "'-l~ .J:: /"'=>"",/0<" '~.-L -fk't-. <=;~ ~.,/
~~_;,-=-t-, '
Issue #3
Issue #4
(List any additional issues being appealed on an alliched 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. ' tk.Jl.. ~r"--s t.-Y/ ct'f;J,a...g Co...__ ~'""'-
Appellant's NameC~ ~'w; ke: ,,~~, P~one 7+6~.l c.c.J
Address 2-~IS- /IU~ ;Jd.
Statement of Interest /M~ O_........;;.,Lf~/""'~dd:bl 1'I'M,-....uf:
Signature C,,,,,!J;j~,....hjJ. f
1?or Offirp. TTlilP Onl~~
Journal No,'ZO tJd..DOS -OOOOcGL Received By
,1'I'o:l-3o'olJ 1V/~OO
Assessor s Map No. ftti?~,..;- '-' Tax Lot No, .;J "'nn
Date Accepted as Complete
ill.
PRS200b -{)003~
ATTACHMENT 8'-18
1-4-08
To City of Springfield
.
Date Received:
JAN - 4 2lJ08
Original Submittal KL
-4:ZSp"'l
Re: Appeal fee for '''Villages' at Marcola Meadows" Mas!er 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 haZ,e 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 arid how badly the residents were going
to ,get screwed by the City and th~ developer. ' It was repo~ed thanhe City danced and deflected
questions rather than answering them. , ,
"At this meeting Gary Karp said the appeal fee w.as $250. The only $250 fee on the,
aforesaid sheet is an "Appeal cif Type II Director's Deci~ion (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 riot 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 ho!y the amount of fee should be determined.
I understan~ that the City may wave the appeal fe~s and it is petitioned herein for this to
" f '
be done, " " ,
Pursuant to Oreg~n Revised Statute it is herein pt!titioned that the fees be waved as all,
of the attached appeals are bundled under the North Sprin'gfield Citizens' Committee which has
been duly recognize as such by the City.
ATTACHMENT 8 - 19
u'~
.:Nick Shevchynski
!.11~~
Nick Shevchynski ,
:North Springfield Citizens Committee
.'
SPRINGFI" ".
City of Springfield
DevelopmentServices Department
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
. phone: (541) n6-3759
Fax: (541) 726-3689
ceived:
Appeals Application, Type IV
Appe<j1 of Planning Commission Decision to City Council
JAN - 4 2008
Original Submittal to'?
4~l51'''''
Name, Journal Number and Date oftbe Decision Being Appealed ".
, ' ' . 11
. !iII-Sf/oiL fJJA,^i MEJIL If.pPi./Ui71a./: LpqP
b>c 20. W07. i./;/krjt.(,Wf J11~ ~CJt.V'3>
/ -
2.007 - O~2.V:
Date of Filing tbe Appeal
A-. . Cf, 'J..-VDY
(This datemust be within 15 calendar"days of the date oUhe decision.)
PleaSe list below, in summary fonn, tbe specific issues being raised in tbe appeal. These should be tbe
specific points where you feel tbe Approval AutboritY erred in making tbe decision, i.e., what approval
criterio~ or criteria you alle~e to have been inappropriately applied. .
~.P <4- ~R ../ P~:t,1o . iU. tU~ f;;..~. ~lt..',..
I{v.~. W~ <:V~~. ~ Met. ~C'~(~: ~ 6}~
Issue~i~~ .2 /"-:J.>'7',,I,,,::f.-L 4u't-. c;~ ",--'~"
Issue # 1
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
'requiremeuts for filing an appeal of a land use decision is understood and states that the information
supplied is correct and accurate. . . /.k.& ~..""St.-y.( ct-f;~ Co",-,~-,,- .
A~pellant'sNameC~ '~w;k,; ","-/.. Phone 7+6~).Gc:.J
'Address ;2..}, S- t-U.~ M.
Statement of Interest /fr'~ D_kA./v.~J;.J..:t- /u,n4d.blPW)A.ci'
^ jJ1 . J. f' "
Signature "-...-' , --'V'.~..l._J . f
For OfJirp TTlI:p n.nJ~.
Journal No. 7..0 rJ ~oo 8 - ODOO~
, '1'o:l~3o'oD
Assessor s Map No. ..l1.:.,;*~.' <;- U
Date Accepted as Complete
Received By
Tax Lot No.
TL ,I fSOD
;;/2,nn
~ .-
PRS200b -{)003(,
ATTACHMENT 8 - 20
. -,
~
Date Received:
1-4-08
JAN -4 m
To City of Springfield
Original Submittal !<..L
4:2Sf~
Re: Appeal fee for '''Villages' at Marcola Meadows" Master Plan Type III 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-J-
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 III Decision to City Council" as this removes "Director's"
from the fee description and'this is a Type ,III'Decision not Type II. Thusly Newman Trustee
would pay $2,254 as he is appealing no notice. Dennis !Iunt is, another $2,254 for the same
issue. WesSwanger, 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 t~e City. .
u'~
iNick Shevchynski
'I1J~
Nick Shevchynski
North Springfield Citizens Committee
ATTACHMENT 8 - 21
Date Received:
JAN - 4 2008
.1
Assignments of Error
Original Submittal
KL
4: z.':,p ...,
f
1. The appeals application states tbat, "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 tbis 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 tobeliev~ in a polifY 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 erro'r 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 Fllltsovertuming 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: ". . . tbe 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 12/20107 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 ~till 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 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~ 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 w',d .
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 addiiionally 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 .Iawyers.
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.
tbem.
There were about 56 additions made without equal opportunity for comment on all of
I
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 - 23
c-
'"-.. ~
3
16. There was/i~ nothing, not a peep, about the impact .on 'the environment and/or
environmental controls.
17. There was notbing 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 tbusly the traffic Will be
below the arbitrary alleged unprovided copies of traffic studies with the additionof512+homes
and the constant traffic due to one ofAmericasJ,argest 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 pleilSe 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 oftraffic 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 - 24
'- .
Affidavit
I, Nick Shevchynski, first being duiy sworn on 'oath say.:
I walked/jogged the perimeter of the former Pierce property
which is the proposed ".Villages~ at Marcol~ 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
propertyi, a's required by SDC 5.2-115.
i{~
Nick Shevchynski
,
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me a Notary for the State of Oregon
.on this 2nd day of January, 2008.
I' . OFFlCIALSEAL
" . DUSTIN HAHN
;, NOTARY PUBUC - OREGON
"' . COMMISSION 00.412362 '
MV OMMISSlON EXPI~ES NOV. 29, 2010 ,
~~~
----
. Date Received:
JAN - 4 20m
Original Suuir.illGL_K~ '
. . tf.. z.':J
'..
ATTACHMENT 8 - 25
City of Springfield
Development Services Department
225 Fifth Street
. Springfield, OR 97477
Phone: (541) n6-3759
Fax: (541) 726-3689 '
ived:
SPIFIINGFIF" ..,.,
Appeals Application, Type IV
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to City Council
JAN - 4 2IlQ8
\, I
Original 8UDmln~' . ,
if; i'5pfl'\.
Name, Journal Number and' Date oftbe Decision Being Appealed ,
".- 01 . c;- ----r f\. t. '\\. p
ma.s~eA'"r'lAM.. !-t'ff'll lipp u.a\,/)",^ U? ,.:,JIYS7-nMdf?)
n",c-.;(CJ _/()(')r\ d, \\l\...~e3 ~1fY\6.N'C'...k1~'" tYle.o\JI1\AE'
) .. , \
Date of Filing tbe Appeal
(This date mustbe within 15 calendar days oUhe date of the decision.)
Please list below, in summary form, tbe specific issues being' raised in tbe appeaL These should be tI:ie
. specific points where you feel,tbe Approval Autbority erred in making tbe decision, i.e., what approval
criterion or criteria you alle~e to have been in""l"Vl',:ately applied.
Issue #1 Ih.~ fJ l"o'V():;,<<-J rY\o.lI"~olf1 'Rl 'rv-.. n vnJt'.IM "","<l ~"6 r~[f t,)c [( _lIE, o...vu
\. . r--7"" \ \ -\. ,
.._.evT"p,,,,,... "'I'q' \JV"<\\l"":r' """" ""'"'-'-\ ~\r"~,,.....LL' S ~tfl:( fVlO.v,,'iJ(CI f?<3a.d .
\ ~ \ \ \. cl C"T . \ - l --- U
Issue#2 hL'\G\..Cc,"--~. ,..", l"t\"-.Ir<'1'.". .-\ ~ 1<1-.o,~ ~.-\ -L-ttx':-l. "){J
he. >0=-.... V"'P~,v"'~'\ -~^"",\,,:K..l ~~",J rfI'Ir<',\\o.tl~~.,;J0roJ~'
IssJie #3 'TI,.,.~ "....Je.l\ (',,'s'L /YVu 'i\r-t",('e<;< ~,,+. rr\. P. f".f'\n...." ,,) q .
'N\.~r\I<\"" -+>...-j "...~ '.-.\0....<; ;"',(( d ".,...:." <">." c " ....-t: '^-\ ~rc\.... ,t.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
requirementsJor filing an appeal of a land use decision is understood and states that the information
supplied is cO,rrect and accurate. "
APpellant'sName~~ 0. Si....\O""'\~f , PhO~/S.t(1) 7<//. R~i)'r3_
Address~L'< (A ~")a,( s'fl-'L ^'9!J),,, 11, LJ......1~n.. 9'7</7..7 .
S~tementoflnterest Pr"p~'\ Ou.I,^-J!..Ar o.....~'hl 'hI! ~t\\\CA%.~\ .
SIgnature fJJM!" tJ J,UhM~9A . ___ ....-.._~. mJov P0
"For Oflirp TT.p Qplv'
Journal No. ZOrJ2.'b~-ocoo7 Received By
. 11-02-~O'OO leoo
Assessor's Map No. 17-0"';-7';:'''' II Tax Lot No. ..2.J,n[)
Date Accepted as Complete
~ .-
-PR.J~- 00030
ATTACHMENT 8 - 26
Appeals Application, Type IV
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to City Council
SPRINGFU
City of Springfield
Development Services Department
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Phone: (541) 726-3759
Fax: (541) 726-3689
N J IN b dD ftb D .. B' A al d' Oi1ginalSubmittal
ame, ourna urn er an ate 0 e eClSlOn erng ppe e .
11/1.57l:./? &!J /I,-pli 77l API'JlcA77(M..I;' tl? P 2007..,. c'c.J02.S"-o
~. :20 ~~o'7 1/1/'//,V'.ec' a- J-flfi'("~/A. I1B4DdJw<. /
JAN - 4 2008
KL
'h Z'Sfl>)
Date of Filing tbe Appeal
,~
....)/f,U. Y. ?-c:7O 7
(This date must be within 15 calendar days ofthe date ofthe decision.)
Please list below, in summary fonn, tbe specific issues being raised in tbe appeal. These should be tbe .
specific points where you feel tbe Approval Autbority erred in making tbe decision, i.e., what approval
criterion or criteria you allege to have been in"ppovpo;ately applied.
Issue #3
5e.R, A-7t/k1"O-t.c~.r')/ ArFlt:JkW,.... -~~ af" t:lUdo(1
,
/
I
I
/
I
f"
Issue # I
Issue #2
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.' . ~ !Jr:,.:(t. <;;'f'tlIA.lfR~l:>(!rr/~t:"'S CO'n,~~
Appellant'sName Me/< S-teVUlfj/<;K.k Phone nO/LoIlW
Address Z.g4 7 f1M~r:xA ~~.
Statement of Interest At:i'J'ACP;V7' 'fip,;PDe.71-' oW/i"n
Signature //1~A_........_ ___
For Offir.. n... O.nIy'
Journal No. ZON:<'C08-00Cv8 Received By
, 1,...02....30.00 l&,eJO
AssessorsMapNo. 17-i)"I-2.;-n Tax Lot No. ?_~DiJ
Date Accepted as Complete
JiB
/'1-(j L-Od;;,'COO3b ATTACHMENT 8 - 27
.J
.
1-4-08
To City of Springfield
':.0-
Date Received:
JAN - 4 20m
Original Submittal KL
4:Z6p"'l
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 "!)evelopment 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 orily $250 fee on the
aforesaid sheet is an "Appeal of Type II Director's Decision (7) ORS 227.1,75." 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 III 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'thai 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 attacliedappeals are bundled under the North Springfield Citizens' Committee. which has
'been duly recognize as such by the City.
ATTACHMENT 8 - 28
!4,~
Nick Shevchynski
!1~~
-.
Nick Shevchynski
,North Springfield Citizens Committee
.
'Date Received: .'
JAN - 4 2008
1
Assignments of Error
Original Submittal
'KL.
4 : z.<s~ "'l
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 ca~ght and litigated. The City states that if an. issue or violation was not rais~d 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 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 wasn~t applied to unpreserved claims of error. ' .
5. Karp's memorandum of 12-11-07, pg. 10, cites SDC5.2-115: ". . . the applicant shall post
. one sign, approved by the Director, on the s~bj ect 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.
6. Th~re 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 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 question>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.'
ATTACHMENT 8 - 29
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 "plim" 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. Co~missioner 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 fo'r 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 state'd . with what appeared to be an
altemp! at humor that the c:ity. w'ould 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 thim 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
embarrass~ent and shameful. . According to the person in the city manager's office '''they are all
engineers. "
12. Written notice of th'e decision was not mailed.
13. There were about 56 additions made without' equal opportunity Jor 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 describe'd 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 arid 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 ID1d 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
.J
ATTACHMENT 8 - 31
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 thro~ghout 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.
a~.
Nick Shevchynski
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before. me a Notary fo):' the State of Oregon
on this 2nd day of January, 2008.
I) OFFfCIAL SEAL
DUSTIN HAHN
\. ..-' !'IOTARY PUBUC - OREGor.;
COMMISSION NO.4123E12 j
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES NOV. 29, 2010 j
'~~/
Date Received:
JAN - ~ 2008
Original Submittal Y-L-
4-:Z'5frY\
ATTACHMENT 8 - 32
City of Springfield .
Development Services Department
. 225 f"iflh Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Phone: (541) 726-3759
Fax: (541) 726-3689
Appeals Application, .Type IV
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to City Council
-bate Received:
SPRINGFI"
. . . Original Submittal
Name, Journal Number and Date oftbe DecisIOn Bemg Appealed
M~ fLw WPG llL rJy;".t-/CA;"av;' L-I?P.zOa7-0f)o~F;
,
"V,.."" Ar~O ,4...,.. HMtI:.OLA ;...(;;,4.7\0..0<: '/
JAN - 4 21108
KI.
4: 1.6"p<>"-
hl:ZC . 2-D, ').00;7' ' ,.'
I
. Date of Filing tbe Appeal
I:Y"YJ. 4-: 1..C() g
(This date must be within 15 calenda~ "days of the date of the decision.)
. Please list below, in sumn:iary fonn, tbe specific issues beh)g raised in tbe appeaL These should be tbe
specific points where you feel tbe Approval Authority erred in making tbe decision, i.e., what approval
criterion or criteria you allege to have been inappropriately applied.
Issue#! No NOll c..~ {J19s'r~O 0 F '/"?'lE.E,,"' "'V Q as
} u
:0e,~ '.A;1i'o_/l bJ.S :Dc.. ;),A -II S-
Issue #2 5eI2 c;:6.,j,;....J a~cA....' -1-- ." I'....' ",t.t.b:U/"izU t3tf.<=K
Issue #3
Issue #4.
(List any additional issues being appealed on aD attached sheet.)
The undersigned acknowledges that tbe 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. l(..At... p~ C;;Ptu_&l> Cm'"€".u.s a_.~
. Appellant's Name 'll-eYln:~, N-u vvi:- Phone d;'-c.; 1-7 Y t,-- ~m
Address ~ 0 V ~ -1/ OL A/"V P A A ~ 'Sf n. I ~-f\'t.,. I ,J .
Statementoflnterel (J y.z. b4-n. G p-<!I,-,"1-h 6.s;;...."'t!.,7Z-<-1 fi1Z-cr.7J2.JZ:lj Vu.>"e1l2...
signatm~O 4 5r'.I2~""'j f"..../d f'/UI?t!',a../:J "'~ ~ " .
~ }(~lA~~ .
....
1?nr om,... TT~e ()nl~.
Journal No. Zo tJ 2/X)!il-fYY)n5
, /'1-02-30-00
Assessor s Map No. 11-():>;. 1<<, ~ II
, .
Date Accepted as Complete'
Received By
Tax Lot No. TL
[8019
?~"'f)
Jt:..-
P~2..C00-Dq)3h
ATTACHMENT 8 - 33
T~fJo.""";''--'j (p,..:,.......q.H'O-"..i de/\:e] ~ ~ "
OffOA-T4"';;IJ 10 fl1rZ-Tl<-lf7,<4:'t~ bJ /U 0: h, 110.... 'J
J,'. ~)<2.5 tz-e(j--...I(2.'''-q f""S<r/..-....L<1 c.p..j1YO\/)c..,'~
. f ""-'Z.. I YL <9 ~ "''''- .. D . J . J
~.'. ^ I r 1'r-0 "5''0<:- S', z.. - 11 s--.
~ r yt ~a.. n.... "'-':; " .'
.:c. VV'~ "" ~n:.-JL--l~rQS...e.,dJ~v'-,._Jc>.re-~ T o......J .
J)Z.~~ O~~ <;fn..-ee.;fs of2.~c/-"",Q, ~'J'~ J-e<..',s,;::;:'
L...'. 'j' i\ f 05 f-.l) '''-'0 f-; c€... c...., 0 '-^-"l J. h"",,~ d..l/o '-'-'e.Q ~
-tv (c..rz...-h.c.. ;f"Jt~ ti.......D J:2.?>rPl-e s,.s """"'y C-D"-"ce/t.....-.J 5 .
..~.": .
:. ,
/-
.,'.
. .
.'
"
) .
ATTACHME~T 8 - 34
1.4-08
,.
To City of Springfield
')
Date Received:
JAN -4 m
Original Submittal KL
4:ZSpr'Y1
Re: Appeal fee for "'Villages' at Marcola Meadows" Master Plan Typ'e 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 properly 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 th~m.
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 hut the planning commission so this does. not apply. Ifit does
apply it should he "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 anotber $6,762 for a total of $11,270.
I argue that tbis amount is excessive, arbitrary, captious, ,and unlawful. I read the statute that
states how the amount of fee should be determined. .
I understand tbat the City may wave the appeal fees and it is petitioned herein for this to
he done. ..'
Pursuant to Oregon Revised Statute it is herein petitioned that the fees he waved as all
of the attached appeals are bundled under the North Springfield Citizens' Committee which has
been duly recogniz.e as such by the City. .
)'
ATTACHMENT 8 - 35
!4.~,
Nick Shevchynski
a~~
, Nick Shevchynski
'North Springfield Citizens Committee
-.
Date Received:
JAN - 4 2008
1
Assignments of Error
. -. .,
I KL.
Original Submitta 1j- : 2.'Sp ,.,
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 "wiil" be of assistance I asked
how lind/or what assistance? The question was met with silence.
2. ". . . all of the sectlons on the opposite side of tbis 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 alrrtost 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 errar da not necessarily prevent them form being raised an 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 overh.Iming 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: "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 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 requiremeni? Lawyer Leahy may say procedural in order to
ignore the requiremeqt 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 officiak It was written tbat there is and will be no "overcrowding" witbout
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
recard allowing the commission to ask questiolW'and the public to hear and see them. It was an
error not to consider that after absorbing the students from tbe 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 introduceg. At one point lawyer Spickerman
walked up to hiwyer Leah}' 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.,
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 warit to heaT from
the public, the decisions were already made. The issue is that the city staff and friends control
what i~ placed on. the record by not notifying tbe 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 fqr 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 agrade 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
Washbilrn and/or her sidekicks Kim and Phil of the city staff answer questions the city staff
presented a )'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, "1 don't know.," This is an
embarrassment and shameful. According to the person in the city m'!Itager's office "they are all
engineers." '
12. Written notice of the decision was hot mailed.
13. There were about 56 additions made without equ;J.l opportunity for comment on all of
them.
14. Therr was nothing that addresses what will be done ,with the bike lanes which are part
of the city's overall plan. Especially since ifs 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 impact on the environment and/or
environmental controls.
17. There. was no.tbin'g 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 Pl!blic 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
belowthe arbitrary alleged unprovided copies of traffic studies with the addition of 512+ homes
and the constant traffic due to one of Americas..l.argest major retailers. Yet Gary Karp and staff
.advocate major highway expansions to acc\lmulate 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 noqlosted 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 tbe city's overall plan and it was never
addressed. . .
Nick Shevchynski
Nick Shevchynski,
North Springfield Citizens' Committee
ATTAC'HMENT 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 reSluired by SDC 5.2-115.
lA. .ctL. .. .
. . .
..~
Nick Shevchynski
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me a Notary for the State of Oregon
on this 2nd day of January, 2008.
{I OFFICIAL SEAL I
DUSTIN HAHN
NOTARY PUBUC - OREGOr,
..' COMMISSIONNO.412362 I
MY COlil4lUlON EXPIRES NOV. 29.2010 \
Qh-4~
Date Received:
JAN - 4 2008
Onginal submitt~1 -/::K
ATTACHMENT 8 - 39
Satre & Associates
Attention Rick Satre
132 East Broadway, Suite 536
Eugene, Oregon 97401
ZON200B-00004
Philip M. Newman
260 S. Mill
Creswell, Oregon 97426
ZON200B-00007
Wesley O. Swanger
2415 Marcola Road
Springfield, Oregon 97477
,
ZON200S-00002
SC Springfield LLC
. .
7510 Longley Lane, Suite 102
Reno, Nevada 89511
ZON2008-00005
. Dennis Hunt
304UYolanda Avenue
Springfield, Oregon 97478
ZON200S-0000S
Nick Shevchynski
2347 Marcola Road
Springfield, Oregon 97477
ZON200S-00003
Donna Lentz
1544 E Street
Springfield, Oregon 97477
ZON2008-00006
Clara Shevchynski .
2315 Marcola Road
Springfield, Oregon 9747y