HomeMy WebLinkAboutAIS PLANNER 1/22/2008
-;-::'"\
"
"-
MEMORANDUM
City of SDrinafield
To:
Mayor and Councilors
From:
Bill Grile, Development Services Director1jJ.
January 22, 2008
Date:
Subject:
Marcola Meadows Master Plan Appeals
In preparation of the Marcola Meadows Master Plan appeals packet, staff inadvertently omitted
the seven individual appeals submittals which are now "Attachment 8". The City's web site has
been modified and this attathment has'been sent to all appellants. This does not affect staff
responses to any issues raised by the appellants that are addressed in the staff report
(Attachment 1). Please accept staff's apology for any inconvenience,
RECEI,VED
JAN 2 22008
By: ~ '0}; IK) 0:::::::'
Meetio~,l)ate: January 28,2008
Meetilib ~ype: Regular Session
Department: Development Services
StatTContact: Gary M. Karp 6)( -
S P R I N G FIE L D StatTPhone No: 726-3777 ~1r
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 20.h 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,
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 Attorney Jim Spickerman from City Attorney Dated January 8, 2008
Attachment 4: Planning Commission Minutes, December20, 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)
,AGENDA ITEM SUMM!---Y
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'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 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 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 of Planning 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 January 4, 2007
(This date must be within 15 'calendar days of the dateofthe 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#l 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 developmentj 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 tbat 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 tbe information
supplied is correct and accurate.
Appellant'sName SC Sprinqfield, LLC Phone 775-853-4714
Address 7510 Lonqlev Lane, Suite 102, Reno, Nevada 89511
Statement orInterest, 7ooert'('/lwrrer / aoolicant
Signature ' ~V!-44 /)t J!.
/ J
for oriainal aoolication
I?nr Offil"P ITli1.... nul.v,
Journal NO.~, ,:\", 2t>ofh - C:>~'-Received By
11-02-3<:> -00
Assessor's pNo. 11-03-2.5'-11 Tax Lot No,
'Date Accepted as Complete
~
lBOO
'?::\""
PR.T200Co-('V'Y"l31O
ATTACHMENT 8 - 1
WRITTEN APPEAL STATEMENT
MARCOLA MASTER PLAN I:.RP 2007-0028
The ilPplicant appeals Condition #27 of the Planning
Commission approval of the applicant's Master Plan.
Reauirements 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 points 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'
cornrnercial driveway.
2.
The City TraffIc Engineer acknowledges these improvements will
meet applicable perform~ce 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:
,3,
a. The taking for a public purpose of between .56 and 2,0 acres'
of the applicant's commercially zoned property;
b. pemolition of 1,200 to 1,700 lineal feet of a 'publicly
improved arterial street;
ATTACHMENT 8 - 2
~)244&Sj:ih~{,*0i~~
Gleaves
Swearin~en
PO,tter &
. Scottup
""''''''~
~".,.~,,~-
(,~-;;:.j
/\1 I' I ,j-j.l'. Noj " ~
i; I' L ~'"i.'.'
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
Emait:
info@gleaveslaw.com
Web.Site:
www.gleaveslaw.com
FrederickA. Batson
Jon V. Buerstatte
Joshua A. Clark
Daniel P. Ellison
Michael T. Faulconer..
A.). Ciustina
Thomas P. E. Herrmann'
Dan Webb Howard'.
Stephen O. Lane
William H. Martin'
WalterW.Miller
Laura T. Z. Montgomery.
Tanya C. O'Neil
Standlee G. Potter
Martha J. Rodman
Robert S. Russell
Douglas R. Schultz
Malcolm H; Scott
James W. Spickenna"n
Kate A. ThoT!)pson
Jane M. Yates
"Also admitted
in Washington
"'Also admitted
in' California
, .
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 improvernents 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 ba,sed on criteria for
approval bf 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
~ntersection.
Arln1ment .
Lack of Authoritv for the Reauirement of Roundabouts
The applicant has proposed traffic signals at the intersection of
Ma,rtin 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 "rneets 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.
!tis 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 Mernorial Clinic v, Clackamas County, 21 Or LUBA 418
2- WRlTIEN APPEAL STATEMENT - MARCOLA MASTER PLAN LRP 2007-0028
January 4, 2008
,
ATTACHMENT 8 - 3
c
" "
(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 Corn. 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 portion of the stan.dards 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,rnap 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 'construction of off-site improvements in
conjunction,with a schedule of the phasing."
In the TIA subrriitted 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 capac:ity standpoint existing and proposed
transportation facilities would be suffIcient to meet
applicable perfoi.nance 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." 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 4.2-105,A.1, which speaks to Transportation.Infrastructure
Standards, The language quoted in Mr, McKenney's memo is out of
context and is inapplic~ble 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 ci~ed in the December 18, 2007 mernorandum'
simply are not applicable, Both Marcola Road and Martin Drive are
shown in the proposed 10cation on both the Conceptual Local Street
Map and TransPlan.
Dolan Issue
Dolan v. City of Tillard, 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 tllat 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 problern caused
by the applicant's development. '
Applied to the ptesent,sitLIation, the burden that is ,
proportionate to the impact caused by the proposed developrnent is
the burden't6 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 commer?ialland. 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 reasons the City found
roundabouts desirable." Among those reasons was that: "...the
comrnunity 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, ,
Reauirement of Frontae:e Road
,
Ma!3ter 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 10cated 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- WRlITEN APPEAL STATEMENT - MARCOLA MASTER PLAN, LRP 2007-0028
January 4,2008 '
ATTACHMENT 8 - 6
\
'-
residential driveways on that side of the roadway. This coriflict 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, improvernents 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 applicapt 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 some tumittg movements ~ay be restricted
from certain driveways.
Unlawful Delee: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 interse~tion 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 accomrnodate 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- WRlTIEN APPEAL STATEMENT - MARCOLA MASTER PLAN LRP 2007-0028'
January 4, 2008
ATTACHMENT 8 - 7
~
'-... -'
constitutes an unlawful delegation of authority by deferring
development approvalto 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. Spl~h.",
Of Attorneys for Applicant
,"
Attachrnent: Proposed Master Plan Condition #27
7 - WRITTEN APPEAL STATEMENT - MARCOLA MASTER PLAN LRP 2007 -0028
January 4, 2008
ATTACHMENT 8, 8
\..
't.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSED MASTER PLANCONDmON #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 MasterPlan
shall not require any property dedication south of the existing southern
Marcola Road right-of-way line. ~
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.
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 applicant's
expense.
2)
3) ,
\,
.'
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 ofplamiing Commission DeCision to City Council
SPR.NGFIELDo
e Received:
JAN - 42008
. " OrIGinal S~l!IlttaL
Name, Joumal NUlIlber and Date of the' Decision Being ~ed lliV"\ hQ [ . e.ri 2:
L R P 2C>O, - 0002:f U PL,efV\b.& 20,200 I
J\~
I: 1/ polV .
re~
b.j~
'j~ Vlar' l;( :2. ,20D8
(This date must be within lsialendar days of the date ofthe decision.)
Please list below, in summaiy 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 in..,.,..~...:ately applied '
Issue #1 0 -f--\~ 5 (e.+~ /, re..s ;~JU\-8c& .3 hO~n
, "\'Y\ f'((')~tb A ha.1-- o..re 0..( r~ p)-eA-ht'~
Issue #2 L r9--h C.er () ~ h ~ ( OJ\d k C-{ &=-eJ v"v ; .( -e r tr-
1-\7 -tR.D.Y'-e.. 'Ip <9-f"I1~ ~0 f'Y\(/(cYv cA'it fo U<~_.
, Issue IQ Pro j e.. c/\i vJ (') t!.d d D C) S-S;'j bi. L-t a.d 1I'ef' s..e) Lf"'
e_~~p.ck L-<-rbpY'\ re.ne-waJt D1C1J"\, ,
,Issue#4 PO.5~lb;\'l-tc;-- OT \mD.ej-d\n~ rt?-~eS~J~
v-vCH..{[c\ Dro'/'--f., inDb~r+(.{nt1,. -for tKis- DrvlBc...T
(List any additio,na1 issues being aled on an attached sheet.)
Date of Filing the Appeal
i t1 ar~,
, Tbe undersigned acknowledges that the above appeal form and its attachments have been read, the
requirements for filing an appeal of. land use deeision i:' nnde~tood and states that the int'ormation
supplied is correct and accurate. '
Appellant's Name Don ~ LC?-ht '2- .IP~one 7 (..( '1 ~ J 1(>
Address ) ~L.{L) e st- Sprincd-'i-JlM ~~;}4 '( I
StatementofL...... -0~1 ~~ r;.,rJ:;t ;f;:..c.:;::" -~n'\~riP19il~rJ ,
Signature ~ ~, ' Regrc1Q)11-
li'".,. f)1~:-.... T1sc..DJr'v.
Journal No. LoN z0c9'-oOXJ 3 Receiv~ By
17-02-30-':;0 '72- I Boo
Assessor'sMapNo,-,7-b;~;/"-1J Tax Lot No. 'T7 7_::V.,......,
, Date Accepted as Complete
':pP-,3 :).000- OOo.:}k:>
.'
ATTACHMENT 8 - 10
City of Springfield
Development Services Department
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Phone: (541).n6-3759
Fax: (541) 726-3689
',,"
SPRINGFIE', )
Date Received: '
Appeals Application, Type IV
Appeal of Planning Comritission Decision to City Council
WI - 4 Wll8..-
Name, Journal Number and Date of the Decision Being Appealed Original Submittal ~ , '
/1~ Ph4-J./ 7Vf)~ lIT A,.,.l./*~/ t.RP 20Q7-0002Y.' 1:Z5"(M
~. 2D, 1007.r ./);//,;..........< 47 MA-~OJLA.' MalJDW"S '
, , ,
Date of Filing the Appeal
,3;tp 4, 2C)C)!J'
(This date must be within 15 calendar days of the date of~hedecision.)
Please list below, in sumniary 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 in~l'l',vl'.:ately applied.
'Issue#1 /Vj :.5kd' UIJaf/ 3DC S;Z - i' ~ fSea. o-Hu.\i .rt:dL)
'Sa, /t'""flMV{{ ,
, 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:bFI?,~ 9~,pt;qa.:b OT'~S a.1<t",,?tT'
Appellant'sName ?h\IIP M ,NU-UMd,c....' Pbone ';?tts"-l{J'J7
Address 2J.> 0 ,-~C' f'vt ( H {\ r-eSVtJ..I: (,,{
Statem~ntofIiii~' ;:,,<p,,~})-, \..r.u..--!J i3.r...~V I?lr-(/li\J./..I1
'/I/......-f} c - ( . /
Signature \ ,y(/ A i1h A .YJ/f'l ~
~i 7J ,- - --
-,
1(',..,.. Offi,.,p TT4I.p On'Y.
Journal NO..zo.N') flO'ii - DOOOt./-_ Received'By
, -, l7-oZ-3Q-OO' 1'000
Assessor's Map No. ...Li-fJ3-b2.::i' Tax Lot No. 2"1oD
, Date Accepted as Complete
1? R.31JY\ (~- n(')I'1'?',t;.,
-b.;.
::l'L '-
ATTACHMENT 8 - 11
, "
"........
,~
c
I6U{ ,{9 t (af-lAyl pwtUtv tM ~ C/";'f' Of
. ,
~v~Jfu Id v ' r tJDu)d k9ifJ'!){~ -1-0 heavUU
If I wou \~ 0+ ~l1~@.., '
" ,liLWt w2S \W '/uo'k,<--e jY()jftc\ O~ ~ W2(6t) b
YO~ct ~~O(&;1' C p~y~ p~~ 2~ ,Yt5uwc.cl
, b,/ 'S DC 5,1, -II S- '~/ ~ 417/'
./(,):/~
-r I('V,~ ~ PI< rJuuY/;(U..../ vud
.:::r~ I g.av J-
- C'."
I,
ATTACHMENT 8 - 12
'~
1-4-08
To City of Springfield
:
Date Received:
JAN - ~ 2008
Original Submittal /<.L
-4:ZSpr1>j
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 ha';e 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 washeld to explain and "answer" questions as
to how much property the City will take and/or destroy and how badly the residents w,re going
to get screwed by the Cit)r and the developec It was reported that the City, danced and deflected
questions rather than answering them.
A(this meeting Gary Karp said the appeal fee was $250, The only ,$250 fee on !he
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 Hunt is, another $2,254 for the same
issue, Wes Swanger, Clara Shevchinski, and myself is another $6,762 for a total of $1I,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 - 13,
/;l,~
Nick Shevchynski
.a~~
Nick Shevchynski
North SpringfIeld Citizens Committee
-..
-\
~'Date Received:
JAN - 4 2008
1
Assignments of Error
Original Submittal
KL
4: 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 "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 planlerror 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 ribt 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 beGause 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 tim~ly maired as required by SDC 5,2-115,
7, The issue of scho'ols 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 questioraand the public to hear and see them. It was an
error not to consider that after absorbing the sfudents from the proposed development 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 order to \
keep out public comment New material was introduced. At one point lawyer SpickeTman
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 m~ner pursuant to SDC 5.2-115.
9, Kinda diffIcult to pres.erve an error as stated hereinabove when one is not allowed to
speak. The issue of speech is so one-sided it's lU:dicrous, 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 p1.!blic 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 Naricy 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 shesaid 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
suppos.e to be on the recorded record, This is shameful.
11. The issue of the ~aterway 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 cluele.ss. 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. II
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 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 andlor
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 pIan,
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 pI ease 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 St,atute?
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 walked/jog~ed the perimeter of the former pierce prope~ty
which is the proPo.sed "'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 "s ign' 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 for the State of Oregon
on this 2nd day of January, 2008.
, OFFICIAL SEAL
(I) DUST1NHAHN
, " NOTARYPUBUC-OREGON
" COMMISSION N0.412362
MY COl4YJHlON EXPIRES NQV, 29. 2010 ,
~-th
-'
Date Received:
,JAN -\4 2008
Original Submitt<>1 I<L
If: ~""
ATTACHMENT 8 -17
.
Appeals Application, Type IV,
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to City Council
-Date
SPRINGPI'
City of Springfield
Development Services Department
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Phone: (541) 726-3759
Fax: (541) 726-3689
Name, Journal Number and Date of the Decision Being Appealed
ffA-S]-f:'(L fJJA.A1 /vPE../.1L 1'f.pPt/CI(J1ao./: Lrep !2..007-00e:>2..?'
/
1>>c 20. W07 U;/(<>yc J J11~ ~t!lu/'5>
/ ..'
Date of Filing the Appeal ~ . If/ 'J-(;;).;Jr'
(Ihis date must be within 15 calendar days of the date of the decision.)
JAM - HOD8
Original Submittal J<jii
"i:Z5p'"
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, i.e., what approval
criterion or criteria you allege to have been inappropriately applied. .
Issue #1 ~.P ~ ~.e .,f /J4:{,',o M.I h,c"," ~~/ <r.-'r
'< ' J
U""..t--,. U/P<" <:vw....J.-. /hJ Mete Ek.u<,_t...~... o-..J b1~
Issue #2 rr-<-~CJ> .2 h.c.>Y-6V",d-...L- ~'v.. c;~ .a--..A
~b:k
Issue #3
Issue #4 )
(List any additional issues being appealed on an attached sheet.)
Tbe undersigned acknowledges that the above appeal form and its attachments have been read, the
requirements for filing an appeal ofa land use decision is und...:nJ and stateS that the information
supplied is correct and accurate.' /.k..Ji. ~~I""S f....Y.( ct.f;~ Co"'__~___
/l.IJ rl, [, I ,,~.
Appellant'sNameL.~ ~'w.{,(r: Phone 7+6 ~).~C.J
Address 2.-} I S- IM.~ M.
Stat~ment of Interest ~P..r...J!., D_.........../:..L1J~ ,'u../J4d b, p"""...cJ--.
Signature (': ../lyl-"f',.... iLlJ .'r "
1?nr om,.", IT.::p Onlv~
JournalNo. 7.0N.il.OOS - ODOO~
''l-{):; ~3 o. 0 lJ
Assessor's Map No. Ll:..il.;,~...;. ,]
Date Accepted as Complete
Received By
7L I (toO
Tax Lot No. ,o):>..nn
~-
PRS2006-0003~
ATTACHMENT 8 - 18
"
Date Received:
1-4-08
JAN - UOOO
To City of SpringfIeld
Original Submittal KL
4:2SPfl-J
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 12-3~
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 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 Mother $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 Orego~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,
11,~
Nick Shevchynski
11~~
Nick Shevchynski
North SpringfIeld Citizens Committee
ATTACHMENT 8 - 19
,SPRINGFI-
.
.. 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
-Date
Name, Journal Number and Date of the Decision BeingAppealed
,/1If.SlffL fJtA-1V NPc.JJT ?'f.pPtlClOlt:JN': Lrep 2007-0oe:>::z.Vj
J':JpL. 20. '2..007 U;//cwr 4 M~ ~<2~~
./ "'I
JAN - 4 2008
Original Submitla' t<<
"'i:Z5plY1
A--- . l.f :l--{;? <) ~
/
(fhis date must be within 15 calendar days of the date of the decision.)
I
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 alle~e to have been inappovp.:ately applied.
Issue #1 c;a..."."p 4~.P ../ P4.;{,',o';U. tU~ ~~, ~"t..rr
/{'-<.~. t..VL.R <;:..a-:......, IJ.I..J Me-I-< _~C!~L~./-; o-..J 6~~
Issue #2 l-"..(~ 2 /.....~V'<1o/"';;:f-..-L +k.'v- -=;~ ~..,/
~b:k. .. ..
Date of Filing the Appeal
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 a,nd accurate. ~ th.#... =:prl"1.*'M c!'(;J"'o..s Co....-'~.....
Appellant's NameC~ sk.v=4.\.q k; . Phone 7+6 ~J. ~c;)
Address 2-} I'" t1A.~ '{Jd.
Statement of Interest /Jlrl~ P_~'/"~J;J,.;f- ,'....Jd b1 JJ~/"'cJ--.
Signature C....,JJLor..),~,J. f
For Of.lirlP TTcp On':!,.
Journal No."'ZO rJ d..OO S - ODOO~
1'/-0;1-30' 0 II
Assessor's Map No. .l.1-,,-iI~_. 0<;. LT
Date Accepted as Complete
Received By
7L I ffOD
Tax Lot No. .;1",nn
~ --
PR::J2.00b -0003(:,
ATTACHMENT 8, - 20
"
~
Date Received:
1-4-08
JAN - ~ 2008
To City of SpringfIeld
Original Submitt<>1 KL
4:2Sp"'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 appeal fee. The amount of the fee is to be taken
from "Development Code, Appl1cation 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 ansvyering them,
At this meeting Gary Karp said the appeal fee was $250, The only $250 fee on the
aforesa,id 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 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 if 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,
\
, --/,'
!4,~
Nick Shevchynski
11 j;t,~
Nick Shevchynski
,North SpringfIeld Citizens Committee
ATTACHMENT 8 - 21
~ . ..
Date Received:
JAN - ~ 2008
1
Assignments of Error
Original submittP I
KL
4:Z-'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 "will" be of assistance I asked
how and/or what assistance? The question was met with silence,
2, "'" . all of the s~ctions on the opposite side of this page must be fIled out." There is no
opposite side,
3, Explaining "the specific po;nts 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 J;1ext level of rubber stamping, Under the plain error rule unpreservea
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 theplanlerror 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 ResponselFinding"
,which fInds that this was'not done, "Wait," you Will say, ~'This wasn't preserved," It's an error
of law app'ar~nt on the face of the !ecord, 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 ~nd 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 overc~owding 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 his objection, Leahy said out loud that there was an
objection because new material was introduced, Commissioner C;arpenter 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 ma'de, 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 retirem~nt 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.
H, The issue of the waterway was never properly addressed, Rather than have Sunny
WashbiJrn and/or her sidekicks KirIi.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.
]3, 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 o',(erall 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 or
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 cut~-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 stud(es 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 e~pansions 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 heltring 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 - 24
, .'
,
Affidavit
I, Niqk 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.
'/ll~
Nick Shevchynski
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me ,a Notary for the State of Oregon
on this 2nd day of January, 2008.
I OFFICIALSEAL
:~,' DUSTIN HAHN
, " NOTARY PUBUC - OREGON
, ' COMMISSION 00412362 '
MY OM MISSION EXPIPES NQV, 29.2010
~~4
--..
Date Received:
, ,
JAN - 4 20m
Original Sut:mit~&i_K~ ~
f' 2.':>
ATTACHMENT 8 - 25
, .
SPRINGFIE' "'
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
JAN - HOOB
'/I
Name, Journal Number and'Date of the Decision Being Appealed
mas'fe--v- ?~~; peTTI ll.~rl'l'u~,iJ'" I f?P.~M7- nf'l\dRs
"[') '" Co , ~ tJ I .-J () () r1 d. \ \ o:..rr3 O--T fY\ex N"C'.t1 t"" IYl eal rAlllAE'
Original suomlUCIP .,' 'f; Z5f"'-
Date of Filing the Appeal
(Ihis date must be within 15 calendar days of the date of the decision.)
,
, Please list below, in sw:nriJ.ary 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 in'"Pp.up.:ately applied.
Issue #1 \h.~ \."'6~();;,,,J.. rY\o.V-~QJf1 'Rl ~\,,"'J"-Wl""-<( ?r"..:,....IT f,)d( T'"~"'~'" D-n..
_,.<e.lC';f"."",,,," """q ~Qll...C,J-' ""'" ""''-<. ~\r"()erL'i 5 .3.(/'/1' rno.NiJ(" R",cid', '
\ ~ ,.,.., \ A \ \ (I-. \ - ,-- I(
Issue #2 hLl\ a.1'r:""_~. \'" 1"I\,0...v-0,:, '" '1<....1 ~ I~ - S'f ~ ...L - f l"'r1, I,} Gl ' .
\, e. 0::, '"'\ ""~'i~\.\ '-,-"..,..~"H"l ~1 TL, !;'1'~ f1I""",Ji.~}J ]tNV'-fH\')i&'~(\::)l"<>~~
Issue #3 _ \.I.-t.Q, ",,,,l \ '(',<1'<\"~ f';\ "At' "'<<;<'01- ( P., 1'Y\r,r'-1'" q , ' ,
'0f\~C\\ .\", ':P.......~"..~ I >.30..... .:..,~ d <\y"\'p, ......"C <> v-t: ",-~;C:-t:-. c-c\...." '\<.k.'\~
~M' \
(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
requirelpents for filing an appeal of a land use decision is understood and states that the information
supplied is correct and accurate. c,
APpellant'sNameW;;~ 0. SWQ.,\~'U-" 'Phon/$I) l</h ge(/3
Address.M.I..S (.... fJ?r)aJ s..f""~ ~~. [j,...l"~Zlf\. 97</7..7, .
Statement of Interest Pr"p~C. Ou.I,^JU'< cl.a.....<J;] , h,) ~,,\l~'fctY"'"
Signature IJM/,"-f tJ..xn1n~1~A , I ~ 'mo..%ov p~
For OfJirp TT4l:p Onl~.
Journal No. ZOtJ2.ib~-OC()o7
17-02"'?:'O-OO
Assessor's Map No. 17-o":1;-7C,"'11
Date Accepted as Complete
Received By
leoo
Tax Lot No. ..:!.,:>'nll
~ ,-
-PR32.CC0- c0030
ATTACHMENT 8 ..:. 26
"
Appeals Application, Type IV
Appeal of Planning CoIIimission Decision to City Council
.,
'I , Date
JAN - 4 2008
SPRINGFII
City of Springfield
Development Services Department
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Phone: (541) 726-3759
Fax: (541) 726-3689
KL
4-~ Z.'Sff1')
, . . . Original SubmittP1
Name, Journal Number and Date,ofthe DeCISIon Bemg Appealed '
t1.IIS7l:.1? &fJ /'rl>~ 77l AWJ.lcA;l7tM./ ;' tl?P :2007-,~Vo.2.r.,
'f:::w.. 2tJ ~"'''''7 Ir1.J.//,J.[..e/ a:t- J-6f1k~/A.. I1ciOdJ"-'<. '"
Date of Filing the Appeal
.
'.-l/f,U '1'. ?~<:::J 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 # I
'5e.R.. A-7t/I<.HM.cP"/'C.1 Af'FIl:J,i.l/O- -~~7S <CfF t"flJdo(/
/,'
(
Issue #3
I
I
I
I
I
V
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, tbe
requirements for filing an appeal of a land use decision is understood and states that the information
supplied is correct and accurate.' '~I--b,:(t. 9r'telvfRB~ C'17~lFPj CO"'I41I~
Appellant'sName J),CI< SteVCHft/sK'I Phone tlOIL€-
Addres~ 1..$47 I1M~OI...4 ~h
Statement of Interest A bJ'ACf'IJ7' 1#"I'De71-- owJffl
Signature~_,...-'I_ ____
li'nr nffirp TT~p OI\J~.
Journal No. ZON2cot;-00008 Received By
" '7-02-~30 '00 I fi'tJO
AssessorsMapNo. 17-f)"l~2o;-/'( Tax Lot No, .?,"z,Di;
Date Accepted as Complete "
. '
J!t:
t-R720cG'CC03b ATTACHMENT 8 - 27
Date Received:
1-4-08
JAN - ~ 2008
To City of SpringfIeld
Original Subm/tt<tl KL
4:2Sp,,\
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 12-3-
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 explairi 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 Ciiy 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 decisi9n 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 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 ar'e bundled under the North Springfield Citizens' Committee which has'
been duly recognize as such by the City,
!4,~
Nick Shevchynski
11~~
Nick Shevchynski
, North Springfield Citizens Committee
ATTACHMENT 8 - 28
"
Date Received:,
','
JAN - 42008
1
Assignments of Error
Original Submittal
K'--
4 : z.'~p ...
/ 1. The appeals application states that, "The Planning Division staff can be of assistance in
helping you fIll out this s~ction:" 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 ifan 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 uIi.der theplanterror 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 memorandJfI1 of 12-11-07, pg, 10, cites SDC 5,2-115: ". , . the applicant shalfpost
one sign, approved by the Director, on the subject property," Pg, 11: "Staff's Response/Finding"
which finds that,this was I,1ot 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 Jaw, 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 sho,uld 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 questiol"6'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 commen!, 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 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 rec~rded 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_ II
12, Written notice of the decision was not mailei:!,
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 a~e, 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.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 city's overall plan and it was never
, addressed,
L1
~ick Shevchynski
~ick Shevchynski,
~orth Springfield Citizens' 'Committee
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 propo'sed "'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 the're 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 2nd day of January, 2008.
. OFFICIAL SEAL
DUSTIN HAHN
, ; NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGOr..
COMMISSION NO,412362 I
MY COMMI{lSIQII EXPIRES NOV, 29, 2llHll
~ -4/
Date Received:
JAN - 4 2llO8
Original Submittal K-L-
tf:Z.CS ffY\.
ATTACHMENT 8 - 32
, '
Appeals Application, Type IV
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to City Council
SPRINGFI'
City of Springfield
Development Services Department
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Phone: (541) 726-3759
Fax: (541) 726-3689
JAN - 4 2008
, , . . Original Submittal. K ~ "'
Name, Journal Number and Date of the DeCISIon BemgAppealed ' , 4: 1..'=>p"'"
Mtf:>m{ ft.w WPG 1lL ~PHC4n~/ L-~P 20117-0l)0.2~; ])c.c. 2.-0, ~oo?/ "
" Vi,,<-"'~ .4-7' HAie.=~A N f;A1'>O!O(" "
Date of Filing the Appeal
~~2-0<lg
(This date must be within 15 calendar days ofthe date of the decision.)
, ' ,
Please list below, in summary folm, 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 inayy.vy.:iuely applied.
r
Issue #1 No tV OTl c..~ Y'os'T"~O 0 F yr,E:.E~\ ~,j u. S
l' e~ LA;J? o.J b..... .5 :Dc.. :5".:2-. -I I S-
Issue #2 ~Q'Ic.et~J a~tA...,~- '", 1~';-.v7"" tlf..J tUkic
Issue #3
Issue #4
(List any addi~onal issues being appealed 0)1 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.' Ct..Ao.- pottI-f ~P"IkH7a.l> Cm-eMS C",,--,-rn;:
,'Appellant'sName 'll.e>,nfl.:-.sH-u ""+- Phone ~'-l/ 1-7'1 (.,'- ~m
Address ?'oi/Y ~1/0LA/\J OA Av-e.- <;fn I~-I\... 1 J ,
Statement ofIn,terel () y.z. Ia 4.- n. G 7',-",<....;"1-), 6oS>'-' ",.!f",:ri.-, PoJZ..oo-"'-"'-S 10"" /loe-.e...
Signann:.r:2):~)~:~J~~::::e'lZi:J w~ '
"
1(w::.Jlffir''' TTc". ()nl~.
JournalNo. 1..0 tJ 2on5J -fyY")()5
, , 1'1-02-30-00
Assessor s Map No. Il-()"i' JA - II
Date Accepted as Complete ,
Received By
, ,'1L l:i?OO
Tax Lot No. ' ?~N)
ilL .-
Pfd:. 2-co0- oco3h
ATTACHMENT 8 - 33
, , ,
Th.e..... f Jo. """';'''j Cp"", ....-..~! Lo)'''-'''; ,de/\:e;Q V>--e-~..,
OfPO/Lr.:...""~IJ-jo f(jtZ.Tlc...lf?,...T~ bd /U "':t h, //0.... "J
J .' ~)<2:> rLe.(L-.J./tz.l/"'.q fc::>S'T'--..<.<j c~j1JO\"')(.,~
1 ~ I yL (9 ~ ..-'\. . D J . .
, ,~, ^ 'I .... r- , I' N "5 '1) c S', '2.... - I 1 [; .
_I yt~A ''-1 "J ,.
.:r:. ),'ve.. rv ~~ I~ 1/lJo~Q'j:~d Je.~L~~--'T d.~j
d.1Z- ~ ~ 0 ~ f't...4- ~.f-n.. -e e.:h o. ~r:...<-J-,.,. cQ. h] I~ de<- 'tS , ;.:;:,
L.Lr. 'J' A f oS ~ ;vo 1--; (e.. ~ 0 ~l.L h ~--€- r.9.l/~ '-JeQ ~
'tv ("";2... -he. ;f<t.7t~ 6....... D~,l; rlf'Le s 5 """"y C-D~ceA..rV 5 .
r
,.~. ': .
"
,
: I.
, .,
, ,
, I
"
ATTACHMENT 8 - 34
Date Received:
1-4-08
JAN - ~ 2lI08
To City or'SpringfIeld
Original Submittal KL
4:2Se"'1
Re; Appeal fee for '''Villages' at Marcola Me~dows" 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 ansj,Vering 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 9f 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 Or'egon, 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.
!4,~
, Nick Shevchynski
!1~~
Nick Shevchynski
North SpringfIeld Citizens Committee
ATTACHMENT 8 - 35
" .; .
Date Received:
JAN - , 2008
Assignments of Error
1.
Original Submittal '~: Z06p""
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, (
, I
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 planCerror rule. The Oregon Supreme Court
issued an opinion on Dec, 13, '07 in State v Fults overtumingthe 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 subj,ect 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 itwas 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 rec9rd 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 scho'ols 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 mearis, 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 askquestionrnnd 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
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 maiied 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'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 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 impaqt 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..l.argest major retailers. Yet Gary Karp and staff
advocate major highway expansions to accumulate alleged non-existing iise 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 Statut"e?
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 pIan and it was never
addressed, '
,Ub
" ~
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 I 'at Marcola Meadows" on almost a
daily basis throughout Nov, & Dec. of '07 and during the Marcola
Meadows Master Planappllcation 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.
/A-~~'
Nick Shevchynski
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me a Notary for the State of Oregon
on this 2nd day of 'January, 2008.
. OFFICIAL SEAL I
DUSTIN HAHN
NOTARY PUBUC ;. OREGOi'<
'" COMMISSION 00.412362\ .
MY COIoAWlON EXPIRES NOV, 29,2010
Uh. ~~
Date R~ceived:"
JAN - 4 2008
Original Submittal ~
ATTACHMENT 8 - 39