HomeMy WebLinkAboutApplication APPLICANT 1/4/2008
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;Cornmission Decision to City Council
EI\i.'.
;'1"
'.
.,
lAll .. I'Inn,.,
- -.........
Name, Journal Number and Date.ofthe Decision Being Appealed
Marcola Meadows Master Plan LRP 2007-00028
By:
Planning Commission Decision Date December 20, 2007
Date of Filing the Appeal January 4, 2007
(This date must be within 15 calendar days ofthe date ofthe 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, i.e., what approval
criterion or criteria you allege to have been inappropriately applied.
Iss-ue #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) uplawfully delegates to the City Engineer the discretion to impose
exactions without reference to standards and without findings of proportionality.
Issue #4
(List any additional issues being appealed on an attached sheet.)
The undersigned acknowledges that the above appeal form and its attachments have been read, the
requirements for filing an appeal of a land use decision is understood and states that the information
supplied is correct and accurate.
Appellant'sName SC Sprinqfield, LLC Phone 775-853-4714
Address 7510 Lonqlev Lane, Suite 102, Reno, Nevada 89511
Statement of Interest. p>iooertr l.'" wn:er / aool icant
Signature 9fl41 IVY
I J :
for oriainal ~DDli~a~ion
~nr nffirp Il"p Onlv'
Journal No.') I"V'I ?oofh. - D't:()(:,. LReceived By
/ .J 11-02-30 -00
Assessor's M1fp No. '7-0? -2.!S -II Tax Lot No.
Date Accepted as Complete
~
(SOD
?~^"
PRS2DOCo-~30
THE APPLICATION PACKET
A COMPLETE APPLICATION IS REQUIRED:
I. A complete application page (all of the sections on the opposite side of this page must be filled out).
a) The name, journal number and date of decision being appealed (the date the decision was made by the
Planning'Commission) can be'obtained from Planning Division staff.
b) The date of filing the appeal is the date you file the appeal with the City. The appeal must be filed within 15
calendar days of the decision of the Planning Commission.
c) Appeal Issues - This space is for you to list in brief fashion (one sentence statements) the specific points that
are being appealed. The Planning Division staff can be of assistance in helping you fill out this section.
d) The appellant is the person or persons who are appealing the.decision of the Planning Commission. Please
provide iour full name, signature and address in the spafe provided.
2. A statement of interest of the affected party, i.e" are you:
a) The own~r or applicant?
b) A person who was previously notified of the request as an adjacent property owner or resident?
c) A person who has asked to be notified of the request?
d) Other? Please explain.
3. A more detailed written statement explaining each appeal issue listed on the reverse side ofthis form. This
statement should indicate where you feel the Planning Commission erred in the decision based upon the evidence
presented, and in applying that evidence to the criteria used to evaluate the request. Be sure to make this
statement as complete as possible. Appeals to the City Council of decisions of the Planning Commission shall be
based upon the record of proceeding. They shall consider all physical and documentary evidence submitted to
the Director or Historical Commission as part of the original application and any evidence or testimony presented
to the Planning Commission.
4. Application fee - Refer to the Development Code Fee Schedule for the appropriate fee. A copy of the fee
schedule is available at the Development Services Department.
Fees: Appeal of Type III to C.C.
Technology Surcharge, 5%
Subtotal
$2,254.00
$112.70
$2,366.70
$259.00
$2,625.70
RECEIVED
Postage & Notification
Total
JAN - 4 2008
Based on 12~3-2007 fee schedule.
By~
V:\PLANNtNG MASTER APPLlCA TIONS\APPEALS APPLICATION TYPE IV.doc
Revised 8/10/2006 bi
.225 Fifth Street.
Springfield, Oregon 97477
541-726-3759 Phone
Job/Journal Number
ZON2008-00002
ZON2008-00002
ZON2008-00002
Payments:
Type of Payment
Check
cReceintl
RECEIPT #:
Citv of Springfield Official Receipt
I. dopment Services'Department
Public Works Department
2200800000000000010
Date: 01104/2008
3:29:54PM
Item Total:
{;heck Number Authorization
Received By Batch Number Number How Received
tj 1144 In Person
Payment Total:
Amount Due
2,254.00
112.70
259.00
$2,625.70
Descrip~ion
CTY'Appeal Type III Dee to CC
+ 5% Technology Fee
Postage Fee Type IV - $259
Paid By
SC SPRINGFIELD, LLC;
Amount Paid
$2,625.70
$2,625.70
RECEIVED
JAN - 4 2008
By:
\
Page I of I
1/4/2008
RECEIVE
JAN - 4 Z008
WRITIEN APPEAL STATEMESy:
MARCOLA MASTER PLAN LRP 2007-0028
The applicant 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
commercial driveway.
2.
The City Traffic Engineer acknowledges these improvements will
meet applicable performance standards.
3.
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:
a. The taking for a public purpose of between .56 and 2.0 acres
of the applicant's commercially zoned property;
b. Demolition of 1,200 to 1,700 lineal feet of a publicly
improved arterial street;
Phone:
(54]) 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
Emai!.
info@g1caveslaw,com
Web-Site:
www.gleaveslaw.com
Frederick A. Batson
Jon V Buerstatte
Joshua A Clark
Daniel P. Ellison
Michael T raulconer**
A.). Ciuslina
Thomas P. E Herrmann*
Dan Webb Howard**
Stephen O. Lane
WilliamH.Martin*
WalterWlMiller
Laura T. Z. tvlontgomery*
Tanya C. O'Neil
Standlee G. Potter
Martha J. Rodman
Robert S. Russell
Douglas R. Schultz
Malcolm H Scott
James w. Spickerman
Kate A. Thompson
janeM.Yates
*Aho admitted
in Wa,hington
**Alsoadmitted
in California
. If; "A ~t<i.
.~" \,i,.::':
c. Construction of a new arterial street for a distance of
approximately 1,200' tb 1,700 feet generally north of the
existing Marcola Road at the sole expense of the applicant;
d. Construction of a frontage road with improvements on the
south side of Marcola Road at the applicant's expense (this
road will occupy 17 feet of presently unimproved right-of-
way which exists now as front yard, setback area and buffer
for the residences along the south side of Marcola Road).
As discussed below, the requirements sought to be imposed by
Condition #27, beyond the practical issues, raise three legal issues:
1. The requirements of the condition are not based on criteria for
approval of a Master Plan as required by .oregon law.
2. The requirements constitute a disproportionate burden upon the
applicant relative to the impact of the development on public
facilities. This is contrary to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in
Dolan v. Citv 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 R fiEC EAVE D
This cou~d include the alternative of a roundabout at that n I .
mtersectlOn.
!\,nmment
Lack of Authoritv for the Requirement of Roundabouts By:
The applicant has proposed traffic signals at the intersection of
Martin Drive and Marcola Road. The infrastructure for this
signalization would be put in place at the time of construction of the
first phase of the development and the signals installed as the
intersection "meets warrants" for traffic signals.
JAN - 4 Z008
The applicant believes that there is no authority in the criteria
for Master Plan appruval to require the roundabout intersections. In
addition to the lack of basis for this requirement in the criteria, there
is no nexus between the impact of the development and the financial
burden the requirement places upon the applicant.
It is necessary that there be a connection between a condition
imposed and the standard served by the condition. This is a case of
whether the condition involves an exaction, as does that here, or not.
See .olson Memorial Clinic v. Clackamas Countv, 21.01' LUBA 418
2- WRITTEN APPEAL STATEMENT - MARCOLA MASTER PLAN LRP 2007-0028
January 4, 2008
....,..TI.;;:;:r,'::.~f'. .
. '~."!'>.'~,~:;t"
, ',~!;f:"ji'.:.'
':/\!i/'
". ~.p
(1991), Sky Dive Oregon v. Clackamas Countv,.25 Or LUBA 294
(1993). Where.private land is s6T.lghi: for a p'Ul?lic purpose, there must
be the "essential nexus" between the conditiorYand 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 Corp. 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 standards that are applicable and the basis for
imposition of conditions of Master Plan approval. The other applicable
standards are the Master Plan approval criteria set forth in SDC 5.13-.,
125.
The zoning map amendment conditions of approval include
condition 9 which requires:
"Submittal of preliminary design plans with a Master Plan
application addressing proposed mitigation of impacts
discussed in the TlA."
SDC Section 5.13-125 sets forth the Master Plan Criteria of
Approval. The following is among those criteria: R E C E IVE D
"C. Proposed on-site and off-site improverr'!~nts, both
public and private, are sufficient to accomrnodate the JAN - 4 Z008
proposed phased development and any capacity
requirements of public facilities plans; and provisions are B .
made to assure construction of off-site improvements in Y. .
conjunction with a schedule of the phasing."
In the TIA submitted at the time of rezoning, it was shown that
traffic control would be necessary at the intersections of Marcola
Road/Martin Drive and Marcola Road/private commercial driveway.
In order to meet capacity requirements to satisfy Goal 12
Transportation, the applicant has proposed to dedicate the right-of-
way for and to complete all improvements to Martin Drive and provide
the signalized intersections contemplated by the TIA.
The staff report for the December 11, 2007 Planning
Commission meeting states with regard to the proposed signalized
intersections:
"". from a capacity standpoint existing and proposed
transportation facilities would be sufficient to meet
applicable performance standards...." Staff Report, p. 35.
3- WRITTEN APPEAL STATEMENT- MARCO LA MASTER PLAN'LRP 2007-0028
,January 4.2008
. 'rr '''~''::/';:4;;;,~!t
. ~~?:~;~fi; .
The staff simply prefers roundabouts at, thf'.se two intersections
on the basis that the City "has had success' {(!itR' 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 Decernber 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.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.
intersection. The "criteria" cited are set forth under the following
introductory paragraph:
'~a. The following street connection standard shall be
used in evaluating street aligr!ment proposals not shown'in
or-different from an adopted plan or that are different from
.the Conceptual Local Street Map...." (Emphasis added.)
The standards cited in the December 18, 2007 memorandutlECEIVED
simply are not applicable. Both Marcol<i Road and Martin Drive clJ
shown in the proposed location on both the Conceptual Local Street
Map and TransPlan. JAN - 4 2008
Dolan Issue
By:
Dolan v. Citv of Tigard, 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 order to meet
requirements of the Statewide Transportation Goal and City Code. The
City staff has agreed that, from a capacity standpoint, the proposed
signalized intersection would meet applicable performance standards.
A disproportionate burden would be imposed by the requirement of
roundabouts, which would increase the applicant's burden in the form
of the cost of realignment of Marcola Road and the loss of one-half to..
two acres of commercial land. While the cost of two signalized
4- WRITTEN APPEAL STATEMENT - MARCOLA MASTER PLAN LRF' 2007-0028
January 4, 2008
".'-<\j'r..........."'...~ . ..".{f'~'~!.....~.."iT".
.;..., 101
. '.. ~~ \ ..
intersections could be approxim~teiy $500,OOOLa roundabout with full
frontage road would be $2,500;006 plus the ;Ji'ilfing" 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 reasoiiswas 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 staff's
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 borneby 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
alter.nativeis .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
Master Plan Condition #27, paragraph 3, would require:
, .
RECEIVED
"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 By'
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."
JAN - 4 Z008
The Traffic Impact Analysis for the project, accepted by ODOT
and the City, found that the development will not "significantly affect"
the transportation system off site, with the exception of the eastbound
off ramp of the Eugene-Springfield Highway (which the applicant has
agreed to address). The existing situation at the south side of Marcola
Road was not identified in the TIA as a location off site where the
development would "significantly affect" the transportation system.
Marcola Road is classified by the City of Springfield as a minor
arterial roadway and does not currently have any access control on the
south side of the roadway, which has resulted in approximately 14
5- WRITTEN APPEAL STATEMENT - MARCOLA MASTER PLAN LRP 2007-0028
January 4,2008
,1-,'-"",,":'"
)f,' ."....;~,;:- .,
.....~f'!'~~. .
residential driveways on that side of. the roady.ray. This conflict with
, t:..~ ,~"" ' ,1t~ ",,,~'-. l'
intersections to Marcola Road was inevitable'iri't~rms of future
transportation plans. Both the TtansPlaIl 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 norih and east.
To the extent there is a problem, it exists with or without the
development. The Dolan findings set forth at page 38 of the Staff
Report to the Planning. Commission do not purport to address the
exaction for the roundabout, just the right-of-way for the proposed
development. The development will be responsible for only a portion of
the traffic utilizing that intersection. Obviously, improvements at the
intersection should not be the sole responsibility of the applicant but
the applicant has not raised this issue relative to providing a
signalized ,.in tersection.
The Master Plan as proposed by the applicant would incorporate
.the existing south-side driveways to the extent possible with the traffic
signal proposal. The applicant's traffic engirieers do not anticipate an
unsafe condition, although some turning movements may be restricted
from certain driveways.
Unlawful Delel!:ation
Master Plan Condition #27, paragraph 5, would require:
"Provide financial security acceptable to the City EngineerR'ECE
in an amount equal to the cost of signalized traffic control IVE D
to provide for future traffic control at the arterial/ site
driveway intersection location. The form and timing of
future traffic control will be based on traffic operational
and safety needs as determined by the City Engineer." B .
This condition would give complete discretion to the City y.
Engineer as to whether a roundabout and the necessary right-of-way
to accommodate a roundabout would be required at this intersection.
As with the Martin Drive intersection, the traffic data indicates the
signalized intersection for the private drive, when put in place as
warrants require, will operate as well or better than a roundabout.
JAN - 4 2008
The condition, as proposed, would not require any particularized
analysis of the proportionality of the burden i~lj:>osed, as required by
the Dolan line of cases. The condition is also objectionable in that it
6- WRITTEN APPEAL STATEMENT -.MARCOLA MASTER PLAN LRP 2007-0028
January 4, 2008
'r
constitutes an unlawful delegation of authori,ty"by deferring
development approval to a later stage where '.there is no opportunity for
public hearing. See Tenlv Properties Cora. v. Washington County, 34
Or LUBA 352 (1998).
The objections above made' to the roundabout at the Martin
Drive intersection are made here::' there is no"logical connection
between applicable criteria and the requirement and the .burden would
be disproportionate to the impact of creation of a driveway.
Conclusion
The applicant's proposal for signalized intersections address
traffic capacity and safety requirements. The requirement of
roundabouts is not only impractical but is an unlawful exaction.
The applicant proposes the attached alternative for Master Plan
Condition '#27.
James W. SplC
Of Attorneys for Applicant
Attachment: Proposed Master Plan Condition #27
RECEIVED
JAN - 4 Z008
By:
7- WRITTEN APPEAL STATEMENT - MARCOLA MASTER PLAN LRP 2007-0028
January 4, 2008
, .
~. "
APPLICANT'S PROPOSED MASTER pLAN tONDmON #27
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #27. Prior to the approval of the final Master Plan,
the applicant shall:
;:
1)
Demonstrate that the improvements specified in the final Master Plan
shal.i 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
inte'rsectionat 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. final 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
equai 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
me~, signalized traffic controls shall be P.ut into place at the applicant's
expense.
Z)
3)
RECEIVED
JAN - 4 2008
By~