Loading...
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~