HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence Miscellaneous 1/28/2008 (4)
.r;;.,
I
'y'" ('I
-(y,
.(/
Date Received:
JAN 2 8 2008
Original Submittal f<#.
~: 46 frvJ
2,67 Mohawk Road
Springfield, OR 97477
May 19, 1975
Springfield City Council
150 Yorth 4th Street
S~ringfield, OR 97477
r..or:+-' o.>"!"o'"'..
- --. ..._....~_..-.
We wish to a~peal the conditional use permit the
Springfield ?lar~ing Commission franted Lane Cedar Products
on /Jay 7, 1975, for tr.e purpose 'of lOCating a ,parking lot
in a reside~tial surburban district on 28th Street across
U.e street fro:!! th.eir industrialoperaticns. (This is
located on the 'Nest side of. NQl'th 28th Street between
Marcola Road arid the Eugene-Springfield Freeway..'
The North Springfield Corr~unity Plan adopted by :he
City of Springfield ~ugust 6, 1973; Ordinance No. 73-108
speCifies this area to be residential. ~~y have they
granted this permit when it i! clearly contrary to the. ~lan?
Since we are vitally concerned with the future
liVability of North Springfield, we respectfully request
of you a pUblic hearing on this matter.
Ve?) tru~y,your.s,. .
~I) ). c./p/ 7./;?/->/Y.'",-L~
. ?'-'"""'-\ '/" .
Fred J a sllier .
Chairman
"
f'r' <-e.'l .",I-::.:dk./
Nancy Falk
Vice Chairman
NORTH SPRImFIELD
CITIZENS COMMITTEE
Page 1 of 1
-',"
..
"
KARP Gary
From: SOWA Amy
Sent: Tuesday, JanuarY 29, 2008 10:23 AM
To: SCHINDELE-CUPPLES Carrie; KARP Gary; MOTT Gregory; GRILE Bill; BOYATT Tom; BARNETT Brian
Cc: GRIMALDI Gino; WILSON Julie
Subject: Council. Follow-up 1/28/08 Final
On behalf of Gino, I am sending the follow-up from last night's Council meeting.
Thanks!
Amy
Carrie Schindele-Cupples: Arts Commission Aoolicant Review - Council consensus was to move forward to appoint the three
recommended candidates during the February 4 Council meeting. Please submit the AIS for the appointments to Amy by 3pm
Tuesday, January 29.
Gary/Greg/Bill GfTom S/Brian B: Marcola Meadows Master Plan - Council upheld the Planning Commission's decision to
approve the master plan for Marcola Meadows as clarified in the staff report with regard tei Condition #27. Council asked that
staff move forward to work with the applicant and the Marcola neighbors, to find a solution regarding the traffic impacts, road
improvements, power lines, and any other issues that may arise regarding the development.
Amy Sowa
City oJSpringfield
225 F ifih Street
Springfield, OR 97477
(54]) 726-3700 phone
(54]) 726-2363Jax
Messages to and from this e-mail address may be subject to disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law.
RECEIVED
JAN 2 92008
By:, e ~
1/2912008
"
:
-
.
Page 1 of2
KARP Gary
From: LAFLEUR Karen
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 12:01 PM
I
To: KARP Gary; LEAHY Joe (HL); MaTT Gregory; DONOVAN James
Subject: FW: de novo
(E-mail from ~k, dated 1 c29-08 Karen)
Vtt~
From: Nick Shevchynski [mailto:allocutionofjustice@yahoo.com] I
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 11:58 AM
To: Karen Alvarado; Arne Alva~ado; SOWA Amy; BALLEW Anne (SMT~); Lee Beyer; BARNETT Brian; Bill Carpenter; Cindy
Coop; Fred Cross; Curt Deatherage; Dennis Hunt; Dennis Jones; LAFLEUR Karen; karl; Johnny Kirschenmann; Terri Leezer;
Springfield Mayor; LUNDBERG Christine (Springfield Councilor); Roberta Miller-Spencer; Sheri Moore; Jack moran; Philip
Micheal Newman; Philip Newman; PISHIONERI Joe (Springfield CounCilor); RALSTON David (SMTP); Clara Shevchinski; Nick
Shevchynski; Eric Smith; James C. Spickerman; WOODROW John; wYLIE Hillary (Springfield Councilor)
Subject: de novo
At the January 28, 2008 city council meet - a quick and limited response
"de novo: Anew
. hearing de novo: I, A reviewing court's decision of a matter anew, giving no deference to a lower court's fmding. 2.
Anew hearing ofa matter conducted as if the original hearing had not taken place." .
Blacks Law Dictionary, eight edition
I. The planning commission said my email was ex parte communication and sent them to be part of the public
record. So are they ex parte? Straightaway lawyer Leahy declared that Nick's email to the city council was part of
the public record. The councilors went around the horn and all said the emails were received. That was a relief.
Arne Alvarado said there was a virus attached tha1 screwed-up his emails. 1 told Arne it was the secre1 police.
Councilor Woodrow said he deleted the emails. Item #2 in my speech was by reference incorporating everything
that had been submitted and said so far so 1 wouldn't have to go over everything and a request that the city recorder
provide Mr. 'Woodrow copies of all the emails so he can't say they weren't available. Like Jr. High kids you can
provide the material but you can'1 make them read it.
2. 1 raised the issue that the city staff and developer got to drone on forever with no time limits but the public got
only 3 minutes. Thatwas changed to everyone getting 10 minutes. 1 think that went well, no one abused the time
limit. The applicant could have used more time especially with his expensive visual displays and booklet handout
but as we saw it wouldn't have mattered and no one voted for more time to read the' booklet before voting against the
appeals. Did the city council make it clear that the were voting against the appeal of all parties or only the
developers?
3. 1 raised the issue that the city staff and developer getting rebuttal and unlimited time for rebuttal and the
citizens getting neither. That was changed to everyone getting a 10 minute rebuttal.
4. The City denied the appeal of Philip Newman Trustee and Dennis Hunt on the basis of no standing because
they didn't appear at a planning commission hearing. The ge1 around the fact they couldn't have appeared because
they were not notified' as required under the law the city then declared the appeal hearing de novo which did not
require standing to appear before the city council and appeal the city council's decision. The City did the same with
the appeal of Clara Shevchinski.
1/29/2008
t:
..
.
Page 2 of2
5. The City required $11,270 for an appeal fee from me for the bundling of five appellants under the North
Springfield Citizens Committee plus $2,251 from appellant Donna Lentz. This was after already receiving
$2,251 from the developer for the appeaL Apparently this was shameful and greedy thusly not addressed by the city
council, they simply allowed everyone and anyone to speak under the new and improved time limit and have
standing to appeal to "the land use board." Thus also allowed the issue of standing for the North Springfield Citizens
Committee to be a non-issue.
6. In the end most councilors said they were reluctant to overturn the planning commission because, but not
limited to, as the Mayor explained the vote was 7 to 0 by the planning commission. The Mayor also pointed out that
commissioner Beyer and commissioner Carpenter actually agreed on something was a factor.
In conclusion a 7 to 0 vote by in inferior tribunal is not the standard for detennining a decision in a de novo
hearing.
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo vour homenaQe.
1/29/2008