HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotice PLANNER 1/18/2008
,
o
~-P
.-
.-
, '
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
STATE OF OREGON }
}ss.
County of Lane }r
I, Brenda Jones, being first duly sworn, do hereby depose and say as follows:
1, ,I state that I, am a Secretary for the Planning Division of the Development
Services Department, City of Springfield, Oregon.
2. I state that in my capacity as Secretary, I prepared and caused to be
",
mailed copies of Copies of AIS for Marcola Meadows Appeal's to the
City of Springfield City Council, mailed to the seven (7) appellants
(See attachment "A") on January'18, 2008 addressed to (see Attachment
"B"), by causing said letters to be placed in a U.S. mail box with postage
fully prepaid thereon.
,
RECEIVED
JAN 1 82008
j1'w
Brenda Jones /
Planning Secretary U
By:
~~
STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane
1r1fU~ 1<6 ,2008 Personally appeared the above named Brenda Jones,
, ~cretary,(\JIho acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be tl:leir voluntary act. Before
me:
~"">',,'
~
OFFICIAL SEAL
OEYETTE KELLY
NOTARY PUBLIC, OREGON'
COMMISSION NO. 420351 '
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUG. 15, 2011
)Y'f'b .l0fJj,j .
. J
My Commission Expires: ~/ V;;; 1/.1
I
"
/
./
ACTION
REQUESTED:
Meeti.... ..late: January28, 2008
Meeting Type: Regular Session
Department: Development Services '
StafIContact: GaryM"Karp ,~t(,;
S P R I N G FIE L D StafIPhone No: 726-3777 ~
C IT 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 20th Planning Commission approval of the Marcola Meadows Master Plan application as
conditioned, or 0) 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 Attomey Jim Spickerman from City Attorney Dated January 8, 2008
Attachment 4: Planning Commission Minutes, December 20, 2007
Attachment 5: Draft Planning Commission Minutes, December 11, 2007
Attachment 6: Transportation Graphics
Attachment 7: Oreqon Revised Statutes (ORS) 197,763
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
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'. hearing, the Planning Commission voted 7-{J 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 developme~t site would need to shift north onto
this property, This shift would occur just west of the intersection of 28'. 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 reasonal;lly 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 im'pacts 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. '
..~
If'
. -
,',',.
-..........."..
~~-~~
.....-.-.-..':'.... ,....---,.--
-,-- ,-
.~,
i
,
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
225 5th ST
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
:,,, I,'
"" "., I ""_0,.".."
'.. -,...- _........__..~
Rick Satre
Satre-Associates
132 East Broadway, Suite 536
Eugene,~ Oregon 97401
~ .'.1
J
j
I
1
,._--1
(':
- -.,'
"
~
ZOf-.J90o 1(-1~ :;r
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
STATE OF OREGON }
}ss.
, County of Lane }
I, Brenda Jones, being first duly sworn, do hereby depose and say as follows:
1. I state that I am a Secretary for the Planning Division of the Development
Services Department, City of Springfield, Oregon.
2. I state that in my capacity as Secretary, I prepared and caused to be
mailed copies of Copies of AIS for Marcola Meadows Appeal's to the
. 'City of Springfield City Council, mailed to the seven (7) appeliants
(See attachment "A") on January 18,2008 addressed to (see Attachment
"B"), by causing said letters to be placed in a U.S. mail box with postage
fully prepaid thereon,
~ilJv .
. Planning Secretary
RECEIVED
By:
JAN 182008
(!J(v~
~ ~ A-L5 1<> CL--
,~
STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane
1tlJ11uau; If, 2008 Personally appeared the above named Brenda Jones,
~cretary6Vho acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be tl;1eir voluntary act. Before
me:
OFFICIAL SEAL
DEVETTE KELLY
NOTARY PUBLIC. OREGON'
COMMISSION NO. 420351' '
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUG. 15. 2011
~,~jJt/ .
'0 0
My Commission Expires: ~J /,
,
,,/
.ng Date: January ,28, 2008
Meeting Type: Regular Session
Department:' Development Services
Staff Contact: Gary M, Karp C; t(,
, S P R I N G FIE L D Staff Phone No: 726-3777 ~
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) T~eCity Council is requested to address some procedural issues. 2) Then, either a) uphold the
, December 20th Planning Commission approval of the Marcela 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, ,0
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: Attac'hment 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: Oreqon Revised Statutes (ORS) 197,763
ACTION
REQUESTED:
AGENDA ITEM SUlulARY .
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 20th 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 staff's recommendation of this condition was
supported by the Planning Commission and is based on: 1) the authority granted by the Springfield Development Code to
require such improvements; 2) the proposed development is the only reason improvement to Marcola Road is necessary;
3) the applicant offered no reasonably workable solution to the traffic and safety conflicts along Marcola Road creaied 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.
.0_,,",0' ,_... ,," ~,...,' _ I..,~~_._ ...1,
j
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
DEVELOPMENT SE'RVICES DEPARTMENT
225 5th ST
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
".. "
.
SC Springfield, LLC
7510 Longley Lane, Suite 102
Reno, Nevada 89511
,-
,
__J
Blank .
Page 1 of 1
KARP Gary
From: JONES Brenda
Friday, January '18,200812:15 PM '
BOWLSBY David; CASTILE Robert; DIXON Guy: DONOVAN James: GALE Kitti; GRAHAM Steve; GRILE Bill; ,
HOPKINS Steve: HOPPER Lisa: JONES Terry (Tara); KARP Gary; KEHM Rebekkah: KELLY Deyette: KO Kevin:
LAFLEUR Karen; L1MBIRD Andrew; LITTLE De; MACHADO Nancy; MARKARIAN Molly; MARX Sandra;
METZGER Mark; MILLER Liz: MOORE Donald; MOTT Cynthia; MOTT Gregory; MURDOCH Jacqueline; OLSEN
Penny: PAULY Linda: PETERSON Jodi: PUENT David; REESOR David: RICHARDSON Bryan; SEBAN Sophia:
WATSON Roberta
Cc: Joe Leahy: Lorelei Kyllonen; WILSON Leslie; WILSON Julie; SOWA Amy
Subject: Satre Associate New Address
Sent:
To:
~ceivetf natice tfiat as af 0 1/28/08 Satre muf )'Lssaciates lias a new dtfress.
Satre e1,)'Lssaciates, P. C.
202 'East (}3roadway, Suite 480
'Eugene, Oregan 97401
J{appy 'FrUfay, (}3renda
(}3renda Janes
Pfanning Secretary
225 'Fiftli Street
SprinBfieU, Oregan 97477
541-726-3610 'F)'LX 541-726-3689
iijonfY@ci 5pringfieUf.oJ'.US
If yau wau(tf Ei~ to. see wfiat:S- new at tlie City of SprinBfieU, go. ta:www.ci.springfieUf.ar.us
RECEiVED,
JAN 1 8Z008
By:..Jy~ -
".~
1/22/2008
Blank
,;
Page 1 ofl
KARP Gary
From: JONES Brenda
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 9:25AM
To: Richard Satre '
Cc: , LEAHY Joe (HL); MOTTGregory: GRILE Bill; KARP Gary
Subject: AIS for' Marcola Meadows
Attachments: cover sheet - marcola meadows - ais,pdf: attachment 1 " marcola meadows - ais,pdf; attachment 2 -
marcola meadows - ais,pdf; attachment 3 - marcola meadows - ais,pdf; attachment 4 - marcolameadows-
ais,pdf: attachment 5 - marcola meadows - ais,pdf: attachment 6 - marcola meadows - ais,pdf; attachment 7
- marcola meadows - ais:pdf
Good Morning Rick,
Per our phone conversation, I am e" mailing you the AIS with attachments regarding the Appeal of the
Planning Commission's Approval of the Marcola Meadows Master Plan. Also, Per your request I am
placing a hard copy of the staff report in the mail today. You should receive this by Tuesday January
22; 2008.
The AIS has also been placed on the Cities WEB site on Planning's front page.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at the listed numbers below if you have any questions or concerns.
Brenda
(]3renda Jones
(P(anning Secretary
225 'Fifth Street
Springfieu, Oregon 97477
541-726-3610 'F}lX 541-726-3689
6jones@cispringfiefriorlls
If you wouU li/ig to see what's ~ at the City of Springfieu, go to: www.d.SprinofieUi.or.us
RECEIVED. '
JAN 1 82008
By:~~PC~
~
1/22/2008