HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotice PLANNER 1/23/2008
. ~~, \
{tM.fJ
,
\
,
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
5T ATE 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. ..1 state that in my capacity as Secretary, I prepared and caused to be mailed
: copies of Appeal of Marcola Meadows AIS - Attachment 8 and corrected
, Agenda Item Summary sent to Appellan~(ZON2Q08~002HSee
attachment "AU) on January 23, 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
r .
I#J1,L./
()
JAN 2 32008
~~
By: ~dccl *'3.
Brenda Jones
Planning Secretary
,
STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane.
1 ~.2..~ , 2008 Personally appeared the above nam~d Brenda jones,' Secretary,
"-wbb ackno~dged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary act. Before me: '
,.
. '., OFFICIAL SEAL
. Dc'O:IIO: KELLY
" ' ., NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON
" COMMISSION NO. 420351
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUG: 15, 2011
. fy,(pft;)(LJA') . '.
~- 0 ' :&f!
My Commission Expires: ~!jS:/11
MeetingDate:
Meetin~ pe:
Department:
Staff Contact:
Staff Phone No:
Estimated Time:
January 28, 2008
Regular Session
Development Services
Gary M, Karp 6)( , -
726-3777 cer1r
60 minutes
,-
~
. AGENDA ITEM SUMMAP:Y
SPRINGFIELD
CITY COUNCIL
ITEM TITLE:
ACTION
REQUESTED:
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
ATTACHMENTS:
DISCUSSION:
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
con,ditioned, 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 denv 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, A~ .
permitted by the Springfield Development Code (SDC), and for ease of review, staff has combined
all appeals into one staff report .
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 Attomey 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
Attachment7: Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 197.763
Attachment 8: Appeal Submittals - (Seven Statements)
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 MarCela Road. An approval cpndition 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 Departmeri~ 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 MasterPlan 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 Marcela 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 concurredWith this conclusion after
evaluating the facts.' . .
\~
..
City of Springfield
Development Services Department
225 Fifth Street .
Springfield, OR 97477
Phone: (54t)'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 Decemb~r 20, 2007
Date of Filing the Appeal January 4, 2007
(This date must be within 15 ealendar 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 ~here 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 Master Plan Approval Condition #27: 1) is without basis in the.
"applicable ,criteria for Master Plan approval;
Issue #2
2 );, imposes upo'n the applicant a burden disproportionate to the impac:t
of the development; and
Issue #3
3) unlawfully delegates to the City Engineer the discretion to impose
exactions without reference to standards and without findings Qf 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 infomlation
supplied is correct' and accurate.
Appellant'sName SC Sprinqfield, LLC Phone 775-853-4714
Address 7510 Lonqlev Lane. Suite 102. Reno, Nevada 89511'
Statement ofInterest,t7ooert;- /?"f9!'r /apolica~t
. Signature W1/1"1.1 ~ Y.. .
/ J
for oriGinal aoolication
I('nr oml''' H~p flnlv!
Journal NO.~.::J r"\ Zsofh - C:;~'-Received By
. 11-o2~3c:> -00 '
Assessor's pNo. L7-o3-2.5~1I Tax Lot No.
Date Accepted as Complete
~
1800
"23l\1\
f'RSza,Co"~3G:,
ATTACHMENT 8 - 1
.
WRITTEN APPEAL STATEMENT
MARCOLA MASTER PLAN LRP 2007-0028
- . .
Th~ 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 arid timing of future traffic control at the private
commerciaI driveway and Marcola Road intersection.
Summarv of Issues Raised bv Condition #27\
The applicant appeals Condition #27 based upon the following
facts and P9ints 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 arid 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;
ATTACHMENT 8 - 2
Gleaves
Swearingen
Potter &
StOtt llP
...,~~;~
!t~1;
~~ I: I '('i..I.::-<>I ' ~
,', il ;"<":'.\~
Phone:
(54 I) 686-8833
Fax:
(541) 345-2034
975 Oak Street .
Suitt: aoo
Eugene, Oregon
97401-3156
Mailing Addms;
P.O. Box 1147
Eugene, Oregon
97440.1 ]47
Emai\:
info@gleaveslaw.com
Web.Site:
vlww.gleaves[aw.com
Frederick A. Batson
Jon V. Buerstatte
Joshua A. Oark
Daniel P. Elison
Michael T Faulconer..
A.). Giustina
Thomas p, E. Herrmann.
Dan Webb Howard'.
Stephen O. Lane
WilllamH.Martin*
WalterW.Miller
laura 1. Z. Montgomery.
Tanya C. O'Neil
Standlc:=e G. Potter
. Martha l Ro~an
Robert S. Russell
Douglas R. Schultz
Malcolm H. Scott
James W. Spickerman
Kate A. Thompson
Janc=M.Yates
. Also admitted
in Washington
'.Alsoadmitted
in. California
(
il
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 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 beiinposed by
Condition'#27, beyond the practical issues, raise three legal issues:
1. The'requirements of the condition are not based on criteria for
approval oLa 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 Tie'ard 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
i,ntersection.
~rument" .
Lack of Authority for the Requirement of Roundaboutl!
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 ahd the signals installed as the
intersection "meets warrants" for traffic signals.
. <, '
I
The applicant believes that there is no authority in the criteria
for Master Plan approval to require the roundabout intersections, In
addition t() the lack of basis for this requirement in the criteria, there
is no nexus between the impact of the development and the fmancial
burden the requirement places upon the applicant.
l
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 Or LUBA 418
'2- Vll<111",N APPEAL STATEMENT - MARCOLA MASTER PLAN LRP 2007-0028
January 4,'2008
,
ATTACHMENT 8 - 3
i>
(1991), Sky Dive Ore!!on 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 standards that are applicable and the basis for
impositioI). 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 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
req\litements of public facilities plans; and provisions are
made to assure.constiuction of off-site improvements in
conj~ction with a schedule of the phasiIlg."
'\
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.staffreport'for the December 11, 2007 Planning
Commission meeting states with.regard to the proposed signalized
intersections:
a,,, from a capacity standpoint existing and proposed
transportation 'facilities would be sufficient to meet
applicable perfohnance standards...." Staff Report, p. 35.
3- WRTITEN 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 rounq,about
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 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 alignment proposals not shown in
or different from an adop'ted plan or that are different from
the ConceptUal Local Street Map...." (Emphasis added.)
The standards cited in the December 18, 2007 memorandum
simply are not applicable. Both Marcola Road and Martin Drive are.
shown in the proposed location on both the Conceptual Local Street
Map and TransPlan. .
l,
Dolan Issue
Dolan v. City of Tilzard, 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 exteI).t, 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 applicanfs develo?ment.
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'f! 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 LRP 2007-0028
January 4, 2008
ATTACHMENT 8 - 5
..
, intersections could b~ 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
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 staffs
comments indicate a prderence 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 th~ 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 Frontalte Road
Master 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 located 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
qpposite 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. WRITTEN APPEAL STATEMENT. MARCOLA MASTER PLAN LRP 2007.0028 .
January' 4, 2008
ATTACHMENT 8 - 6
..
'-
residential driveways on that side of the roadway. This conflict 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
.J 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, 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 intersection.
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 engineers do not anticipate an
unsafe condition, although some turning movements may 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 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."
This condition would give complete discretion to the City
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.
The condition, as proposed, would not requITe 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- WRlITEN APPEAL STATEMENT - MARCOLA MASTER PLAN LRP 2007-0028
January 4, 2008
,. ATTACHMENT 8 - 7
.'
'--
consti1:)..ltes an lmlawful delegation of authority by deferring
development approval to a later stage where there is no opportunity for
public hearing. See Tenlv Pronerties Com. v. Washinlrton Countv, 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
Of Attorneys for Applicant
Attachment: Proposed Master Plan Condition #27
7- WRITTEN APPEAL STATEMENT - MARCOLA MASTER PLAN LRP 2007-0028
January 4, 2008,
ATTACHMENTS - S
"
'~-,
APPUCANT'S PROPOSED MASTER PLAN.CONDmON #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 Master Plan
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. 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 hi 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)
r
ATTACHMENT 8 - 9
City of Springfield
Development Services Department
225 Fifth Street
Spritigfield, OR 97477
Phone: (541) 726-3759
Fax: (541)726-3689
SPRINGFIELo,
'Appeals Application, Type IV
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to City Council
e Received:
JAN .~' 2008
}\~
I: 1l pIN
re~
bj~
. . ".--'-- . '-" orielnal S*l!Ilttal.
Name, Journal Number and Dat<; of the Decision Being ~ealed .cr, 11'\ 1"\ Q. r . en Z.
LR P 2C)O(-c)002~ UPLeM-b.-ur 20.2001 .
Date of Filing the Appeal
\~UfarG( :2 .20D8
(This date must he within ~5 ialendar days of the date 01 the decisioo.)
, .
Please list below, in swnmary form, the spepfic 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
:;~oO{~~~Oha;:+;::i~':Me;:~~~+J~ 3 'ho~'
'iw.r((')~-;b" -thoJt. ~~ oJ81e '!Jl-eA-h+~
Issue #2 C l'9--f\ C -e...r () ~ h Q~ (CJJ'\d ~ CA vv .. ~ -e r u-.
i-\! -tR~-e. Ip ~ILI .~o r>"IVfcJ( 0-\-' i '+0 u-~/-
Issue#!~roie.c/\i hlf)~rd ~C)S"~',bll.1 a.dl/'ers-e.../r .
e_ -\-~ p,~, L-<--r b pJ\ ren ewaJL D1CJJ\,
!ssue#4 Po5~ I h; \ 'd~_ . at' "mD~d \n~ r~~eS5"J~
vvc:>\.{ [d DrO(/"-e.,. inC'>DrDt")"+Ur:)t!, -foLiKiS'" Drolec...T
(Li~ any additional issues being ~ att3ched sheet) .-
jf} areq
. The undersigned acknowledges that the above appeal form aDd its attachmeDts have beeD' .....d. the
requiremeDts for fiIiog aD appeal of a IaDd use decisioD is DDderstood aDd states that the inlormation
supplied Is correct and accurate. .
Appellant's Name Don ~ Le.....it"2. ..P~one 7 '-( '1 -51? >
Address ) ~L.{L).e sf- Spr.jn~-fi..DM IOr.Q)4 '( I
. ' \\~ - ("' .. I". K~" ~ '-JG t J,$;. ..n F'\" . -D P [ .
. Statement of Interest -I lU-V-;, ;.. u f-~\;::,/ ~V\ l - - l,g.....!":l;..1P19 iiflct
Signature ~ ~ '. KegrClil.h1-
Jf'"",. flm.... fl9,. 0Jr":";
Journal No. LoN 20c8-cx:;D:) 3 Received By
/'7-02-30'-00 7Z- I Boo
Assessor'sMapNo.J7-0'l-;'>"i-1I Tax Lot No, TJ. Z"I.....,,...,
Date Accepted as Complete
':pp.,3 200(0- O0a3k>
ATTACHMENT 8 - 10
, ,~
SPRINGFIE' _..J
City of Springfield
Development Services Department
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Phone: (541) n6-3759
Fax: (541) 726-3689
Date Received:
Appeals Application, Type IV
Appeal'ofPlanning Commission Decision to City Council
I~.
Name, Journai Number and Date of the Decision Being Appealed OrlQinal Submittal I<i.-
A if Z7(Y
/1/6 It;fV . 'h41J Wj)&: lIT AP""I~'i:,'nqi;/ t.RP 2oo7-0oo.zy: : :J
. . .' - ~ ,
J2tc. 2D. 2.00/)' ", Jillov-r"" 4T MMOJ/-A M,9?lJDW~
. / .
Date of Filing the Appeal
~-.' 4: 2tA:s>ff
, (This 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 in"t't'<v/,.:ately applied.
Issue #1 :. ~~~~f/ 3i:>C S;Z - 1/ ~ tSifl o-Huv -fl'ck)
Issue #2
Issue #3
Issue #4
(List any additional issues being appealed on an attached sheet)
The undersigned acknowledges that the above.appeal form andits 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.be-n ~ c;'~P~Q..b OTf~S C/4t...,]'tT
Appellant'sN~e ?h\' L P ~. NUUr\AcH'\ Phone ~q S"~ l{J17
Address 2Jv 0 S\'\ y\,{( H (lKSi.otJ.<-lA
Statem~t OPii~t.~P '~U' . ~.cu..--\d \3v"'~Y ~fL);\ 1/..1)
\ '/t-/"! C ( ~1..;/
Signature ~J. ~ , /I _ :n.tJ'/ A/l-^- -
l?nr Offirp TTop Olllr.
Journal No. ?,')rJ'J ~f')'X - PJXJn'-L Received By_
~I -Cr'-~7J;-OO ' 10000D
. - , Ma N <0 -^' Tax Lot No. __-v-. - ~
""sessocs p 0._'7-D,3-Z'5-I}' ,~""
Date Accepted as Complete. '
~ f<..J 1JY\ t, - n(")(') ?,t,..,
...~
::Zi..
ATTACHMENT 8 -11
, I oW{ & P r-CfWiY tll<J/Ltv tM cfiu Ci'.fy o-F
~vvUjfu/drl, r t!ouJd k9w -.f1??v(.,+O heav~
'If 1. wou Ie) 0+ Vlfl~ . ~~ , ..
, l1\ANt w2-S VLO luol-t~ POJftc\ ON ~ ~U2d)O b .
YO~ct ~{O{JJN7' (PltHZ p~ 25>n:suwc.J
bv 'S\)C 5.1..' )15'"" ,~---;>.,~ ~...,
/ .- /OJ~
j '(v,~ ..kc fK rJ./J.()~ 'T vud
;:y~ 'I CJ(}V J-
, '.
. -. ",.
" '
ATTACHMENT 8 - 12
"
~'
Date Received:
1-4-08
JAN - ~ 2lQl
To City of Springfield
Original Submittal KI-
It: ZSf~
Re: Appeal fee for '''VIllages' at Marcola Meadows" 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 tei explain and "answer" questions as
to how much property the City will take and/or destroy and'how badly the residents were going
toget 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 decisio~ but the planning commission so this does not apply. If it 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 Newmait 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 amotktis 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,
!4,~
Nick Shevchynski
11~~
-
Nick Shevchynski
North Springfield Citizens Committee
ATTACHMENT 8 - 13.
,
-, Date Received:
,
JAN - 4 2008
1
Assignments of Error
Original Submittal
KL
if: 2.'6p "1
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 tllat 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 planferroi: rule., The Oregon Supreme Court
issued an opinion on Dec. 13, '07 in State v Fults overturning the Oregon Appeals CouIt 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 Response/Finding"
which finds that this was not done. "Wait," you will say, "This wasn't prese~ed'." 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 because 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 timely mai!'ed 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 ri-teans. They say there is no overcrowding on one hand and beg for
more taxes because of overcrowding on the other. T;hese people should have testified on the
record allowing the commission to ask questionrand the public to hear and see them. It was an
errqr not to consider th~t after absorbing the students from the proposed dev'elopment any
additional students from anywhere would cause overcrowding. '
,
ATTACHMENT 8 -14
',," \
~~
2
g, 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 p'oin:t lawyer Spickerman
walked up to lawyer LeaJ.ty 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 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
1-"
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'~ office "they are all
engineers. "
12.
Written notice of the decision was not mailed.
13.
them.
There were about 56 additions made without equal opportunity for comm'ent on all of
, ,
, \
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.
1
15. There was nothing that addresses what will be done with the bus stops which are part of
the city's overalI' 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 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.1argest major retailers. Yet Gary Karp and staff
advocate m'ajor highway expansions to accumulate alleged non-existing rise in traffi,c.
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 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 Statute?
23. What~ aboilt 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 hot 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.
~ick Shevchynski
~ick Shevchynski,
~orth Springfield Citizens' Committee
ATTACHMENT 8 - 16
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' at Marcola Meadows" on, almost a
dai'ly 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 subj ect
property" as required by SDC 5.2-115.
(j~
Nick Shevchynski
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me a Notary for the State of Oregon
on this 2nd day of January, 2008.
I) OFFICIAl. SEAL
DUSTIN HAHN
! NOTARY PUBUC -OREGON
, COMMISSION NO. 412362
MY COlt!\lJftllISlN EXPIRES NOV. 29" 2010
[L-th
Date Received:
'JAN - 4 2008
Original Submittal t< L
4:~1l'\
ATTACHMENT 8 -17
City of Springfield
Development Services Department
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Phone: (541) 726-3759
Fax: (541) 726-3689
SPRINGFr ...-1
Appeals Application, Type IV
, Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to City Council
Name, Journal Number and Date of the Decision Being Appealed
ff /l-S--"::O" jJ~A1 Me JIL tfpp if Uf71aV: if(! p
1>>c 20, 'lvo7, i./dlo.,.I''c ~ M~ J1u~u{,:JtJ/'!,
,
JAN - ~ 2008
Original Submitta' J<oIi
-'1:Z5piY1
2007 - ooe:>2.f?'
/
Date of Filing the Appeal
~ . l;, l-(::)oi'
(This date must be within 15 calendar days ofthe 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 Authoiity erred in making the decision, i.e., what approval
criterion or criteria you allege to have been in."t't'.vt'.:ately applied.
Issue # I
~.P 14.4p ~ !J4.,'{,'ro. if,{, I II. h~ 7~<f,...t.. lk.,lt<-',.
,-' V -,
J.{,",-~. W~ <;;:.~.~. /h..l Met< ~C'_(~ j,' o-..J bl~
Issue#2 rr"l~ 2: /"'r..D~M"".;;I-...L ~'v- <;~........ /
{~ ' . ~
~b:k
Issue #3
Issue #4
(List' any additional issues being appealed on an attached shelll)
The nndersigned acknowledges that the above appeal form and'its attachments have been read, the
'requirements for filing an appeal of a land nse decision is nnderstood and stateS that the information.
supplied is correct and accurate. /J.,...Jl.. ~rl"S t,..R.t ct'f;~ Co....__;6e.....
l./J rlJ, I "..,/.. '
Appellant'sNameC~ ~b;(,('i Phone 7+6~J.GcJ
Address ;!..} I S- vu.~ /Jd.
Statement of Interest ~~ O_......./:.~T;J..;f- .''''hd~ b'J. p>M/....ci:
!J " (;
Signature C j ,1'"'c-.... h ,IJ .f '
Fnr Offirp TTqp Onlv.
Journal No. 7..0 rJ .;),003 .. ODOO~
, 11- 0::1-3 0 - 0 II
Assessor s Map No. J.1:."7.~.' <;. '.;,.T
Date Accepted as Complete
Received By
Tax Lot No.
1L ,gOD
.;1::r,nl"l
~-
PRS2006 -(){J03("
ATTACHMENT 8 - 18
".
.
Date Received:
1-4-08
JAN - ,~m
To City of Springfield
. (
Original Submittal KL
4:2Spr'l)
Re: Appeal fee for "'Villages' at Marcola Meadows"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 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 ill Decision to City CoUncil" as this removes "Director's"
froIIJ 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 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." ,
!4,~
Nick Shevchynski
11~~
-
Nick Shevchynski
North Springfield Citizens Comtnittee
ATTACHMENT 8 -19
, ."--
SPRINGFI" .:t
Appeals Application, Type IV
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to City Council
-Date
City of Springfield
DevelopmehtServices 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
/fA-S715n_ fJUIV ME.JIL tfPfJt/UflTaV: L;eP
lJpc :!v. 2007. l/,'1ks~r",.;;f M~ /J1.kutf!)CV~
/
Date of Filing the Appeal : A--. . V, 'J-(:) at'
(I'his date'must be within 15 calendar days oftbe date of the decision.)
JAM - ~ 2008
Original Submittal ~
4:z5p'"
2007 - Oc>e::72.?'
. /
, ,
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 cried in making. the decision, i.e., what approval
criterion or criteria you allege to:have been inappropriately applied,
Issue #1 ~ t4I-. ~.R ../ !J4.:{,'Ij) , ft(. tU~ ~~, 'lk.",c..'r
!{......:f--.. W~ <;:"~,....,.. /.h..J Mete ~c:.(~, " ~ h~ .
I .LI ..t' . / _I...A".',.,J' /0
Issue~~ :t. /..<=~~",,;;(-...L ~\,. s~ ..a-"A.
Issue #3
Issue #4
(List any additional issues being appealed on an attached sheet.)
,
The undersigned acknowledges that the above appeal 'fonD and iis attachments have heen read, the
requirements for filing an appeal of a land use decision is understood and states that the information
supplied is correct ~nd accnrate. ~ ~''..s~ <!"PY"'-f Cc>",-,~
APpellant'sNameC~ ~"-'Sk; "..~. Phone 7+6-f'J.Gc:J
Address ;l...}I5'" JIU~ /Jd,
Statement of Interest p...~ o-.......f,LJ;J...:f- ,'u.hdd b'{ p~,,-<c1--.
. A l\~, J f
Signature ~....t/.J' """C....J.u . .(
Wn.... om",,,,,, ITa"", nil Iv.
Journal No. 7..0 N.J..OOS - DoOOe-.
1'7-/J;1-30 ' 0 71
Assessor's Map No. .11:."*~-' <;- LT
Date Accepted as O;>mplete
Received By
7L I '600
Tax Lot No, .;I2,n/l
c
~-
PRs2oob~{)003~
ATTACHMENT 8.-20
.
Date Received:
1-4-08
JAN - nIDI
To City of Springfield
Original Submitta' KL
4:2Spt'Yj
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 a~ 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 thi~ meeting-~ary 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. WesSwanger, 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 deterinined.
I '
I understand that the City may wave the appeal fees and it is petitioned herein for this to
, be done. I
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. ' . ",' , '
!4,~
Nick Shevchynski
!1~~
-
Nick Shevchynski
,North Springfield Citizens Committee
?
ATTACHMENT 8 - 21
(
Date Received:
JAN - 4 2008
1
Assignments of Error
Original SubmW..1
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 ~sistance? The question was met with'silence.
2. ". . . all of the sections on the bpposite 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 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 erro'r 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 overturning the Oregon Appeals Court because
the plain error rule ~as 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 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 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 meaI,1s., They say there is no overcrl:)wdlng 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 questioriand 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
-......,
I
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 liecause 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.
2
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.
II. 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 )toung 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 tnem torn out.
15. There was nothing that addresses what wiil 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.
y
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 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+ }jomes
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 pleilSe 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. '
~ick Shevchynski '
~ick Shevchynski,
~orth Springfield Citizens' Committee
ATTACHMENT 8 - 24
''.,
Affidavit
I, Nick Shevchynski, first being duly sworn on oath say:
I walked/jogged the perimeter of ~he 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 subje~t
property" as required by SDC 5.2-115.
/ll~
,
{I OFFICIAl SEAL
" , DUSTIN HAHN
" ' NOTARYPUBUC-OAEGON
, ' COMMISSION NO 412362
MV OMI,t1SSlON EXPIR~S NOV. 29,2010
~~~
-
,
Date Received:
JAN - 4 m
Original Submil~L.1-A' _
. f:~':)
J
ATTACHMENT 8 - 25
,
SPRINGFIE" oJ
r
ived:
City of Springfield
Development Services Department
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Phone: (541) n6-3759
Fax: (541) 726-3689
-
Appeals Application, Type IV
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to City Council
JAN - 4 2Q08
If'
OriglnaltiUOmllLi:lI .'
if; Z<:lP""-
Name, Journal Number and' Date of the Decision Being Appealed
.ma-s'f ek ? ~ ~, pf' TTI (l~ r t ( ~.d\f, D'"' f. PP -:JM7 - rV'/\d'R 5
'['),.,<, ~() :J()(')r\ \}.I\I;..,,"r'~ Q..1fY\6.N"Qkl~"" rI1""ot,,{lluE'
Date of Filing the Appeal
J
(This date must be within 15 caleDdar days of the date of the decision.)
,Please list below, in summ3.IY 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 alle~e to have been ina,.,,,.v,,.:ately applied.
Issue #1 (h.I> \.~O,?O::'f>J IY\<).V'~QJ(\ 'R1,,,^,\,,,,,,J,,,,,,,,,,,,,,<l ~'(\.s.-<.rr ,,);U ~l", 0-"",
."elr'f"",,,,,,,,, n"q u.rr.:"A""f'"'~. """.,_, ';)\'r^~,,:r-L'i ~ .j,<{I1"" rvl",,,,,d,, l?<'Io.d ,
\~\ 1'(L.. \---U
Issue#2 rn.,\ ~_e..~. \'" ~A~~/'" 1 '. ~'g - g ~ --.L - J~. "){oJ
he. ":;..."'\ Y'.P~,,\:t. ,_~~H,.l_ \...'1 rL",f."-"'{\"<;.J rn,,~pJ ~~e$I~J-<>..:JeGf
, Issue #3 Un!,>, """1"\ t.,l\ ('Q\ctrv--J '1' ..."C'P<;'<:: . ~<l'.Jft p, ,f'IIr.",I''') q ,
'N\.<u:'.)...r'\\'\':<- O;P",~.J v"~ .~ 'r>-tif d "......~. ......"r <>.......L '^'\ ~"'C\.-.." 'f'LU\1L3,
Issue #4 '
, (List any additional issues being appealed on an attached sheet)
The undersigned aclmowledges that the above appeal form .and its attachments have heen read, the
,requirements for filing ail appeal of a land use decision is understood and states that the information
supplied is correct and accurate. <.,
Appellant's Name W~-=:JOJ\ n SiA\cL,\ ~r' Phon/Sif. / \2:L1, R5'/3_
Adi:tressd,L/L5' n7r1j--Cl),/,,~. S.ff-'~ ~-i)'~ 11; LJ"""f"f\. 97</'Z;/- .
S~tementofL....,; Pr"p~~\ Oul,^v< O-...~--,,\f;:] 'hI/ ~\,\1~'ft,0"^
SlgnatureIJS1.iJ!uf t7 )'j)....1"" ' ~ tf1Joy p~
W6\'r Offirllo TT~p nnl~.
JoumaINo. ZotJ2CO~-Ocoo7
11-02-~O'OO
,Assessor's Map No, f 7-o?;-7'::""" II
Date Accepted as Complete
Received By
leoo
Tax Lot No. .2~nl)
~.- '
V~z.ca:,- COl:>3k,
ATTACHMENT 8 - 26
Appeals Application, Type IV
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to City Council
City of Springfield
. Development Services Department
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Phone: (541) 726-3759
Fax: (541) 726-3689
SPRIHOFU j
Name, Journal Number and Date of the Decisioo Being Appealed' Original Submitta'
t1A5?l:I? ~ 1'rP~ l7l API'pc.4J7{J,ij ;' LRP 2007-aOo.2.r~
. ~. J" 1.""'7 . l'U//dfJ2,/ a:t- f1JIkOI.A l1~oows. c/
JAN - ~ 2008
KL
i.f ~ l'5ft'\'}
Date of Filirig the Appeal
...) rf,VY. ? oc:> 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 in"ppoupo:ately applied,
Issue #4
5€.P . 1f-7t1kHM.~/ AfFlf)kVt]- -~~ .of> E!l/do(/
I
I
I
I
/
I
V
Issue # I
Issue #2
Issue #3
(List any additional issues being appealed on an attached sheet)
The nndersigned ackDowledges that the above appeal form and 'its attachments have heen read, the
requirements for filing an appeal of a land use decision is nnderstood and states that the information
supplied is correct and accurate.' '~~ '>'f'/?IUfRS-O (!171i1I:P-S Cd"'U1n-c~
'APpellant'sName,Ahck s..,t:'YC~'v<jKr ' Phone 110r,LL-
Address 2. ~4 7 f1/(1f~ot4 ~.,.,
Statement of Interest AbTACfi:IJ7' 'B!"PEN.7Y ()~m
Signature~_........_ ~
W".. Offirp TT~p. OnJv.
Journal No. ZOtJ;<'C08-boOO8 Recei~edBY
, 17-02--30'00 /t?tJO
Assessor s Map No. _Jl::/'''1~' ~-f1 Tax Lot No. ?_"<.DtJ
Date Accepted as Complete
~ --
t-R?2,Oc(,-COO30 ATTACHMENT 8 - 27
Date Received:
1-4-08
JAM - nOlll
To City of Springfield
Original Submittal KL
it: ZSp"1
Re: Appeal fee for '''Villages' at Marcola Meadows" Master Plan Type III application,
LRP 2007-00028, decision of 12-20C07
The city of Springfield has mentioned an appeal fee, The amount of the fee is to be taken
from' "Development Code Application Pees" 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 anq 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 are bundled under the North Springfield Citizens' Committee which has
been duly recognize as such by the City.
11,~
Nick Shevchynski
"!1~~
-,
Nick Shevchynski
North Springfield Citizens Committee
ATTACHMENT 8 ..:. 28
'\
Date Received:
. JAN - 4 2008
1
Assignments of Error
Original Submittal
'KL-
if: 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 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 unlamuL ' '
4, Th~ 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 plan/error rule., The Oregon Supreme Court
issued an opinion on Dec, 13, '07 in State v Fulls 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 Response/Finding"
which finds that this was not 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 law. Golf v
, McEachron.
6, There was a public hearing on this matter on 12-11-07. Because the recor.d was still oper;
for public comment the public should have been granted the opportunity for comment. Notice
of this hearing was never timely mailed as required by' SIic 5.2-115.
7. The issue of schools being overcrowded was address,ed 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 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 - 29
~,
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 Carpenter added additional new
language to the "plan" which the public was not aliowed 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. v..:hen 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 urirestri'ctive say, In my opinion this process is just wasting tax money and creating
jobs and retireme~t 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 tl1e 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 ofthe city staff answer questions the city stilf
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."
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 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 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 Americasl.argest 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 Stahite?
23. What about those fire hydrants? Pursuant to a court order by a federal judge a
maintemince 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,
Vb
Nick Shevchynski
Nick Shevchynski,
North 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 prop'osed "'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.
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
DUSTlN HAHN
\, .. NOTARYPUBUC-OREGOt_
COMMISSION NO. 412362
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES NOV. 29.20111
'~4/
,
Date Received:
JAN - 4 2llO8
Original Submittal KL
If: 2.5 fTY\
ATTACHMENT 8- 32
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
. . . Original Subm~1
Name, Journal Number and Date of the DecIsion Bemg Appealed
Mk;fm ~ WPG llL t1:>,."'CA71~;' t-IFP .20 4 7-0'DOJ, F; D,c;,c _ 2.0. ').00/'
. . , J
" Vi/,<- "'~ .4-1" HAietr.oLA N /nA.1'Jo<or ".
JAN - 4 2008
K~
4:6f"^
,.
'Date of Filing the Appeal
I::JM./. 'I-:' Z-O(] l
(I'his date mnst 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, Le., what approval
criterion or criteria you allege to have been in"'t't'.vt'.:ately applied,
r
Issue #IN 0 .tV 0 Tl c. "<-> ,? oS'r~ 0 of Y>1l2. E"', "V €I' a S
re~L,:'1i'o_J b;; Snc. 5,~-'1.s- CI
Issue #2 - :;;epc;:l.I;a..! a~<'A.",,'f-- S'1)'tt~.';:-UT au 13efCK:
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 heen read, the
requirements fo~ filing an appeal of a land use decision is understood and,states that the' information
supplied is correct and accurate. 4,..J.o.. POInI-( C;;POJ/kH'Ta.l> Cn~.u.s e_,~
, Appellant's Name :De 1'1 n,:--.5 H- LA "1t +- Phone S'-l/ 1 - 7 V c."-- S"'i? 'i?O
Address?' 0 ljt,t l/QL.A"V D.r'\ A~<;fn. J-""'rl',~ I ,J ,
Statement ofln,t';'/ () y.!, 10 4. n. G P--c '--' '1-}, 6<s:> '-' ",&,,, 7Z-<-1 f ~ "'J2-.12'-S Vv.J~ '6L
Signatur~O -=6- 5f'r.!.~""J -r,,,,,-Id ('roope-a.i:; "'~~, '
, ~ Ir9l;o<,,1 A .L-Vo ~
"
.
1i'01'" Offit"'P TTIll!P n'Ul~.
JournalNo. ZOfJ2,L10~-((Y)n5
, 1'1-02-30-00
As~essor s Map No. :,11::/''''' J'; ~ I)
Date Accepted as Complete
\
Received By
TL. [110D
Tax Lot No. ? 2: IV')
~ .-
P~2.c00-Dq)3h
ATTACHMENT 8 - 33
Th.z..... f} a. ,.., "';,..... j (P '*' ...-. .~.r 1...0""'-' d <u\: eJ2 V>-<L ~ ..,
Off~/7-T4,^,Vf:J -10 fa~TIc...'f7,u..T~bJ ^' "': h, 110v"J
rk I rt-c:> ....., .,'\. ' ~ ]'<25 /Z. e g ..... I (Z.1 "J f '" S -q-, ~ C.p. /Ilo'l'i <.,,~
^ J' ... r , I" N "51> L ~ z.. - 1 1 J; .
0"" f1-..ea.. ,'-. "'J l' '
.::c.. ),'ve.. "" ~~ 'J~ IAD~o.s,-e..d J~~Lc>~-q...,T d.-.J-
,Lz..;..c2... o'\JfZ-- <;h-ee;fs 1J,{2..{:.c.-.J.-...,.JZh)l~ J.e<-:s,':~
L":.'J. ,f\ fOS~ ;\Johc€- C-...Jo,-^,l.L h,,~ dlUtl~eQ ~
-tv fA-nA,c. ;f~T....... ti.-.. [) .t2.it rpZ.-e. S5 />>-y C-o~c.e/l-"'-'; 5
"
;. ,
. ~ . - ,',
. .
.'
ATTACHMENT 8 - 34
Date Received:
1-4-08
JAN - 42008
To City of Springfield
, ,
Original Submittal KL
4:ZSptYj
Re: Appeal fee for '''Villages' at Marcola Meadows" 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 C,ity 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 wi "Appeal of Type ll'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 ill Decision to City Council" as this removes "Director's"
from the fee description and this is a Type ill Decision not Type ll. 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, captio)ls, and unlawful. I read the statute that
'states how the amount of fee should be determin,ed. .
, I understand that the'City may 'fave the appeal fees and it is petitioned herein for this to
be done,
Pursuant to Oregon Revised Statute it is herein petitioned that the feesbe 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~~
-,
,
Nick Shevchynski
North Springfield Citizens Committee
ATTACHMENT 8- 35
Date Received:
JAN - 4 2008
1
Assignments of Error
, Original subm~1
KL..
4 : z.':.p ...,
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 "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 ~ecessarily prevent them form being raised on review. An "error of law
apparent on the face of the record" falls under the planCerror ruIe.. The Oregon Supreme Court
issued an opinion on Dec. 13, '07 in Slale v Fulls overturning the Oregon Appeals Court because
the plain error rule was not ap!llied to unpreserved claims of error.
5. Karp's memorandum of12-11-07, 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 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 OPfln
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 officiais. 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 questiom-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 - 36
:2
&, During the 12-20-07 heanng no new material was suppose to be introduced in order to
keep out public comment. New material was introduced. 1,\t 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 p'ublic, 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 was'iing tax money and creating
jobs and retirement ben~fits 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 agrade 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.
II. 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.ouxig 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 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'torn out.
ATTACHMENT 8 - 37
3
16. There was/is nothing, not a peep, abo.ut the impaGt an the environment and/ar
environmental controls.
17. There was nothing that reasanably described the city's final actian and it was not mailed.
1,8, There was no input and no opportunity to question or comment an what the utility
providers' positions are. Utilities are part af the city's overall plan. "
, .
,19. The city staff cuts-off public camment 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 Jae
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 capies 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 nan-existing rise in traffic.
21 The city alleges it has alligatar tears and no money for street repairs yet has more money
to tear-up perfectly gaod 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 nat mailed nor po~ted 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 p~rt 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 Springfjeld Citizens' Committee
ATTACHMENT 8 - 38
'Affidavit
,
f
I, Nick Shevchynski, first being duly sworn on oath say:
I walkedjjogged'the perimeter of the former pierce property
which is the proposed "'V~llages' '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.
/A-~.'
Nick Shevchynski
-
SUBSCRIBED AND, SWORN to before me a Notary
on this 2nd day of January, 2008.
for the State of Oregon
. oma~s~ I
DUSTIN HAHN '
, , .. NOTARY PUBUC - OREGOI\i !
, COMMISSIONNO.412362 I
) IoIY C0"4l4W110N EXPIRES NlJV. 29. 2010
Uh- 4___
Date Received:
JAN - ~ 2008
Originall;lubmittal ~
\
ATTACHMENT 8 - 39
I
,." .
Satre & Associates
Attention Rick Satre
132 East Broadway, Suite 536
Eugene, Oregon 97401
ZON200~0004
Philip M. Newman
260 S. Mill
Creswell, Oregon 97426
ZON200~0007
. Wesley 0.. Swanger
2415 Marcola Road
Springfield, Oregon 97477
ZON200a-Q0002
SC Springfield LLC
7510 Longley Lane, Suite 102
Reno, Nevada 89511
ZON2008-00005
Dennis Hunt
3044 Yolanda Avenue
Springfield, Oregon 97478
ZON200a-ooooa
Nick Shevchynski
.2347 Marcola Road
Springfield,Oregon97477
,
ZON200a-QOO03
Donna Lentz
1544 E Street
'Springfield, Oregon 97477
ZON200~0006
Clara Shevchynski
2315 Marcola Road
Springfield, Oregon 9747y
~
.>_.'. "
/Hup.
<',\
"
'-
...,. ~.
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
STATE OF OREGON }
} 5S.
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, Oregol). .
2.
1 state that in my capacity as Secretary, I prepared an~ caused to be
mailed copies of Appeal of Marcola Meadows AIS - Attachment 8 and
corrected Agenda Item. Summary sent to Appellants,JRicls Satre) (See
attachment "A") on January 23, 2008 addressed to (see Attachment "B"),
by causing said letters to be placed in a U.S. mail box with postage fully
prepaid thereon.
RECE\VED'
fiwL~ .
Brenda Jones ~ ~
Planning Secretary ,() ~
JAN 2 32008
BY:~
-
,
STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane
--r ~ :J3' , 2008 Personally appeared the above named Brenda Jones,
~creta~ho acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary act. Before
me:
~
.
OFFICIAL SEAL
",C'CIIC KELLY
NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON.
COMMISSION NO. 420351
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUG. 15.2011
~Aj~ kJJ1A)
My Com~ission Expires: d r-I/ ~/II
f '
Meetinl!' 14te:
Meetinb . pe:
Department:
Staff Contact:
Staff Phone No:
Estimated Time:
January 28, 2008
Regular Session
Development Services
Gary M, Karp 6)( -
726-3'177 'e('1r
60 minutes
~'
. AGENDA ITEM SUMMA ~ ~T
SPRINGFIELD
CITY COUNCIL
ITEM TITLE:
ACTION
REQUESTED:
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
ATTACHMENTS:
DISCUSSION:
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'" 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 Plimning 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 20'" 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
Atta~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 Attomey 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)
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 commerciaVresidential 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 applica~ion 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.
J
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 MarcolaRoad, 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 noith onto
this property. This shift would occur just west of the intersection of 281n 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 PI~nning 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 Marcela 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
evaluati ng 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 Januarv 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 a!lege to have been inanw". :ately applied.
Issue #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
31 unlawfully delegates to the City Engineer the discretion to impose
exactions without refer~nce 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. '
Appe!lant'sName SC Sprinqfield, LLC Phone 775~853-4714
Address 7510 Lonqlev,Lane. Suite 102, Reno, Nevada 89511'
Statement oflnterest Plioperty 1f1)~r laoolicant
Signature {Iv! hdl I \Y j/
! I I / . - -
for oriqinal aonl;~~tion
/ J
Ji'np nffil"P JrlilP On'v. ,
Jo~mal NO.;:r:.' /\ '2-fit~l~ - D~CReceived By
1'l-o:2.~3D-OO '
Assessor's pNo, L7-o3-2,!S'-1I Tax Lot No,
Date Accepted as Complete
~
ISoo
"231Y'\
PRSza:,Ca-~31O
ATTACHMENT 8 - 1
.
"
'-
,WRITIEN APPEAL STATEMENT
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 arid timing of future traffic control at "the private
commercial driveway and Marcola Road intersection.
Summarv 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;"
ATTACHMENT 8 - 2
Phone:
'(541) 686-8833
Fax:
(541)345,1034
975 Oak Street
Suite 800
Eugene, Oregon
97401-3156
Mailing Address:
P,O, Box 1147
Euge~e, Oregon
97440-) ] 47
EmaiL.
info@gleaveslaw.com
Web-Site:
www.gleaveslaw.com
'\
F~derick A. Batson
Jon V Buerstatte
Joshua A. Oark
Daniel P. Ellison
MichaelT. Faulconer"'"
AJ. Giustina
Thomas P. E. Herrmann'
Dan Webb Howard"'"
Stephen O. Lane
WilIiamH.Martin'
WalterW.Mjller
Laura T. Z. Montgomery'
Tanya C. O'Neil
Standlee G. Potter
MarthaJ.Ro~an
Robert 5, Russell
Douglas R..Schultz
Malcolm H. Scott
James W. Spickennan
Kate A. Thompson
JaneM, 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 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. City of Tie:ard 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
~tersection.
ArlZUment .
Lack of Authoritv, for the Reauirement of Roundabouts
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.
The applicant believes that therds 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 fmandal
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 Memorial Clinic v. Clackamas County, 21 Or LUBA 418
/
2- WRITIEN APPEAL STATEMENT - MARCOLA MASTER PLAN LRP 2007 -0028
January 4, 2008
ATTACHMENT 8 - 3
;
(1991), Sky Dive Orellon 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 w~re 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 amon'g 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, ,
requitements 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 TlA 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 TlA.
The staff report for the December 11, 2007 Planning
COInmission meeting states with regaid 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- WRrITEN 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 altemative 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 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 stan-dard 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 cited in the December 18, 2007 memorandum
simply are not applicable. Both Marcola Road and Martin Drive are
shown in the proposed location on both the Conceptual Local Street
Map and TransPlan.
Dolan Issue
. Dolan v. City of Tie-ard, 512 US 374, 375, 391,114 S Ct 2309,
2319-2320,2322, 129 LEd 2d 304 (1994) anda line of Oregon cases
which followed require that a local govemment 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 mtersection would meet applicable performance standards.
A disproportionate burden would be imposed by,the requirement of
roundabouts, which would increase the applicaI1t'~ 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 LRP 2007-0028
JanuaI)' 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
community at large saves ..... It was indicated that some communities
even use federal foods 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
signalize.d 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 Frontage Road
Master 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 located within the existing MarcolaRoad 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 Mar'cola
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
I
5- WRlTfEN APPEAL STATEMENT - MARCOLA MASTER PLAN LRP 2007-0028 ,
January 4;2008
.,
ATTACHMENTS - 6
,
residential, driveways on that side of the roadway. This confliCt 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 othe; 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, 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 intersection.
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 engineers do not anticipate an
unsafe condition, although some turning movements may be restricted
from certain driveways.
Unlawful Dele2ation
Master Plan Condition #27, paragraph 5, would require:
"Provide,finaricial 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 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 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 putin 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 approval to a later stage where there is no opportunity for
'public heaIjng. See Tenlv Prooerties Corn. v. Washimrton 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
Of Attorneys for Applicant
Attachment: Proposed Master Plan Condition #27
7- WRITTEN APPEAL STATEMENT - MARCOLA MASTER PLAN LRP 2007-0028
January 4, 2008
ATTACHMENT 8 - 8
',,,"
APPUCANT'S PROPOSED MASTER PLAN CONDmON #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 Master Plan
shall not require any property dedication south of the existing southem
Marcola Road right-of-way line, .
Provide preliminary design acceptable to the City Engineer fora 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. 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
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)
I
\
ATTACHMENT 8 - 9
~.
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
I
e Received:
JAN ~ ~ 2008
'. , OrIGinal Supf!llttI' I
Name, Journal Number and Date of the Decision Being ~ed Cbf"\ hI;! r e.r.--r Z.
LR P 2C)O(-0002~ UrL.~ 20.2001 '
.l\~
I: IJ pIN
re~
bj~
Date of Filing the Appeal
':J~V/ar~ .2. ,20D8
(This date must be within lSf..lendar days of the date 01 the decision.)
Please list below, in swnmary 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....r. _r.:a1ely applied "
Iss:e#l O,-V~e..v-S re.+Q.J..; re..s;AV\-8a~..3 ho~()
, ' \ "'" r( (<) ~;b {ha1--. OL-r'€- 0. ( r e~ ~) -e.A-f I-\- t.I.Yv
I~e#2 LC9-f\Crer n ~\'d7 (OJ'\d ~ ~f&J vv;s'f. ({roo
\ -t -tR.aX'.e. I p ('}-1') I u ~ 0 i'Y\ CA c1\, crt- i -f fo u~, _
Issue jI.1 f> rQ it>.. ~ vV (') ~ r d D " S'S;-', bi l.-1 a.d ver S-f] r
e. :\-J( p. ck l,,<.-f' b p...P'\ r e.n 8w aJL D1CJJ\,
Issue#4 POS~I hi I'dc,--: at' \ MD~d \(I~ rf!-t!:.eS5"J~
vvO'L{ fd Dr"(JV""-l,.. \noD~t1, ~Or fK.iS- Drt:l\ e.c...T
(List any ailditional issues being ippealed on an attiched sheet) '-
i () o.r el!1
. The undersigned acknowledges that the above appeal form and ib attachmenb have been read, the
requirements for filing an appeal of a land ue decision is nnderstood and states that the information
supplied is correct and accurate. .
Appcllant'sName D~Y) V11;\ L~'2 "Pfmne_' 7 <-( 'I - J It >
, Address' ) !;L(LI e Sf- Sprin~fi-DJld ~~;}I..f r I ,
StatementofInterest-f\~l ~ _~-~ '::'.JC\ I -..ruJ,f'I--i~f:jP191fl~rci '.
Signature ~ ~ ., 'K~{~-f
, ,
li'""". ~.. TT~,.. fl.DJ:r~
Journal No, ZoN2oc1J~CJCX;lQ3 Received By
17-02-30"00 7Z- I Boo
Assessor'sMapNo.J7-0'l-;/"-/J T.xLotNo, 77" Z;:V',,---,
Date Accepted as Complete
!
-'
'::pp.,3" :2-00 <<0 - 0 Cb3'=:,
ATTACHMENT 8 - 10
City of Springfield
Development Services Department
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Phone: (541) 726-3759
. Fax: (541) 726-3689
SPRINGIFIE'
Date Received:
Appeals Application, Type IV
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to City Council
IAbI - 4 WIlL
Name, Journai Number and Date of the Decision Being Appealed OrlQinal Submitt'll #-
11A5:rEiv Pt.A~ TV1>C:: lIT AP"Ll*~; L-RP 2oo7-00o.2Y: i./:Z':Jf'"
, ,
"U-C, 2D; 2.00>:', · 'M'iFe ,,,tr MMb''-Ll ~lwUJ'"
Date of Filing the Appeal
~4. 20eff
-,
(This 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, Le., what approval
'criterion or criteria you allege to have been inappropriately applied.
Issue#1 r1hJ :..5-.kcJ {:-xJd:v SDC 5.2 - ;,~ (S,i(l o-Huli !'1'dL)
>€r, A-7lMVg-
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 heen read, the
requirem~nts for filing an appeal of a land use decision is understood and states that the information
supplied is correct and accurate. UP/.tJi7? ;U:wnt' q~p~ OT/~S a.14I",,]'tT
Appellant'sName ?h,l, f '4~. NUUM6k Phone ~qS'-l{J)7
Address 2f.> 0 ,'\c:: i\{ ( ~ I LlKSVtJ.( lA
Statem~torriit~. ?,P~~ ~.f.u--\~. Pv"'~,V tt7L1~J/..I)
Signature "'~J:17{~ )/1,1 - C?'?fI/ ~ -.
li'nr (lffi..... TTIIilP Onlv~ ,
JoumalNo. ZaN2 ()()x - n_oon'-L
17-02.-30-00 '
Assessor's Map No. 1;-03-1'5 -/I '
Date Accepted as Complete
1> R..~l1JY\ t.. - n(')fl ?/"
Received By
l'bOD
Tax Lot No. ---Z..~"'D
~-
ATTACHMENT 1-11 '
'-
I oW{ .& ? rap.vvy t}wtUtv ~ cfiu c/iy of
~v~J.fu/d" . . 7' CfouJd kc?/-f ~tNu:. -f.o JLf,8'{~
If I t{Jou IJ 0+ ~~~~,' .
I1LW t W2-S vtO ' IU o{.1-(,e P OJ+ e.c\ 0 N 4W. ~U2( 60 b
YO~~DJVQ(2W7',( PltYlL p~ ,2~ 'ycsuwtd .
bv 'SOl. S.1..-11S-7,:.- ~.'~
/ .- >>W~
')I('\/~~ ft2..NUUr1JtX-..,.,,'Tvud
~ I o-avJ-
.;.
,
,
" .'
.', .
", '{.
ATTACHMENT 8 - 12
""-.
1-4-08 '
To City of Springfield
-'-""
Date Received:
JAN -~ m
Original Submittal KL
4:ZSplij
Re: Appeal fee for "'Villages' at Marcola Meadows" 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 rothing 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 screwe,d 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 ill Decision to City CoiJncil" 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 IIunt 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 are bundled under the, North Springfield Citizens' Committee which has
been.duly recognize as such by the City, '
ATTACHMENT 8 - 13 .
!4,~
Nick Shevchynski
UJ~'
-
Nick Shevchynski
North Springfield Citizens ConiJ;I1ittee
'..
Date Received:
JAN - 4 2008
1
Assignments of Error
I KL
Original submittl' if : 2.'op "'J
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 "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 overturning the Oregon Appeals Court because
the plain error rule was not applied to unpreserved claims of error.
5. 'Karp's memorand~m 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 apparent on the face of the record, Don't you follow your own laws? Nevermind that
question, In any event it was preserved. Page 7, Karp's 12/20/07 memorandum: ". . . and the
applicant not cbntacting 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'
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 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 questionrand the public to hear and see them. It was an '
error not to consider that' after abs9rbing the students 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 Spickeiman
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 ii'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 lawy'ers.
10, . Commissioner Nancy Moore was not qualified to vote. She told me she drove.on this part
, I
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 sideki~ks Kim and Phil of the city staff answer questions the city staff
presented a y.oun'g 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. Ac'cording to the person in the' city manager'~ 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 and/or
environmental controls,
)
17. There was no~ing 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 Si2+ homes
and the cOnstant traffic due to one of Americas.l.argest major ret~ilers. Yet Gary Karp and staff
advocate m'ajor highway expansions to accumulate alleged non-existingnse 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 p.ay for their improvements. '
22. Have I said written notices of the hearing and decisions were riot 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.
Ub
\
Nick Shevchynski
, Nick Shevchynski,
North Springfield Citizens' Committee
ATTACHMENT 8 - 16
, -
Affidavit ,
I, Nick Shevchynski, first being duly sworn on oath say:
I walkedjjoggedthe 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
wa's there a "sign approved by the Director, on 'the subject
property" as requir~d 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
" " NOTARYPUBUC-OREGON
" COMMISSION NO. 412362
MY 9~ON EXPIRES NOV. 29,2010
~-ih
Date Received:
JAN - 4 2008
!
Original Submitloll t< L
41~""
_ ATTACHMENT 8 - 17
Appeals Application, Type IV
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to City Council
SPRINGFr
,.~~
City of Springfield
Development Services Department
, 225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Phone: (541) 726-3759
Fax: (541) 726-3689
Nll!11e, Journal Number and Date of the Decision Being Appealed
tf'+Slf(L fJJ.A-AJ 7i;1JcJIL tf-pPilUfll'a.// LteP
1>>(,. 20. 2007 L/,/IQ,r~_r d- M~ /'tf..Rad<!J<.v:,
/ ~ '
JAN - ~ 2008
Original Submittl"\ ~
4:z5f""
2007 - ooe>2.?;
Date of Filing the Appeal
A- ,it, U:;J Di"
(fhis date must be within 15 calendar days of the date of the decision.)
Please list below, in summaiy form, the specific issues being raised in the appeal. These sbould be the
specific points where ,you feel the Approval Authority erred in making the decision, Le., what approval
criterion or criteria you allege to have been ina,..,..~,..:ately applied.
Issue #1 c:;'a..,.;p /1,.\.... ~~ ../ Ptz;(,',o IU. IJ~ fi;:;...~, &",<.-r,.
J.t....q..> Wp;: ~u-J.A--1 ,~j Me-fA. ,Ek.u('_(~.' ~ 6}~
Issue#2 rr-l~o.. 2. /....C'O'7'dV.q-...L- ~\-. <;~ .",...,,--1
~~ '
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 heen read, the
requiremenu for filing an appeal of a land use decision is nnderstood and states that the information
supplied is correct and accurate. 1.J,..Jt.. ~...i"t. t-.Y.t ct.f;J""-f Co"'-' ~
I./J rl I I "..,40.
Appellant'sNameC~ ~/.('21P'''!-''5(.,(; Phone 7-f6~:J.GcJ
Address :l-} 15" vu.~ M.
Statement of Interest J1Ir*~' O_.........;;.~T;.Jz..;f- ,'...~d b'( p"'9/......c:f-.
Signature (':,..",/)i/~....h...IJ.r
~nr Offif"p. TT~p. On)v:
.
Journa1No.'ZONd.OOS ~ ()Oon(...,
, 11-02-30-- 0 II - -
Assessor s Map No, ..!1:."'-*~-' '5- ,]
Date Accepted as Complete
Received By
Tax Lot No.
n.. , f{OD
,;J:>,nrl
:&:. --
PR.J200G -()003~
ATTACHMENT 8' - 18
Date Received:
1-4-08
JAN - ~ 21m
To City of Springfield
Original Submitta.' KL
4:ZSff'l-)
Re: Appeal fee for "'Villages' at Marcola Meadows"Master Plan Type III application,
LRP 2007-00028, decision of 12-20-07
1
, The city of Springfield has mentioned an appeal fee. The amount of the fee is to be taken
frorn "Development Code Application Fees" blurb, I have copies of the one "Effective i2-3-
2007." There ,is nothing on this sheet which directly addresses an appeal from the planning
commission. O'n 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 another $6,762 for a total of $II,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 Revise~ 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 -li
Appeals Application, Type IV
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to City Council
ceived:
SPRINGFr ~w
City of Springfield
DevelopmentServices 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-,-,.:/'L fJUIV Mc2[b tfpfJUCA7Ti:V/ Lf(?P
1>>L, 20. 2<:lo7. U,'//o.y~ ~ 1'J1~ /'J.f.RadCJcv~
/
Date of Filing the Appeal r4--- . if, 'J--C)' uS' '.
(This date'must be within 15 calendar days ofthe date of the decision.)
JAN - \ 2008
Original Submitt"1 i<ii
",,/:l5/,il'1
2007 - oO<:>'2..?'
,
Please list, below, in summary form, the specific issues being riUsed 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 a1le~e to have been inappropriately applied.
Issue #1 ~,~ t4. ~i' -{ !Jtz:(,'ro 'Jt{. tU~ fi;;...~1 l4."t-'r
<<.....:f--,. tP'P< <;:"'"-,J~' Iw.d tUt:.L.. ~('.:.(~;' o-..d b}~ .
Issue#2 rr-l~ :t., !..t=.-.",fV' '"'6.L -fk,\,. c;~ "'--""/
M " . ,"1-,
~~
Issue #3
Issue #4
(List any additional issues being appealed on an attached sheet.)
The undersigned acknowledges that the above appeal form and its atta~hments have been read, the
requiremeuts for filing an appeal of a land use decision is understood and states that the information
supplied is correct ~nd accurate. /.I.wK5p--.4, ~ ct'f;~ Co.....-' ~
Appellant'sNameC~ st.a.~.......t;; ~~. Phone 7+6~J.Gc:.J
Address '-}I5' ru.~ ;Jd.
Statement of Interest .~~ o_"^-.~~,;J,.,;t!- /u,/J4d b, pV'4/A.cJ: .
SignatureC'. ....,fJ,1'""c.... h..-iJ . f '
14'0" ornrp TTIIii'IP nnlv.
Journal No. "ZOrJd.OOS - oooot.-,
, 11-0:.l-3o'Oll
Assessor s Map No, J1.:::"*~"';- .]
Date Accepted as Complete
Received By
Tax Lot No.
1L , ftOD
,;Jc:o,nn'
~-
PRS200b-LJ003~
ATTACHMENT 8, - 20
,
1-4-08
To City of Springfield
I'
Date Received:
JAN -~ m
Original Submittal KL-
4:ZSf"'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 Application Fees" blurb, I have copies of the one "Effective 12-3-
2007." There ,is nothing on this sheet which, directly addresses ari 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 an'd 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 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 are bundled under the North Springfield Citizens' Committee which has
been duly recognize as such by the City,
,
ATTACHMENT 8 - 21
t1.~
Nick Shevchynski
I1J~
Nick Shevchynski
North Springfield Citizens Committee
'1
Date Received:
JAN ~ ~ 2008
Assignments of Error
1
Original Submittal. ~~ 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 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 {mpossibility, 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 11 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, dtes 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 ~ll say, "This wasn't preserved." It's an error
of law apparent on the face of the record. Don't you follow your owri laws? Never mind that
question. In any event it was preserved. Page 7, Karp's 12/20/07 memonl~dum: ". . . 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 11
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 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 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 12-20c07 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 hi~ objection. Leahy said out loud iliat 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 ~d
on and on. The public got 3 minutes I 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 addiiionally 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. 'CommissionerNancy 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 "":asn'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 shaineful. According to the' person in the city manager's office "they are all
engineers. "
12. Written T)otice of the decision was not mailed,
13. There were about 56 additions made without equal opportunity for comment ~n 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 - 23
"
3
16, There was/is nothing, nota 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 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 arid 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 pleilSe a developer and investors in
Reno who want someone else to pay for their improvements.
22. Have'r 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 ~ll it be? This is part of the city's overall plan and it was never
addressed, " .
,t1,
Nick Shevchynski
Nick Shevchynski,
,
North Springfield Citizens' Committee
ATTACHMENT 8 - 24
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 ~' I Villages I 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 subj ect
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 OFFICIAl. SEAL
DUSTIN HAHN
:, , NOTARY PUBUC - OREGON
\ ' COMMISSION NO:412362 .
MV OMMISSlON EXPIRES NOV. 29, 2010 ,
~~~
-
Date Received:
JAN - ~ 2lIlI
Original Submil~aLK~
, If-: z.S- .
ATTACHMENT 8,...;25
,
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
. SPRINGFIF' 1.J
ived:
JAN - HOO8
u,
, Name, Journal Number and' Date of the Decision Being Appealed
ma-s'fex ?~~, p~T7T [l,ppt;~A'f,i:J"'" z PP-Y(67- rV'Y\--7Rs
D""C'. ~DJ ..1()(")rl d.\\I\......r'~ \LlfY\6.N"C'J1t,.4, lY1"'ot~~1AE'_
Original tjuomlUar ". 'f; Z<5fJ'V\.'
Date of Filing the Appeal
(This date must he 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, Le., what approval
criterion or criteria you aIlelfe to have been in"Pp.up.:ately' applied.' ,
Issue#llh" R rot!)s,,) rv\cl/"/!..oJa....'Rl I ",,~;""J"-VV\",,"<( "Llrc;,..IT I ,),[( ~l<:. o...YU
\. ~'r-:- ' .... r \ (
. ,_e~"f """"''''' "'1'0 '.~ ' """_\'C>\f'",perLw S' 01 <t:h" fY10 '" iJ" f? d<1d
\ ,..,..,' i \ \, cl. \ - -- . U
Issue #2 hL. \ ~ ,e..~ . \" ~'()"'N'" " '1<.->. " ~ <j - sq- ~ ...L - I t'Y:1. I.) ~ J _
\:> e. ;,J e........ "'''.o;fr",,,,\,~,,,.-v.,.(\,, R.. A.~'" ,,<;,J rf)".....lr...PJ '^""~~~~1-~~-r
, ,,\ \ \-r t>' \, 17'1' 1
Issue#3. l'n.9, ",---.t c-l,..!"Q .,,~ ~ r-<,>C'.p<;,< .....'t\..P, fYv...1'-t'r\ Q.
'N\.~,...,\",:<. ~..."~,,,.<:(' '00....'1; Y\.<< d(\Y'\..~, ...."r"'v-l:"'-\~"'C\-..,-rl.U\~
Issue #4
, ,
(List any additional issues being appealed on an attached sheet.)
The undersigned acknowledges that the above appeal fonn,and its attachments have been read, the
reqnirements for filing an appeal of a land use decision is understood and states that the information
supplied is correct and accurate. 0,
f '
Appellant's Name We.::~ 0. Si AI 0...., ~;u'" , Pho~/.j7{ / J ~N j, R5'/3
Address.sM./.. 5' /YJ (J1. (E,~, S.f;J~ ":9f4!,,J).. IJ'::ti)C'lf\. 9'FI?7 .
Statement of Interest Pr" p~~ 01.1 l~ 'cl.a.J'~J 'hI J ~t (" \ u'hO"^ '
'Signature IJQ"j~t') )'.ill~V1'A I ~ fJ1JGy' p~
li'nr Offli"p. TTIIlIP Onl~~
Journal No. 2orJ2CO~-Ocoo7
17-02-"!:,D-OO
Assessor's Map No. 1'1-o?r-?'::''':' j I
Date Accepted as Complete
Received By
JePo
Tax Lot No. ~'2,I"\l)
~ ,-
'V/?.J2CC0- COo?h
ATTACHMENT 8 - 26
Appeals Application, Type IV
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to City Council
City of Springfield
Development Services Department
225 Fifth Street '
Springfield, OR 97477
Phone: (541) 726-3759 )
Fax: (541) 726-3689
SP~INGFII 'oJ
Name, Journal Number and Date of the Decision Being Appealed' Orlginal6ubmittal
fiA5"h:.1? flAp /'rl>~ l7L A)JI'Jlc.i;:rltM'/j' tl?P :2007..,Ooo.:J..Y""
~. 2" 1..""=''7 "1/tIId.cL-,JI'.::f:- !-IlWL:J1.A. HA4lufJlP<, "
. u
JAN -'~ 2008
KL
'h 2.'Sftl')
. Date of Filing the Appeal
. ,
...)/f,U, ,/, ~~.o 7
(This date mus! IN; within 15 calendar daysoftbe date of th~ decision.)
Please list below, in summary form, the specific issues being raised in the appeal. These sbould be the
specific points where you feel the Approval Authority erred in making the decision, Le., what approval '
criterion or criteria you alle~e to have been in"pp.vp.:ately applied.
Issue # 1
5e.R A-71~,A-(C'PIc, / !lfFIDkVt']- -~~ d" f'fUlo(l
/,
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 fonn and its attachments have been read, the
requirements for filiug an appeal of a land use decision is nnderstood and states that the information
supplied is correct and accurate.' ',.".!.J.,.:II. '>' f'I1IAJ~Ra.t> C'7'lil-€,vS Cd......,
~ ~, ~
'Appellant'sName t),CK SteIlC.flIV<;Kt: Phone "~I(..e... '
Address 2.?,,4 j I1M~rXA futh
Statement of Interest Ab'JAQ;;U7" '/W,;PDf.71-' ow,E1l,
Signature~_ __
lfn'l" ~ ITq,. nn'~.
Journal No. Zo1J;(Q)g-00008 Received By
\7-02:-30'00 I&'~O
Assessor's Map No, /7-,,"'-' ~-ft Tax Lot No. ---:2_""DiJ
Date Accepted as Complete
. .
:Jrt:
~
HZ'!-z.Oc(;'CC030 ATTACHMENT 8 - 27
.
Date Received:
1-4-08
JAN - ~ m
To City of Springfield
Original Submittal KL
-4: ZSp"l
Re: Appeal fee for "'Villages' at Marcola Meadows" 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 answering them,
At this meeting Gary Karp said the appeal fee, was $250. Theoflly $250 fee 011 the
aforesaid sheet is an "Appeal of Typ'e 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 J
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 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.
.i1,~
Nick She,,:chynski
!1~~
-,
Nick Shevchynski
North Spririgfield Citizens Committee
ATTACHMENT 8 - 28
Date Received:
JAN - 4 2008
1
Assignments of Error
Original Submitt< I
'KL
4:Z.<S~""
L The appeals application states that, "The Planning Division staff can be of 1!ssistance 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 "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 planlerror ruk 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 unpreservedclaims 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 ResponseiFinding"
which finds that this was not 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 priorto 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 12-11-0,? Because the recor.d was still open
for public comment the public shoul~ 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 questioITandthe 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 overcrClwding.
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 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 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. Co~missioner 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 questiQns 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. "
, 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 )Nhich ,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 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 de'scribed 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 notable 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.' Gitry 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..1argest 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,
~
Nick Shevchynski
Nick Shevchynski,
North Springfield Citizens' Committee
ATTACHMENT 8 - 31
.
./
l
Affidavit
I, Nick Shevchynski, first being quly 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 SDC5~2-115.
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 '
DlIS'T1N HAHN
\. '... NOTARYPUBUC-OREGOr,
'COMMISSlONNO.41236;! I
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES NOV. 29, 21110 '
~4/
Date Received:
JAN - ~ 2008
Original Submittal J(L
tf~l'5frY\
ATTACHMENT 8 - 32
City of Springfield
Development Services Department
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Phone: (541) 726-37S9
Fax: (541) 726-3689
SPRINGFI'
'.J
\.
_ate Received:
Appeals Application, Type IV
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to City Council
JAN - 4 2008
f(-f(
4:7..'-'"P""
. . Original Submittal
Name, Journal Number and Date of the DecisIOn Bemg Appealed,
M,f$ffl{ fLw Wf'G J1L ~Pt-{C477av;' L-I?P -lOtJ7-0'D02F: ])~C. ~O. ":1.00,)'
/ /
"Ui"," A,~O .4-7' HAietI;oLA /'uI;;,A.1';o..or:'/
"
, Date of Filing the Appeal
~~U'<li
(This date must he 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 inu}'}'.u}'.:ately applied.
, ,
Issue #1 f\J 0 tV 0 Tl c...<<..... f' 0 S 'l'~O 0 F """'E E,,",' '" q u. S
J v
r e~ i""1 JLo.1I bJ 5 :nc.. 5, A-I I.s-
Issue #2 5eJ2QJ:../,QpJ af1{iA-..;'f-- ST'~~U'T /zl.J /jAcK
Issue #3
Issue #4
(List any additional issues being appealed on an attached sheet)
The und,enigned acknowledges that the above appeal form and its attachments have been read,the
requirements for filing an appeal of a land use decision is undentood and states thatthe information
supplied is correct and accurate. , Q...J.o,.. pOk>l-{ e;;POJIkW74/> Cn~oCIS a-.,'1I'li:
. Appellant's'Name 'l>-eyJn~"" H-u...,,+-- Phone ';;'-'11-7 <j t:'- ~l?D
Address seYY)/OL.A"'-\' OA A~<;fn. )~if\I~ I rl
Statement of!Jted ();<t. 10 4., f'\ G Y"...:c (,.j"1-)... 6"" '-' ".ff" TZ-<-1 P JZ-c> 1'J2,~"TtJ v...., /loe fL
Signatur~O, 4 455lr~/''j.{'".,.JJ f'/C.;>I',uzj~ D~~
~ fl.:-.1A,,~~
"
Wn,r oflkUl.C!iP On'~.
JoumalNo. Z.O~2CXJ~-ryY)n5
, 1'1--02-'00-00
As~essor s Map No. :.u:./)'l;, 7"'-.:::J.'
Date Accepted as Complete
Received By
Tax Lot No: 11-
L:i?OD
? ::/; o'"\r)
:it .-
P~2-co0-OCV3h
ATTACHMENT 8 -33
T~ f J" n "'...... j (P,..,...-.. ~.r 1..0"'-' de /\: ~ Vl-'--<L ~ .,
, ,'t'- -1 f' tzTIC-lOu...T'€...- 1.'1 /U."i- (2., /lo......~
ofPo/Z-T'-t......lIU.,lO" ,If,,' rJ ,.J
~I~ 'o~."\, ~}<25';e.e'~.....,rz-l'/"-J f"'S'''T''~ c-P-/Il<:;f()<.."'L
~ ^ J ,. -,.v S"DC ~ '2.. - 11 S"' .
~,. YL~a. n.''''''J ,. I
.:r:. 1,'.....,e.. ,..... eA..~ '/~ .r~~Q'j-.A..d Je...........l"'~""'-L T a....J
, .
J.tZ-~ ~ 0",-," /Y-a-.. S" h-ee.;f-s ,,~~<--!---c. cQ. ~) I~ d-e<":5 ,;:;;:,
L..:.'j. ^ f05~,vCJ-h(€- c.....,o~lJ. h,.,.,--. a.lIO)'-<Je,UPVL..
-tv r~n- {-..c.. ;f:vr...... ti...... 9 J:2.~ r,/Loe S5 --y C-tJ"-'c.e.rt.....-.J 5
..~. ':
;. ,
.. ,-\-.
,..
. .
..
.
, ,
ATTACHMEf\!T 8 - 34
Date Received:
1-4-08
JAN - ~ 2008
To City of Springfield
Original Submittal KL
.Lf:ZSpr1-j
Re: Appear 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 aJIlount of the fee is to be taken I
from "Development Code Application Fees" blurb. I have copies of the one "Effective 12-3-
2ooi" 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 fe~ 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 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 are bundled under the North Springfield Citizens' Committee which has
been duly recognize as such by the City.
--/..
/;1,'~
Nick Shevchynski
11~~
-,
Nick Shevchyn~ki
North Springfield Citizens Committee
ATTACHMENT 8 - 35
~ Date' Received:
JAN - 4 2Q08
1
Assignments of Error
Original Submitt'" K~ z.'6p "1
L , 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
oppo~ite side.
3. Explaining "the specific points that are appealei:!" 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 plan.ferror 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 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 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 reco~dwas still open
for public comment the public should have bee!l 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
eyer 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 questiOlxand 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 obj ection. 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 drohedon 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 stiuf 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. .
I ~
10. Commissioner Nancy Moore was not qualified to vote. S,he told me she drove on this part
of Marcola Rd. daily to her job at agrade school up Marcola. On the last,day she said she didn't
know if there were sidewalks on' this part of Marco/a, 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 )'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' ariswered, "1 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 m.ailed.
13. There were about 56 additions made without e'qual 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 n"thing 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, about the impa<;t 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 Americas1.argest 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 p~rt of the city's overa1\ plan and this was not even mentioned.
, 24. This issue Of traffic is one of being relative. Is not traffic ratedby 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
Nick Shevchynski
Nick Shevchynski,
North Springfield Citizens' Committee
ATTACHMENT 8 - 38
Affidavit
I, Nick Shevchynski, first being duly sworn on oath say:
I ,wa+kedjjogged 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.
-0-t//~
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
NarARV PUBUC - OREGQI\i
: COMMISSION NO. 41236.2 \ .
/,/,Y CO~ION EYPIRJ:~ NaV, 29 2010
Uh- 4~
'.
j
Date Received: ,
,
JAN - 4 2008
~rigin~1 Submittal <<
ATTACHMENT 8 - 39
Satre & Associates
Attention Rick Satre
132 East Broadway, Suite 536
Eugene, Oregon 97401
ZON2008-00004
,
Philip M, Newman
260 S, Mill
Creswell, Oregon, 97426
ZON2008-G0007
'Wesley O. Swanger
2415 Marcola Road
Springfield, Oregon 97477.
,
ZON2008-00002
SC Springfield LLC
7510 Longley Lane, Suite 102
Reno, Nevada 89511
ZON2008-00005
Dennis Hunt
3044 Yolanda Avenue
. Springfield, Oregon 97478
ZON2008-00008
Nick Shevchynski
2347 Marcola Road
Springfield, Oregon 97477
J
---:",'
ZON2008-GOO03
Donna Lentz
, 1544 E Street
Springfield, Oregon 97477
ZON2008-G0006
Clara Shevchynski
2315 Marcola Road
Springfield, Oregon 9747y
,J