Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPacket, City Council PLANNER 1/8/2008 , ' :'~' MEMORANDUM , City of SDrinafield Date: Mayor and CouncilorS Bill Grile, Development Services Directo~bl January 8, 2008 . ;:y;vv To: From: Subject: Marcola Meadows Master Plan Appeals . On December 20, 2007 the Planning Commission approved the Marcola Meadows. Master Plan application by a vote of 7-0, 'with 53 conditions of approval. By the end of the appeal deadline'on January 7,2008 the Development SE!rvices Department received 7 appeals. One was from the applicant, the other 6 were from neighboring properly owners. A public hearing date for the Council to consider these appeals has been scheduled for January 28, 2008. In order to give the Council a "heads up" prior to January 28"' public hearing, the following information is attached: ' 1. A copy of each of the 7 appeal applications 2. A copy of ttie Planning Commission's Final Order and Notice of Decision' 3. A copy of the December 20"' Planning Commission Staff Report 4. A copy of the Recap of the Conditions of Approval as amended and approved by the Planning Commisl!ion on December 20"' As with all land use application, please be mindful of ex parte contacts so that your impartiality is not questioned. . RECEIVED JAN "782008 By: ~ p~ City of Springfield Deve.lopment 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 January 4, 2007 (This date must be within 15 calendar days of the date ofthe 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 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 upon the applicant a burden disproportionate to the impact 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 of proportionality. Issue #4 (List any additional issues being appealed on an attached sheet.) The undersigned acknowledges Ihat the above appeal form and its attachments have been read, the requirements for filing an appeal of a.Jand use decision is understood and states that the information supplied is correct and accurate. Appellant'sName SC Sprinqfield, LLC Phone 775-853-4714 Address 7510 Lonqlev Lane, Suite 102, Reno. .Nevada 89511 Statement ofInterestv 7oDert~?wr /aT)oiican~ Signature {)'/A/!.N1 /V Y . l I / I . - , for Qriainal aonlication I J ( 1('....... nffi,.,p,,"~... n"-Iy" Journal NO';?i.'1. ~ }...6'D%:> - <Stoc:.CReceived By 11-o2~30-00 . Assessor's pNo. L1-o3-2,!S'-1/ Tax Lot No. Date Accepted as Complete +vv-z-. tSOO ?~^^ PRS200G:>-1'V"Y'l3~ 1-1 WRITTEN 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 and timing of future traffic control at the private commercial driveway and Marcola Road intersection. SummarY of Issues Raised bv Condition #27 The applicant appeals Condition #27 based upon the following facts and lJ(?ints 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 comrhercial driveway. 2. The City Traffic ~ngineer.acknowledges these improvements will meetapplicaole 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; ,: . 1-2 Phone: (541) 686.8833 Fax; (541) 345.2034 975 Oak Street Suite 800 Eugene, Oregon 97401-3156 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1147 Eugene, Oregon 97440-1147 Emai!: info@gleaveslaw.com Web.Site: www.gleaveslaw.com Frederick A. Batson Jon V. Buerstatte Joshua A. Oark Diniel P. Ellison Michael T Faulconer*' A]. Giustina Thomas P. E. Herrmann' Dan Webb Howard.... Stephen O. Lane William H. Martin' WalterW.Miller Laura 1. Z. Montgomery' Tanya C UNeil Standlee G. Potter Martha J. Rodman Robert S. Russell Douglas R. Schultz Malcolm H. Scott James W. Spickennan Kate A. Thompson ]aneM.Yates . Also admitted in Washington .. Also admitted inCalifomia 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 ~ide 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 disproportidnate burden upon the applicant relative to the impact of the development on public facilities. This is contrary to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling ill Dolan v. City of Thzard 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 ~ntersection. Arrument '. 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 there is 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 tl).e impact of the development and the financial burden the requirement places upon the applicant. It is necessary that there be a connection between a condition imposed and the standard served by the condition. This is a case of whether the condition involves an exaction, as does that here, or not. See Olson Memorial Ciinic v. Clackamas County, 21 Or LUBA 418 2- WRITTEN APPEAL STATEMENT - MARCOLA MASTER PLAN LRP 2007-0028 January 4,2008 1-3 (1991), SkV Dive Orep'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 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 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 requIrements 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 TIA submitted at the time of rezoning, it was shown that traffic control would be necessary at the intersections of Marcola Road/Martin Drive arid Marcola Road/private commercial driveway. In order to meet capacity requirements to satisfy Goal 12 _ Transportation, the applicant has proposed to dedicate the right-of- way for and to complete all improvements to Martin Drive and provide the signalized intersections contemplated by the TIA. .~ The staff report for the December 11, 2007 Planning Commission meeting states with regard to the proposed signalized intersections: "... from a capacity standpoint existing and proposed transportation facilities would be sufficient to meet applicable performance standards...." Staff Report, p. 35. , 3- WRfITEN APPEAL STATEMENT - MARCOLA MASTER PLAN LRP 2007-0028 January 4, 2008 1-4 The staffsimply 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 standard 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 Tillard, 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 govemrnent 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 irn,pact caused by the proposed development is , the burden to provide a signalized intersection in order to meet requirements of the Statewide Transportation Goal and City Code. The City staff has agreed that, from a capacity 'standpoint, the proposed signalized intersection would meet applicable performance standards. A disproportionate burden would be imposed by the requirement of roundabouts, which would increase the applicant's burden in the form of the cost of realignment of Marcola Road and the loss of one-half to two acres of commercial land. While the cost of two signalized 4- WRITTEN APPEAL STATEMENT - MARCOLA MASTER PLAN LRP 2007-0028 January 4, 2008 1-5 I . 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 fiom 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 thirik that roundabouts are safer but . does not specifically identify those concerns. Generally, the City staffs. comments indicate a preference for roundabouts rather than sigiJ.alized 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 Frontae:e Road Master Plan Condition 1j27, 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 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 exceptiori 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 devefopment 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 Ja,!uary 4, 2008 1-6 residential driveways on that side of the roadway. This conflict with . intersections to Marco~a Road was inevitable in terms of future transportation plans. Both Lhe TransPlan and the Conceptual Local Street Plan call for a c,ollector to be located approximately where Martin Drive is proposed and to intersect at Marcola Road at approximately the same point as shown in the Master Plan. Someplace, at some time, along this portion of Marcola Road, there was to be a collector street to not only serve the property involved in this application but other properties to the north and east. ] . To the extent th.ere 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 fot the roundabout, just the right-of-way for the proposed development. The development will be responsible for only a por;tion of the traffic utilizing that intersection. Obviously, improvements at the intersection should not be the sole responsibility of the applicant but the applicant has noi: 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 sorrie 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 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- WRITTEN APPEAL STATEMENT - MARCOLA MASTER PLAN LRP 2007-0028 January 4, 2008 1-7 constitutes an unlawful delegadonof authority by deferring development approval to aJater stage where there is no opportunity for public hearing. See Ten1v Prooerties Com. v. Washinlrton Coimtv, 34 Or LUBA 352 (1998). Theobjections 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 altemativ~ for Master Plan Condition #27.' James W. Spl Of Attomeys for Applicant Attachment: Proposed Master Plan Condition #27 7- WRlTTEN APPEAL STATEMENT - MARCOLA MASTER PLAN LRP 2007-0028 January 4, 2008 1-8 J APPLICANT'S PROPOSED MASTER PLA.N CONDmON #27 MASTER PLAN CONDmON#27. Priorto 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. 2) Provide preliminary design acceptable to the City Engineer for a signalized intersection at the arterial/collector intersection of Marcola Road and Martin Drive, ana include the dedication of right-of-way necessary to construct the improvements. The intersection improvemen!S 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. ' 3) 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 atthe 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. 1-9 SPRINGFU oJ City of Springfield Development Services Department 225 Fifth Street Springfield, OR 97477 Phone: (541) 726-3759 Fax: (541) 726-3689 ., ',~' Date Appeals Application, Type IV , Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to City Council JAN - 4 2008 KL .if~ Z'Sfr1') N J IN b dD fth D .. B' OrlginalSubmittal ame, ouma \lID er an ate 0 e eCISlon emg Appealed' ' t1llilil? ~ /~,; lIT. API'~cA1'lOV;' tRP '.2007_CJV02f'-:: ~. 10 :1.""""'7 111./.'//d.f.e(/ a:t- ~/i'(""/A.. HB4lJt!Jw<. " Date of Filing the Appeal "->.tf,v V.~oo 7 , . (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 alle~e to have been in'"t'l',vl'.:ately applied. ' Issue #3 5e.L A-7tIk.H.M~; AI'FILl"';f/(-"" -~~ .01> l"fltlof1 , I I I / I t" Issue #1 Issue #2 Isspe #4 (List any additional issues being appealed on an attached sheet.) The undersigned acknowledges tbat the above appeal form and its attachments have been read, the requirements for filing an appeal of a land use decision is understood and stlites that the information supplied is correct and accurate. ~ ~ <;'f'd/~fRe..~ C,71iH:P..f CO"'ut~ Appellant's Name Me/( Stello,I.t.lS K.t Phone "OILL. Address 2!A j M/f/U.rxA k.,., Statement of Interest Ab"TACJii1.,F"T' 1W<>pDf.71-- ow/ifl Signature.-iLl ~ -"L .-.~ -- Fnr o(firiP TTIlIl!P Only- Journal No. "ZON;;(.Q)g-OOOO8' ReceivedBy 17-02.-30 '00 Assessor's Map No. 17-()~-2~-/l Tax Lot No. Date Accepted as Complete tltlA . ~ fRJ"2.0~ '(j)()3b 1-10 Date Received: "1-4-08 JAN - ~ 2008 To City of Springfield Original SubmittPl /<..L 4:ZSft'l-j 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 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 "Appear of Type IT 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 ~d this is a Type III Decision not Type IT. 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 t~e City may wave the appeal fees and it is petitioned hereiri 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 1-11 Date Rece.ived: JAN - 4 200a 1 J Assignments of Error Original Subm\tt<Ol KL. 4: 2.'Sp "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 onthe 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 alm'ost 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 preyent them form being raised on review. An "error of law apparent on the face of the record" falls under the planrerror rule. The Oregon Supreme Court issued an opinion on Dec.l3, '07 in State v Fults overturning the Oregon Appeals Court because the plain error rule was not applied to unpreserved ~Iaims 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 hearirig." 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 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 question>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. 1-12 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 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 Marc 01 a 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 pat! 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 Washbilrn and/or her sidekicks Kim and Phil of the city staff answer questions 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 limes 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 tom out. ) 1-13 . ; 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 inp,ut 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 oth'erwise 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 AmericasJ.argest major retailers. Yet Gary Karp and staff advocate major highway expansions to accumulate alleged non-existing rise in traffi~. 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? l 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 1-14 Affidavit I, Nick Shevchynski, first being duly sworn on oath say: I ~alked/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 appr'oved 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 ,\ ',/ NOTARYPuBLIC-OREGOt, , COMMISSION NO. 412362 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES NOV. 29.2Il1Q "~4/ Date Received: JAN - 4 2008 Original Submittal J(L. 'i-:ZSfrY\ 1-15, City of Springfield . Development Services Department 225 Fifth Street ~pringfield, OR 97477 Phone: (541) n6-3759 Fax: (541) 726-3689. SPRINGFIEA ived: Appeals Application, Type IV Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to City Council JAN - ~ 2008 ." Ortglnal 5ucmlW' Lf-; z'5f"'- Name, Journal Number and Date of the Decision Being Appealed ma-s\l~ \?k~. p{"11l ~rt;~Ji"f'D,,^ L. I?PdlYf?- nt'V'\J~5 '[')""c. :J.D, .;J{)<.)r\ d. \\""-Y~ (Ll(Y\('"N"(l.1'1t"" IYlQ!1\JIl\AE' . D~te of Filing the Appeal (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 alle~e to have been in....}'.u}'.:ately applied. '-'l-rhO,,\\,::~:~ ~M,,.,,I^ ~:-;'^~",J,~..<( '?~","-r'\ .,),1/ ~1,", o..YU ..,e~~ ",," .' ~~._~l_._\ ~ ~,,-rt:/s' m<:> V'l'{)" f?~l1aI . Issue#2 NL\ ~_e..~. ,-.-- ~''''''<r<'>,\n -R1., I<J f.l S'f ~ :I - f~ l....k,U. . be. '0;:::':\ Y'."n.ff.'oJ~\.. ,,.,..,....~..l_ L'j~1"f<'\S..A rf1r\~,'\Q)."J """'f/"'r)t)",,~~t-o..,)'~cr Issue #3 .J. In, <>.; ~~ I. :1.(' o\c ~ ~,..,;.." p "'<:: ~~... rr\,p, . fY'^....t'" I Q , '\'(\,~('.H'i:,< -:p...... \ "_1'_-::{ 1..Jo..~ n.<< d <",",./0 ..-. M(' ......-~J v....~ ~~\.'J" 'f'"u..,\Q...'2. . ~ . \ Issue #4 . (List any additional issuesbeing appealed on an attach~.sheet.) The undersigned acknowledges that the above appeal form and its attachments have been read, the requirements for filiug an appeal of a land use decision is understood and states that the information supplied is correct and accurate. . " Appellant's Name W~~ 0. S-0<L, Qf Phon/SZO ) 1'1 J, R5/3 . . Address~L'( (^ b(. s'f~~ N'<JL I)., lJr-t'~~'" 9'7</?;;. . Statement of Interest Pr" p~l\\ Ou I,^ IVv"'" o.....~_.C<J:.1 'h. !~1' \. \ ~q- ~ Signature l;)sy.j,"'1 tJ lClnM19A . ~ fJ1aal(gy p~ 'For Offif"p TTqp nT\l~. . Journal No. ZOtJ2.CO~-Ocoo7 Received By . 17-02.-~D'OO 161=>0 Assessor's Map No. 17-o"';--7G,-/, Tax Lot No. ~-::I,,..,l) Date Accepted as Complete 41t .- 'VR.J'z.ccf,- C06 % I-Ib SPRINGFIEa 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 ceived: Name, Journal Number and Date of the Decision Being Appealed. ff/f-S(ffl~. fJJ.~1V Me.JJr tfpPLICI(llt:V: LteP 1>>(.20. 2007 U;/kJ~r ~ J11~ ~<!JlJ/) ,. Date of Filing the Appeal A-. . <.t, '-<:) C) f" (Ibis date most be within 15 calendar days of the date of the decision.) JAN - ~ 2008 . Original Submittal t<< ",,/:Z5fiY1 ~007 - t::i~2..?' /' 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 alle~e to.have been in..,-....v....:ately applied. ~-" t4-. ~.R u/ !JIz:{,'v.;' JU. t.J~ ~i-.. ~It'"'r 'u . . I{....~. fP'~ s;:.a-:~. o..J Me/" ~~",,;,(~. o...J b}- Issue#2 rr-<.~ .1:: /....c..<>N1'/"'.;:I-...L &'t,.. c;~ ~A ~~- Issue #1 Issue #} Issue #4 (List any additional issues being appcaled on an attached sheet) The undersigned acknowledges that the above appeal form and its attachments have been read, the requirements for filing an appeal or a land use decision is nnderstood and states that the information supplied is correct and accurate. f-J.,.K ~c'''"S~ ct.f;~ eo....-'~ AppeUant'sNameC~ ~\.qki '-~. Phone 7+6-f"":J.&.cJ Address :l-~IS'" t'U.~ M. Statement of Interest JJY-~ o_.........;:."rAU- ,'...odd b,pw,'A.c.f-. Signature c..,./Ji/""'>C-....luJ. F' . li'f1,r-..o.mrIPTIIlIIP llnl~. Journal No."'ZO rJ d-OO S- ODOOto. , - 1'1-0;1 -3 0 . 0 lJ Assessor s Map No. J1:.,,?~...;-. U Date A~~~,,;~d as Complete. Received By . -n.. / gOD Tax Lot No. 4"'1'111 ...... . ;;:oL .- PR:r200b -{)o03~ 1-1/ City of Springfield Development Services Department 225 Fifth Street Springfield, OR 97477 . Phone: (541) 726-3759 Fax: (541) 726-3689 SPRINGFIEA . Appeals Application, Type IV Appeal of Planning Coinmission Decision to City Council ~' Original Submittal Name, Journal Number and Date of the Decision Being Appealed M!:>rm. ft.w WPG 11L rJr:>"e./CAnav/ L./FP .c0I17-0~0.2S:; ])~r:. 2-0, UlO';;' "lI,,,,.. ~<$.O .4-1" HAie/!LO~A N~ho~r:'/ JAN - 4 2008 K~ 4:6p.... ,. Date of Filing the Appeal ~4--:~t (rhis 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 al1e~e to have been i.n.-pp.vp.:ately applied. . . Issue # 1 fL1 0 tV 0 TIc.. "<--> f' a S "f"~ 0 0 F Y"'E: E: 'l\"\ ~ 0 Gt. 5 ) ~ ('ell U.'I!?"'.!! b.... s Dc.. 5,:)... -115 Issue~2 ~ci:kt~.P afl{~~,I-- ST'A~';-UT Qft.J ~1fcK Issue #3 Issue #4 (List any additional issues being appealed on an attached sheet.) The uudersigned acknowledges that the above appeal form and its attachmeuts have been read, the requirements for filing an appeal of a land use decision is understood and states that theinfonnation supplied is correct and accurate.. l(~ p~ <:;;""'1kH74t> Cm~.us C_~ .r Appellant's Name I>..enn<kS ~L..v\..+- Phone ~'-c; l-}Yt.'-- S"'i?ro . Address ?,oVV-1/0L.A/V 0..-'\ A~ <;fq,~A..l rI . Statement ofIn.~ (j ~ k4- n. G)"-o '-' -r-h '6.s:>...- ",,!fa fi7< f ifl-c f7J2;eT::J V..., ""'e ~ Signa"'~O 4 5f',leI....j .{',..../J 'f?-u.,e,J2.I:; ..'-"~ '~-;Z_~ }(9f?dA"-:".~ ~_ . "' For Offirp. TTsp nnl~. Journal No. 20 tJ 2(X)~ -r('iJ05 1'1-DZ~30-00 . Assessor's Map No.. \1-11'1;.]<<, - " Date Accepted as Complete' Received By 1L L 800 Tax Lot No. '?::!;....i) If. .- P~J)_C00-oq)3h l-Hl T"Nz..... fl<<n.'.;......j (p.....:......)rL~~ de/\:e.D. v>-.-~ .. off1o/Z-~'^'~tJ ~o f4rZ-T1c..;(7,<<-T-e..- bJ /U "':- (2., 1/"'.... "J ~I~ '0......."- ~}e5 ~eg......I1z.1."'J faST'~ o-P-;1JO\n"<EL ^ '. ~ _ ... r I' N 'S1)C ~. '2.. - }1 S", 0, yt~"""'-t"'...j'" . . . 7' ),'VE.: yv ~~ ,'--- r,n.,ores--e.d Je..vU<-Lc>~t- a.....J J. tZ- ~ o.Q.... 0"-> it-- ~ h-e e.;h "f2-~c-i-..Q. ~ ), L..... L~<-:5 I':.:::;:, L.L'. 'j ,1\ fOS f.J) ^,CJt~ c€.- w 0 ~l J. h-.~ <l. tI'O~eQ. ~ ~ rA.~ -he.. ;f<vt~ A...... ~ .Q.i'C r~ S.5 '-"""y C-.D"->c.e;'L,y-J .s . . '. ~. :" : \ ,..i . ~. .' ..; . .1.. .. : 1-19 . City of Springfield Development Services Department 225 Fifth Street . Springfield, OR 97477 Phone: (541) 726-3759 Fax: (541) 726-3689 Date Received: SPRINGFIE.....J Appeals Application, Type IV Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to City Council \AN - Ii 2IllI8..- Name, Journal Number and Date of the Decision Being Appealed Original Submittal ~ . .fA . '" 't . 25ft! r(k:rEi:? f"t-A,V TVtJ&: llr A"I'LI<;'tncw-: t.RP 2oo7-000.zy,' . . " .' , kc.. 2D, 2-0o~r · U;//.!JV'""r-< AT MA.~f'1JW4 MEll71l:Jw<::" Date ofFiling the Appeal '. ~~-4:2~.v (This date must'be witbin 15 calendar days of the date of the decision.) Please list below, in summary form, the specific issues being raised in the appeal, 1)ese 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 m..,.,p.v,..:ately applied, Issue#I/J,? ~.5-kd LIIOd/ 3DC S;Z - lis:" fs.eo.. ~li ..\l'd.t) . $'0: ;ft<7lMrV({ 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 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. UN.bll/. ;Um7t' C;;~pq.qCZ-b OT'~S c:.l<t""'7iT Appellaut'sName ?h\' L P ~,NUAJf\A.d.{"" . Phone ~q S"-lfJ'J7 Address 2Jv 0 Sa (\,t.( ~ I' (ll-'eSkV U Statem~t OfIiit~~.. -:;:'P'?;j" \..eu.~d \.Jv~~v ,tI'o>>.)/..I) . ../ 1..l77'/\ C-)/J - C ' / Signature \j~~", :aP!~:~ li'or O(firp. TTIliZIP o.nJv. JoumalNo. 7ntJ'JI\OX-. -DJ~O()4- Recei~edBY ~O2.-30'OO . ; 'bOD Assessor's Map No. .JJ..:.o3-z'5 -I} Tax Lot No. ~ "II'lD Date Accepted as Complete 1'R.31.fY1(~- n(")1'1 ?-,(" I-LU ..... ~ , ) \ , I,oW{ (5) ? ropwy ~tulUtv', ~ rHu. c/~.fy uf ~Y~J&/d9 ' r (Jou)e) Iwve .ftN~ 1-0 JuavUU' 1fT woulcJ 0+ .~~~~: ' " I1LWt Wc-S,~ IUO.[.1"G.e fJ(JJ+e.C1 ON ~ ~U2(~12 YO~cl ~{Ot2Wt (p~Y{.t. \P~ 2Y Y"C5uwc.d, ( '0,/ S\)l- S.'L- lIS- ,',/;" .~~ . -T' '('\J,~ ..kc PK N.uunllx....:T vud .:::r~ , [}<JV J- , I, -.: ".-' .... "'1 . j , 1"':21 City of Springfield Development Services Department 225 Fifth Street Springfield, OR97477 Phone: (541) 726-3759 Fax: (541) 726-3689 Appeals Applic;:ation, Type IV Appeal of Planning Commissiori Decision to City Council e Received: . JAN ~ ~ 2008 SPRINGFIELD . OrIGinal supmlttal Name, Journal NUlIlber and Date of the Decision Being ~ea1ed Ch 1f'\ r. Q, [ _ e...t"I-r- ~ l R P 2 tlC)'7 - 000 2 ~ U Pro €-f'Abey 20.200 I ~. ~~ I: pJp,;v re~:eJ, .bij~ ~C9-r\G1a.ru 2. .20D8 (Tbis date must be within lS1..lendar ~ys 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 i&,....u".:ately applied. . Issue #1 0 -t~-e.{/'S ('~+~ '. re.._<;, ;~~-t:JcJL .3 hOf~n . "YY'. r((')~. -t holt- c;z-.r:e.- oJ rp~. plV.+i-rt.<<.J0 Issue#2 L~0-e..r {\ . H"IcJJ (o...nd k u&:d ~IS-e r tr- . I-\? -clZ.DX'-e.. Ip ~IL,o~O ~CI(c.K, rA-'it +D us-P/- Issue!!J~ ro j e-c/\i vV c') Gt r d pc> S"S"'- bT LA a,d l/'er5~f r e_ -\--\ p ck ~ boJ\ re.n evJa.Y. ~C'IJ\ , Isstie#4 PO~~lbl\'14~ at' \h0D-~d-\no ('C?-~eSSJ~ frVO\...{ Id Dro,j"--G. '\nClp~(")r-t("(IlAL' -fo~ro\ec.T (List any additional issues being a'ppealed on an attiched sheet) ~ Date of Filing th.e Appeal i () Clr ljJ The undersigned acknowledges that the above appeal form and its attachments have beeBread, the . n:quirements for filing llII appeal of a land use decision is Understood and states that the information snpplied is correct and accnrate. . Appel1ant'sN~e DonVli;\ Le.t>-f.'Z. -, .none 7 1..-( f - J 7'( > Address.) sLfL.) e S+- SPrlrlCi-f.-,..nM ,Or.q ii..f? 1 Statement of Interest -1\^, U-v- C'.~. _ _~.~- .:: ,0. (fa t- )S" --"UJf)-;pr:ln9rfi~r) . Signature ~. ~~ . 'Regrctiin-f- WOo" 'lfIi...... TTilI-", o.uJv- Journal No. ZoN2J)(iJ~cxxJt)3 Recei~edBY l7-iJ2-30-ooTZ- f Boo Assessor'sMapNo.J"1-o,>-;/<;-U Tax Lot No. '17_ .;:0:::\;-,,..-, Date Acccpted as Complete .:p~3:2-00<o- OQ:)3,=, 1-22 rcm;Q~~seRiF.lGElErD~~~~~"~~~1'j~~,~~~~DBrEilbeIlliENT~SEn.JlCESDERARiMOO~ DATE OF NOTICE: December 21, 2007 DATE OF DECISION: JOURNAL NUMBER: December 20, 2007 LRP2007 -00028 APPLICANT: " Satre Associates PC, representing SC Springfield, LLC The applicant requested Master Plan approval to guide the development of the Villages at Marcola Meadows, a 100.3 acre mixed-use residential commercial development. The subject property is located on the northwest comer of Marcola Road and 28/31st Streets (Assessor's Map 17-02-30-00, Tax Lot 01800 and 17-03-25-21, Tax Lot 02300). This request is within Springfield's city limits. . " On December.20, 2007 the Springfield Planning Commission voted 7 for and 0 against to approve, as conditioned, the prqposed Marcola Meadows Master Plan. This decision is final as of this date. Because you participated in the public hearing process for the subject proposal, you are entitled to appeal this decision to the Springfield City Council. Your appeal must be filed with the Development Services Department, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, OR 97477 not later than 5:00 p.m. on January 4, 2008: Appeal application forms are available in the Development Services Department or online at cLspringfield.or.us, click city services; click departments; click planning; scroll down left side under applications and fees; click Appeal Type IV. The staff and the Springfield Planning Commission extend our sincere appreciation for your participation in the public hearing process on this matter. Your commitment to your neighborhood and the community as a whole is the most important element of these hearings. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Gary Karp, Planner III at 541.726.3777. " , -~ ~ k:; Gary ~rp, Planne~A"~ . 2-1 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SPRlNGFIELD,OREGON ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION FOR ] A MASTER PLAN APPLICATION ] CASE NUMBER LRP 2007-00028 NATURE OF THE APPLICATION The applicant proposes a phased, mixed-use development on 100.3 acres formerly known as the "Pierce" property, now called the "Villages at Marcola Meadows". The site is located north of Marcola Road and west of 28th Street The proposed development consists of a total of 518 homes on 54.7 gross acres, and a total of 449,600 square 'feet of retaiVoffice use on 45.6 gross acres with nodal attributes. The proposed development will include design . elements that support pedestrian environments and encourage transit use, walking and bicycling; a transit stop which is within walking distance (generally Yo mile) of anywhere in the node; mixed uses so that services are available within walking distance; public spaces, such as parks, public .and private open space (11.4 acres), and public facilities, that can be reached without driving; and a mix C!f housing types and residential densities that achieve an overall net density of at lease 12 units per net acre. The submittal of this Master Plan application was required by Condition #1 of Ordinance No. 6196 (Zoning Map Amendment, June 18, 2007). 1. The above referenced application has been accepted as complete. 2. The appli~tion'was initiated and submitted in a=rdance with Section 5.4-105 of the Springfield Development Code. Timely and sufficient notice of the public hearing, pursuant to Section 5.2-115 of the Springfield Development Code, has been provided. 3. On November 20, 2007 the. Planning Commission: opened the public hearing on the proposed Master Plan application, heard testimony from staff, the applicant and 10 citizens; closed the oral record; held the written record open until 5 pm on November 27, .2007; stated that a staff report would be available to the public on Dece'mber 4, 2007; and continued the public hearing until December 11" 2007 4. On. December 11, 2007 the Planning Commission: reopened the public hearing on the proposed Master Plan application, heard testimony frOrri staff, the applicant and 4 citizens; closed the record; and deferred both staff's response" the applicanfs rebuttal and the Planning Commission's decision until December 20, 2007. 5. On December 20, 2007 the Planning Commission heard both staff's response and the applicanfs rebuttal and made their decision on the MasterPlan application. The Development Services Department staff notes and .recommendation together with the oral testimony and written submittals of the persons testifying at that hearing have been considered and are part of the record of this proceeding. CONCLUSIO~ . . On the basis of this record, the proposed Master Plan, as conditioned, is consistent with the criteria of SDC Section 5.13-125. This general finding is supported by the specific findings of fact and conclusion in the Staff Report and Findings.' . . ORDER/RECOMMENDATION IUs aROi!; Springfield Planning Commission that approval of CASE NUMBER LRP 2007-00028 be GRAN~ED i oned. . . '. '. . . . , , P1arg' ission ChairperSon ATTEST AYES: 7 NOES: flf ABSENT:~ ABSTAIN: r 2-2 - . MEMORANDUM CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: December 20,2007 FROM: Springfield Planning Commission Gary M. Karp, Planner III (: K PLANNING COMMISSION TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM TO: SUBJECT: Marcola Meadows Master Plan application - Case Number LRP 2007-00028 Satre Associates, Applicant - Representing SC Springfield, LLC ISSUE On December 11th, the Planning Commission reopened the Master Plan public hearing continued from November 20th. The Planning Commission heard testimony from staff, the applicant and the public, but did not make a decision on December 11th. Instead, the planning Commission voted to defer staff's response and the applicanfs rebuttal until December 20th and make its decision on the Marcola Meadows Master Plan on that date. DISCUSSION On December lllh, the applicant focused his presentation on four Master Plan conditions of approval he claimed should either be deleted or modified: #27 - use of roundabouts rather than traffic signals along Marcola Road; #51 - staff's use of options regarding phasing; #55 - Lane County's request for off site street improvements on 3151 Street between the EWEB Bike Path and Yolanda Avenue; and #56 Planning Commission consideration of a condition regarding adaptive reuse to be applied to the proposed Lowe's store. Staff recommends deleting conditions #55 and 56 as beyond the scope of this application; staff recommends modifying conditions #27 and 51. The applicant referred to four other Master Plan conditions of approval but did not specifically address them in his presentation: #1 - allow Willamalane Park and Recreation District an opportunity to review and comment on future plans for specific improvements to the proposed Oak Prairie Park; #12 - utilization of MUC design standards in the CC District; #16 - application of Drinking Water Protection Overlay District standards; and #16 - applicability of the Nodal Development Overlay District's prohibited use list in the CC District. Staff recommends modifying' conditions # 1, 12 and 16. . Staff met with ttie applidant on December 13th and on December 16th to discuss the cited conditions. During this discussion, two other Master Plan conditions of approval: #14 - which requires a 30 buffer along the Marcola Road and 26th Street frontages; and #41 - which concems drainage issues were discussed in relation to the eight contested conditions. All ten conditions are addressed in staff's response. . Four person's submitted oral testimony, which was mostly traffic related. Their specific issues are also addressed in staff's response. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Master Plan application, as conditioned in the December 11th staff report and as modified in staff's response, based on the findings in the staff report and rebuttal by the appliCant. ACTION REQUESTED Approve the Master Plan application, as conditioned, by motion and signature of the attached order and recommendation by the Planning Commission Chairperson. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: .Staff's Response Attachment 2: Planning Commission's Findings and Order Attachment 3: Transportation Division's Submittal Attachment 4: The Revised Phasing Plan Attachment 5: Recap of Master Plan Conditions of Approval 3-1 -, STAFF'S RESPONSE THE FOLLOWING lWO CONDITIONS ARE RECOMMENDED FOR DELETION: I I. MASTER PLAN CONDITION #55 J This'condition states: "Prior to the ~ubmittal of the Final' Master Plan, the applicant shall submit plans approved by the Lane County Public Works Director for required street improvements along the west side of 31st Street from tile EWEB Bike Path to Yolanda Avenue. Construction of these improvements shall be , concurrent with the installation of ,improvements required to be completed as part of Phase 1." Applicant's Issue: Lane County's request for off site street improvements on '31" Street between the EWEB Bike Path and Yolanda Avenue, " Staff's Response: After consultation with the City Attorney, staff recOmmends deleting this condition' because it involves off-site improvements to land not in control of the applicant (Staff cannot require a third party dedicate right-of-way). Improvements like this may be obtained if justified by a Dolan analysis, , however, dedication of land not in the developer's ownership is not defensible. ' Conclusion: Master Plan Condition #55 is recommended for deletion. " , I II. MASTER PLAN CONDITION #56 This condition states: , "Concurrent with the submittal with the Site Plan Review application required for proposed Phase 2, the applicant or successor owner shall submit a draft "Adaptive Reuse Agreement"; to be approved by the DSD Director and the City Attorney that addresses options regarding a situation where Lowes.vacates their building. The agreement shall include, but not be limited to, redesign the building so that it would be ready for a number of new tenants, or if the building is vacant 'for more than two'yearS (or time line to be detennined by the Planning Commission), demolition. n , ' , Applicant's Issue: Staffs request for the Planning Commission to consider a condition regarding adaptive reuse to be applied to the proposed Lowe's store. Staff's Resporise: During the Development Review process, public testimony raised the issue that there were a number of vacant "big box" buildings in Springfieid. Staff responded to this testimony by proposing a "possible" condition of approval to be added if the Planning Commission so desired. After consultation with the City Attorney, staff recommends deleting this condition because currently it has no \ basis in the SDC. Staff will add this topic to the policy issue list being prepared to guide future SDC amendments. ' Conclusion: Master Plan Condition #56 is recommended for deletion. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE MODIFIED, EXCEPT FOR CONDITION #16: I III. MASTER PLAN CONDITION #1 This condition states: "Prior to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall prepare a deed restriction to the , satisfaction of the Willamalane Park and Recreation Director stating that the applicant or any successor owners shall give Willamalane Park and Recreation Distri~t an opportunity to review 3-2 ATTACHMENT 1 - 1 1 , , and comment on future plans for specific improvements to the proposed Oak Prairie Park, in order to better ensure that the design is compatible with andcompliinentary to planned improvements at Willamalane's Pierce Park during the life of the Master Plan." Applicant's IsSue: This condition is an inappropriate delegation of authority to a third party. Staffs Response:'Condition 5. Zoning Map Amendment Ordinance 6196 states: . Submittal of a Master Plan application that addresses the relationship of the proposed development to Willamalane's future park on the north side of the EWEB Bike Path and an explanation of any coordination efforts with Willamalane conceming the siting and development of the future park.' Staff has stated that the intent of Condition 5 is to provide for ongoing coordination regarding specific park design issues. Conclusion: Master Plan Condition #, 1 is recommended for modification as shown below: MASTER PLAN CONDITION #1. Prior to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall prepare a deed restriction [tG-tI=I: ::-~:":IGtien sf tile V\f":--:-':-~3PaFk :md Resreatien CireGter] stating that the , applicant or any successor owners shall [give] provide Willamalane Park and Recreation District an opportunity to review and comment on future plans for specific improvements to the proposed Oak Prairie Park, in order to better ensure that the design is compatible with and complimentary to planned ' . improvements at Willamalane's Pierce Park during the life of the Master Plan. I IV. MASTER P.LAN CONDITION #12 This condition stat~s: "Prior to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall prepare a deed restriction to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and the Development Services Director that states: the applicant and successor owners shall utilize the MUC design standards, with the exception of the FAR standard, in all CC zoned portions of ,the site." _ Applicant's Issue: Staff previously stated that the home improvement eenter would be exempt The other CC areas would be okay. ", Staffs Response: Staff has always stated that the proposed home improvement center must comply with design standards. Condition 7. Zoning Map Amendment Ordinance 6196 states: ',Submittal of a Master Plan aoolication that shows the orooosed home imorovement center burldina exterior desian simIlar to the existin(f burldirla in Scottsdale. Arizona or a buildina desion that complies with the current buildinrl desian standards in SDC Section 3.2-400.' The preceding reference is to Campus Industrial building design standards. During the Pre-Application Report issued on September 24, 2007 (ZON200lHl0030) staff stated: 'This is.the requirement that should be used to refer to applicable design standards that are listed in Attachmeni 3. In addition, in order to guarantee design continuity though out the commercial portion or the , development the following must occur:. ....21 The orooosed I-,)W",,~ cuildin". must inco[OOrate a burldi'J!l. exteriordelliahsimilarfr) the existina Lowes in Scottsdale. Arizona (lrone thatcomolies with the current buildin.a desia,n standards in SDC Article 21 as specified in MRfrn Plan DiapramlZoninp Map Amendment Condition of Acioroval #7.' The December 11, 2007 staff report staff stated: The applicant has stated that a Lowes design used in Scottsdale Arizona would be similar to the MUC design standards. Staff's intent is that the proposed home improvement center not be just another 'big box'. In lieu of a soecific aoormied desian for the Ilrollf)Sed home imorovementcenter the all')/icant or successor owners shall submit elevation drawina~ that are similar to the 'Scottsda/e Lowes' desian. or comolv with the desian standards soecifiecf in SDC Sections 3.2-620 throuah 630 (the MUC desian standards!. or SDC Section 3.2-445 (the Camllus Industrial rjesiqn standards thai aOlllied Ilrior to the Metro Plan diaoram and Zonina Mall amendment aoorovalsl,' Staffs intent throughout all stages of this proposal has been to require design standards for the proposed home improvement center. Conclusion: Master Plan Condition # 12 is recommended for modifcation as shown below: , 3-3 ATTACHMENT 1 - 2 2