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