The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutApplication APPLICANT 1/4/2008 I . J" ~ SPRINGFI' .D City of Springfield Development Services Department . 225 Fifth Street . Springfield, OR 97477 f'hone: (541,) 726-3759 Fax: (541) 726-3689 . Appeals Application, Type IV Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to City CounciL 'u~'.; r, ~..' '" , " ,t!' t . "J .,',- /, . . -bate Received: . Original Submittal Name, Journal Number and Date of the Decision Being Appealed /'vfdsmt ft.w WPG J1L rir:>Pt-/~71crv:' C!?P ,20d7-0'D0.2F; hG.c. :2-0. ')..00;7' '" '" J "lI"t.<-A-~c; 4-r I1Aie6:-0LA N;;A~O<d("'/,' . JAN - 4 2008 t<.~ 4:-z.';-r"'" ',.' Date of Filing the Appeal' uA..{J. 4-:' U'Q g - , (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, Le., what approval criterion or criteria you allege to have been inappropriately applied. . Issue #1 No t\J0Tlr,s-'<...:> ('o:S'T-~O 0 F Y'M EETI"'\)- Q 6.S 1"e~IA'llf'o_J bJ SDc.. 5,~-) s u. Issue #2 :7ei2-cfk()J2,..1 a~<A..,,i7'~--- ST'A.~b(// tl;IJ 13/fCK::. 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 use decision is understood and states that the inforntatiou supplied is correct aud accurate. 'i.t~ POR.~I-{ .:/;;PA'V<If741> . Cnat:MS C~ITj; . ~ppellant'sNainelJ.enn.~ I--k.. ",,-t--. - Phone' .$'-1./ 1-7 if C- S"iSOO . . ~ Address '2,ol)t,t I/OLArV OA A.~<;f1n.J~/\el,J , Statement ofInte;es( (lie. 10 ti." G 72-0'--' --t-), 1", ..",...sld T2-<--f f;jl..o p.J2.7Z~ VW"'e-.e... S. . . ~)O 45f'R'''''j.{''''-U f.lUl'bl2l... o'-"~ V 19nature:::..-),,,,\ ,}? /' v ,~ (~IA~~ " J(or OffiC"P Tr~p o~v: " Journal No. Zo IV 2()()5] .fYY)()5 , I'i-OZ'30-00 Assessor s Map No. il-f)";-)c; - II Date Accepted as Complete Received By Tax Lot No. TL (:?lOD ?~t'l{) ~- 'P~2-C00-Dq:)3h The...- fl a r"l ,.;, "'- j Co,...,......" H I.Ay"d e t'\ : eJ2 v>---e...- f-i-~ .., .' ',1"--..1 f.o Tl <... ~,O <L-1' -E'-. b'1 /V '" i: .h" / / 0'-"'''''1 O(po/Lr<-l.AJVU 10 "~~ \f" [/ ^ , \~ .. ("J to cp. (\re', ) (."."'" ..J' ~.. <2:; !Z.E?<i.-..J./(2.,r<q fOS'Tr"'-'<1 ' .. 1 V'-.Q... I r1- C?"""""'" j..-" r~ U J J O ^ I r . l,v S'I>C S'. 2,. -11;:;. , YL ~?L h... l ;'~j ,; ~L j.'v "'- '^" e...c-- ;z"./~ //'-0 rOS.-e- d i e..v'-"'- to ,f"e......~ 1- . o......J J fl. ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ S'.f-n. -e eJ 5. "F-I: c.;~ JZ b J't-.a.. L~,- ';s , ;.::;:, LL"'- ~j.1\ f 0'5 f-.J) ,'Vo r;c€.- Lv 0 ~l J. )1 """-e..... dl..1I'O '-0c..Q ~ +0. r6<.I-l...+\c.;f4.lr~ Ci.-...D-='?l.t'/L-e.sS '--"""y c.v~c.e/L,rV5" J ~. ' '.'-. I , Date Received: 1-4-08 JAN - 4 2008 To City of Springfield Original Submittal KL. -4: ZSp~ 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 "Appeal of Type II Director's Decision (7) ORS 227.175." We are not appealing a director's decision but the planning commission so this does not apply, If it does apply it should be "Appeal of Type III Decision to City Council" as this removes "Director's" from the fee description and this is a Type III Decision not Type II. Thusly Newman Trustee would .pay $2,254 as he is appealing no notice. Dennis Hunt is another $2,254 for the same issue. .Wes Swanger, Clara Shevchinski, and myself isanothec$6,762 for a total of $11,270. I argue that this amount is excessive, arbitrary, captious, and unlawful. I read the statute that states how the amount of fee should be determined, . I understand that the City may wave the appeal fees and it is petitioned herein for this to be done. Pursuant to Oregon Revised Statute'it is herein petitioned that the fees be waved as all. of the attached appeals are bundled under the North Springfield Citi,zens' Committee which has been duly recognize as such by the City. t1,~ Nick Shevchynski i1J~~ Nick Shevchynski North Springfield Citizens Committee ~..'" ,I Date Received: JAN - 4 2008 1 Assignments of Error Original Submittal KL. .If: 2..CSp'" I. The app'eals application states !hat, "The Planning Division staff can 'be of assistance in helping you fill out this section." Since it doesn't state the staff "will" be of assistance I asked how and/or what assistance? The question was met with silence. 2. ". . all of the sections on the opposite side of this page must be filed out." There is no opposite side. 3. Explaining "t~e specific points that are appealed" in "one sentence statement" is undue restriction and an almost impossibility, . This application for appeal procedure is unduly restrictive, contradictory, confusing, and unlawful. 4. . The City seems to believe in a policy that it doesn't have to abide by the law unless it gets caught and litigated, The City states that if an issue or violation 'was not raised below'it can not be "appealed" to the next level of rubber stamping. Under the plain error rule unpreserved claims of error do not necessarily prevent them form being raised on review. An "error of law apparent on the face of the record" falls under the plal1'lerror rule.. The Oregon Supreme Court issued an opinion on Dec, 13, '07 in State v Fults overturning the Oregon Appeals Court because the plain error rule was not applied to unpreserved claims of error. 5. Karp's memorandum of 12-11-07, pg. 10, cites SDC 5.2-115: ", . . the applicant shall post one sign, approved by the Director, on the subject property." Pg. 11: "Staffs ResponselFinding" which finds that this was not done, "Wait," you will say, "This wasn't preserved." It's an error of law appar~nt on the face of the record., Don't you follow your own laws? Never mind that question. In any event it was preserved. P.age 7, Karp's 12/20/07 memorandum: ". and the applicant not contacting the property owners prior to the public hearing." See attached affidavit. Was this a procedural or statutory requirement? Lawyer Leahy may say procedural in order to ignore the requirement and I say it's statutory because it's the law and your law. Golf v McEachron. 6. There was a public hearing on this matter on 12-11-07.' Because .the record 'was still opEm for public comment the public should have been granted the opportunity fo.r 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 questio~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 .imywhere would cause overcrowding. 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 J;-eahy and whispered his objection. Leahy said out loud.that there was an objection because new material was introduced, Commissioner Carpenter. added additional new language to the "plan" which the public was not allowed.to comment on. Notice of this hearing being open was not mailed in a timely manner pursuant to SDC 5,2-115. 9. Kinda difficult to preserve an error as stated hereinabove when one is not allowed to speak. The issue of speech is so one-sided it's ludicrous. Rick Satre droned on and on for hours and hours and on and on. Gary Karp droned on for hours. The City's staff droned on for hours and hours. Commissioner Evans droned on. Commissioner Carpenter droned on for hours and on and on. The public goi 3 mi~utesl 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 r jobs and retirement benefits for staff and lawyers.. 10, Commissioner Nancy Moore was not qualified to vote. She told me she drove on this part of Marcola Rd,.daily to her job at agrade school up Marcola. On the last day she said she didn't know if there were sidewalks on this part of Marcola. She stated with what appeared to be an attempt at humor that the City would take 17ft. from the front of citizens' properties. It's suppose to be on the recorded record. This is shameful. 11. The issue of the waterway was never properly addressed. Rather than have Sunny Washburn and/or her sidekicks Kim and Phil of the city staff answer questions the city staff presented a 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 th~ city manager's office "they are all engineers. II 12, Written notice of the decision was not mailed. 13. There were about' 56 additions made without equal opportunity for ',comment on all of them. 14. There was nothing that addresses what will be done with the bike lanes which are'part of the city's overall plan. Especially since it's planfled to have them torn out. 15. There was nothing that addresses what will be done with the bus stops which are part of the city's overall plan Especially since it's planned to have them torn out. 3 16. There was/is nothing, not a peep, about the impac.t on the environment and/or environmental controls. . 17, There was nothing,that reasonably described the city's final action and it was not mailed. 18. There was no input and no opportunity to question or comment on what the utility providers' positions are. Utilities are part of the city's overall plan. 19. The city staff cuts-off public comment and the raising of any "new" issues because it's claimed the staff are noi able to open the record for rebuttal. This is false, The record may be opened by statute and otherwise whenever the staff or Joe Leahy feels like it., The staff and Joe Leahy control everything 20. Gary Karp and Rick Satre argued that the number of trips and thusly the traffic will'be below the arbitrary alleged unprovided copies of traffic studies with the addition of 512+ homes and the constant traffic due to one of Americas;targest major retailers. Yet Gary Karp and staff advocate major highway expansions to accumulate alleged non-existing rise in traffic. 21 The city alleges it has alligator tears and no money for street repairs yet has more money to tear-up perfectly good sidewalks, curbs, etc. in o~der to please a developer and investors in Reno who want someone else to pay for their improvements. 22. Have I said written notices of the hearing and decisions were not mailed nor posted timely pursuant to Oregon Statute\ 23, What. about those fire hydrants? Pursuant to a court order by a federal judge a maintenance 'report was furnished and half of the hydrants on Marcola Road were non- operational. Fire protection is part of the city's overall plan and this was not even mentioned. 24. This issue of traffic is one of being relative. Is not traffic rated by various levels? Which level is it now and what level will it be? This is part of the city's overall plan and it was never addressed. lib Nick Shevchynski Nick Shevchynski, North Springfield Citizens' Committee .~ '-I' (". f"",,,-'~.r . '. ". Aff idavi t. I, Nick Shevchynski, first be~ng duly sworn on oath say: I walked/jogged the perimeter of the former pierce property which is the proposed "'Villages' at Marcol~ Meadows" on almost a daily basis throughout Nov. & Dec. of '07 and during the Marcola Meadows Master Plan application case # CRP 2007~00028. At no time was there a "sign approved by the Director, on the subject property" as required by SDC 5.2-115. ~~ Nick Shevchynski SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me a Notary for the State of Oregon on this 2nd day of January, 2008. . OFFICIAL SEAL DUSTIN HAHN I , ./ NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGO" I COMMISSION 00.412302 I MY COMlAlSSION EXPIRES NOV. 29.2010 ~~ Date Received: JAN - 4 2008 Original Submittpl ~ 541-726-3753 Phone 541-726-3676 FaX Description CTY Appeal Type III Dec to CC s:\ Tidemarklforms\casefees I.rpt Trans ,Code 1264 J Fees Associate"'l.fYith ;Case #: ZON200<., ,1I00S Marcola Rd .lillNT DENNIS Revenue Account Number 100-00000-425002 Page 1 of 1 Date' Calculated Original Calculated By Amount 1/8/2008 KAL 0.00 Total Due: " 1/8/2008 6:52:08AM Amount Due 0.00 $0.00 RECEIVED' JAN 42008 By~ .225 Fifth Street. Springfield, Oregon 97477 541-726-3759 Phone Job/Journal NUJ.I1ber ZON2008-00002 ZON2008-00002 ZON2008-00002 Payments: Type of Payment Check cReceintl RECEIPT #: ......~__._.....,!I!!-'>._c.'.......... .. Wit. ..., : '---~ ' "w ' 2200800000000000010 Description CTY Appeal Type III Dec to CC + 5% Technology Fee Post~ge Fee Type IV - $259' Paid By SC SPRINGFIELD, LLC "itv of Springfield Official Receipt L elopment Services Department Public'Works Department Date: 01104/2008 3:29:54PM Item Total: Amount Due 2,254.00 112.70 259.00 $2,625.70 Check Number Authorization Received By Batch Number Number How Received tj Page 1 of 1 . 1144 Amount Paid In Person Payment Total: $2,625.70 $2,625.70 RECEIVED JAN 4 Z008 By: 1/4/2008