The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNotice PLANNER 1/29/2008 f- , 10. rv-r , ~4. .- AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE . RECEIVED STATE OF OREGON } }ss. } JAN 2 92008 By:~'ct.~ County of Lane I, Brenda Jones, being first duly sworn, do hereby depose and say as follows: 1. I state that I am a Secretary for the Planning Division of the Development Services Department, City of Springfield, Oregon.. 2. I state that in my capacity as Secretary, I prepared and caused to be mailed copies of Notice of Decision of the Springfield City Council regarding Appeals of Marcola Meadows Master Plan. (See attachment "A") on January 29, 2008 addressed to (see Attachment "B"),by causing said letters to be placed in a U.S. mail box with postage fully prepaid thereon. ,j: ~~/g Brenda Oones '-1 / . Planning Secretary 1/ STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane 1'iAflll4Aif })t1_, 2008 Personally appeared the above named Brenda Jones, '3cretary,(yJho acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary act. Before me: . OFFICIAL SEAl. Oc;rc;lIc ICE .. .. NOTARYPUBLIC.oM-~ COMMISSION NO. 420351 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUG. IS. 2011 .,tJtJ; . . My Commission Expires: f.//5.LiI- , . GF.IE MAILING DATE OF NOTICE: January 29, 2008 DATE OF DECISION: January 28, 2008 EFFECTIVE DATE: January 28, 2008 JOURNAL NUMBER: ZON2008-00002 through -00008 APPELLANTS. IN NAME: SC Springfield LLC; Donna Lentz; Phifip Newman; Dennis Hunt; Clara Shevchinski; Wesley Swanger; and Nick Shevchinski The appellants appealed the Planning Commission's decision of December 20, 2007, to approve, with 53 conditions, SC Springfield LLC's Master Plan application. The SC Springfield LLC appeal specifically concerned Condition #27, proportionality, delegation of authority and imposition of conditions not justified by the criteria of approval. The individual appeals mainly concerned procedural issues such as notice and participation at ~ri~L. . On January 28, the City Council held a public hearing on the appeals submittals.. Before hearing testimony, the City Council voted to hold the hearing as "de novo" to allow anyone with an interest in the hearing to offer testimony, even new testimony. The City Council also voted to deny appellants Philip Newman, Dennis Hunt and Clara Shevchinski "standing" because they did not participate in the Planning Commission public hearings. The City Council's action was to hold a de novo hearing allowing these individuals to participate .in the hearing, but they did not testify. After the procedural votes, the City Council heard testimony from four appellants: SC Springfield LLC, Donna Lentz, Nick Shevchinski, and Wesley Swanger; and from Nancy Falk, Sean Morrison, Darlene Hrouda and Gail Wagenblast. There were two letters entered into the record; from G. K. Haigler and from Chris Clemow. After hearing the testimony, the City Council voted 5-1 to deny all of the appeals before them and uphold the planning Commission's decision, as clarified in the staff report with regard to,Condition #27, based on the Commission's findings and conclusions, and because nothing presented as testimony presented a compelling reason to do otherwise. If you have questions concerning the decision of the City Council in this matter, please contact Gary M. Karp, Senior Planner at 541.726.3777. E-mail address: akarqIWci.sorinofield.or.us. The adopting ordinances, along with supporting staff report and documents, are available for review between 8:00AM and 4:00PM, at the Development Services Department counter; Springfield City Hall, at 225 Fifth Street. These documents can be e-mailed to interested parties if an e-mail address is provided. All parties are advised that a Notice of Intent to Appeal conforming to the requirements of the Oregon Revised Statutes 197.830(9) shall be filed on or before the 21st day after the City Council's decision. All parties are further advised to consult an attorney or land use consultant regarding their appeal. " , Satre & Associates Attention Rick Satre 202 East Broadway, Suite 480 Eugene, Oregon 97401 ZON2008-00004 Philip M. Newman 260 S. Mill Creswell, Oregon 97426 ZON200S-DOO07 Wesley O. Swanger 2415 Marcola Road Springfield, Oregon 97477 Sean Morrison Riverfront Center 1515 SE Water Ave., Suite 100 Portland, Oregon 97214 GK Haigler .1182 "F" Street Springfield, Oregon 97477 ZON200S.00002 SC Springfield LLC 7510 Longley.Lane, Suite 102 Reno, Nevada 89511 ZON200B-00005 Dennis Hunt 3044 Yolanda Avenue Springfield, Oregon 97478 ZON200B-OOOOB Nick Shevchynski 2347 Marcola Road Springfield; Oregon 97477 Darlene Hrouda 2595 Marcola Road Springfield, Oregon 97477 Christopher Clemow Riverfront Center 1515 SE Water Ave., Suite 100 Portland, Oregon 97214 ZON200B-00003 Donna Lentz 1544 E Street Springfield, Oregon 97477 ZON2008-00006 Clara Shevchynski 2315 Marcola Road Springfield, Oregon 9747y Nancy Falk 2567 Marcola Road Springfield,Oregon97477 Gail Wagenblast 2457 Otto Street Springfield, Oregon 97477 "'J~'-;. . -t ~ ~ ./ . Date Received: JAN 2 4 2008 Original Submittal '1<.1... AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE 1\aJtf STATE OF OREGON) )ss. County of Lane ) I, Karen LaFleur, being first duly sworn, do:hereby depose and say as follows: . 1. I state that !.am a Program Technician for the Planning Division of the. Development Services Department, City of Springfield, Oregon. 2. I state thafin my capacity as, Program Technician, I prepared and caused to be. . mailed copies of ZDtJ2fJd?-{JODO"/-~~- PA;t11J~ 'f1a~J)In/UL - 'hlurr~ ~ ~G. (See attachment "A") on 11'24: ., 20 8 addressed to (see 'maf&/tL ~ Attachment B"), by causing said letters to be placed in a U.S. mail box with postage fully prepaid thereon. ~"Jlot ),f~ ~~N LaFLE~RI )' ~ STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane 2008.. Personally appeared the above named Karen laFleur, , who acknowledged .the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary ~-- - - ..-. .~-.602..:o. -~.~. .-.. ._____" I OFFICIAL SEAL ., . SANDRA MARX I ! \.. NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON I , COMMISSION NO. 385725 Ii b=:. MYCO~~~O!:!~X~RES_N2V.12,2008 ( ---'-....._...;~............... ,~....~--"... ~ 071 AN0 I My Commission Expires: /lhz../20fJ(j , I '; ~ ..... !!.'.7.... ~~ ., Memorandum City of Springfield Date: To: From: Subject: January 23,2008 . Gary Karp, Planner ill . . . J/! ~ Bri~ F. Barnett, P.E., PTOE, Traffic Engineer/~ Marcola Meadows Master. Plan ~ Condition 27 Please.mclude this memorandum in the fInal Council Agenda package concerriing the appeal of Condition 27 by applicant. Tllls information supplements the Council Agenda package. TIlls memorandum aiId attached conceptual drawing presents the fundamental elements of the access lane, the roundabout at the arterial and collector roads intersection, the "T" intersection at site driveway on the arteria}., and a connection between the access lane and the arterial to visually describe how Condition 27 sections 1, 2, 3 .and 4 may be implemented. The drawing does not show right of way lines and it is expected that during a design process that the improvements shown in the drawing would be closer to the southern right. of way line than shown here. The improvements, as shown, Use approximately 1.8 acres of applicant's land for Marcola Road. Land used for Martin Drive is not included in the estimate since right of way for Martin Drive is necessary in ail cases. It is likely that less land will be needed when the final design work is undertaken. Please reference staff report at Attachment 1-8 where SpringfIeld Municipal Code Section 3.014 Plan Approval Required, states that "Engineered plans for all public works projectS proposed for construction within the city shall be submitted to the public wor~ department for approval prior to start of any construction work." And please reference staff report at Attachment 1-10 where the staff response describes .the impacts in relatioIl: to the exaction . and that an exaction up to two acres is not disproportionate to the impact. . , ,. Direct access from neighborhood driveways to the arterial road that will have' traffic volumes increase by 158% over predevelopment levels will be an unsafe traffic condition. The access lane runs along the southern right of way and provides the neighborhood residents a low volume, low speed corniection between individual driveways arid the arterial roadway and eliminates the need for vehicles to. backup directly into the arterial street. Please reference staff report at Attachment 1-9 where SpringfIeld Development Code Section 4.2-105, Public Streets, requires mitigation of "unsafe traffic conditions." :~~;.t7f ~}~\~" ." .. "",. :"j~~~~~~~,': . ., <illiG,.,..'.,.'.";:.. ...3', ".i""::. .....- '?"t~." :;;,/ ~l'~;~~~::~~l", . "'-"."".,;~a,,:'. .j. -;-:r . .:;" . ~."'.:.' ,;,;:; ,~' ~."'~':."'.~'.'.. '.:.:.:'~_--...:..-...... '.. ':, ..~,:_l".....,,~....::r...,;.,.,:,.t .,.., :,...~""- -\ ..~I. ,-,,~..~r:- ~:"';~.~...,."....,. . ~.~:,~.'. ..: :,. ...... .. ... ..' "", ~,....:, .'.. '.'. ..~ '.. '-..' c"...,'.'.. . ~. :'. :.,' , . . .." .. .'." "'~~-:~t~'''i . ;c. ",tt:~~ .!i~f;;;iiSl, :J~J.,;~I~~i'.~~~il ~,; ,"C' , 1!;.,., '(."""";;>:'~;i 5ill;~;jG,'rt' <.,,~.;. It. ,';:,h"."'....:>,, ,a ~ ..~;~~"'':':' _~ ".':... " """"r ,> '.. , "'", ""... I "" .. i':;,~.~:;~:';f~~l~;t:'.:'i ,!t~,.':;~',(~~~;,~;: iJ :\' ....~ ' '. ".,;" '. . ... '411- .". .'".. " -!\l aJ >, . '. . ., " " .. ".., ,.,>- 'j " .' . '~~. ;,;,:.~, -,-:~;; . ;"";':~~:<:F'i~.. ;~8r.~ ~r~"j ~::~~''-i:~jJ~~~.; ,r.':. \:~~~>~ '.. :;'~1;ijr1!:j;O?~~1;[:::; ::i~:;'i;}:J t";:~ t'1, V .""t" f?: - ...""]. "'...,,,, ~ ''1'" .".. ',' ".. C' . .- L .. '. I 1. . F . .. -.. n \ ~~. :;i~~r?' .,;...."~i!~;i.'~1" ...; .;~t~f~~~=:{.:;~~', . ..""".",., , .. ", ~', ,'j. :-~\::.-. :~..:"..,; '~~;,~~K~:'~~:! '::"'~;>l.'~: ~~;,' ;:-. k'=>- r~,~\~ '"~ '- 'I " " Attachment 6e . . .20q~ "'f: 'L:,' ,. ./. .5:';i},,-:. , / . t-" " ~'., '. .,.... f , .;: .., .,,> ~:,~ t~t,F .'. (~<: .;:;,:~~~7)"; ,,"<"'-, -~. 4!"<,<~, -<:," .4,.:, ... :--:. ~~., ".. """ "', 'I ;,i:. , ~l~ , '~~~',,; . .... ~ - :.~ ;'; ~:~."':.,}':' .il. i,.~ r :::\:;'~., '. " .... .""';1 '., ", ":;~::~:f~. : :T:j,-:~~~~'j- "'i~.. '"/'1< "~{:' . :;'>'J~ f;i;~~:';~~'-'~:<~~\~~l;~Y~~t ,'e - '.~-.~ ';,i'_...:.:. ":~i~~1 ~, ':- .'+, '~;J ~'~~~~, '. ';,'. ~--~;:~>~~.'''''' ~."::'.\.. 7'.;'i;~~~~;t0.:;~~?~;~;~;~,;~- '-~",;::::1:"". _ '. :~.~t~~., ~:: ...."~""'.:;.."""I'.. d ""i\;""'.4:r'~~"1_"'e.,." "". ".{.ci.:;~-~--.;:' ~-~;,'f;.:,. ,'_ '.'''A~tachment 6-3 e..., " . , : . ,~ " .:,. , , ,p. "-~~ , '" ,.' ,'- " ~-, .J. ., , CITY OF SPRINGFIELD .. . ,'. DEVELOPMENT SERVICESbEPARTMENT ~..' ' .~.: '22,55th'Sj' .>:...;" SPRINGFIELD"OR 97477 . , . ~ -' ,- - ' , '- " Philip K.. Newman 260 S. Mill Creswell, OR 97426 I ~ - ~' AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE RECE\VED STATE OF OREGON JAN 2 32008 f1W~? tv . BY:~~~ I, Brenda Jones, being first duly sworn, do hereby depose and say as follows: } } ss. } County of Lane 1. I state that I am a Secretary for the Planning Division of the Development Services Department, City of Springfield, Oregon. /2. I state that in my capaCity as Secretary, I prepared and caused to be mailed copies of Appeal of Marcola Meadows AIS - Attachment 8 and corrected Agenda Item Summary sent to Appellants'(~g_N2008-00004)3see attachment "A") on January 23, 2008 addressed to (see Attachment "B"), by causing said letters to be placed in a U.S. mail box with postage fully prepaid , thereon. k( Brenda Jones Planning Secretary STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane ../1'" .. . . /' I ~ 22, ,2008 Personally appeared the above named Brenda jones, Secretary; ~o ackn~dged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary act. Before me: . OFFICIAL SEAl .DCII:IIC KELLY NOTARY PUBUC - OREGON COMMISSION NO. 420351 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUG. 15,2011 ~(/{iIf /GJ/rr My Commission Expires: ~/;~/!1 , I " Meetinf Ollte: January 28, 2008 Meetin!;, /pe:. Regular Session Department: Development Services Staff Contact: Gary M. Karp 6)( - S P R I N G FIE L D Staff Phone No: 726-3777 cer-1r C I T Y C 0 U N C I L Estimated Time: 60 minutes ITEM TITLE: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMISSION'S APPROVAL OF THE MARCOLA MEADOWS MASTER PLAN APPLICATION. 1) The City Council is requested to address some procedural issues. 2) Then, either a) uphold the December 20lh Planning Commission approval of the Marcola Meadows Master Plan application as conditioned, or b) approve the application with modified conditions of approval, or c) if the Council finds it cannot affirm the Planning Commission's decision, or otherwise approve it with modified conditions, then deny the application. Seven persons, including the property owner (SC Springfield LLC) and 6 individuals, have appealed the December 20lh Planning Commission's approval of the Marcola Meadows Master Plan. As permitted by the Springfield Development Code (SDC), and for ease of review, staff has combined all appeals into one staff report . ATTACHMENTS: Atta~hment 1: Staff Report: Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision Attachment 2: Master Plan Conditions of Approval Attachment 3: Letter to Applicant's Attorney Jim Spickerman from City Attorney Dated January 8, 200S Attachment 4: Planning Commission Minutes, December20, 2007 . Attachment 5: Draft Planning Commission Minutes, December 11, 2007 Attachment 6: Transportation Graphics Attachment 7: Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 197.763 Attachment 8: Appeal Submittals - (Seven Statements) AGENDA ITEM SUMMA.r ACTION REQUESTED: ISSUE STATEMENT: DISCUSSION: On June 18, 2007 the City Council by a vote of 4-2 approved Metro Plan diagram and Zoning Map amendments to allow a mixed use commercial/residential development on the former "Pierce" property on Marcola Road. An approval condition of these applications. was the submittal of a Master Plan application to guide the phased development of the property over the next 7 years: The Master Plan application was submitted on September 28, 2007. The Planning Commission conducted pUblic hearings on this application on November 20, 2007; December 11, 2007; and December 20, 2007. At the conclusion. of the December 20th hearing, the Planning Commission voted 7-0 to approve the Master Plan; this action included 53 conditions of approval. On January 4, 2008 seven separate appeals of this decision were submitted to the Development Services Department; six of these appeals are from 6 individuals and one is from the applicant of the Master Plan, SC Springfield LLC. . , The attached staff report divides the issues raised in these appeals into the following general categories: 1) procedural challenges; and 2) challenges to findings and conditions of approval. Issues raised by the 6 individuals fall largely into ihis first category and include notice, participation at hearings, etc., but do not raise objections to any of the 53 conditions of approval. Issues raised by the applicant/appellant include: adequacy of findings demonstrating proportionality, imposition of conditions not justified by the criteria of approval, and delegation of decision-making authority to the City Engineer, but raise no challenges to procedure. Of the numerous issues raised in these appeals the most significant, if upheld by the Council, is Condition #27 which requires the Master Plan to depict an access lane adjoining the residential properties along the south side of Marcola Road and a roundabout at the. intersection at Martin Drive and Marcola Road. Attendant to this requirement is the dedication of sufficient land to accommodate. the access lane and roundabout scheduled to occur during the Master Plan's Phase 1 development The construction of the access lane would occur within existing right-of-way, but to maintain the existing cross-section of Marcola Road, the portion of Marcola Road abutting the development site would need to shift north onto this property. This shift would occur just west of the intersection .of 28lh and Marcola and would transition back'into the existing alignment just west of the new roundabout at Martin Drive. The staffs recommendation of this condition was supported by the Planning Commission and is based on: 1) the authority granted by the Springfield Development Code to require such improvements; 2) the proposed development is the only reason improvement to Marcola Road is necessary; 3) the applicant offered no reasonably workable solution to the traffic and safety cOnflicts along Marcola Road created by the proposed development; 4) access at any point along the development site's frontage with Marcola Road creates traffic safety conflicts with the residential property along the paralleling south frontage of Marcol~ Road; and 5) thEi only . successful mitigation of the impacts to these nearby properties, whether by using a roundabout or a traditional intersection design, is the inclusion of the access lane. Without all these improvements staff cannot support the Master Plan as submitted by SC Springfield LLC, and the Planning Commission unanimously concurred with this conclusion after evaluating the facts. City of Springfield Development Services Department 225 Fifth Street Springfield, OR 97477 Phone: (541) 726-3759 Fax: (541) 726-3689 . SPRINGFIELD Appeals Application, Type IV Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to City Council Name, Journal Number and Date of the Decision Being Appealed Marcola Meadows Maste~ Plan LRP 2007-00028 Planning Commission Decision Date December 20, 2007' Date of Filing the Appeal ,January 4, 2007 (This date must be within IS ealendar days of the date of the decision.) Please list below, in summary forin, 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 Condit'ion" #27: 1) is without basis in the applicable criteria for Master ~lan approval; Issue #2 2) 'imposes upon the applicant a burqen disproportionate to the impa~t of the development;' and Issue #3 31 unlawfully delegates to the City Engineer the discretion to impo~e exactions without r~ference to standards and without findings.of .proportionality. Issue #4 (List any additional issues being appealed nn 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 infnnnation supplied is correct and accurate. Appellant'sName SC Sprinqfield, LLC Phone 775-853-4714 Address 7510 Lonqlev Lane. Suite '102, Reno, Nevada 89511 Statement oflnterest, '1. opertY;77r/apPlicant Signature W-,d/f"1,.I ~ j _ . / J I .' ... li'ro.. OfTirp He... f'tnl~' Journal NO.~") '2tio~ - (St:c:.c:>L.Received By I 'l-02.~3c:> -00 .. Assessor's ap No. L 1-03 -2.5 ~ II Tax Lot No, Date Accepted as Complete for oriainal aoolicatinn ~ .IC\OO 23N\ PR.t200G::.-~3~ ATTACHMENT 8 - 1 . WRITIEN APPEAL STATEMENT MARCOLA MASTER PLAN LRP 2007-0028 The applicant appeals Condition #27 of the Planning Commission approval of the applicant's Master Plah. 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 EngiI.1eer to determine the form and timing of future traffic control at the private commercial driveway and Marcola Road intersection. Summarv of Issues Ra.ised bv Condition #27 The applicant appeals Condition #27 based upon the following facts and P/?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 commercial driveway. 2. The City Traffic Engineer acknowledges these improvements will meet applicable performance standards. 3. The City proposes a roundabout at Martin Drive and, perhaps, at the private commercial driveway as well. The roUildabouts will necessitate a frontage road on the south side of Marcola Road. Consequences for such requirements are as follows: a. The taking for a public purpose of between .56 and 2.0 acres. of the applicant's commercially zoned property; b. Demolition of 1,200 to 1,700 lineal feet of a publicly improved arterial street; ATTACHMENT 8 - 2 Phone: (541) 686.8833 Fax: (541) 345.2034 . 975 Oak Strc=et . Suite 800 Eugene, Oregon 974DH156 Mailing Address; P.O. Box 1147 Eugenc:, Oregon 97440-1147 Email: info@gleaveslaw.com Web-Site: www.gleaveslaw.com Fn=derickABatson Jon V. Buerstatte. Joshua A Oark Danid P. Ellison Michad 1. Faulconer" AJ.Ciustina ThomasP. E. Herrmann' Dan Webb Howard" Stephen O. lane Wil1iamH.Martin* WalterW.Miller Laura T. Z. Montgomery' Tanya C. O'Neil StandleeC. Potter Martha]. Ro~an Raben S. Russell Douglas R. Schultz Malcolm H. Scott James W. Spickerman Kate A. Thompson Janc:M"Yat~ "Also admitted in Washington " "*Alsoadmitted in"California, c.Construction of a new arterial street for a distance of approximately 1,200 to 1;700 feet generally north of the existing Marcola Road at the sole expense of the applicant; d. Construction of a frontage road with improvements on the south side of Marcola Road at the applicant's expense (this road will occupy 17 feet of presently unimproved right-of- way which exists now as front yard, setback area and buffer for the. residences along the south side of Marcola Road). As discussed below, the requirements sought to be imposed by Condition #27, beyond the practical issues, raise three leg31 issues: 1. The requirements of the condition are not based on criteria for approval of a Master Plan as required by Oregon law. 2. The requirements constitute a disproportionate burden upon the applicant relative to the impact of the development on public facilities. This is contrary to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Dolan v.. Citv of Tillard, 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 cOInmereial driveway and Marcola Road. This could include the alternative of a roundabout at that intersection. Arlmment . 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 signa,ls. . 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 the impact of the development and the [mancial burden .the requirement places upon the applicant. His necessary that there be a connection between a condition imposed and the standard served by the condition. This is a case of whether the condition involves an exaction, as does that here, or not. See Olson Memorial Clinic.v. Clackamas County, 21 Or LUBA 418 2- WRITTEN APPEAL. STATEMENT - MARCOLA MASTER PLAN LRP 2007~0028 January- 4, 2008 ' ATTACHMENT 8 - 3 (1991), Sky Dive Oregon 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 requitements of public facilities plans; and provisions are made to assure construction of off-site. improvements in conjunction wlth.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 and. Marcola Road/private commercial driveway. In order to meet capacity requirements to satisfy Goal 12 Transportation, the applicant has proposed to dedicate the right-of- way for and to complete all improvements to MaItin Drive and provide the signalized intersections contemplated by the TIA. The staffreport for the December 11, 2007 Planning COmniission 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- WRITI'EN APPEAL STATEMENT - MARCOLA MASTER PLAN LRP 2007-0028 January 4, 2008 ATTACHMENT 8 - 4 The staff simply prefers roundabouts at these two intersections on the basis that the City "has had success with roundabout intersection designs in lieu of signalization." Since the applicap.t's . pro~osed improvements satisfy requirements, there is no nexus between the more onerous alternative and the impact of the development. . In a memorandum of December 18, 2007, Mr. McKenney, Transportation Planning Engineer for the City, attempts to fmd 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 me.morandum simply are not applicable. Both Marcola Road and Martin Drive are shown in the proposed location on both the Conceptual Local Street Map and TnmsPlan. Dolan ISsue Dolan: v. City of Ti!!ard, 512 US 374, 375, 391, 114 S Ct 2309, 2319-2320,2322, 129 LEd 2d 304 (1994) and a line of Oregon cases which followed require that a local government show rough. proportionality, both in nature and extent, between the burden .imposed on the applicant and the impact of the proposed development. Basically, a private landowner cannot be .requiredto bear a greater burden than that which would be proportional to the problem caused by the applicant's development. Applied to the present situation, the burden that is proportionate to the impact caused.by the proposed development is the burden to provide a signalized intersection in order to meet requirements of the Statewide Transportation Goal and City Code. The City staff has agreed that, from a capacity standpoint, the proposed signalized intersection would meet applicable performance standards. A disproportionate burden would be ~posed by the requirement of roundabouts, which would increase the applicant'~ burden in the form of the cost of realignment of Marcola Road and the loss of one-half to two acres of commerciall!U1d. While the cost of two signalized . 4- WRlTrEN APPEAL STATEMENT - MARCOLA MASTER PLAN LRP 2007-0028 January 4, 2008 ATTACHMENT 8,- 5 intersections could be approximately $500,000, a roundabout with full frontage road would be $2,500,000 plus the "taking" of two acres of land. The Planning Commission heard testimony from Brian Barnett, the City's Traffic Engineer, indicating the reasons the City found roUndabouts desirable. Among those reasons was that: "...the community at large saves ...." It was indicated that some communities even use federal funds for roundabouts based upon environmental considerations. The City does think that roundabouts are safer but does not specifically identify those concerns. Generally, the City staffs comments indicate a preference for 'roundabouts rather than signalized intersections for a number of public policy reasons. If there are good policy reasons for roundabouts that .are important to broaden the public;s objectives, these are costs thafmust be borne.bythe 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. . Reouirement of Frontalte Road Master Plan Condition #27, paragraph 3, w071ld require: ~Provlde 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 arid efficient acc~ss for vehicles using residential driveways on the, south side of Marcola Road opposite the development site. These improvements as specified by the City Engineer shall be constructed as part of the proposed Phase 1 infrastructure improvements." The Traffic Impact Analysis for the project, accepted. by ODOT and the City, found that the. development will not "significantly affect" the transportation system off site, with the exception of the eastbound off ramp of the Eugene-Springfield Highway (which the applicant has agreed to address). The existing situation at the south side of Marcola Road was not identified in the TIA as a location off site where the development would "significantly affect" the transportation systein. Marcola Road is classified by the City of Springfield as a minor arterial roadway and does not currently have .any access control on the south side of the roadway, which has resulted in approximately 14 I . 5- WRITTEN APPEAL STATEMENT - MARCOLA MASTER PLAN LRP 2007-0028 .January 4, 2008 ATTACHMENT 8 - 6 J residential driveways on that side of the roadway. This conflict with intersections to Marcola Road was inevitable in terms of future transportation plans. Both the Trar1sPlan and the Conceptual Local Street Plan call for a collector to be located approximately where Martin Driveis 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 there is a problem, it exists with or without the development. The Dolan findings s~t forth at page 38 of the Staff Report to the Planning Commission do not purport to address the exaction for the roundabout, just the right-of-way for the proposed development. The develbpment will be responsible for only a portion of the traffic utilizing that intersection. Obviously, improvements at the intersection should not be the sole responsibility of the applicant but the applicant has not raised this issue relative to providing a signalized intersection. 'The Master Plan as proposed by the applicant would incorporate the eXisting south-side driveways to the extent possible with the traffic signal proposal. The applicant's traffic engineers donot anticipate an unsafe condition, although some turning movements may be restricted from certain driveways. Unlawful Dele2ation Master Plan Condition #27, paragraph 5, would require: "Provide 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 deteITnined 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- WRITfEN APPEAL STATEMENT - MARCOLA MASTER PLAN LRP 2007-0028 January 4, 2008 ATTACHMENT 8 - 7 " "- i constitutes an unlawful delegation of authority by deferring development approval to a later stage where there is no opportunity for public hearing. See Tenlv Prooerties Com. v. Washinlrton County, 34 Or LUBA 352 (1998). The objections above made to. the ro.undabout at the Martin . Drive intersection are made here: there is no logical connection between applicable criteria and the'requirement and the burden would be disproportionate. to the impact of creation of a driveway: Conclusion \ The applicant's proposal for signalized intersections address traffic capacity and safety requirements. The requirement of . roundabouts .is not only impractical but is an unlawful exaction. The applicant proposes the attached alternative for Master Plan Condition #27; . .\ James W. SplL.~c Of Attorneys for Applicant Attachment: Proposed Master Plan Condition #27 7- WRITTEN APPEAL STATEMENT - MARCOLA MASTER PLAN LRP 2007-0028 January 4, 2008 ,. ATTACHMENT 8 - 8 r ~PPLICANT'S PROPOSED MASTER PLAN CONDmON #27 ---- MASTER PLAN CONDmON #27. Prior to the approval of the Rnal Master Plan,. ,the applicant shall: . '. -1) Demonstrate that the improvements specified in the Rnal 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, and include the dedication of right-of-way necessary to construct the improvements. The intersection improvements as specified by the City Engineer shall be constructed as part of the proposed Phase 1 infrastructure improvements. Rnal 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 at the arterial/site driveway intersection location. The applicant may choose to put.in place the necessary infrastructure for signalization at the time of construction of the intersection. At such time as warrants are met, signalized traffic controls shall be 'put into place at the applicant's expense. ATTACHMENT 8 ~ 9 City of Springfield . Development Services Department 225 Fifth Street . Springfield, OR 974n Phone: (541) 726-3759 . Fax: (541)726-3689 - SPRINGFIE~ e Received: -Appeals Application, Type IV. . Appeal ofPlamring Connnissi~ Decision to City Council JAN ~ ~ ZOO8 -. - . Ork:Iln~tmlttal Name, Journal NUIIlber and Date of the Decision Being ~ealed ];bn t"\g r. ""z, LR P2tJOj-0002::? UPLetvJ-b.eP- 20,2001 .~~ /: 1J pIN - re~ bj maiJl.., \~01arGt 2. ,20D8 (This date must be within 15 ialendar days of the date or the decision.) Please list below, in summary form, the specific issues being raised in th'e appeal. These should be the specific points where you feel the Approval Authority erred in making the decision, i.e., what approval ::::oor~::;ha;:+:Jr~~at;::~k+1 3 ho~ ',Yv\ rf(')~tb -t hoJr ore.. a.f rDI-e.A+'-\-~ Issue #2 Ll'9-f'\ C -e.r n ~ l, ~ { o.r.d ~ Co-< . tt;.( -e to ;~ -tR.a...r-e. I~ ('t-i')lu ~o MrAcR cAr i +0 U&-P/- IssueIt?PrOje.~ rrJ()t!..tfd poS"<;"',bi/.-t a.dll'ers-f)r f_-V--\-P_& v-rbpJ\ reneuvaJL D1.oJ\, Issue#4 Po5~i b, \'d7.: OT "MD.e..c-.d ,nQ re.J;'~,eSS"JC?j NO\..{ Id DrO,r-e-- inC'lpp--t<>rTuft,L. ~oLft\i.s"" Dro\~T (List any additional issues being ippealed on an attiched sheet) .- , Date of Filing the Appeal i I) ar ec!l ., The nndersigned acknowledges that the above appeal form and its atbchments have been read, the requirelDents for filing an appeal of ..land use decision is nnderstood and states that the.int'ormation supplied is correct and accurate. . Appellant's Name Dol") v--w. LG-ht'Z- . ,none 7 C( '7 - J 7 ? > Address ) .sL(L) e Sf- SprinQ{'i-DJl8 \~r_q 14"( I StatementofInterest -0") U-v-~.~-r0'~C\ lffl 1- JS ""~n--;?":t:;in9tifrd.- Signature ~ ~ - -. r::;egrCl/Lh-f } 1i'1lt...OfIir... JTC'A 01' ~~ Journ"ai No. '-oN 20c9-cx::c:o 3 Received By r7-02~3o--.:JO 7Z- I Boo Assessor'sMapNo'..L7-~3-.:l"-1I . TaxLotNo._77. 2;:V',~ _ Date Accepted as Complete -fP-,.3 ::2.00(0- OCb3h ATTACHMENT 8 - 10 i" , . City of Springfield Development Services Department 225 Fifth Street Springfield, OR 97477 Phone: (541) 726-3759 Fax: (541) 726-3689 SPRINGFIE" ~ Appeals Application, Type IV Appeal .of Planning Commission Decision to City CounCil Date Received: IAN -4 B- Name, Journal Number and Date of the Decision Being Appealed . OriRinal SUbmitt"11if- M . '" ---r: A . . if . Z'5",QrY { ~ f/h41J (YIJt:: liT p'LI*7Jqf/: t.Rp 2oo7~0002Y.' . . - I . -, , kc. 2D; 2.00// · fM"''':FC. 47" MMa>J..L! M~?'DUJ"':.. r Date of Filing the Appeal ~~4: 2oe!1' (This date must be within 15 calendar days of the date of the decision.) Please list below, in summary form, the specific issues being raised in the appeal. These should be the specific points where you feel the Approval Authority erred in making the decision, Le., what approval criterion or criteria you allege to have been inapp.up.:ately applied. Issue #1 r:" ~~~cf'/. 3DC S;Z - I' s;- (Si(lo-Huv .(L'dt.) 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 use decision is understood and states that. the information supplied is correct and accurate. UN-bi7? ~ c;'HaP#'{CZ-b OTIzn.rS c:1l4t",/?tr Appel1ant'sN~e ?h\l,p 1~..NUuM~{'" Ph~me 'l'iS-l{J17 Address 2.Jp 0 SC) rn r ~ I . (\r-eSVtJ-l: lA Statem~tofIii~cd/f .W ~..eu---\~. . i3v...~yrt7(.lAi\J.u) Signature \. ~I . J' C- U" .. (:l1?t/~ _. ~""'Ir Offi("p TT!IiIP Onlv" Journal No. 7/'lN'? flf')'fi.- r)OOO4-_ Recei~ed By ~-o2-30-00 ' I'OOD . Assessor's MapNo..-L7-D3-l'5-U . Tax Lot No. "2'MD Date Accepted as Complete -:p R.~ \ 1.JXl (, - n(')1"'l ?,/,., .... 1:::L _ ATTACHMENT 8 - 11 I qUA {9 ? (~ gwlUtv U-1 cf{u c/iy uP ~n~U& Id" -r- (JouleJ ~w -SPfU: -1-0 JLesvUU If I wou Icl 0+ ~t1~~. . ' . . I1LWt W2-S YW luoli-(.e POJftc\ ON 4W.. W2x6VL? YOQcl ~{b (21N-y" C p~ Yl-L P'\-o~2~ ."(5 uwc.J Dj '5 \)C 5,1> )1 s- .:;:.-;:.- . ~ ; . >>WCik- )I(v-c.lu- PK N.uurU,Bi,...:T vud .:::r~ I a-av cf-' . - -:.'... . ',. 'f: .' ATTACHMENT 8 - 12 ,- , . Date Received: 1-4-08 JAN - ~ 2IQl To City of Springfield Original Submittal I<.L .!t:ZSp~ Re: Appeal fee for '''Villages' at MarcolaMeadows" Master Plan Type ill application, LRP 2007-00028, decision of 12-20-07 The city of Springfield haS mentioned an appeal fee. The amount of the fee is to be taken from "Development Code Application Fees" blurb, I have copies of the one "Effective 12-3- . 2007." There is nothing on this sheet which directly addresses an appeal from the planning cO,mmission. On Wednesday, 1-2-08 a meeting was held to explain and "answer" questions as tQhow much property the City will take and/or destroy and how badly the residents were going to get screwed by the City and the developer. It was reported. that the City danced and deflected questions rather than answering. them. At this meeting Gary Karp said the appeal fee was $250. The only $250 fee on the . aforesaid sheet is an "Appeal of Type II Director's Decision (7) ORS 227.175." We are not appealing a director's decision but the planning commission so this does not apply. If it does apply it should be "Appeal of Type ill Decision to City Council" as this removes "Director's" from the fee description and this is a Type ill Decision not Type II. Thusly Newman Trustee. would pay $2,254 as he is appealing no notice. Dennis IIunt is. another $2,254 for the same issue. Wes Swanger, Clara Shevchinski, and myself is another $6,762 for a total of $11,270. I argue that this amount is excessive, arbitrary, captious, and Unlawful. I read the statute that states how the amount .of fee should be determined. I understand that the City may wave the appeal fees and it is petitioned herein for this to ~~ . . Pursuant to Oregon Revised Statute it is herein petitioned that the fees be waved as all of the attached appeals are bundled under the North Springfield Citizens' Committee which has been duly recognize as such by the City. . i1.~ . Nick Shevchynski ll~~ - Nick Shevchynski North Springfield Citizens Committee ATTACHMENT 8 -13 (' Date Received: . "JAN - 4 2008 1 Assignments of Error Original Submittal KL. . 4: 2.<op'" . L The appeals application states that, "The . Planning Division staff can be of assistance in helping you fill out this section." Since it doesn't state the staff "will" be of assistance I asked how and/or what assistance? The question was met with silence. 2. ". . . all of the sections on the opposite side of this page must be filed out" There is no opposite side. 3. Explaining "the specific points that are appealed" in "on~ sentence statement" is undue restriction and an almost impossibility.. This application for appeal procedure is unduly restrictive, contradictory, confusing, and unlawful: . 4. The City seems to believe in a pQlicy that it doesn't have to abide by the law unless it gets caught and litigated. The City states that .ii-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 linpreserved claims of error do not necessarily prevent them form being raised on review. An "error of law apparent 011 the face of the record" falls under the plan<<error rule.. The Oregon Supreme Court issued an opinion on Dec. 13; '07 in State v Fults overturning the Oregon Appeals Court because the plain error rule was not applied to unpreserved claims of error. 5. Karp;s memorandum of 12-11-07, pg. 10, cites SDC 5.2-115: ". . . the applicant shall post one sign, approved by the Director, on the subject property." Pg. 11: "Staffs Response/Finding" which finds that this was not done. "Wait," you will say, "This wasn't preserved." It's an error of law appar~nt on the face of the record..' Don't you follow your own laws? Never mind that question.. In any event it was preserved. Page 7, Karp's 12/20/07 memorandum: ". . . and the applicant not contacting the property owners prior to the public hearing." See attached affidavit. . Was this a procedural or statutory requirement? Lawyer Leahy may say procedural in order to ignore the requirement and I say it's statutory because it's the law and your law. Golf v Afcl1achr.on. . 6. There was a public hearing on this matter on 12-11-07. Because the record was still open for public comment the public should have been granted the opportunity for comment Notice of this hearing was never timely maiI"ed as required by SDC 5.2-115. 7. The' issue of schools being overcrowded was addressed by a couple of letters from a couple of alleged officials. It was written that there is and will be no "overcrowding" without ever defining what that 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 questiolll"and the public to hear and see them. It was ari error not to consider that after absorbing the students from the proposed development any additional students from ,anywhere would cause overcrowding. ATTACHMENT 8 -14 " 2 r 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 l~wyer Leahy and whispered his objection. Leahy said out ioud 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. . Iqnda 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 publ\c, 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 mOl1ey and creating jobs and retirement benefits for staff and lawyers. 10. Commissioner Nancy Moore was not qualified to vote. She told me she drove on this part of Marcola Rd. daily to her job at a grade school up Marcola. On the last day she said she didn't know if there were sidewalks on this part of Marcola. . She stated with what appeared to be 'an attempt at humor that the City would take 17 ft. from the front of citizens' properties. It's suppose to be on the recorded record. This is shamefuL 1 L 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 !I y.oung man who acted clueless. Or maybe it wasn!t an act. When he was asked by l a commissioner where the water comes from he answered, "I don't know~" This is an embarrassment and. shamefuL According to the person in t1ie 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 comm,ent on all of them. 14. There was nothing that addresses what will be done with the bike lanes which are part of the city's overall plan. Especially since it's planned to have them tom out. . 15. There was nothing that addresses what will be done with the bus stops which are part of .the city's overall plan. Especially since it's planned to. have them tom out. ATTACHMENT 8'- 15 .~ I 3 16. There. was/is nothing, not a peep, about the impact on the environment and/or environmental controls. 17. There was nothing that.reasonably described the city's final action and it was not mailed. 18! There waS no. input and no opportunity to question or comment on what the utility providers' positions are. Utilities are part of the city's overall plan. 19. The city staff cuts-off public comment and the raising of any "new". issues because it's claimed the staff are not able to open the record for rebuttal. This is false. The record may be opened by statute and otherWise whenever the staff or Joe Leahy feels like it.. The staff and Joe Leahy control everything. . 20. Gary Karp and Rick Satre argued that the number of trips and thusly .the traffic will be below the arbitrary alleged unprovided copies of traffic. studies with the addition .of 512+ homes. .and the constant traffic due to one of Americas.largest major retailers. Yet Gary. Karp and staff advocate major highway, expansions to accumulate alleged non-existing rise in .traffic. 21 The city alleges it has alligator tears and no money for street repairs yet has more money to tear-up peifectly good sidewalks, curbs, etc. in order to please a developer and investors in Reno who want someone else to p.ay for their improvements. 22. Have I said written notices of the heari~g and decisions were not mailed nor posted timely pursuant to Oregon. Statute? 23. What. about those fire hydranis? Pursuant t~ a court order by a federal judge a maintenance report was furnished and half of the hydrants on Marcola Road were non- operationaL Fire protection is part of the. city's overall plan and this was not even mentioned. 24. This issue of traffic is one of being relative. Is not traffic rated by various levels? Which . . level is it now and what level will it be? This is part of the city's overall plan and it was never addressed. Ub Nick Shevchynski Nick Shevchynski, North Springfield Citizens' Committee ) ATTACHMENT 8 - 16 \. Affidavit , I, Nick Shevchynski, first being duly sworn on oath say: I.walkedjjogged the perimeter of the former Pierce property which is the proposed "'Villages' at Marcola Meadows" on. almost a daily basis thro~ghout Nov..& Dec. of '07 and during the Marcola Neadows Master Plan appl~catio~ case # CRP 2007-00028_ At no time was there a "sign approved by the Director, on the subject property" as required by SDC 5.2-1.1.5; a.~ Nick Shevchynski SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me.a Notary for the' state of Oregon on this 2nd day of January, 2008". . OFFICIAL SEAL DUSTIN HAHN , NOTARY PUBUC -OREGON " COMMISSIONN0,412362 MY COlotIdllPION EXPIRES NOV. 29.2010 ~-th , Date Received: JAN - 4 2008 I<L. Ortginal Submittal If : ~1l'\ ATTACHMENT 8 -17 , . Appeals Application, Type IV Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to City Council . ceived: SPRINGFr -- City of Springfield Development Services Department . .225 Fifth Street Springfield, OR 97477 'Phone: (541) n6-3759 Fax: (541)726-3689 Name, Journal Number and Date of the Decision Being Appealed I1/f-Slf(L /Jt~^' Mc.JIL tfpPL/U(J1t:V': Lrep .1>>c 20. 2-oo7.(/;/IOS~.c. ~ J11~ ~t!Jw:, " ..' , Date of Filing the Appeal ~ . If, J-(:) ,,~ (This date must be within 15 calendar days of the date of the decision.) JAN - ~ 2008 Original Subm.jtt;>\.. t<a'( .i.j:Z5p"1 2007 - oOe:J2.?; 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 allel!e to have been iIIapp.up.:ately applied. Issue #1 ~~ ~.. ~~ ../ fJ4:{,',o.)/,{. I..J~ ~i..... &I"..'r . ... u ..,- U.....:t--, W~ ~"""'.J~' (h-j tV,ctc ~,,-(~.' o-..d 61~ Issue#2 rr..l~ :c /....C&>INo.""'q-..L +k'v. <;;~ ~,,/ ~~- . ',. . 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 ofa land use decision is undo"":..J and states that the information supplied is correct and accurate. Jj""J( ::;...-"~~Y.t <!'(;J"'--! Co....-'75e-o:. C1/J rl I, I t-r4o Appellant'sName ~ ~'ws(.,{-.: - Phone 7+6~J.Gc.J Address 2,?>IS' Ul~ 1Jd. Statement of Interest ~~. o_........;;..LrJ.U ,'''''/Jd.sz./ b1 pV'9,'....ci: Signature C..-!J,1,.;'C....JuJ. F .. 14'...... nfJil"" TTcp nnt~. JOuma1No.'ZONd.DOS - OOOO~ . 11-0:1-30- 0 7l Assessor's Map No. .l...,-ti-;'~'.2::-1I Date Accepted as Complete Received By TL I '600 Tax Lot No. .;1:>,nn iiL .- . PRJ2oob-{)o()3(:, ATTACHMENT 8.-11 . Date Received: 1-4-08. JAN -~ m To City of Springfield Original Submittal KL .If:ZSPI'lj Re: Appeal fee for "'Villages' at MarcolaMeadows" Master Plan Type ill application, . LRP 2007-00028 decision of 12-20"07 , .. . The city of Springfield has mentioned an appeal fee. The amount of the fee is to be taken from "Development Code Application Fees" blurb. I have copies of the one "Effective 12-3- 2007." There is nothing on this sheet which directly addr~sses an appeal from the planning commission. On Wednesday, 1-2-08 a meeting was. held to explain and "answer" questions as to how much property the :City will take and/or destroy and how badly the residents were. going to get screwed by the City and the developer. It was reported that the City danced and deflected questions rather than answering them. At this meeting Gary Karp said the appeal fee was $250. The only $250 fee on the aforesaid sheet is an "Appeal of Type II Director's Decision (7) ORS 227.175." We are not appealing a director's decision but the planning commission so this does not apply. If it does apply it should be "Appeal of Type ill Decision to City Council" as this removes "Director's" from the fee description and this is a Type ill Decision not Type II. Thusly Newman Trustee would pay $2,254 as he is appealing no notice. Dennis Hunt is another $2,254 for the same issue. Wes Swanger, Clara Shevchinski,' and myself is another $6,762 for a total of $11,270. I argue that this amount is excessive, arbitrary, captious, and unlawful. I read the statute that .states how the amount of fee should be determined. I understand that the City may wave the appeal fees and.itis petitioned herein for this to be done. . Pursuant to Oregon Revised Statute it is herein petitioned that the fees be waved as all of the attached appeals are bundled under the North Springfield Citizens' Committee which has been duly recognize as such by the CIty. !4,~ Nick Shevchynski 11~~ - Nick Shevchynski North Springfield Citizens Committee ATTACHMENT 8 - 19 City.of Springfield Development Services Department 225 Fifth Street Springfield, OR 97477 . Phone: (541) n6-3759 Fax: (541) 726-3689 . SPRINGFr '~6 ~. .'Date ceived: Appeals Application, Type IV Appeal ofPIaiming Commission Decision to City Council JAN - 4.2008 Original Submittal I<ii -'f:Z5p"" Name, Journal Number and Date of the Decision Being Appealed /1/1-s]-t:(t fJL~J.J !WC'IJL tfpPt./Uf71t::t./: LteP lJpc 20. 2007 U,/I().(~( ~ J11~ /JtR~ut<!Jcv'3 / .. 2007 - oo<:>'<.?' / Date of Filing the Appeal . .. .A-.. If', J-Vc:Ji' (This date.must be within 15 calendar days of the date of the decision.) Please list below, in summary form, the specific issues being raised in the appeal. These should be the specific points where you feel the Approval AuthoritY erred in making the decision, i.e., what approval criterion or criteria you allege to have been inal'l',ul'.:ately applied. .. ~ Issue #1 ~.J> I4\... ~{1 ../ Ptz:{,'v:; ill. tU.A-~~~, &'"..'r , .--. () . /{v..t-,. Wu- ~~~, Ihu{tUciA ~,,;.(~.' o...J 6}_ Issue#2 rr-l~_p .2 /...Ct;J7vVO --&.. -f-kj,. -=;~ ~A M ~ "1- . . ~b:K Issue #3 Issue #4 (List any additional issues being appealed on an attached sheet.) The undersigned acknowledges that the above appeal form and itsattachmeuts have been read, the requirements for filing an appeal of a land use decision is understood and states that the information supplied is correct and accurate. . /-k..!t.. ~i"S*,~ c!"{;J""-I C<>...-'~ Appellant'sNameC~ ~'ws~,; "..~. Phone 746~).Gc:J Address :L} I S- JIl{~ M.- Statement ofInterestJ1vo~ D_~;:',Lf;J...:f .'u,h4d b1 P",,)...J-. Signature C. .-<!JiI-"('..... h .,J . F lfn.. ~"'IP nc!t:a,nnl~. Journal No.-ZO tJ d-OO S - 0000(,..,. , /1-02-30' 0 11 Assessor s Map No. JJ-"';'~" <;. LT Date Accepted as Complete Received By Tax Lot No. iL I '600 .;12,(")1') .~ .- PRJ200b -0003(:, ATTACHMENT 8. - 20. , -_..> Dl:ite Received: 1-4-08 JAN -~ m To City of Springfield Original Submittal KL -4: 2Sp"1 Re: Appeal fee for "'Villages' at Marcola Meadows" Master Plan Type ill application, LRP 2007-00028,.decision of 12-20-07 v The city of Springfield has mentioned an appeal fee. The amount of the fee is to be taken from:'Development Cod.e Application Fees" blurb. I have copies of the one "Effective 12-3- 2007." There .is nothing on this sheet which directly addresses ari appeal from the planning .commission. On Wednesday, 1-2-08 a meeting. was held to explain and "answer" questions as to how. much property the City will take and/or destroy and how badly the residents were going to get screwed by the City 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 ree on the aforesaid sheet is an "Appeal of Type IIDirector's Decision (7) ORS 227.175." We are not appealing a director's decision but the planning commission so this does not apply. If it does apply it should be "Appeal of Type ill Decision to City Council" as this removes "Director's" from the fee description and this is a Type.ill Decision not Type ll. Thusly Newrnan'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.S6,762 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 iUs petitioned herein for this to . be done. . Pursuant to Oregon Revised Statute it is herein petitioned that the fees be waved as all of the attached appeals are bundled under the North Springfield Citizens' Committee .which has . been duly recognize as such by the City. .' /4,~ Nick Shevchynski I1j~~ Nick Shevchynski . Nortb Springfield Citizens Committee , , . ATTACHMENT 8 - 21 ,. Date Received: JAN - 4 2008 1 Assignments of Error Original Submittal KL 4: z.'Sp "'l , , L The appeals application states that, "The Planning Division staff can be of assistance in helping you fill out this section." Since it doesn't state the staff "will" be of assistance I asked how and/or what assistance? The question was met with silence. .2.. ". .,. all of the sections on the opposite side of this page must be filed out." There is no opposite side. 3. Explaining "the specific points that are appealed" in "one sentence statement". is undue restriction and an almost impossibility. This application for appeal procedure is unduly restrictive, contradictory, confusing, and unlawful. -4. The City seems to believe in a policy that it doesn't have to abide by the. law unless it gets caught and litigated. The City states that if an issue or violation was not raised below it can not be "appealed" to the next level of rubber stamping. Under the plain error rule unpreserved 'claims of error do not necessarily prevent them form being raised on review.. An "error of law apparent on the face of the record" falls under the plimcerror 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 of12-11-07,.pg. 10, cites SDC 5.2-115: ". . . the applicant shall post one sign, approved. by the Director, on the subject property." Pg. 11: "Staffs Response/Finding" which finds that this was not done. "Wait," you .will say, "This wasn't preserved." It's an error of law apparent on the face of the record. Don't you follow your own laws? Never mind that question. In any event it was preserved. Page 7, Karp's 12/20/07 memorandum: ". . . and the applicant not contacting the property owners prior to the public hearing." See attached affidavit. Was this a procedural or statutory requirement? Lawyer Leahy may say procedural in order to ignore the requirement and I say it's statutory because it's the law and your law. Golf v McEachron. 6. There was a public hearing on this matter on 12-11-07. Because the 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 me~s.. They say there is no overcrowding 'on one hand and beg for more taxes because of overcrowding on the other. These people should have testified on the record allowing the commission to ask questionrand the public to hear and. see them. It was an error not to consider that after absorbing the students from the proposed development any additional students from anywhere would. cause overcrowding. ATTACHMENT 8 -22 2 8. During the 12-20-07 hearing no new material was. suppose to be introduced in order to keep out public comment New material was introduced. At one point lawyer Spickerman walked up to lawyer Leahy and whispered his objection. Leahy said out loud that there was an objection because new material was introduced. . Commissioner Carpenter added additional new language to the "plan" which the public was not allowed to comment on. Notice of this hearing being open was not mailed in a timely manner pursuant to SDC 5.2-115. 9. Kinda difficult to preserve an error as stated hereinabove when one is not allowed to speak The issue of speech is so one-sided it's ludicrous. Rick Satre droned on and on for hours and hours and on and on. Gary Karp droned. on for hours. The City's staff droned on for hours . . and hours. Commissioner Evans droned on. Commissione,r 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 riot notifying the public and additionally allowing supporters to have their unrestrictive say.' ~n my opinion this process is just wasting tax money and creating jobs and retirement benefits for staff and lawYers, 10. 'CoJ11missioner Nancy Moore was not qualified to vote. She told me she drove on this part of Marcola Rd. daily to her job at a grade school up Marcola.. On the last day she said she didn't know if there were sidewalks on this part of Marcola. She stated with what appeared to be ari attempt at humor that the City would take 17 ft from the front of citizens' properties. It's suppose to be. on the recorded. record.. This is shamefuL . 11. The issue of the waterway. was never properly addressed. Rather than have Sunny Washburn arid/or her sidekicks Kim andPhil of the city staff answer questions the city staff presented a y.oung man who acted clueless. Or maybe it wasn't an act When he was asked by a commissioner where the water comes from he answered, "I don't know." This is an embarrassment and shameful. According to the person in the city manager's office "they are all. engineers. " 12. Written notice of the decision was not mailed. . '- 13. There were about 56 additions made without equal opportunity for comment on all of them. 14. There was nothing that addresses what will be done with the bike lanes which are part of the city's overall plan. Especially since it's planned to have them tom out 15. There was nothing that addresses.what will be done withthe bus stops which are part of the city's overall plan. Especially since it's planned to have them torn out. ATTACHMENT 8 - 23 3 16. There was/is nothing, not a peep, about the impact on the environment and/or environmental controls. 17. There was nothing that reasonably .described the city's final action and it was not mailed. 18. There was no input and no opportunity to question or comment on what the utility providers' positions are. ,Utilities are part of the city's overall plan. 19. The city staff cuts-off public comment .and the raising of any "new" issues because it's claimed the staff are not able to open the record for rebuttal. This is false. The record may be opened by statute and otherwise whenever the staff or Joe Leahy feels like it The staff and Joe Leahy control everything. 20. Gary Karp and Rick Satre argued that the number of trips and thusly the traffic Will be below the arbitrary alleged unprovided copies of traffic studies with the addition of 512+ homes and the constant traffic due to one of AmericasJ,argest major retailers. Yet Gary Karp and staff advocate major highway expansions to accumulate alleged non-existing rise in traffic. 21 The city alleges it has alligator tears and no money for street repairs yet has more money to tear-up perfectly good sidewalks; curbs, etc. in order to ple;L5e 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 p6steq timely pursuant to Oregon Statute? 23. What. about those fire hydrants? Pursuant to a court order by a federal judge a maintenance report was furnished and half of the hydrants on Marcola Road were non- operational. Fire protection is part of the city's overall plan and this' was not even mentioned. . . ., .24. This issue of traffic is one of being relative. Is not traffic rated by various levels? Which level is it now and what level will it be? This is part of the city's overall plan and it was never addressed... . Nick Shevchynski Nick Shevchynski, North Springfield Citizens' Committee \ ATTACHMENT 8 - 24 Affidavit r, Nick Shevchynski, firs.t being duly sworn on oath say: I walked/jogged the perimeter of the former Pierce property which is the proposed "'Villages' at Marcola.Meadows" on almost a daily basis throughout Nov. & Dec. of '07 and during the Marcola . Meadows Master Plan application case # CRP 2007-00028. At no time was there a "sign approved by the Director, on the subject property" as required by SDC5.2-115. jl~ Nick Shevchynski pUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me a Notary for the State of Oregon .on this 2hd day of January, ~008, I OFFICIALSEAL . . . DUSTIN HAHN . ' NOTARY PUBUC - OREGON \ . COMMISSION 00412362 . MV .OMMISSlON EXPIRES NOV. 29. 2010 , ~ <ihf - Date Received: JAN - ~ 2lDJ Original SUL:nlttE;L.L~ . tf-: z.S- ATTACHMENT 8 - 25 SPRINGFIF" ~ City of Springfield Development Services Depa.rtmenl 225 Fifth Street. Springfield, OR 97477 Phone: (541) 726-3759 Fax: (541) 726-3689 ived: Appeals Application, Type IV Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to City Council JAN - ~ 2008 '.n Name, Iournal Nw;nber and. Date of the Decision Being Appealed ma~'fe.v- ?~'T;", pf'W ~ppt;~E,il'V. U?Pd(67- o6"\d'R) lJ",C'.. :J..D, :J/)~~ d. \\~I'r~ (:l.1(Y\o...N^C'-kl~,A. tf1Q.otd"lAE' Orl.glnal bUDmlLl~' ... 'f; l5ft>\. Date of Filing the Appeal (This date must be within 15 calendar days of the date of the decision.) Please list below, in summllIY form, the specific issues being raised in the appeal. These sbould be the specific points where you feel the Approval Authority erred in making the decision, i.e., what approval criterion or criteria you allege to have been in"i'l',vl'.:ately applied. Issue #1 Th.o \. r-"'l'o~~J M:QV"~_I'lJI1 -Rl ~ \" ""u<'..""" ..~<l 'Pre;~...rr ,,), [( ~l,,- o..vu ,._ex-if ..."""Q. n"'q <-"""0li.C..1' ""'^. ",",,"u ';)\r6~e..-L'i ~ ~t{l, fVla."" An. f?~aJ . . \ ,,- ,.-,-. \ 1 . cl.. \ - -- . U Issue#2.rn'\ClJ'''''~~. \" ~_""""" ..\ \ ~9- s:r ~ ...L-lrYl. I.)L. .' . he. '0:;.......\ r-.pn.:;;"',:,'" ,~"R..l \"'1 rt..t"""f"S.,A rr!t\r~AAtJJ """'fH\,")~,"~\<\)I-<lJ~ Issue #3 ~'n.Q---..:o:",1..'_1. !'Q$,: ~ l' r-6C' e <;<: ~"I- ~ P. ,~;:: ($ q,. . '0I\.~C\\^h '.f>.......J "Jl':i' ,. )o...~ ...,.,J:f d <\"-9. n..<' cC ......L '^"\ t:-, 'I::,\..". '\<.kJ\~ Issue #4 (List any additional issues being appealed on an attached sheet) The undersigned acknowledges that the above appeal form and its attachments have heen read, the requirements for filing ail appeal of a land use decision is understood and states that the information supplied is correct and accurate. . c, Appellant's Name We:s 1101, 0. SU.\Q..,,\ Q..r' , PhO~/Y/ I J 7</;:' R~e;f3_ Address ~c/r.. <' ~).( /\ ~',a.rf s.tp,..,~ ~-D,P_ U I [j,.....~t'lf\ 97<!2:l- . S~tementofInterest Pr"p~-ii-S-\ Oul,^.vr IA..~T~ 1::.'1 ~t\lu'ft.O"" SIgnature IJ~/u/ f') ln~/l . ~ fJ1a.d(<>r p~ "If". Offil"lP TTIliliP Only. Iourna1No. z.of\l2.tb~-OCClo7 11-02-~D.OO Assessor's Map No. 17-0":>;--7<==,""11 Date Accepted as Complete Received By Tax Lot No. I~O ~""t'll) ~ .- VR;fz.ax,- ~30 ATTACHMENT 8 - 26 SPRINGFU . Appeals Application, Type IV Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to City Council City of Springfield Development Services Department 225 Fifth Street Springfield, OR 97477 Phone: (541) 726-3759 Fax: (541) 726-3689 N J al N b d D fth D .. B. A al d. Orlginal Submitt<>1 ame, oum urn er an ate 0 e eClSlon emg ppe e ftA.S7l:1? . &fJ /'yp~ 77T. ANJlC4710V;' tf( P 2.0<:::>7..,. O'-'O.2.Y~ '/... -" ;' f~.. :20 1."""7 "Ud/d{..e.r' a:t- J-UIkDI.A 11.$q.[}d)w<:' ' JAN - 4 2008 . /(L i.h Zi5 f fV) Date of Filing the Appeal . '...)/f,U. Sj ?.:JO 7 (This date must be within 15 calendar days of the date of the decision.) Please list below, iIi 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 #3 SeR tPtll<j-O-(J:~/ III'FII:J,+.//{,.. -~~ <D1> ~lUlot? I / I I / I V (List any additional issues being appealed on an attached sheet.) Issue # I Issue #2 Issue #4 The undersigned acknowledges that the above appeal form and its a~chments have been read, the requirements for filing an appeal of a land use decision is understood and states that the information supplied is correct and accurate.. . e-a.A !--brft. <;'f't?IAJfR.~t.O (!f71iJl:,uS Cd...U1~ Appellant'sName t),Ck SteflU{/J,/<;n Phone ~OIL-e- Address 2. -1>4 7 I1M~OI.A~h Statement of Interest A ti:1'ACf'/J7' '!Wt2I'Df.71-' ow/i1l . Signature~.A _ ....., -.:..- ____ , li'",p O-Flii,..,.. TTQ.. Onlv. Journal No. ZoIJ ;<.COlS-OOCo8 ,. \7-02- -30 '00 Assessor sMap No. 17-f1"l-1. C:-f( Date Accepted as Complete Received By /t?{)O. Tax Lot NO.---2."'-Dn :g: .- M<...! L-O~'CO()3b ATTACHMENT 8 - 27 \ Date Received: 1-4-08 JAN -~ 201m To City of Springfield Original Submittal KI- Lt: ZSprlj . ., 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 ofthe 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, )-2-08 a meeting was held to explain and "answer'" questions as to how much property the City will take an.d/or destroy and how badly the residents were going to get screwed by the City and the developer. It was reported that the City danced and deflected questions rather than answering them. At this meeting Gary Karp said the appeal fee. was $250.. The only $250 fee on the. aforesaid sheet is an "Appeal of Type II Director's Decision (7) ORS 227.175." We are not appealing a director's decision but the planning commission so this does not apply. If it does apply it should be "Appeal of Type III Decision to City Council" as this removes "Director's" from the fee description and this is a Type III Decision not Type. II. Thusly Newman Trustee would pay $2,254 as he is appealing no notice. Dennis Hunt is. another $2,254 for the same issue. Wes Swanger, Clara Shevchinski, and myself is another $6,762.for a total of $11,270. I argue that this amount is excessive, arbitrary, captious, an'd 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 Citize~s' Committee which has been duly recognize as such by the City. . tf,~ Nick Shevchynski 11~~ -. Nick Shevchynski North Springfield Citizens Committee ATTACHMENT 8 - 28 .' Date Received: JAN - 4 2008 1 Assignments of Error Original Submittal KL 4 : z.'6~ "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 aSsistan'ce? 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. . ~. Explaining "the specific points that are appealed'" in "one sentence statement" is undue restriction and an almost impossibility. This .application for appeal procedure is unduly restrictive, contradictory, confusing, and unlaWfuL . ,. 4. The City seems to believe in a policy that it doesn't have to abide by the law unless it gets caught and litigated. The City states that if an issue or violation was not raised below it can not be "appealed" to the next level of rubber stamping. Under the plain error. rule unpreserved claims of error do not necessarily prevent them form being raised on review. An "error of law apparent on the face of the record" falls under the plant error 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 apparent on the face of the record. Don't you follow your own laws? Never mind' that question. In any event it was preserved. Page 7, Karp's 12/20/07 memorandum: ". . . and the applicant not contacting the property owners prior to the public hearing." See attached affidavit Was this a procedural or statutory requirement? Lawyer Leahy may say procedural in order to . ignore the requirement and I say it's statutory because it's the law .and your law. Golf v . McEachron. , 6. There was a public hearing on this matter on 12-11-07. .Because the recor.d was still 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 questioI1>and the public to hear and see them. It was .an error not to consider that after absorbing the students from the proposed development any additional students from anywhere would cause overcrowding. . ATTACHMENT 8 - 29 2 8. During the 12-20-07 hearing no new material was suppose to be introduced in order to keep out public comment. New material was introduced. At one point lawyer. Spickerman walked up to lawyer Leahy and whispered his objection. Leahy said out loud that there was an objection because new material was introduced. Commissioner Carpenter added additional new language to the "plan~' which the public was not allowed to comment on.. Notice of this hearing being open was not mailed in a timely manner pursuant to SDC 5.2-115: 9. Kinda difficult to preserve an. error as stated hereinabove when one is not allowed to speak. The issue of speech is so one-sided it's ludicrous. Rick Satre droned on and on for hours and hours and on and on: Gary Karp droned on for hours. The City's staff droned on for hours and hours. . Commissioner Evans droned ~n. 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 noti~ing the public and additionally allowing supporters to have their unrestri.ctive 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\ grade school up Marcola. On the last day she said she didn't know if there were sidewalks on this part .of Marcola. She stated. with what appeared to. be an attempt at humor that the City. would take 17 fr 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 the city manager's office "they are all engineers. " 12. Written notice of the decision was not mailed. 13.. There were about 56 additions made without equal opportunity for comment on all of them. 14: There was nothing that addresses what will be done with the bike lanes which are part of the city's overall plan, Especially since it's planned to have them tom out 15. There was nothing that addresses what will be done with the bus stops which are part of the city's overall plan. Especially since it's planned to have them tom out. . ., ATTACHMENT 8 -.30 3. 16. There was/is nothing, not a peep, about the impact on the. environment and/or environmental controls. 17. There was nothing that reasonably . described the city's final action and it was not mailed. 18. There was no input and no opportunity to question or comment on what the utility . providers' positions are. Utilities are part of the city's overall plan. 19. The city staff cuts-off public comment and the raising of any "new" issues because it's claimed the staff are not able to open the record for rebuttal. This is false. The record may be opened by statute and otherwise whenever the staff or Joe Leahy feels like it. The staff and Joe Leahy control everything. 20.. Gary Karp and Rick Satre argued that the number of trips and thusly the traffic will be below the arbitrary alleged unprovided copies of traffic studies.with the addition of 512+ homes and the constant traffic due to one of Americas.largest major retailers. Yet Gary Karp and staff advocate major highway expansions to accumulate alleged non-existing rise iri traffic. 21. The city alleges it has alligator tears and no money for street repairs yet has more money to tear'up perfectly good sidewalks, curbs, etc. in order to please a developer and investors in Reno who want someone else to pay for their improvements. . 22. Have I said written notices of the hearing and decisions were not mailed nor posted timely pursuant to Oregon Statute? 23. What about those fire hydrants? Pursuant to a court order by a federal judge a maintenance report was furnished and half of the hydrants on Marcola Road were non-. operational. Fire protection is part of the city's overall plan .and this was not even mentioned. 24. This issue of traffic is one of being, relative. Is not traffic rated by various levels? Which level is it now and what level will it be? This is part of the city's overall plan and it was.never addressed. Vb Nick Shevchynski . Nick Shevchy~ski, . .North Springfield Citizens' Committee ATTACHMENT 8 - 31 l.. . Affidavit I, Nick Shevchynski, first being duly sworn on oath say: I walked/jogged the perimeter of the former Pierce property which is the prop.osed "'Villages' at Marcola Meadows" on almost a daily basis throughout Nov.. & Dec. of 107 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-~~5. a~ Nick Shevchynski SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me a Notary far the State of Oregon on .this 2nd day of January, 2008. . OFRCIAL SEAl DUSTIN HAHN \. .. NOTARYPUBUC-OREGor_ COMMISSION NO. 412362 MY COIiIMISSION EXPIRES NOI. 29, 20HI ~ -th/ Date Received: JAN :- ~ 2llO8 Original Submittal j(L Jf: 2.'5 fr'Y\ ATTACHMENT 8 - 32 , City of Springfield Development Services Department 225 Fifth Street Springfield, OR 97477 Phone: (541) 726-3759 Fax: (541) 726-3689 Appeals Application, Type IV Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to City Council at. ~ Date Received: SPRINGFI' -~ . . . Original Submilt"1 Name, Journal Number and Date of the DeCISIOn Bemg Appealed M~>(".,t fLw WPG 1lL t1:>PHCAnQV,~' ~$P.ztJd7-Of)0.2F: , fI U. . U A I '/ . ltoe.. A,/$-a 4-1" r{A!etI;OLA IV( ;;:A7'>oo.O(" JAN - 4 2008 K7\ 4:-z.>7"p"" ])E;.c. 2-0. ').DO? . . ,. / , . Date of Filing the Appeal ~ 4-: u:l<l g (Ihis date must be within 15 calenda~ days of the date of the decision.) Please list below, in summalyfonn, the specific issues being raised in the appeal. These should be the specific points where you feelthe Approval Authority erred in making the decision, i.e., what approval. criterion or criteria you alle~e to have been inappropriately applied, , Issue #1 No ttJ D Tl c.. '<.." r' OS-l~ 0 0 F Y'-1 12. E ", ~ q 6. S ~e~ /~'I1?O.J bJ S:Dc.. S'.~ -) IS- C/ Issue #2 . _'$ee~iz-..I;.A->;P 4fp.~';',f-- ""I'''''~b"'''''-- au ~1kK Issue #3 Issue #4 ( (List any additjonal issues being appealed ~ an attached sheet.) . The undersigned acknowledges that the above l!-Ppea! form and its attachments have been read, the requirements for filing an appeal of a land nse decision is nnderstood and states that the iDformation snpplied is correct and accurate. It..J.u,. p~ C:;P",.,qgA/> Cn~AJ5 C-..-.n;: . AppelI~t'sName '\),p nn-~... H-..... ""+- . Phone. ~'-<; 1-7 V c."- ~2?D Address ?'oY~)/-~L.A~ OA A~<;f=)~I\...l r1 . Statement Of~teresf' () j<!, 10 4. n. G r'...e ,-,-,-r-h 6;,;,.... ",!ldfi-<.1 P;JZ-cOJ2-7Z"Tj VL-LlAe Je, signatur'-;1't~j;;d~.:I__~~e'1Zj:J .,~~ ' " 1?"'.. nftjrp. TT~'; nnl~. Journal No. 20 tJ 2on51-fYY){)5 , ''1-02-30-00 As~essor s Map No. ..11=.112;. 7 c; - II Date Accepted as Complete Received By TL [800 Tax Lot No. ?~tVI ,a:,. P~2-c:00-0003h ATTACHMENT 8 - 33 Th.z..... f Ja n ;'''j CP...;......L).rL.'O.-"'l. de/\:~ ~ ~ -f. (; f yo o/z- T'--< ""':~fJ -f <> fa,e Tl c... l f7:,:t ~ b;; ^' '=> ~ {2", /I 0 '" '21 .J. _' . .. ...... }<2 ~ ;e..e.q...... 1(2.1 ""q (057'""'-'<:1 e -P- ;'1ro\')<..~ 1 ~ I yL (9 ~ """"\,. r~ D J".J . ^. In..." \- ,.v S "DC S:. 2.. -' I 1 S"' . Q'" yt -<-a... ''-.'~.J. T .::c. ),'v€- ""e.A-~/'---l~rQS--e.d J~",,",..Jc>~=-.T a.-.J . J.fl.~~ o~ft..a- ~'-.f-x.~e'h. a{2.f--<-f.-...~ b) I~ d.e<-.:s,;'::;:' L.'.. 'J.I\ f 0'5 ~ ;voH.(€.- c...., 0 ~L cL h"",,--. ~ l/'O'-JeQ ~ tv (CAn. -he.. ;f..Jt~ ~-... D.t::2..it r/l.-e. $5 /1--,;; GD~ce/T..;--v 5 . ..~. ': , ;. , . ~ .' ~'. , . .' ATTACHMENT 8 - 34 Date Received: 1-4-08 JAN - ~ 2llO8 To City of Springfield Original Submittal KL 1t: 2 Sp", 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 d~cision but the planning commission so this does not apply. Ifit does apply it should be "Appeal of Type ill Decision to City Council" as this removes "Director's" from the fee description and this is a Type III Decision not Type II. Thusly Newman Trustee would pay $2,254 as he is appealing no notice. Dennis Hunt is. another $2,254 for the same issue. .wes Swanger, Clara Shevchinski, and myself is another $6,762 for a total of $11,270. I argue thai 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 Statu!e it is herein petitioned that the fees be waved as all of th.e attached appeals are bundled under the North Springfield Citizens' Committee which has been duly recognize as such by the City. . . !4,~ Nick Shevchynski 11~~ - Nick Shevchynski North Springfield Citizens Committee "\, ATTACHMENT 8 - 35. .' Date Received: JAN -, 2008 Assignments of Error . Ortginal Submittal 1 KL. .4: z<op "'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 howandJor what assistance? . The question was met with silence. . 2. ". . . all of the sections on the opposite side of this page must be filed out." There is no opposite side. 3. Explaining "the specific points that are appealed" in "one sentence statement" is undue restriction and an almost impossibility. This application for appeal procedure is unduly restrictive, contradictory; confusing, and unlawfuL 4. . The City seems to believe in a policy that it doesn't have to abide by the law unless it gets caught and litigated. The City states that if an issue or violation was not raised below it can not be "appealed" to the next level of rubber stamping. Under the plain error rule unpreserved claims of error do not necessarily preventthem form being raised on review. An "error of law . apparent on the face of the record" falls under the plane error ~le.. The Oregon Supreme Court issued an opinion on Dec. 13, '07 in State v Fults overturning the Oregon Appeals Court because the plain error rule was not applied to unpreserved claims of error. , . 5.. .Karp's memorandum of 12-11-07, pg. 10, cites SDC 5.2-115: ". . . the applicant shall post one sign, approved by the Director, on the subject property." Pg. 11: "Staffs Response/Finding" which finds that this was not done. "Wait," you will say, "This wasn't preserved." It's an error of law. appar~nt on the face of the record. Don't you follow your own laws? Never mind that . question. In any event it was preserved. Page 7, Karp's 12/20/07 memorandum: ". . . and the applicant not contacting theoproperty 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 opim for public comment the public should have been granted th~ 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 coupJe 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 questioITand the public to hear and see them. It was an error not to consider that after absorbing the students from the proposed development any additional students from anywhere would cause overcrowding. ATTACHMENT 8 - 36 2 8. During the 12-20-07 hearing no new material was suppose to be introduced in order to keep out public comment New material was introduced. At one point lawyer Spickerman walked up to lawyer Leahy and whispered his objection. Leahy said out lotid that there was an objection because new material was intioduced. Commissioner Cazpenter 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 ~.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 fo.r hours. The City's staff droned on for hours and hours. Commissioner Evans aroned on. Commissioner Cazpenter 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 i~ placed on the record by not notifying the public and additionally allowing supporters to have their unrestrictive say. In my opinion this process is just wasting tax money and creating jobs and retirement benefits for staff and lawyers. . 10. Commissioner Nancy Moore was not qualified to vote. She told me she drove on this part of Marcola Rd. daily to her job at a grade.school up Marcola. On the last day she said she didn't know if there were sidewalks on this pari.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 1 L The issue of the waterway was never properly addressed: Rather than have Sunny Washbtirn and/or her sidekicks Kim and Phil of the city staff answer questions the city staff presented a ~oUllg man who acted clueless. Or maybe it wasn't an. act When he was asked by a cornmissioner 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 e.qual opportunity for comment on all of them. 14". There was nothing that addresses what will be done with the bike lanes which are part ., . of the city's overall plan. Especially since it's planned to have them tom out 15. There was nothing that addresses what will be done wIth the bus stops which are part of the city's overall plan. Especially since it's planned to have them.torn out '- .ATTACHMENT 8 - 37 3 16. There was/is nDthing, nDt a peep, about the iinpac;t. on the environment and/or environmental cDntrols. 17. There was nDthing that reasDnablydescribed the city's final actiDn and it was nDt mailed. 1.8. There was no. input and no. oppDrtunity to. questiDn or comment on what the utility providers' positiDns are. Utilities are part Df the city's overall plan. 19.. The city staff cuts-Dff public CDmment and the raising Df any "new" issues because it's claimed the staff are nDt able to. Dpen the recDrd fDr rebuttal. This is false. The recDrd may be Dpened by statute and Dtherwise whenever the staff Dr JDe Leahy feels like it. The staff and JDe .Leahy contrDI everything. " 20. Gary Karp and Rick Satre argued that the number Df trips and thusly the traffic will be belDwthe arbitrary alleged unprovided cDpies Df traffic studies with the additiDn Df 512+ hDmes and the constant traffic due to. one Df Americasl.argest majDr retailers. Yet Gary Karp and staff advDcate majDr highway expansiDns to accumulate alleged nDn-existing rise in traffic. 21 The city alleges it has alligatDr tears and no mDney for street repairs yet has mDre mDney to tear-up perfectly gDod sidewalks, curbs, etc. in Drder to please a develDper and investors .in Reno. who. want SDmeDne else to. pay fDr their imprDvements. 22. Have I said writt~n notices Dfthe hearing and de~isiDns were not mailed nor posted timely pursuant to OregDn Statute? 23. What. abDut thDse fire hydrants? Pursuant to. a CDurt o~der by a federal judge a maintenance repDrt was furnished .and half Df the hydrants Dn Marcola RDad were nDn- DperatiDnaL Fire protectiDn is part Df the city's Dverall plan and this was nDt even mentioned. 24. This issue Df traffic is Dne of being. relative. Is nDt traffic rated by variDUS levels? Which level is it now and what level will it be? This is part of the city's Dverall plan and it was never . addressed. . IA .. . Nick Shevchynski Nick Shevchynski, NDrth Springfield Citizens' CDmmittee ATTACHMENT 8 -38 , Affidavit I, Nick .Shevchynski, first being duly sworn .on oath say: I walked/jogged the perimeter of the former pierce property which is the .proposed '" Villages' . at Marcola Meadows" on almost a daily basis throughout Nov. & Dec. of '07 and during the Marcola .. I . 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. /;L~ . Nick Shevchynski SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN .to before mea Notary for the State of Oregon on this 2nd day of January, 2008. . OFFICIAL SEAL I DUSTIN HAHN NOTARY PUBUC - OREGON ! " COMMISSION 00412362 : MY CO~ION EXPIRES NOV. 29.2010 \ ah-~~ Date Received: JAN - ~ 2008 ~. Original Submittal .' ATTACHMENT 8 '- 39 . Satre & Associates Attention Rick Satre 132 East Broadway. Suite 536 Eugene, Oregon 97401 ZON2008-00004 Philip M. Newman 260 S. Mill Creswell, Oregon 97426 ZON200a-D0007 .. Wesley O. Swanger 2415 Marcola Road Springfield, Oregon 97477 ?'. ZON200a-D0002 SC Springfield LLC 7510 Longley Lane, Suite 102 Reno, Nevada89511 ZON2008-00005 Dennis Hunt 3044 Yolanda Avenue Springfield, Oregon 97478 ZON200a-DOO03 Donna Lentz . 1544 E Street Springfield, Oregon 97477 ZON2008-00006 Clara Shevchynski 2315 Marcola Road Springfield, Oregon 9747y -...... ~ ~tJ ~g c()6c()4- " ,\ AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE RECEIVED JAN 1 82008 ~. STATE OF OREGON } } ss. County of Lane . } By: Itf-h~~ oJ A-t5 -fo ~~ .1, Brenda Jones, being first duly sworn, do hereby depose and say as follows: '- 1. I state that I am a Secretary for the Planning Division of the Development Services Department, City of Springfield, Oregon. 2. I state that in my capacity as Secretary, I prepared and caused to be . mailed copies of Copies of AIS for Marcola Meadows Appeal's to the City of Springfield City Council, mailed to the seven (7) appellants (See attachment "AU) on January 18,2008 addressed to (see Attachment "B"), by causing said letters to be placed in a U.S. mail box with postage fully prepaid thereon. .~jA /1,,,1 Brenda Jones ff./I/l Planning Secretary j STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane ~~/O . . ~, 2008 Personally appeared the above named Brenda Jones, . cretary, '&10 aCknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary act. Before me: ~. 'n",~F~+;"'L~1~t!.y. \.,.:) f:' ;.;Ri?UBLic,OREGON ~.,~ . GJMMISSION NO. 420351 ~W COMMISSION EXPIRES AUG. 15. 2Dll . JJorfttU!d~ My Commission Expires: X' JIS;-/I/ I I /.. AGENDA ITEM SLldMARY .. ( Meeting Date: January 28, 2008 Meeting Type: Regular Session Department: Development Services Staff Contact: Gary M. Karp c>J(;; SPRINGFIELD StaffPbone No: 726-3777 ~ C I T Y C 0 U N C I L Estimated Time: . 60 minutes ITEM TITLE: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMISSION'S APPROVAL OF THE MARCOLA MEADOWS MASTER PLAN APPLICATION. 1) The City Council is requested to address some procedural issues. 2) Then, either a) uphoid the December 20'" Planning Commission approval of the Marcola Meadows Master Plan application as conditioned, or b) approve the application with modified conditions of approval, or c) if the Council finds it cannot affirm the Planning Commission's decision, or otherwise approve it with modified conditions, then denv the apPlication: Seven persons, including the property owner (SC Springfield LLC) and 6 individuals, have appealed the December 20'" Planning Commission's approval of the Marcola Meadows Master Plan. As. permitted by the Springfield Development Code (SDC), and for ease of review, staff has combined all.appeals into. one staff report . ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1: Staff Report Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision Attachment2: Master Plan Conditions of Approval Attachment 3: Letter to Applicanfs Attorney Jim Spickerman from City Attorney Dated January 8, 2008 Attachment 4: Planning Commission Minutes, December 20, 2007 Attachment 5: Draft Planning Commission Minutes, December 11, 2007 Attachment 6: Transportation Graphics Attachment 7: OreQon Revised Statutes (ORS) 197.763 ACTION REQUESTED: ISSUE STATEMENT: DISCUSSION: On June 18, 2007 the City Council by a vote of 4-2 approved Metro Plan diagram and Zoning Map amendments to allow a mixed use commercial/residential development on the. former .Pierce" property on Marcola Road. An approval condition of these applications was the submittal of a Master Plan application to guide the phased development of the property over the next 7 years. The Master Plan application was submitted on September 28, 2007. The Planning Commission conducted pUblic hearings on this application on November 20, 2007; December 11, 2007; and December 20, 2007. At the conclusion of the December 20'" hearing, the Planning Commission voted 7-0 to approve the Master Plan; this action included 53 conditions of approval. On January 4,2006 seven separate appeals of thisde.cision were submitted to the Development Services Department; six of these appeals are from 6.individuals and one is from the applicant of the Master Plan, SC Springfield LLC. . The attached staff report divides the issues raised in these appeals into the following general categories: 1) procedural challenges; and 2) challenges to findings and conditions of approval. Issues raised by the 6 individuals fall largely into this first category and include notice, participation at hea~ngs, etc., but do not raise objections to any of the 53 conditions of approval. Issues raised by the applicant/appellant include: adequacy of findings demonstrating proportionality, imposition of conditions not justified by the criteria of approval, and delegation of decision-making authority to the City Engineer, but raise no challenges to procedure. .. Of the numerous issueS raised in these appeals the most significant, if upheld by the Council, is Condition #27 which requires the Master Plan to depict an access lane adjoining the residential properties along the south side of Marcola Road and a roundabout at the intersection at Martin Drive and Marcola Road. Attendant to this requirement is the dedication of sufficient limd to accommodate the access lane and roundabout scheduled to occur during the Master Plan's Phase 1 development The construction of the access lane. would occur within existing right-of-way, but to maintain the eXistfng cross-section of Marcola Road, the portion of Marcola 'Road abutting the developme~t site would need to shift north onto this property. This shift would occur just west of the intersection of 28th and Marcola and would transition back into the existing alignment just west of the new roundabout at Martin Drive. The staffs recommendation of this condition was supported by the Planning Commission and is based on: 1) the authority granted by the Springfield Development Code to require such improvements; 2) the proposed development is the only reason improvement to Marcola Road is necessary; 3) the applicant offered no reasonably workable solution to the traffic and safety conflicts along Marcola Road created by the proposed development; 4) access at any point along the development site's frontage with Marcola Road creates traffic safety conflicts with the residential property along the paralleling south frontage of Marcola Road; and 5) the only 'iuccessful mitigation of the impacts to these nearby properties, whether by using a roundabout or a traditional intersection \~sign, is the inclusion of the access lane. Without all these improvements staff cannot support the Master Plan as 'bmitted by SC Springfield LLC, and the Planning Commission unanimously.concurred with this conclusion after 'Iuating the facts. . \ . ~' .. ......;. .'.r" . , ~ ~ , I I i ......_...,... ....".. ..III. CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT SERVI.CES DEPARTMENT 225 5th ST SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 . (,. .._.__ _.__..__._ ..0 .. > ..........,.....:...:l Philip M. Newman 260 S. Mill Creswell, Oregon 97426 .. ... . '. , . II I..".. I ..J