HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotice PLANNER 1/29/2008
. 1"
~
rvp
.:~- .
.'
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE.
STATE OF OREGON }
}ss.
County of Lane }
I, Brenda Jones, being first duly sworn, do hereby depose and say as follows:
1. I state that I am a Secretary for the Planning Division of the Development
Services Department, City of Springfield, Oregon.
2. 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.
RECEIVED
~~Jff
Brenda (Jones '-1/ .
Planning Secretary 1/
JAN 2 '12008
8Y:~-t".t 1; ~
STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane
~ .!)t/L, 2008 Personally appeared the above named Brenda Jones,
S .cretary, ho acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary act. Before
me:
OFFICIAL SEAl
. DEYETTEKELLY
.. NOTARY PUBliC-OREGON
COMMISSION NO 420351 ..
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUG. 15,2011 I
.
~JiliA/ .. .
My Co~mission Expires: ~J15 !-iI-
,1~f~~J:!~l~G'3!f;!1
ENTiSERVICES'D
;\"":.;&""'"'":'\'':''"''~''''''u~,::?~
, '~FFx!fal!i,t!.,~ir~l;~
NGF;IEI1D1',OREGO
01'
',>01"
INGf,'1
MAILING DATE OF NOTICE: January 29, 2008
DATE OF DECISION: January 28, 2008
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 28, 2008
JOURNAL NUMBER: ZON2008~0002 through -00008
APPELLANTS IN NAME: SC Springfield LLC; Donna Lentz; Philip 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 MasterPlan 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
hearings.
,-J
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 Shevchiriski
"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~ .
I
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 Wag en blast. 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, ~s 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:
akarq@cLsarinafield,ar.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 confonning 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
ZON200B-00004.
Philip M. Newman
260 S. Mill
. Creswell, Oregon 97426
ZON2008-00007
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
ZON2008-00002
SC Springfield LLC
7510 Longley Lane, Suite 102
Reno, Nevada 89511
ZON2008-00005
Dennis Hunt
3044 Yolanda Avenue
Springfield, Oregon 97478
ZON2008-00008
Nick Shevchynski
2347 MarcolaRoad
Springfield, Oregori 97477
Darlene Hrouda.
2595 Marcola Road
Springfield, Oregon 97477
Christopher Clemow
Riverfront Center
1515 SE Water Ave., Suite 100
Portland, Oregon 97214
ZON2008-00003
Donna Lentz
1544 E Street
Springfield, Oregon 97477
ZON200B-00006
Clara Shevchynski
. 2315 Marcola Road
Springfield, Oregon 9747y
Nancy Falk
2567 Marcola Road
Springfield, Oregon 97477
Gail Wagenblast
2457 Otto Street
Springfield, Oregon 97477
....... <.'
-,-,
.,
Date Received:
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
JAN 2 4 20DS
Original Submittal 'if1
.~~
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 I am a Program Technician for the Planning Division of the
Development Services Department, City of Springfield, Oregon.
.2. I state that in my capacity as, Program Technician, I prepared and caused to be . -
mailed copies of 45~2D08-oooo"-IIaJRIi()- (!.ltlJMSkv~:- ~~ -1JIafJ ~
(See attachment "A") on 164- . 2008 addressed to (see 71tM0JL~
Attachment B"), by causing said ' letters to be placed in a U.S. mail box with
postage fully prepaid thereon.
I
~~UR;YcJ~
STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane
2008. Personally appeared the above named Karen LaFleur,
ician, who ackri.owledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary
="" - - -,.',-_. '_._,._---------,
1. . .. . OFFIciAL SEAL j
'I " SANDRA MARX i
(, '\ ./ NOTARY PUBLIC, OREGON i
( .... COMMISSION NO. 385725 j
II, . MY COMMISSION EXPIRES NOV. 12, 2008 !
~-~~--~------------~
~J)) Ad
. I
1///2.1200K
My Commission Expires:
.,: ~. .., ,
.--...
Memorandum
. City of Springfield
Date:
To.:
Subject
January 23, 2008
. Gary Karp, Planner ill .J/! A
Brian F. Barnett, P.E., PTOE, Traffic Engineer/~
Marcala Meadaws Master Plan - Canditian 27
From:
Please. include this memorandum in the rmal Cauncil Agenda package cancerning the
appeal af Canditian 27 by applicant. This infarmatian supplements the Cauncil Agenda
package. .
This memorandum and attached canceptual drawing presents the fundamental elements
af the access lane, the roundabaut at the arterial and callectar roads intersectian, the 'T'
intersectian at site. driveway an the arterial, and a cannectian between the access lane and
the arterial to. visually describe haw Canditian 27 sectians 1, 2, 3 and 4 may be
implemented.
The. drawing daes nat shaw right af way lines and it is expected that during a design
process that the improvements shawn in the.drawing wauld be claser to. the sauthern right
af way line than shawn here. The improvements, as shawn, use approximately 1.8 acres
af applicant's land far Marcala Raad. Land used far Martin Drive is nat included in the
estimate since right af way far Martin Drive is necessary in all cases. It is likely that less
land will be needed when the final design wark is undertaken. Please reference staff
repart at Attachment 1-8 where Springfield Municipal Cade Sectian 3.014 Plan Approval
Required, states that "Engineered plans far all public works projects propased far
canstructian. within the city shall besu):nnitted to. the public warks. department for
approval priar to. start af any canstructian wark." And please reference staff repart at
Attachment 1-10 where the staff respanse describes the impacts ill relatian to. the exactian
and that an exactian up to. two. acres is nbt disprapartianate to. the impact.
Direct access fram neighbarhaad driveways to. the arterial raad that will have traffic
valumes increase by 158% aver predevelapment levels will be an unsafe traffic canditian.
The access lane runs alang the sauthern rightaf way and pravides the neighbarhaad
residents a .law valume, .law speed cannectian between individual driveways and the
arterial raadway and elimin'\tes the need far vehicles to. backup directly into. the art~rial
street. Please reference staff repart at Attachment 1-9 where Springfield Develapment
Cade Sectian 4.2-105, Public Streets, requires mitigatian af"unsafe traffic canditians."
l
.>
.. .
"
.,
.':
"'.
..'-.-,'
. l';'..~ ".<~:;'~,.~~
.<~ ~.
. , . ~
'-,,'
.' "
. ......'1.\
,'.
.'.
".
.;
. ~ ,"
...'
.' .,' ~ .. '.~;~"'-
',-
w
Z
-l
"
,.".
,
I
U
f-
.<<:
::2'
a
f-
a
I
(L
-l
<<:
D:::
W
<0::
.'
"
..:'-
~ "~;.:.
,'~ ~.
'r.:.
:. ~~,'
,..
....,..,..
.t.:-:..
'f:
. .
.,:'" .
"\.',
"
",I
"
~. ;.:;
~!'-.
',"-
Ci.:;,'.,'K:P
':: ,.~ . :..:.~: .' ~.
., .'~.~_!', ~ 1-" ,~, 1 -,
., .~. '-. -:>.'~i-~;:.,'
,\
.,
1 "
100:
,
',,'
",h
SKETCH. LEVEL DRAWING
NOT DESIGN
, ' ~' .
.,.
,.;.:j':."
....,
~t' < :J ~~~."..
~ ~ . 1,-, ..~.~.:::~:.~.:_~~~~
. :~';:~': ,..., i':~/:':::~~"<:."..
....~~~;~:,:;;~(~~~.,::: ~-:~;~~;~~~}~:::',~:~::~=~:::~::~;~:.;~, .
. : ~'l;\~ ~
"-.
':'. >~ _"f
, ..
. ..-cil;;;;;;":
.~
:/':;.>~:;:,
.r....
.,.
.~
.'
..,
.
, L
~ 1. 'Fe .,' ::.~;:~'i!.~~/;;i'/
. ,',.;',! l,~: . , " . 0 ? 1 '1!,
l1::i:7,:~~';~~;,':::"'i ;f(-~ :'-'~\n-, ~,;;I
l \".., ~ '('-'. 1 .e :fi' q ~~v_:;r:
'-;:-~~,'".=.' I.r'~ ~"':#~
- '!::1. ~-;~ ~~ ::"'~:.. .' ~~,,"'.,-::,
. ~,1:./2\~~~i~~~r:'i' ~'Yf ~ .~
.,
~. ;;y.:. _r"
,-;: '.'
~lji
#?".~ - .', "'.
- - ~.;
,.
.,
~~1"'~
'"
W^~ ,
~..~
.~.
. ',,"'~"-
':,,:_~:-;:.::-,,-~: --
.-:jo.'-.-<-.'
..
,~.
. ",
:"-\::..'~'
-.'
"1:-:
or
,
:;:<f~7:~
_.~-,,,-.. -..,,, ,-
Attachment 6-3
.,.c'
".. .
. ,
,..
...
.crriOF SF1RINGFIE(D
DEVEL9PMENi:s~RVlc~?DEPA~TME;N1.
. ... . '~.225)i\h~T ... ., ....'
" :SPRINGFIELD,OR97477-' ..
..,-'
.......
~~-
Clara Shevchinski
2315 Marcola Road
Springfield, OR 97477
~
J
,0.-
~~
.0""-'\
~l
i/t
..
~---- /
'--'
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
STATE OF OREGON }
}ss.
County of Lane . }
I, Brenda Jones, being first duly sworn, do hereby depose and say as follows:
1. I state that I am a Secretary for the Planning Division of the Development.
Services Department, City of Springfield, Oregon.
2. 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 AppellantsJZONtl[08,00006nSee
attachment "A") on January 23, 2008 addressed to (see Attachment "B"), by
causing said letters to be plac:edin a U.S. mail box with postage fully prepaid
thereon.
RECEIVED
JAN 2 32008
8 ~/ft5 .
y:~ k>~
STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane
JfJvvu.JAJJ./)3 .2008 Personally appe~red the above named Brenda Jones, Secretary,
o ackQ9wledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary act Before me:
. ,
. - OFFICIAL SEAL
. uc'c, 'c KELlY
.. NOTARY PUBlIC - OREGON .
, COMMISSION NO. 420351 .
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUG. 15, 2011
jyFl0jl}~ J
My Commission Expires: <tj;~/I(
. AGENDA ITEM SUMMA PY
. .
Meetin~ Uate: 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 StaffPlione No: 726-3777 ~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 MARCO LA MEADOWS MASTER
PLAN APPLICATION.
1) The City Council is requested to address some procedural issues. 2) Then, either a) uphold the
December 20'" Planning Commission approval of the Marcola Meadows Master Plan application as
conditioned, or b) approve the application with modified conditions of approval, or c) if the Council
finds it cannot affirm the 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 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
Attachment 2: Master Plan Conditions of Approval
Attachment 3: Letter to Applicant's Attorney Jim Spickerman from City Attomey Dated January 8, 200a
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)
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 commerciaVresidential development on the former 'Pierce" property on Marcela 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, 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 this
first category and include notice, participation at hearings, etc., but do not raise objections to any of the 53 conditions of
approval. Issues raised by the applicant/appellant include: adequacy of findings demonstrating proportionality, imposition
of conditions not justified by the criteria of approval, and delegation of decision-making authority to the City Engineer, but
raise no challenges to procedure.
Of the numerous issues raised in these appeals the most significant, if upheld by the Council, is Condition #27 which
requires the Master Plan to depict an access lane adjoining the residential properties along the south side of Marcela Road
and a roundabout at the intersection at Martin Drive and Marcela 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 Marcela Road, the portion of Marcela Road abutting the development site would need to shift north onto
this property. This shift would occur just west of the intersection of 28th and Marcela 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 Marcela Road is necessary;
3) the applicant offered no reasonably workable solution to the traffic and safety conflicts along Marcola Road created by
the proposed development; 4) access at any point along the development site's frontage with Marcola Road creates traffic
safety conflicts with the residential property along the paralleling south frontage of Marcola Road; and 5) the only
successful mitigation of the impacts to these nearby properties, whether by using a roundabout or a traditional intersection
design, is the inclusion of the access lane. Without all these improvements staff cannot support the Master Plan as
submitted by SC Springfield LLC, and the Planning Commission unanimously concurred with this .conclusion after
evaluating the facts.
City of Springfield
DevelopmentServices 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
SPRINGFIELD
Name, Journal Number and Date of the Decision Being Appealed
Marcoi~ Meadows Master Plan LRP 2007-00028
Planning Commission Decision Date December 20, 2007
Date of Filing the Appeal January 4, 2007
(This date must be within 15 calendar days of the date ofthe decision.)
Please list below, in summary form, the specific issues being raised in the appeal. These should be the
specific points where you feel the Approval Authority erred in making the decision, I.e., what approval
criterion or criteria you allege to have been ina~~.y~. :ately applied. ..
. .
.Issue#l Master Plan Approval Condition #27: 1) is without basis in the
applicable criteria for Master Plan approval;,
Issue #2
2) imposes upon the applicant a burden disproportionate to the impa~t
of the development; and
Issue #3
3) unlawfully delegates to the City Engineer the discretion to impo~e
exactions without reference to standards and without findings of proportionality.
Issue #4
(List any additional issues being appealed on an attached sheet.)
The .undersigned acknowledges that the above appeal form and its attachments have been read, tbe
requirements for filing an appeal of a land use decision is understood and states that the information.
supplied is correct and accurate,
Appellant'sName SC Sorinofield, LLC Phone 775-853-4714
Address. 75]0 l,onqlev Lane. Suite 102, Reno, Nevada 89511
. Statement oflnteres.t,'-7ooerti"I}"~r / aoolicant for orioinal ,,-oolication
Signature 0;;1/1"1 /\(x~
I I
1('..".. Offi,.p IT liliP On .,,;
Journal J:'o.~t'>>-l 2st:Jf!::, ~ e:;t:c:lC:.?..Received By
. 11-02~:30-00 . .
Assessor's p No. L "1-0::0, -2.5 -II Tax Lot No.
Date Accepted as Complete
~
1800
23or.
PRsiooG:,~~3/O
ATTACHMENT 8 -1
.
,
WRlTIEN APPEAL STATEMENT
MARCOLA MASTER PLAN LRP 2007-0028
The applicant appeals Condition #27 of the Planning
Commission approval of the applicant's Master Plan.
Reauirements of Master Plan Condition #27
This condition would require a roundabout at the intersection of .
Marcola Road and Martin Drive and construction of a frontage road on
the southern portion of the Marcola Road.right-of-way, requiring the
applicant to dedicate the land necessary for all traffic improvements
and complete all improvements at the applicant's expense. The
condition would also delegate all au1;hority to the City Engineer to
determine the form and timing of future traffic control at the private
commercial driveway and Marcola Road intersection. .
. ..
Summarv of Issues Raised bv Condition #27
The applicant appeals Condition #27 based upon the following
facts and P9ints of law:
1.
The applicant has proposed to dedicate tlie necessary right-of-
way and improve Marlin Drive for its entire length and provide.
signalized intersections at Martin Drive and the private
commercial driveway.
The City Traffic Engineer ackriowledges these improvements will
meet applicable performance standards.
The City proposes a roundabout at Martin Drive and, perha,ps,
at the private commercial driveway.as well. The roundabouts
will necessitate a frontage road on the south side of Marcola
Road. Consequences for such requirements are as follows:
a. The taking for a public purpose of between .56 and 2.0 acres.
of the applicant's commercially zoned property;.
2.
3.
b. Demolition of 1,200 to 1,700 lineal feet of a publicly
improved arterial street;
ATTACHMENT 8 .., 2
Phon<<=::
(541) 686-8833
Fax:
(541) 345-2034
975 Oak Strtl:t .
Suite 800
Eugene, Oregon
, 97401-3156
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 1147
Eugene, Oregon
97440.1147
Emai!,
info@gleaveslaw.com
Web-Site:
www.gleaveslaw.com _
Frederick A. Batson .
Jon V. Buerstatte
Joshua A. Oark
Daniel P. Ellison
Michael T. Faulconer"
A.J. Ciustina.
Thomas P. E. Herrmann'
Dan Webb Howard"
Stephen 0. Lane
WilliamH.Martin'
. WalterW.Miller
Laura 1. Z. Montgomery'
Tanya C. O'Neil
Standlee G. Potter
Martha). Rodman
Rob,,, s. ~,,11
Douglas R. Schultz
Malcolm H Scott
James W Spickennan
Kate A. Thompson
JaneM. Yates
. Also admitted
in Washington \
. "Also admitted
in'Califomia
.
~.
c. Construction of a new arterial street for a distance of
approximately 1,200 to 1,700 feet generally north of the
existing Marcola Road at the sole expense of the applicant;
d. Construction of a frontage road with improvements on the
south side of Marcola Road at the applicant's expense. (this
road will occupy 17 feet of presently unimproved right-of-
way which exists now as front yard, setback area and buffer
for the residences along the south side of Marcola,Road).
As discussed below, the requirements sought to be imposed by
Condition #27, beyond the practical issues, raise three legal issues:
1. The requirements of the condition are not based on criteria for
approval of a Master Plan as required by Oregon law.
2. The requirements constitute a disproportionate burden upon the
applicant relative to the impact of the development on public
facilities. This is contrary to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in
Dolan v. City of Tieard and subsequent Oregon court and Land
Use Board of Appeals decisions.
3.. The condition would also delegate to the City Engineer the
authority to determine the form and timing of future traffic
control at the private commercial driveway and Marcola Road.
This could include the alternative of a roundabout at that
i,htersection.
Are:ument .
Lack of Authoritv for the Reauirement of Roundabouts
The applicant has proposed traffic signals at the intersection of
Martin Drive and Marcola Road. The infrastructure for this
signalization would be put in place at the time of construction of the
first phase of the development and the signals installed as the
intersection "meets warrants" for traffic signals.
The applicant believes that there is no authority in the criteria
for Master Plari 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 fmancial
burden the requirement places upon the applicant.
!tis necessary that there be a connection between a condition
imposed and the standard served by the condition. This is a case of
whether the condition involves an exaction, as does that here, or not.
See Olson Memorial Clinic v. Clackamas County, 21 Or LUBA 418
2- WRITIEN APPEAL STATEMENT - MARCOLA MASTER PLAN LRP 2007-0028
January 4, 2008
ATTACHMENT 8 - 3
(1991), Sky Dive 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 P2d569 (1994) and J.C. Reeves Corn. v.
Clackamas County, 131 Or App 614,887 P2d 360 (1994).
This site has recently been ~e su1?ject 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 appr9val criteria set forth in SDC 5.13-
125.
The zoning map amendment conditions of approval include
condition 9 which requires:
"'
"Submittal of preliminary design plans with a Master Plan
application addressing proposed mitigation of impacts
discussed in the TlA."
SDC Section 5.13-125 sets forth the Master Plan Criteria of
Approval. The following is 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 with a schedule of the phasing." .
In the TlA submitted at the time of rezoning, it .was shown that
traffic control would be necessary at the intersections of Marcola
Road/Martin Drive and Marcola Road/private commercial driveway.
In order to meet capacity requirements to satisfy Goal 12
Transportation, the applicant has proposed to dedicate the right-of-
way for and to complete all improvements to Martin Drive and provide
the signalized intersections contemplated by the TlA.
. .
The staff report for the December 11, 2007 Planning
Commission meeting states with regard to the proposed signalized
intersections: ..
"... froin i. capacity standpoint eXisting and. proposed
transportation facilities would be sufficient to meet
applicable performance standards...." Staff Report, p. 35.
3- WRITTEN APPEAL STATEMENT - MARCOLA MASTER PLAN LRP 2007-0028
January 4, 2008 . . .
ATTACHMENT 8 - 4
~~
The staff simply prefers roundabouts at these two intersections
on the basis that the City "has had success with roundabout
intersection designs in lieu of signalization." Since the applicant's
proposed improvements satisfy requirements, there is no nexus
between the more onerous altemative and the impact of the
development.
, '
In a memorandum of December 18, 2007, Mr. McKenney,
Transportation Plarining Engineer for the City, attempts to find
authority for the requirement of the roundabout in the language of
SDC 4.2-105.A.1, which speaks to Transportation Infrastructure
Standards. The language quoted in Mr. McKenney's memo is out of
context and is inapplicable to the Marcola Road and Martin Drive
intersection. The "criteria" cited are set forth under the following
introductory paragraph: ~ ,
"a. The following street connection standard shall be
used in 'evaluating street alignment proposals not shown in
or different frqm an adopted plan or that are different from
the ConceptUal Local Street Map...." (Emphasis added.)
The standards cited in the December 18,2007 memorandum
simply are not applicable. Both Marcola Road and Martin Drive are
shown in the proposed location on both the Conceptual Local Street
Map and TransPlan.
, Dolan Issue
Dolan v. City of Tillard, S12'US 374, 375, 391,114 S Ct 2309,
2319-2320,2322, 129 LEd 2d 304 (1994) and a lineaf Oregon ca.ses
which followed require that a local govemment show rough
proportionality, both in nature and extent, between the burden
imposed on the applicant and the impact of the proposed development.
Basica.lly, a private landowner cannot be required to bear a greater
burden than that which would be proportional to the problem caused
by the applicant's development.
Applied to the present situation, the burden that is
proportionate to the impact caused by the proposed development is
the burden to provide a signalized intersection in order to meet
requirements of the StateWide Transportation Goal and City Code. The
City staff has agreed that, from a capacity standpoint, the proposed
signalized intersection would meet applicable performance standards.
A disproportionate burden would be imposed by the requirement of
roundabouts, which would increase the applicant'~ burden in the form
of the cost of re8lignment of Marcola Road and the loss of one-half to
two acres of commercial land. While the cost of two signalized
4- WRITTEN APPEAL STATEMENT - MARCOLA MASTER PLAN LRP 2007-0028
January 4, 2008
ATTACHMENT 8 - 5
.,
'intersections could 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 sO)J1e communities
even use federal funds for roundabouts based upon environmental
considerations. The City does think that roundabouts are safer but
does not specifica.lly identify those concems. Genera.lly, 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 that must
be bome by the public as a whole and not the individual property ~
owner. These are the types of costs that are not proportionate to the
impact of the particular development and, if a more onerous
altemative is to be chosen, public funds would be required to acquire '
the additional right-of-way and for the cost of improvements over and
above the cost of signalized intersections.
Reauirement of Fronta2e Road
Master Plan Condition #27, paragraph 3, would require:
"Provide a preliminary design acceptable to the City
Engineer and the Springfield Fire Marshal for a frontage
road located within the existing Marcola Road right-of-way
that provides safe and efficient access for vehicles using
residential driveways on the south side of Marcola Road
opposite the development site. These improvements as
specified by the City Engineer sha.ll 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 '
d~velopment would "significantly affect" the transportation system.
Marcola Road is classified by the City of Springfield as a minor
arterial roadway and does 'not currently have any access control on the
south side of the roadway, which has resulted in approximately 14
e
5-WRlTTEN APPEAL STATEMENT - MARCOLA MASTER PLAN LRP 2007-0028 ,
January 4, 2008
ATTACHMENT 8 - 6
(. ..
residential driveVfays on that side of the roadway. This conflict with
intersections to Marcola Road was 'inevitable in terms of future
transportation plans. Both the TransPlan and the Conceptual Local
Street Plan~ ca.ll for a collector to be located approximately where
Martin Drive is proposed and to interseCt at MarcolaRoad 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 set forth at page 38 of the Staff
Report to the Planning Commission do not purport to address the
exaction for the'roundabout, just the right-of-way for the proposed
development. The development will be responsible for only a portion of
the traffic utilizing that intersection. Obviously, improvements at the
intersection should not be the sole responsibility of the applicant but
the applicant has not raised this issue relative to providing a
signalized intersection.
I
The Master Plan as proposed by the applicant would in'corporate
the existing south-side driveways to the extent possible with the traffic
signal proposal. The applicant's traffic engineers do not anticipate an
unsafe condition, although some tuming 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 determined by the City Engineer."
This condition wou,J.d 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 intersec'tion, the traffic data indicates the
signalized intersection for the private drive, when put in place as '
warrants require, will operate as well or better than a roundabout.
The condition, as proposed, would not require any particularized
analysis of the proportionality of the burden imposed, as required by
the Dolan line of cases. The condition is, also objectionable in that it
~ 6- WRITTEN APPEAL STATEMENT - MARCOLA MASTER PLAN LRP 2007-0028
January 4, 2008 ' '
ATTACHMENT 8 - 7
constitutes an unlawful delegation of authority by deferring
~development approval to a later stage where there is no opportunity for
public hearing. See Tenlv Properties Com. v. Washington County, 34
Or LUBA 352 (1998).
The objections above made to the roundabout at the Martin ~
Drive intersection are made here: there is no logical connection
between applicable criteria and the requirement and the burden would
be'disproportionate to the impact of creation of a driveway.
Conclusion
The applicant's proposal for signalized intersections address
traffic capacity and safety requirements. The requirement of
roundabouts 'is not only impractical but is an unlawful exaction.
The applicant proposes the attached altemative for Master Plan
Condition #27.
James W. Spl
Of Attomeys for Applicant'
Attachment: Proposed Master Plan' Condition #27
7- WRITTEN APPEAL STATEMENT - MARCOLA MASTER PLAN LRP 2007-0028
January 4, 2008
ATTACHMENT I - 8
, .
APPUCANT'S PROPOSED'MASTER PLAN CONDmON #27
MASTER PLAN CONDmON #27. Prior.to the approval of the Final Master Plan,
the applicant shall:
1) Demonstrate that the improvements specified in the Final Master Plan
shall not require any property dedication south of the existing 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. Final design shall be approved during the'
normal Public Improvement Project (PIP) process associated with
proposed Phase 1 infrastructure development.
3) Provide financial security acceptable to the City Engineer in an amount
equal to the cost of signalized traffic control to provide for future traffic
control 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 Spring1ield
. Development Services Department
225 FdIh Street
Springfield, OR 97477
. Phone: (541) 726-3759
Fax: (541) 726-3689
SPRINGFIELt; ,
e Received:
JAN .' ~ 2008
'Appeals Application, Type IV
AppealofPlamUng Commission Decision to City Council
~ OrIGinal S~f!1lttal
Name, Journal Number and Date of the Decision Being ~ealed ~ r.g' ('e..t'i Z.
LR P 200(-0002~ UPL..~ 2(),2001
l\~,
I: Ii (JIIV
re~
b;j~
Date of Filing the Appeal
~~ Gia..r' LI :2 .20D8
(Ibis date mUllt be within 15~lendar days of the date of the decision.)
Please list'below, in summary form, the specific issues being raised in the appeal. These should be the
. specific points where you feel the Approval Authority erred in making the decision, i.e., what approval
criterion or criteria you allege to have been in..,.,.._...:ately applied .
I~e#l 0 r~-e:.v-S re.+~,\ re:.S ;~~-t1 3 ho~
, IVY'. rf(')~-;b -\ ho..::r ~e. 0../ r ~'P)-€.A-fi,\-':;t
~sue#2 c..~c.-e.rn -\-l,d7 (o...hd ~ '1'" w;s-efu-.
I -t -tR.Q..Y' ~ lIS' C1-f'\ lu ~ 0 i'YI cA c..k., 0\- l +0 U s-:P/ .
Issue 10 r ro i e.. c::* vJ () ~. r d po SS'j 6; l..1 , a.d lI'er s-eJ 1"
~ -\--\J) - c.k v<.-r b ~ re.n e,waJL D1CJJ\,
Issue#4 Po.5~ I bi \ 'dc,-- at' "MP~d ;nq rti~ess'J~
Vv' 0 '-'I. I d D f" 0 v....-f... '\ n DOli) l"'I"" + fA rl i1 , -f 0 L:fK is'' D n:1\_e-c...T
(Lis! any additional issues being~ attiched sheet) ,-
i () ar~
, The nndenigned aclmowledges that the above appeal form and its attacllments have been read, the
requirements for filing an apJl""I of. land ose decision is undentooil and states that the information
supplied is eorrec:t and accurate.' '
AppeUant'sName De) V) VlR L/2..h-f."'Z... ) ',,P/Jone 7 ~( '7 - J 1(>
Address ) !;L(LIESt- Sprlncd'i~Jle /:Jr ,q)'--I? /
Statementofr............-r'.~, ~(':... (, l~:~J, 1M t- JS -~"?:(iP19f{f.rd'
Signature ~ ~ ',K~rcU.h-f
li'",. Offirp. TT~p. Ontv~
Journal No, Zo N Zodl-ex:;c:.o 3 Received By
r7-,:J2~3o,-.:Jo 7Z.- I Boo
Assessor'sMapNo.-,'7-o3-':I"i-1/ Tax Lot No. n_ Z~r,'-'
Date Accepted as Complete
'::pA,3 2000 - 0 0:J3f:,
ATTACHMENT 8 - 10
"
,......~
City of Springfield
Development Services Department
225 Fifth Street' ~
Springfield, OR 97477
Phone: (541) n6-3759
Fax: (541) 726-3689
SPRINGFIE' ~
,
Date Received:
Appeals Application, Type IV
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to City Council
1~-4~
Name, Journal Number and Date of the Decision Being Appealed Original Submittal ~. , Z'!i''''
11Jf5:'tFp Pt,4,V TV.lJt:: liT AP"LC~7fq1;.I/ t.RP 2oo7-0Cl02Y.' ~ "I. ro
, I
kc.. 2D: 2.007; · /);!0V'...c-." 47' HMo>h4 MhiflrlJDW"';,
Date of Filing the Appeal
~~4. 20tslIf'
(fhis date must be within 15 calendar days of the date of the decision.)
Please list below, in summary form, the specific issues being raised in the appeal. These should be the
specific points where you feel the Approval Authority erred in making the decision, Le., what approval
criterion or criteria' you allege to have been inal'l',ul'.:ately applied.
Issue#l r: ~-;~:~ 3L:>C S;2 - i'~ rSitL oHutl.(I'd.c)
Issue #2
Issue #3
Issue #4
(List any additional issues being appealed on an attached sheet.)
The undersigned acknowledges that the ahoveappeal 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~~7l. ~ <;'~Pt;qa..b OT/~S ~l4t""?'tr
Appellant's Name -? h \' L r 4:" . N fMriA~ c.... : Phone <zq S'- LtJ '3 7
Address 2';" I) ,~" Yvt ( ~ ( ..0KSVtJ.t. lA
Statem~t orIiit~ -:;j,p '~ ~..cu...---1d e v'" ~y ~(~A\ J/J )
Signature Vd1lll.1 C.u A _ en//'/ ~ ~.
~. ,i - - --
14'nr Off'iriP TTcp O'JiV.
JournalNo. 7t1rJ'7I\r'l9:~.D_OO(),*- Recei~edBy'
~30-oo . 1'000
~sessor'sMapNo. ~ 17-D3~1-,?-/I ' TaxLotNo,~oD
Date Accepted as Complete
"fR..,Y7.ff'j(,,- n(")I"l?'(",
~
ATTACHMENT 8 - 11
, IoW,{ <9? (afJ-lAIy' (jl<JlUtv 'tM tf{u ci"lyof
'~Y~J&/d9 r- C!ou)d ~tf ..[tNvG '/-0 heavUU
If I Wou \J 0+ l19t!~~, ' "
'. ',l1lWtwc-S \tU) IUO-f.1,~ p()J+e.C\. ON 4C<l ~U2(6Vb
'('O~cl ~(Q(2lv7' C p~yt-L, p~ 2~YC:5uvvc.d
. ~-'-)
by 5DC 5.1..'115"' /;.-. .~
-r I('\l,~ l.vc rR. rJ.uuruu.... 'T vud
~ I fXJVJ-
, '
.., .
ATTACHMENT 8 - 12
...."'<
Date Received:
1-4-08
JAN -~ m
To City of Springfield
Original Submittal KL
4:ZSp~
Re: Appeal feeJor '''Villages' at Marcola Meadows"'Master Plan Type ill application,
LRP 2007-00028, decision of 12-20-07
The city of Springfield has mentioned an appeal fee, The. amount of the fee is to be taken
'from "Development Code Application Fees" blurb. I have copies of the one "Effective 12-3-
, 2007," There is nothing on thissheet~ which directly addresses' an appeal from the planning
\ commission, Oii' 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 al1swering them, ~
At this meeting Gary Karp said the appeal fee was $250. The only $250 fee on the ~
.aforesaidsheet 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, ClaraShevchinski, and myself is another $6,762 for a total of $11,270:
I argue that~ this amount is excessive, arbitrary, captious, and unlawfuL I read the statute that
~states how the amount 'of fee should be determined,
I understand that'the City may wave'the appeal fees and it is petitioned herein for this to
be done.
Pursuant to Oregon Revised Statute it is herein petitioned that the fees be waved as all
of the attach~d appeals are bundled under the North Springfield Citizens' Committee which has
been duly recognize as such by the City, '
u.~
Nick Shevchynski
U~~
-
Nick Shevchynski
North Springfield Citizens Committee
"
ATTACHMENT 8 - 13 ~
'?..',
Date Received: '
JAN - ~ 2008
1
Assignments of Error
I KL.
Original submittl= .If: z.<Sp"'"
1. The appeals applicatipn 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 ~ arid an almost impossibility. This application for appeal procedure is unduly
restrictive, contradictory, confusing, and unlawful.
4, The City seems to believe in a policy that it doesn't have to abide by the law unless it
gets caught and litigated. The City states that if an issue or violation was not raised below it can
not be "appealed~' to the next level of rubber stamping. Under the plain error rule unpreserved
claims of error do not necessarily prevent them form being raised on review. An "error of law
apparent on the face of the record" falls under the planCerror rule.~ ,.The Oregon Supreme Court,
issued an opinion on Dec. 13, '07 in State v Fults overturning the Oregon Appeals Court because
the plain error rule was not applied to unpreserved claims of error.
, ,
5. Karp's 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
McEach"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 mail"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 questions-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 -14
~
'-
(
:2
8, During the 12-20-07 hearing no new material was suppose to be'~introduced in order to
keep out public comment. New material was introduced. At one point lawyer 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 maimer pursuant toSDC 5.2-115.
9, Kinda difficult to preserve an error as stated hereinabove when one is not allowed to
speak. The issue of speech is so one-sided it's ludicrous. Rick Satre droned on and on for hours
and hours and on and ,on, Gary Karp droned on for hours, The City's staff droned on for hours
and hours. Commissioner Evans droned on, Commissioner Carpenter droned on for hours and
on and on, The public got :3 minutes! It's obvious the government doesn't want to hear from
the public, the decisions were already made, The issue is that the city staff and friends control
what is placed on the record by not notifying the public and additionally allowing supporters to
have their unrestrictive say. In my opinion this process is just wasting tax money and creating
jobs and retirement benefits for staff and lawyers~
~,
10, Commissioner Nancy Moore was not qualified to vote. She told me she drove on this part
of Marc 01 a Rd, daily to her job at a grade school up :M;arcola. On the last day she said she didn't
know if there were sidewalks on this, part of Marcola, She stated with what appeared to be an
attempt at humor that the City would take 17 ft. from ,the front of citizens' properties, It's
suppose to' be on the recorded record, This is shameful,
11. The issue of the waterway was never properly addressed. Rather than have Sunny
Washburn and/or her sidekicks Kim and Phil of the city staff answer questions the city staff
presented a y.oung man who acted clueless. Or maybe it 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 opporunity for comment on all of
them.
14. There was nothing that addresses what will be d6nerwith the bike lanes which are part
of the city!s overall plan, Especially since it's planned to have them torn out.
15. 'There was nothing that addresses what will be done with the bus stops which are part of
the city's overall plan, Especially since it's planned to have them'torn out.
, ,
'ATTACHMENT 8 - 15
,
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 AmericasJ.argest major ret~ilers. Yet Gary Karp and staff
advocate major highway expansions to accumulate alleged non-existing rise in traffic.
21 The city alleges it has alligator tears and no money for street repairs yet has more money
to tear-up perfectly good sidewalks, curbs, etc. in order to please a developer and investors in
Reno who want someone else to p,ay for their improvements,
22, Have I said written notices of the hearing and decisions were not mailed nor posted timely
pursuant to Oregon Statute? .,
23. What. 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.
l1
Nick Shevchynski
Nick Shevchynski,
North Springfield Citizens' Committee
ATTACHMENT 8 - 16
Affidavit
I, Nick Shevchynski, first being duly sworn on oath say:
I walked/jogged the perimeter of the former Pierce property
which is the proposed "'Villages' at Marcola Meadows" on, almost a
daily basis throughout Nov. & Dec. of '07 and during the Marcola
Meadows Master Plan application case # CRP 2007-00028.. At no time
was there a "sign approved by the Director, on the subj ect
property" as required by SDC 5.2-115.
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
DUSl1N HAHN
, '} NOTARY PUBUC -OREGON
" COMMISSIONNO.412362
MY C~N EXPIRES, NOV. 29.2010
flv-1h
Date Received:
JAN - 4 2008
Original Subinittal t< L
Lt:~1I':\
ATTACHMENT 8 -17
'.
-Date
ceived:
SPRINOFr
City of Springfield
Development Services Department
, 225 Fifth Street '
Springfield, OR 97477
Phone: (541) n6c3759
Fax: (541)726-3689
\..
. l
Appeals Application, Type IV
Appeal ofPIanningCommission Decision to City Council
Name, Journal Number and Date of the Decision Being Appealed
tfA-S-"'::a. f'lJA-A/ ME.JIL tf.pfJt/CA71~,' L;ep
]:)Pc.. 20, W07 t./dk.(/.('.,.;;f m~ ~<!JUJ;'
/
JAM - 4 2008
i<<'
Original SubmitV>1 ,
.i.j:Z5fiY1
2..007 - o~:z.?'
/
Date of Filing the Appeal
~ . If' ~Dt'
, /
(This date must be within 15 calendar days oCthe date of the decision.)
Please list below, in summaxy fonn, the specific issues being raised in tbe appeal. These should be the
specific points where you feel the Approval Authority erred in making the decision, Le., what approval '
criterion or criteria you allege to have been inappropriately applied.
Issue #1 c:;a..",.P t1,4... ~~ ~ PIz,'{''ro ~)U. /.J~ ~~, ~lu..'r
U.....f-,.' Wv;: <c~,,_ .~J Melt ~<!-(~. ~ o-.J 6)~
ISSUe#2':-l~_", .2/..('-'..~.,...;;f..L +k;,. <;~ ~../
~bl-k '
Issue #3
Issue #4
{List any additional issues being appealed on an attached sheet)
The undersigned acknowledges that the above appeal form and its attacbmeuts 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., t-41.. /.kvK ~"I"'1.t-.y.{ ct-f;J"'--I Co1'<-'~~
Appellant'sNameC~ ~'wsjA':;, Phone 7+6 ~:1(,e,)
Address 2.-?>, S- t1A.~ 1Jd.
Statement ofIn~rest ~I'J~ O_.......;:.~J;./p.;f /u.;nd~ b'J- /JvY>..:f-..
'--..--" .
Signature C':....-IJ1'""c...../._J. I'
"For omrp. TT!l;p On'v~
.
Journal No. 7..0 rJ d..DO S - ODD6t-,_
, /1-0;2-30' O'll
Assessor s Map No. .J1.:."';'~-' 4. ,]
Date Accepted as Complete~
Received By
Tax Lot No.
7L I '600
.;J:t,tV)
:at .-
PRS200G -{)o03~
ATTACHMENT 8' - 18
~ ~
1-4-08
To City of Springfield
Date Received:
JAN -~ m
~c
Original Submittal KL
..Lf:ZSp~
Re: Appeal fee for "'Villages' at Marcola Meadows" ,Master Plan Type III application,
LRP 2007-00028, decision of 12-20-07 ./
'\
The city of Springfield has mentioned an appeal fee. The amount of the fee is to be taken
from "Development Code Application Fees" blurb, I have copies of the one "Effective 12-3-
2007," There is nothing on this sheet which directly addresses an appeal from the planning
commission, On Wednesday, 1-2-08 a meeting, was held to explain and "ans',Ver" questions as
to hdw much property the City will take and/or destroy and how badly the residents were going
to get screwed by the City and the' developer, It was reported that the City danced and deflected
questions rather than answering them, '
At,this meeting Gary Karp said the appeal fee was $250, The only $250 fee on the
aforesaid sheet is an "Appeal of Type II Director's Decision (7) ORS 227.175." We are not
appealing a director's decision but the planning commission so this does not apply. If it does
apply it should be "Appeal of Type III Decision to City Council" as this removes "Director's"
from the fee description and this is a Type III Decision not Type II, Thusly Newman Trustee
would pay $2,254 as he is appealing no notice. Dennis Hunt is, another $2,254 for the same
issue, Wes Swanger, Clara Slievchinski, and my~elf 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 shouid 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 underthe North Spring'field Citizens' Committee ~hich has
been duly recognize as such by the City. ,
r
ATTACHMENT 8- 19
!l~
Nick Shevchynski
11~~
-
Nick Shevchynski
North Springfield Citizens Committee
Appeals Application, Type IV
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to City Council
SPRINGFr
.-
City of Springfield
DevelopmentServices Department
225 FiflhStreet
Springfield, OR 97477
Phone: (541) n6-3759
, Fax: (541) 726-3689
r
",
JAN - 4 2008
Original Submittal '~
""f:z5fil'1
Name, Journal Number and Date of the Decision Being Appealed
t1A-S71='R fJJ.~A.1 ME-EL tfpPL/U(Jl't:V': L/(!P
]:)Pc.. 20. '2007~ I./;//r.yc .::.::t-.~ m~ !'U.Radd/J/'3
r
Date of Filing the Appeal A--. .'-1, J-.(:) ot'
(Tbisdate must be within 15 calendar days of the date of the decision.)
2007 - 1::)0<::12.7;
Please list below, in summary form, the specific issues beirig 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 inllt-}'.v}'. :ately applied.
, ~
Issue #1 ~ 14-. ~.t' r..I /Jt",'{'io. f/..{. tU~ ~i-.. l4,"c..'r
J{......:f--.. W~ ~,;....,...." h<.j M~& ~C".:.(~.' cu.J 6'{~
Issue#2 ~..l~ 2.J/"'~;"""'N'-6.L ~'t,. <=;~ ",-~i1
~~ " ,.'1-,' . ,.,
Issue #3
\...
Issue #4
(List any additional issues being appealed o~ an attached sheet.)
The undersigned acknowledges that the above appeal form and its attachments have heen read, the
requirements for filing an appcal of a land use decision is understood and states thaHhe information
supplied is correct ~nd accurate. f-J.,..ft.. ~r.."S~~,.f;J""-! Co....-'~
Appellant'sNameC~ ~}."'Sf.,,; ,...~. Phone 746~.lGc:J
Address ;2..}IS' /IU..~ M.
Statement of Interest J1'r-~ O~"""';:',Lr;J..:t- ,'u,,,4d /;, JJ~r'.l.J-.
Signature C..,,/l-L'C.....l. .,J . f '
li'nr orw-IJI TTlQflI Onl~.
Journal No.:ZOrJd-.DOS - ODOO/Q..
" l'l-t;>J-30'OD
Assessor sMapNo._.L7-"-:\~,,<;, U
Date Accepted.as Complete
Received By
Tax Lot No.
1L I 'gOD
';/-:>'('1>')
~
PR;J'2.00b -{)003~
ATTACHMENT 8' - 20
1-4-08
To City of Springfield
'" .,---'
Date Received:
JAN -~ m
~ Original Submntal KL-
4:ZSp"l
Re: Appeal fee for "'Villages' at MarcolaMe~adows" 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." 'Thereis 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-"imswer." 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," Weare 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 am~unt is excessive, arbitrary, captious, and unlawful. I read, the statute that
'states how the amount of fee should be determined.
I understand that the CitY may wave the appeal fees and it is petitioned herein for this to
, be done.
Pursuant to Oregon Revised Statute it is herein petitioned that the fees be waved as all
of the attached appeals are bundled under the North Springfield Citizens' Committee which has
' ,
been duly recognize as~such by the City,
, (
ATTACHMENT 8 - 21
!4,~
Nick Shevchynski
I{~~
-
Nick Shevchynski
North Springfield Citizens Committee
"
Date Received:
JAN - 4 2008
1
Assignments of Error
Orlgll1al Submittal
KL
'+: 2.'Sp""
"
1. The appeals application states that, "The Planning Division staff can be of assistance in
helping you fill out this section." Since it doesn't state the staff "will" be of assistance I asked
how and/or what ~sistance? The question was met with silence,
2. ". . . all of the sections on the opposite side of this page must be filed out." There is no
opposite side,
3. Explairiing "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 urilawful. '
4, the City seems to believe in a policy that it doesn't have to abide by the, law llnless it
gets caught andlitigated. 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 ~ot necessarily prevent them ,form being raised on review.' An "error of law
apparent on the face of the record" falls under the planlerror rule. The Oregon Supreme Court
issued an opinion on Dec, 13, '07 in State v Fults overturning the Or'egon Appeals Court because
the plain error rule was not applied to unpresef'ied 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 thatthis was not done, "Wait," you will say, "This wasn't preserved," It's an error
of law appar~nt on the face of tJie record, Don't you follow your owri laws? Never mind that
question. In any event it was preserved, Page 7, Karp's 12/20107 memorandum: ". . . and the'
applicant not contacting the property owners prior to the public hearing," See attached affidavit.
Was this a procedural or statutory requirement? Lawye'r Leahy may say procedural in order to
ignore the requirement and I say it's statutory because it's the law and your law, Golf v
McEachron,
6, There was a public hearing on this matter on 12-11-07. Because the.record was still open
for public comment the public should have been granted the opportunity for comment. Notice
of this hearing was never timely mailed as required by SDC 5.2-115.
7. The issue of schools being overcrowded was addressed by a couple of letters from a
couple of alleged officials. It was written that there is and will be no "overcrowding" without
ever defining what that means, They say there is no overcrowding on one hand and beg for
more taxes because of overcrowding on the other. These people should have testified on the
record allowing the commission to ask questio~and the public to hear and see them~ It was an
'error not to consider that after absorbing the students from the proposed developme~t~ any
additional students from anyw~ere 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 hecause new material was introduced, Commissioner Carpenter added additional new
language to the "plan" which the public was not allowed to comment on. Notice of this hearing
being open was not mailed in a timely manner pursuant to SDC 5,2-115,
9. 'Kinda difficult to preserve an error as stated hereinabove when one is not allowed to
speak,. The issue of speech is so one-sided it's ludicrous. Rick Satre droned on and on for hours
and hours and on and on. Gary Karp droned on for hours. The City's staff droned on for hours'
and hours. Commissioner Evans droned on. Commissioner Carpenter droned on for hours ~d
on and on. The'public got 3 minutes! 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 n~tifying the public and addiiio~ally 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 andJawyers.
10, 'Commissioner Nancy Moore was not qualified to vote, She told me she drove on this part
of Marcola Rd. daily to her job at a grade school up Marcola. On the last day she said she didn't
know if there were sidewalks on this part of Marcola, She stated with what appeared to be an
attempt at humor that the City would take 17 ft. from the front of citizens' properties. It's
suppose to be ,on the recorded' record, This is shameful.
11. The issue of the waterWay was never properly addressed. Rather than have Sunny
Washbilrn and/or her sidekicks Kim and Phil of the city staff answer questions the city staff
presented a y.oung man who acted clueless, Or maybe it 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, , Thete 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 diem torn out.
15, There, was nothing that addresses what will be done with the bus stops which are part of
the city's overall plan. Especially since it's planned to have ,them tom out.
ATTACHMENT 8 - 23
3
16, There was/is nathing, hat a peep, abaut the impact .an the environment and/or
environmental cantrals,
17, There was nathing that reasamilily described the city's final actian and it was nat mailed.
18. There was na input and na .oppartunity ta questian .or camment an what the utility
providers' pasitians are. Utilities are part .of the city's .overall plan. '
19. The city, staff cuts-aff public camment and the raising .of any "ne~" issues because it's
claimed the staff are nat able ta .open the recard far rebuttal. This is false. The recard may be
.opened by statute and .otherwise whenever the staff .or Jae Leahy feels like it. The staff and Jae
Leahy cantral everything.
20. Gary Karp and Rick Satre argued that the number .of trips and thusly the traffic Will be
belaw the arbitrary alleged unprovided copies .of traffic studies with the additian .of 512+ hames
" I
and the canstanttraffic due ta .one .of Americas..1argest majar retailers. Yet Gary Karp and staff
advacate' majar highway e~ansians ta accumulate alleged nan-existing rise in traffic,
21 The city alleges it has alligatar tears and na maney far street repairs yet has more maney
ta tear-up perfectly gaad sidewalks; curbs, etc. in order ta ple~se a develaper and investors in
Rena wha want sameane else ta pay far their improvements,
22. Have I saidwritlen natices of the hearing and decisians were nat mailed nar pasted timely
pursuant ta Oregan Statute?
23. What. abaut thase fire hydrants? 'Purs'uant ta a caurt .order by a federal judge, a
maintenance repart was furnished and half .of the hydrants an Marcala Raad were nan-
aperatianal. Fire pratectian is part .of the city's .overall plan and this was nat eve!) mentianed. .
24, This issue .of traffic is .one .of being relative. Is n~t traffic rated by varia us levels? Which
level is it naw and what level will it be? This is part .of the city's .overall plan and it was never
addressed. '
Nick Shevchynski
Nick Shevchynski,
Narth Springfield Citizens' Cammittee
ATTACHMENT 8- 24
,-
Affidavit
I, Nick Shevchynski, first being duly sworn on oath say:
I walked/jogged the perim"eter of the forme):' Pierce property
which is the proposed "'Villages' at Marcola Meadows" on almost a
'daily basis throughout Nov., & Dec. of '07 and during the Marcola
Meadows Master Plan application case # CRP 2007-00028. At no time
was there a "sign approved by the Director, on the subject
property" as required by SDC 5.2-115.
,
/ll~
Nick Shevchynski
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me a Notary for the state of Oregon
on'this 2nd day of January, 2008.
I~ OFFICIAl SEAL
,- . DtJST1N HAHN
\ ' NOTARY PUBUC -OREGON
i " . COMMISSION NO. 412362 '
' MY OMl.tISSlON EXPIRES NOV. 29, 2010
I
~0h~
---
Date ReCeived:
~,
JAN - ~ 2lDJ
original SULiliHlGLl.~ ' ,
f: z.s- .
!
ATTACHMENT 8 - 25
City of Springfield
Development Services Department
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Phone: (541) n6-3759
Fax: (541) 726-3689
SPRINGFIf'-.J
ived:
Appeals Application, Type IV
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to Cily Council
JAN - HOoa
OJ,
Original tiUOnul.... . ~
'f; Z'5f""-
Name, Journal Number and'Dat~ oftbe Decision Being Appealed
ma5'J'" e,.y- ? ~ <[;' II?~W ~ P t; LQ1, D"'" f. PP ,.:J(Y57 - o~R 5
TJr-> C' . ;(0 I ..1 /)6~ I \.). \ \ IIL\,,~ ~1 (Y\6uv'C'ft"" Ih eotJJ11AJS'
Date of Filing tbe Appeal
(Ibis date must be within 15 calendar days of the date of the decision.)
Please list below, in summazy 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 in4pI"VI'.;ately applied.
'. . '
Issue #1 Ih", P~O'D():;..J (Y\QV"t61t1 1<1 ,,,^prnJ"-II'f"\Q,,-<l ~rc;r""-tr,.)l[( ~1~ o...~
\. \ ~,' \ ~ .,
.,~\('7f,o/>""'''c n~ ,_^~':...... ~ --, """'"'-\ ';)\r..,o,,'.r-L~ @S' o1~l.f:' me. ""om f?~o.a\ ,
\ ~. - , \ A \, cl \ - -- U
Issue#2..lli'\C'_~_~~, '''' ~""-;" ,,1<1 ~ ~~ - s;:r ~ _L -Irr-., I~) IJ, , . '
~e. '0e......,.... r--...qff!"J..,\.~,_,......"<::.,,R,.l L,Tl..t''''''''''<;.,A ff1,,~,\\..k'd ,-"",~~I\)r-"..d~
... \ ,\r,- \'>.., \ ' ....,...... .t-. \ r;-{" 1
Issue #3 ~hp ",,:,",\,y.~,('a "~ ~t'^('P"<: <o>rar-'l\"P, ,tv\n.I"" " ~,
'\'(\~C'\\A.l:<' 't'..".,\"....~ l..Jo...~ y-,,;;:( dc,",-"1_ ~<,c"........L",-~ q:;'-c~_,'\vJ~
-I '\
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 tiling ail appeal of a land nse decision is understood and states that the infonnatlon
supplied is correct and accurate. ' Co
APpellant'sName~:.:), n SiA\<L,,\~H" , PhO~/SL(./) 7'1hR5'/,~ '
Address.4.c.lr..S " (J'. ~. ' S.ffJ~ "A--D,P-1.J: !Jr-,,~t)f\ 9'7<17..7 .
Statement of Interest Pr" D~lG Ou ),^,Vr cl.~ 1:.1 'hu ~t (" l ~\ft.0""^
Signature IJJlIJ! ,&{.Jj "~'~1'A , ' I ~ fJ1J...... p~
Wnw" Offirp. TT~p. nn'r~
JoumalNo. ZOtJ2tb~-Oc:ool Received By
'. 11-02-~O~OO I €:po
Assessor's Map No. /1-o?;--7G,""II Tax Lot No. ~,'2,()l)
Date Accepted as Complete '
. .-
VI?.J'2..CC0 - coa~
ATTACHMENT. 8 - 26
-<
Appeals Application, Type IV
Appeal qfPlanning Commission Decision to City Council
City of Springfield '
, Development Services Department
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Phone: (541) n6-3759
Fax: (541) 726-3689,
N ~J IN b dD fth D ., B' A al d '" Original SubmittP1
ame, ouma urn er an ate 0 e' eClSlon emg ppe e '
I1As?l:1? II.w J',-p,; III AI'I'.IIc,J;T7o,s,/ ;,LI?P 2.007-CJOO2.V..,
~.. .1.<:: l.c:Io'7 "U./IIl,f..er' a-- J.{jtecOIA /1J5;4~dJw<;" "
JAN - 4 2008
KL .
.l.h Z.'Sfr>)
Date of Filing the Appeal
......l/f,U V. ?c:J.::J 7
(I'his date must be within 15 calendar days of the date of the decision.)
Please list below, ili summary fonn, the specific issues being raised in the appeal. These should be the
specific points where you feel the Approval Authority erred in making the decision, i.e., what approval
criterion or criteria you alle~e to have been in~t't'.vt'.;ately applied.
Issue #3
, ,
5eR ,4-7lIl<.w,<-tc~/ AfFltM,V{"J- -~~ .a~ 1'>1#20(1 ,
I
I
I
I
/
I
"
Issue # I
Issue #2
Iss!}e #4'
~ (List any additional issues being appealed on an attached sheet)
.. . '.
The ondersigned acknowledges that the ahove appcal form and its attachments have been read, the
reqnirements for filing an appeal of a bnd use decisio'n is understood and states that the information
supplied is correct and accnrate. '. " ~ !kit. <;'I'/1I~fF1S.l:> C'77~€"'.s Ct)'...UfIT'~
AppelIant'sName J),Ck StevC/.fI.t.l<;Kt ' Phone )lOu..e-
Address '1.. ~ 47 11M e.Oi.A fu.t..,..,
Statement of Interest ' A b~ACfi1.J7' 'fW';I'De7/-'
Signature IAcPA -""
v -
ow/i1l
--
, I
lfnr Offit'P TT~p n"l~.
JoumalNo. Zo1J;;(I:O~-OOa>8 Received By
1,-02--.30'00 1&,00
Assessor's Map No. l7-n,,\-2'!'-rl TaxLotNo.---=:2.,::>;.o1)
Date Accepted as CompIete
If..-
t-K! t....ocG.Cf){)3h ATTACHMENT 8 - 27
1-4-08
To City of Springfield
Date Received:
JAN -~ m
Original Submittal KL-
-4:ZSpt'l>j
Re: Appeal fee for "'Villages' at Marcola Meadows" Master Plan Type III application,
LRP 2007-00028, decision of 12-20-07
The city of Springfield has mentioned an appeal fee, The amount of the fee is to be taken ,
from "Development Code Application Fees" blurb:, I have copies of the one "Effective 12-3-
2007." There is nothing on this sheet which directly addresses an appeal from the planning
commission, On Wednesday, 1-2-08 a meeting was held to explain and "answer" questions as
to how much property the City,will take and/or destroy and how badly the residents were going
to get screwed by the City and the developer. It was reported that the City danced and deflected
questions rather than answering them.
At ,this meeting Gary Karp said the appeal fee. was $250. The only $250 fee on the
aforesaid sheet is an "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 Decisionnot 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 deterinined. .
I understand that the City may wave the appeal fees and it is petitioned herein for this to
be done,
Pursuant to Oregon,Revised Statute it is herein petitioned that the' fees be waved as all
of the, attached appeals are bundled under, the North Springfield Citizens' Committee-which has
been duly recognize as such by the City,
'.
ATTACHMENT 8 - 28
/;!,~
Nick Shevchynski
11~~
-,
Nick Sl:J.evchynski
North Springfield Citizens Committee
Date Received:
JAN - 4 2008
1
Assignments of Error
Original Submitt,,1
~KL.
if : Z.'6p ..,
1. The appeals application states that; "The Planning Division staff can be of assistance in
helping you fill out this section," Since it doesn't state the staff" "will" be of assistance I asked
how and/or what assistance? The questio'n 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 iss1.!e or violation was not raised below it can
not be "appealed" to the next level of rubber stamping, Under the plain error rule unpreserved
claims of error do not necessarily prevent them, form being raised on review, An "error of law
apparent on the face of the record" falls under the plan/error rule, The Oregon Supreme Court
issued an opinion on Dec, 13, '07 in State v 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 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 12/20107 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 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 aliowing the commission to ask questiornnd 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 he introduced in order to
keep out public comment. New material w~ introduced, At one p~int 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 Ev'ans droned on, Commissioner Carpenter droned on for hours and
on and on. ,The public got 3 minutes! It's obvious the government doesn't want to hear from
the public, the decisions were already made, The issue is that the city staff and friends control
what is placed on the record by not notifying the public and additionally allowing supporters to
have their unrestri'ctive say, In my opinion this proces~ is just wasting tax money and creating
jobs and retirement benefits for staff and lawyers,
10, Commissioner Nancy Moore was not qualified to vote, She told me she drove on this part
of Marc 01 a Rd, daily to her job at a grade school up Marcola. On the last day she said she didn't
know if there were sidewalks on this part of Marcola. She stated with what appeared to .be an
attempt at humor that the City, would take 17 ft. from the front of citizens' properties, It's
suppose to be on the recorded record, This is shameful.
11. The issue of ~ the waterway was never properly addressed. Rather than have Sunny
Washburn and/or her sidekicks Kim and Phil of the city staff answer questions the city staff
presented a 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 cio/ manager's office "they are all
engineers. "
12,
, ,
Written notice of the decision was not mailed.
13,
them,
There were about 56 additions~made without equal opportunity for comment on all of
14: There was nothing that addresses what will be done with the bike lanes which are part
of the city's overall plan, Especially since it's planned to have tl1.em 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-offpublic 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, mqney 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 n~ot mailed nor posted timely
pursuant to Oregon Statut'e?
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 ahd what level will it be? This is part of the city's overall plan and it was never
addressed, '
,l1
Nick Shevchynski
Nick Shevchynski,
North Springfield Citizens' Committee
ATTACHMENT 8 - 31
Affidavit
I, Nick ShevChynski, first being duly sworn on oath say:
I walked/jogged the ~erimeter of the former Pierce property
which is the prop'osed "'Villages' 'at Marcola Meadows" on almost a
daily basis throughout Nov. ..& Dec. of '07 and during the Marcola
Meadows Master Plan application case # CRP 2007-00028. At no time
was the're a "sign approved by the Director, on the subject
prop,erty" as required by SDC 5.2-115.
a~
Nick Shevchynski
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me a Notary for the State of Oregon
on this 2nd day of January, 2008.
. OFRCIAL SEAl
, DUSTIN HAHN
\ ...-' NOTARY PUBUC - OREGOt,
COMMISSION NO.41236:!1
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES NOV: 29. 2IlHl .
~~I
\
Date Received:
~
JAN -42008
Original Submi~l )(L
I.f:Z5pfY\
'\
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
SIPRINGFlr _J
, ~ . Original Submittal
Name, Journal Number and Date of the Decision Bemg Appealed
Mk::rm fLw W~ 1lL ;1;pt-lCAnav;' L-I{P .2oa7-()'i)o~p; ])Ec. J.D. ~oo7.'
, J
" Ui~c.- ~~a ,4..,.. Hkd:..oLA N ;;Ar-,o,c, ,/
JAN - 4 2008
K~
4:1..<7'p""
"
, Date of Filing the Appeal
iYJrt.J.. ~ U,(] !
(This date must be within 15 calendar days of the date oftbe decision.)
Please list below, in summary form, the specificJssues 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 iD"f'f',uf',;ately applied.
r
Issue #1 NOtlJOTlc..~ ,?oS'l~O of """~E",-,-vQ as
re'~I--\;KD.Jb", S])~ 5,:A.-11S:- C/
IssUe #2 _~ Q,.'UA..~ 4.Ji:'1A.....' f-- ." /,...., ...~,;:-A/T' /2lJ tM-cK
Issue #3
Issue #4
'(List any additjonal 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 nnderstood and states that the information
snpplied is ~orrect and accurate; t(,;,k.. POItl;f <;;PflJ~4b Cnil,f',u.5 C.......:,~
APpelIant's~ame:D-enn~~ H-u ""'+- . Phone S'-I{ 1-7 <f t.'-~)?D
Address "2, 0 V.,y Y (lL A/\/ P A A v-e.... <;~1f\... ~ LJ
Staternentof~l:sr () je, b4.~ G Y'-c<...J'1-h 6<!:J........ddfi.<-1 f1k>r.JZrzT:J V....>/"e~
'Signat'~~o 4 5f'~/n.j .{',."IJ f''''-''I'Mzi:; ".....~,' ,
~~ }l-.<..lA~~ ~
. , . - ~.._-
"
l1n. 01fjr" IT... o.nI.v'
Journal No. Zo tJ 2Qn5J. -ryYln5
, I'I-Ol-:?O-OO
As~essor sMap No. :.ll:/l:>;' J"'-. - i I
DateAccepted as Complete',
Received By
, TL U?oO
Tax Lot No. ? :>; 1'1(1
~ .-
P~2.co0-0003h , ATTACHMENT 8 - 33
T~ ~]4 y'I "'';'''j Cp,*,,,,,,q.fLoO-"l de/\:~ ~ ~ ....
OrpC>/z-j4'^'~tJ -to fatr!-'T;c..,~,...T~ bJ /U '" 7 f2v II"'''-'J
rk ,:-z... 0 ,",eo,""\. )O.J..) <2:;' Je,E:" g ....... I (Z.l '^J f <0 S <:r, ""j c.p. j1Ja 'i'h, ~
^ I I' - r0 "5l1C ~ Z- - 11 I;.
0" Y" ~",-n..., "'J f \ "
.:::c.. ),'ve.rv eA..IZ...J~ l/l-DfAJ~~d J.e.~lc>~~...:t a.....J
J.a.~..c2.. .0....... fZ..-.- 5: h-ee-'h a P-f.e.c...J-. JZ ~J I~ J.e<":5 ,;~
de...'.. ~. A f 05 f.J) 'VOf-~i(E:"- c....., o,.......l J.. hA,__d.l/~ ""'-'eQ ~'
~' fe..n. -he.. ;f<Vr........ 6..-... D J:2.i"O f'pZ.-e s~ ' --Y C-D""'ce/T..."...,J 5
"
.-..;
>
:. ,
.... .-\-,-,
" ,
..
, ~
..
ATTACHME~T 8 ~ 34
1-4-08
To City of Springfield
Date Received:
JAM - ~ 2lDI
Original Submittal KL
4:2Sp~
Re: Appeal fee for '''Villages' at MarcolaMeadows" 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 IT Director's Decision (7) ORS 227.175," We are not
appealing a director's decision but the planning commission so this does not apply, If it does
apply it should be "Appeal of Type III Decision to City Council" as this removes "Director's"
from the fee description and this is a Type III Decision not Type IT. Thusly Newman Trustee
would pay $2,254 as he is appealing no notice. Dennis Hunt is~ another $2,254 for the same
issue, Wes Swanger, Clara Shevchinski, and myself is another $6,762 for a total of $11,270.
I argue that this amount is excessive, arbitrary, captiolis, and unlawful. I read the statute that
'states how the amount of fee should be determined.
I 'understand that the City may wave the appeal fees and it is petitioned herein for this to
be done.
Pursuant to Oregon Revised Statute it is herein petitioned that the fees be waved as all
of the attached appeals are bundled under the North Springfield Citizens' Committee which has
been duly recognize as such by the City,
ATTACHMENT 8 - 35
!4.~
Nick Shevchynski
i1~~
-,
Nick Shevchynski
North Springfield Citizens Committee
Date Received:
JAN - ~ 2008
1
Assignments of Error
Original Submitt"1
K'-
4: 2.'Spn>'!
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 y<hat 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 notraised below it can
not be "appealed" to the next level of rubber stamping. Under the plain error rule unpreserved
claims of error do not necessarily prevent them form being raised on review, An "error of law
apparent on the face of the record" falls under the planlerror 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. Hi, cites SDC 5.2-115: ". . , the applicant shall post
one sign, approved by the Director, on the subject property." Pg. 11: "Staff's ResponselFinding"
which finds that this was not done. "Wait," you will say, "This wasn't preserved." It~s an error
of law appar!:nt on the face of the record. Don't you follow your own laws? Never mind that
question. In any event it was preserved. 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
AfcEachron. '
6. There was a public hearing on this matter on 12-11-07.' Because the ~ecordwas still opim
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. If was written that there is and will be no "overcrowding" without
ever defining what that means. They say there is no overcrowding on one hand and beg for
more taxes because of overcrowding on the other. These people should have testified on the
record allowing the commission to ask questionrand the public to hear and see them.' It was an
error not to consider that after absorbing the students from the proposed development any
additional students from' anywhere would cause overcrowding,
ATTACHMENT 8 - 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 Spickerrnan
walked up to lawyer Leahy and whispered his objection. Leahy said out loud that there was an
objection because new material was introduced, Commissioner Carpenter added additional new
language to the "plan" which the public was not allowed to comment on. Notice of this hearing
being open was not mailed in a timely manner pursuant to SDC 5.2-115,
9., Kinda difficult to preserve an error as stated hereinabove when one is not allowed to
speak. The issue of speech is so one-sided it's ludicrous. Rick Satre droned on and on for hours
and hours and 'on and on. Gary Karp droned on for hours, The City's staff droned on for hours
and hours. Commissioner Evans droned on. Commissioner Carpenter droned on for hours and
on and on, The public got 3. ,minutes! It's obvious the government doesn't want to hear from
the public, the decision's 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 s.ay. 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'Yote. 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 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 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 dOlle 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 - 37
3
16, There, was/is nathing, nat a peep, about the impaGt an the enviranment and/ar
enviranmental cantrals,
17, ' There was nathing that reasanably described the city's final actian and it was nat mailed.
18, There was no. input and no. appartunity to. questian ar camment an what the utility
praviders' pasitians are. Utilities are part af the city's averall plan.
19. The city staff cuts-aff public camment and the raising of any "new" issues because it's
claimed the staff are nat 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
ieahy control everything.
20. Gary Karp and Rick Satre argued that the number of trips and thusly the traffic will be
below the arbitrary alleged unprovided capies of traffic studies with the additian af .512+ homes
and the~ canstant traffic due to one of Americas..targest major retailers, ~ Y et Gary Karp and staff
advocate majar highway expansions to. accumulate alleged nan-existing rise in traffic,
21 The city alleges it ,has alligator tears and no money for street repairs yet has mare maney
to tear-up perfectly good sidewalks, curbs, etc, in order to. please a develaper and investars'in
Reno who want someone else to. pay far their improvements. '
22, Have I said written natices af the 'hearing and decisians were not mailed nor pasted timely
pursuant to Oregon Statute?
23, What. about thase fire hydrants? Pursuant to a court o'rder by a federal judge a
maintenance report was furnished' and half of the hydrants on Marcala Raad were nan-
aperatianal. Fire protectian is part af the city's overall plan and this was nat even mentianed,
24. This issue of traffic is one of being relative, Is not traffic rated by varia us levels? Which
level is it naw and what level will it be? This is part of the city's overall plan and it was never
addressed, ~ '
NickShevchynski
Nick Shevchynski,
North Springfield Citizens' Committee
ATTACHMENT 8 - 38
.
Affidavit
I, NickShevchynski, ,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
Meadows,Master Plan application case # CRP 2007-00028. At no time
was there a "sign approved by the Director, on the subj ect
property" as required by SDC 5.2-115.
/A-~
Nick Shevchynski
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me a Notary for the State of Oregon
on this 2nd day of January, 2008.
I
. OFFICIAl SEAl I
DUSTIN HAHN
... .. NOTARYPUBUC-OREGON!
COMMISSION 00412362 I
MVC~EXPIRESNOV. 29.2010 \
I
Uh- ~~
Date Received: ,
JAN - 4 2008
Original Submittfll ~.'
ATTACHMENT 8 - 39
~
'~.
Satre & Associates
Attention Rick Satre
132 East Broadway, Suite 536
Eugene, Oregon 97401
ZON2008-00004
Philip M. Newman
260 S. Mill
Creswell, Oregon 97426
ZON2008~0007
'Wesley O. Swanger
2415 Marcola Road
Springfield, Oregon 97477
ZON2008~OOO2
SC Springfield LLC
7510 Longley Lane, Suite 102
Reno, Nevada 89511,
ZON2008-00005
Dennis Hunt
3044 Yolanda Avenue
Springfield, Oregon 97478,
ZON2008-00008
Nick Shevchynski '
2347 Marcela Road
, Springfield, Oregon 97477
'.
ZON2008-00003
Donna Lentz
, 1544 E Street
Springfield, Oregon 97477
ZON2008-00006
Clara Shevchynski
2315 Marcola Road
Springfield, Oregon 9747y
~l . , ~
Ru-P
--ut-J (}tJr) ~' - CMOy,
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
STATE OF OREGON }
}ss.
County of Lane , }
I, Brenda Jones, being first duly sworn, do hereby depose and say as follows:
1, I state that I am a Secretary for the Planning Division of the Qevelopment
Services Department, City of Springfield, Oregon,
2. 1 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 "A") 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.
.~.~
Brenda Jones U
Planning Secretary
RECEIVED
JAN 1 82008
By:~~40~
STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane
g ,2008 Personally appeare~ the above named Brenda Jones,
cretary, 'ho acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary act, Before
me:
......,....., .A.
". ....,
... , .:~
l1rfjiL'/6/~. .
My Commission Expires: '?//!::;/II
J I
I~ ~~~~~y,~-'--'j,
,~~ ....iARYPlIlUC_CJlEGQH . ,
~ "'...'..I....:.u.... l NO 420351
_ ~ r,(l,\!MIS"IDl EXPIRES AU" , i
-, _ ==-c~ CI, 15,2011
~ --. -- - --..
/
MI:_ _.dg Date:
Meeting Type:
Department:
StalT'Contact:
StalTPhone No:
Estimated Time:
January 28, 2008
Regular Session
Development Services
GaryM. Karp G'~
726.3777 ~
60 minutes
AGENDA ITEM SUMluARY
SPRINGFIELD
CITY COUNCIL
ITEM TITLE:
ACTION
REQUESTED:
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
ATTACHMENTS:
DISCUSSION:
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 20th 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 20th 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,
Attachment 1: Staff Report: Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision
Attachment 2: 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
On June 18, 2007 the City Council by a vote of.4-2 approved Metro Plan diagram and Zoning Map amendments to allow a
mixed use commerciaVresidential development on the former .Pierce' property on Marcola Road. An approval condition of
these applications was the submittal of a Master Plan application to guide the phased development of the property over the
next 7 years, The Master Plan application was submitted on September 28, 2007, The Planning Commission conducted
public hearings on this application on November 20, 2007; December 11, 2007; and December20, 2007, At the conclusion
of the December 20th hearing, the Planning Commission voted 7.{J 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 aretrom 6 individuals and one is from the applicant of the Master Plan, SC
Springfield LLC. ~
The attached staff report divides the issues raised in these appeals into the following general categories: 1) procedural
challenges; and 2) challenges to findings and conditions of approval. Issues raised by the 6 individuals fall largely into this
first category and include notice, participation at hearings, etc., but do not raise objections to any of the 53 conditions of
approval. Issues raised by the applicant/appellant include: adequacy of findings demonstrating proportionality, imposition
of conditions not justified by the criteria of approval, and delegation of decision-making authority to the City Engineer, but
raise no challenges to procedure,
Of the numerous issueS raised in these appeals the most significant, if upheld by the Council, is Condition #27 which
requires the 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 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'
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,
.
"
.
i
-
.
)
..
, (
-" ..~,.~_..........I.. ...,...........-......-........... -...;, _...... ---...-........
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
225 5th ST
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
Clara Shevchinski
2315 Marcola Road
Springfield, Oregon 97477
,""