HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 02 13th Street Right of Way Development, Public Outreach Results Follow-up AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 6/10/2013
Meeting Type:Work Session
Staff Contact/Dept.: Michael Liebler/DPW
Staff Phone No: 541.736.1034
Estimated Time: 15 Minutes
S P R I N G F I E L D
C I T Y C O U N C I L
Council Goals: Maintain and Improve
Infrastructure and
Facilities
ITEM TITLE: 13th STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY (ROW) DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC OUTREACH
RESULTS FOLLOW UP
ACTION
REQUESTED:
Review area in terms of vacating ROW to adjoining property in consideration of
pedestrian connectivity and utilities needs within the corridor. Provide staff with
direction concerning how this portion of ROW is restored or improved during the
construction of the 10th and N Street Sewer Project.
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
On May 20th, City staff held a work session with City Council to review public
outreach results in reference to improving the un-improved ROW on 13th street
from L to N Street. Council requested more information on the area in terms of the
possibility of vacating the ROW to adjoining properties and clarification of the
areas characteristics and usefulness as a pedestrian and bicycle connection. Staff is
seeking Council direction on how to move forward in relation to the upcoming 10th
and N Street Sewer project work within this unimproved area.
ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1: Memo Regarding 13th Street ROW Vacation Process and
Considerations.
Attachment 2: 13th and L Survey Summary
Attachment 3: Area Map Showing Pedestrian and Bike Connections
Attachment 4: Area Map Showing Utilities and Possible Easements In ROW
DISCUSSION/
FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
In accordance with provisions of SDC 5.20-120.A, the City Council can adopt a
resolution to initiate a vacation of public right-of-way and then proceed to adopt a
vacation Ordinance. Staff would perform the appropriate research and
investigations into the sites vacation/dedication history, utility conflict and
considerations (See Attachment 4), and transportation needs (See Attachment 3) as
laid out in the attached Memo (See Attachment 2).
At this time, City of Springfield staff recommends retaining the ROW for public
transportation/utility needs and capitalizing on the cost savings related to
performing the work to install the bike/pedestrian path with landscaping as part of
the sewer project and as supported by the results from the public outreach.
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 2
M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield
Date: 6/5/2013
To: Gino Grimaldi COUNCIL
From: Michael Liebler P.E., Transportation Planning
Engineer
BRIEFING
Subject: 13th STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY (ROW)
DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC OUTREACH
RESULTS FOLLOW UP
MEMORANDUM
ISSUE:
On May 20th, City staff held a work session with City Council to review public outreach results
in reference to improving the un-improved ROW on 13th street from L to N Street. Council
requested more information on the area in terms of the possibility of vacating the ROW to
adjoining properties and clarification of the areas characteristics and usefulness as a pedestrian
and bicycle connection. Staff is seeking Council direction on how to move forward in relation
to the upcoming 10th and N Street Sewer project work within this unimproved area.
COUNCIL GOALS/
MANDATE:
Maintain and Improve Infrastructure and Facilities
BACKGROUND:
In accordance with provisions of SDC 5.20-120.A and Springfield Municipal Code section
3.200-3.206, the City Council can adopt a resolution to initiate a vacation of public right-of-way
and then proceed to adopt a vacation ordinance. Staff has determined that the ROW was
dedicated with the platted line centered in the ROW. If the ROW were vacated the underlying
property interest would revert equally to the owners on the east and west. Communication with
adjoining property owners to identify interest in the potential property to be vacated would be
necessary as outlined in the Springfield Municipal Code section 3.203, with no guarantee that
adjoining properties would be interested in acquiring the ROW. Additionally, staff has
determined the two large 24 inch diameter existing and proposed sewer lines would require
significant easements as called out and required in the Springfield Municipal Code section
3.206. Staff would prepare the legal description, diagrams of the subject area, and covering
report for the vacation Ordinance that would be presented to the City Council at a public
hearing. Upon adoption of the vacation Ordinance, staff would confer with affected utility
providers, if any, to provide for appropriate easements to ensure continued access and
maintenance.
In addition, a vacation of improved or unimproved public right-of-way, any public way acquired
with public funds, or any undeveloped subdivision or partition plat, or portions thereof, might
require the payment to the city by the applicant of an amount equal to the assessment of special
benefit resulting or inuring to the abutting property that results from the vacation and disposition
of property to the benefited property owners. Details of that process are set forth in the
Springfield Municipal Code section 3.204.
MEMORANDUM 6/6/2013 Page 2
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
At this time, staff recommends retaining the stretch of 13th Street ROW from L to N Street in
recognition of the significant utilities located within the area and use of this ROW as a needed
transportation connection thru the developed residential neighborhood.
13th & L R.O.W. Public Meeting Survey Results
Attendance & Survey Responses:
28 attendees signed in
20 surveys were completed (2 submitted via email)
4 individuals expressed their standpoint on specific survey questions via email or phone
calls to Michael Liebler or Rebecca Gershow
7 of the 24 survey respondents(29%) indicated that they have children in their
household
13 of the 24 survey respondents( 54%) indicated that they have lived at their current
residence for more than 10 years
Survey Summary: attendees were asked to express whether or not they felt specific
improvements to the 13th & L ROW blocks between L & N streets would benefit the
neighborhood. The resultant votes for these specific improvements are summarized here.
Landscaping(lawn, trees, ground cover, low‐maintenance plantings)
o The majority, 58%, of survey respondents agree that this improvement would
benefit the neighborhood.
58%
10%
32%
Landscaping
Agree
Depends
Disagree
Attachment 2 - Page 1 of 10 of 10
Walking/Bicycling Path
o The majority, 60%, of survey respondents agree that this improvement would
benefit the neighborhood
Pedestrian Scale Lighting
o The majority, 56%, of survey respondents agree that this improvement would
benefit the neighborhood
60%
5%
35%
Walking/Bicycling Path
Agree
Depends
Disagree
56%
5%
39%
Pedestrian Scale Lighting
Agree
Depends
Disagree
Attachment 2 - Page 2 of 10 of 10
Small Play Structure
o Survey respondents are divided on whether this would benefit the neighborhood
with the majority, 60%, either in agreement or thinking that it depends
Swings
o Survey respondents are divided on whether this would benefit the neighborhood
with the majority, 61%, either in disagreement or thinking that it depends
45%
15%
40%
Small Play Structure
Agree
Depends
Disagree
39%
17%
44%
Swings
Agree
Depends
Disagree
Attachment 2 - Page 3 of 10 of 10
Mini Basketball Court
o The majority, 55%, of survey respondents feel that this improvement would not
benefit the neighborhood
Neighborhood Garden
o The majority, 63%, of survey respondents feel that this improvement would not
benefit the neighborhood
17%
28%55%
Mini Basketball Court
Agree
Depends
Disagree
21%
16%63%
Neighborhood Garden
Agree
Depends
Disagree
Attachment 2 - Page 4 of 10 of 10
Seating (benches, picnic tables)
o Survey respondents are divided on whether this would benefit the neighborhood
with the majority, 74%, either in disagreement or thinking that it depends
No Improvements
o The minority, 35%, agree that no improvements would benefit the
neighborhood.
26%
26%
48%
Seating (benches, picnic tables)
Agree
Depends
Disagree
35%
65%
No Improvements
Agree
Depends
Disagree
Attachment 2 - Page 5 of 10 of 10
Comments: Survey respondents were given the opportunity to provide additional feedback
on potential improvements to and the present use of the 13th & L ROW property. These
comments are listed here.
Comments given in explanation of responses for improvements:
o I would prefer to see playground over BB court. I disagree with nothing being
done. As a father of two, I most definitely would like to have a place for my kids
to play in neighborhood where there is currently nothing.
o Small scale improvements would be great
o I would like to see an open space 'maintained by the city', grass‐nothing much
more. A nice park or walking path would be a great thing but I don't see anyone
with the money to maintain it. The neighbors are against change. We lack a
neighborhood identity and leadership for change.
o Landscaping would benefit the neighborhood if they were edible
o I especially would like a lawn, a walking/biking path and lighting‐those are my
top priorities. The play structure, garden, etc are lower priority for me. My main
priority is walking my dog through the property, and improving the quality and
appearance of the neighborhood.
o Landscaping/ lighting/ path for walking/bicycles
o Something better than empty grass lot with ruts would be an improvement. I'm
hesitant to suggest a full blown park…however I see a nice path with lights and
low bushes (no hiding places‐no big shadow at night) as a potential good thing.
Not sure on playground stuff. Make it attractive to travel through.
o People will always use this area to walk from one street to another. If a concrete
path is installed lighting should go with it for safety. After the sewer
construction, I would like to see the area smoothed and planted with grass and
trees and shrubs, leaving it mostly open area for kids to play ball.
o You're creating way more problems than you’d be solving. We don't need any
more crime on 'N' street.
o Our land is too small for improvement. We do not need to see improvements in
our area. We don't need more people in this area.
o I think money should be spent on Willamalane Park on G st
o I don't trust the city to maintain it! It’s unsafe for kids because 3 blocks from
transients, drugs, trash, gangs. Drug dealers target unsupervised kids in groups.
It will not be maintained by neighbors. Trees etc will block views.
o Leave it alone!
Attachment 2 - Page 6 of 10 of 10
o Would love to have a small play structure + a nice walking path. Flowers would
be great! Low maintenance/low water use preferred. Security is a concern‐
whatever method to reduce graffiti+ drug use would be very appreciated!
o I agree with a design that will improve security and beautify what exists now.
This is how I feel after meeting with the community around the park (future
park). As a father in the area I would love to see any of the features I labeled as
"depends", but mostly want a secure area that isn't an eyesore.
o I think it would be great to give the kids in the neighborhood a place to play
together. I think it will improve the3 neighborhoods appearance and make it
more family friendly and could help with safety as neighbors would feel more
like a community. I don't think gardens would be as effective because the
neighborhood has large enough yards for gardens and they would not be tended
to well.
o I'm not in favor of any proposal which would restrict the existing vehicle access
between L and M St. Nor do I support proposals that would increase noise and
increased numbers of people around my home. I chose to live here, in part, for
the quiet and backyard vehicle access that the existing conditions currently
provide.
Comments given on how the property is currently being used:
o Adjacent property owners treat it like their property
o city storage‐alley access
o light walking path
o Muddy paths, vacant lot, weedy, trash dumping spot
o walk through
o In 2+ years I have seen zero kids playing in either block. I have only ever seen a
car drive through…and sewer stuff
o open field, local kids use it to play ball
o People use part of the area for a drive way or yard access
o Kids play on it
o Free form play
o Easement
o It looks like an unwelcoming, ugly field used by the neighbors
o It is an eyesore I pass on family walks
o Kids play in it as an open field, tall grass and weeds grow
o The land between M and N St is vacant grass land. The land between L and M St
along my residence is a gravel access road which has existed for over 50 years.
This provides access to the alley for large vehicles, the rear of L St duplex
location, and a gate into my backyard and shed where vehicles are stored.
Attachment 2 - Page 7 of 10 of 10
Comments on how the property would most benefit the neighborhood:
o A safe place for kids to play. Aesthetics‐brings the community together. Property
value
o just a clean green space that is better maintained would be great
o How to set the police to enforce drug laws in neighborhood? Neighborhood
watch?
o A mixed playground and community garden or regardless of the use of edible
landscaping will be beneficial
o I would love to see the property with a more park‐like atmosphere, with nice
paved paths, lawns, shade trees etc.
o simple grounds upgrades
o Please don't let the scared grumpy people destroy the idea. Other thoughts: a
cross walks with walk lights across centennial at 12th might make it easier. Also,
make traffic on M st an out only….too much traffic.
o Thank you again for all the time you have put into this
o The city/parks could improve the appearance and/or access to this land with
regular mowing of the existing grass areas. Where does the money come from to
do any of these proposals when it can't even be maintained now without
community volunteers doing the mowing?
Comments provided via email or phone calls:
o Concern over being assessed fees for improvements and not being involved in
the development process if things move forward.
o Resident at corner lot on 13th and M does not want to see any changes in the
area and is concerned about being assessed fees for improvements. There is
also concern about being involved in the process if things move forward and is
worried about noise, visibility into his yard, and people congregating at night.
o Feel that it would be great to have a park in the neighborhood, and are pro:
walking/bicycling path, picnic and seating area, small playground with basketball
option, community garden plots, lawn area with trees, shrubs, and flowers.
Thinks all of this sounds great and that there is a need for a place in the area for
kids and parents to meet each other and play.
o Pro‐park, pro‐play structure, pro‐bike‐ped path, have a child who would use
o Supportive of improving property, lived in neighborhood for 37 years, says they
are not "in a crime area… to us, we're not. Haven't had a problem…once in the
past 20 years", there are some very "paranoid people", "I see it as a good thing"
(improving the property), family owns six houses on the block, so she knows
"everyone" on the block, and virtually all of the people she has spoken to are
supportive of doing something positive with the property.
Attachment 2 - Page 8 of 10 of 10
o Safety concerns to consider for improvements: feels it would be best to improve
the are in a way that encourages movement(bike path, garden, basketball) as
opposed to stationary activities(picnic tables, swings); include lighting, limit
hours of park to day use; consider safety when choosing vegetation; consult
Springfield police
o Feels a playground space would benefit her family; does not feel that community
gardens, walking/biking path, or picnic areas would benefit the neighborhood as
much; opposed to basketball court; supportive of picnic tables and landscaping
adjacent to the play area.
o supportive of park development, has a 3 year old and another on the way; says
there are several small children on his street and that several children play catch
and basketball in the street; thinks the location is a great place for a small park
o would love to have a small playground with a real trail through it (the park); has
a 3 year old who loves to be outside, but doesn't always want to cross
Centennial to take him to the park; thinks it would be nice for her child to have a
park close to the house
o Prefers no sand play area because there are a lot of cats in the neighborhood
Comments provided verbally at the public meeting:
o What deficiency of park services is in this area?
o Why would it not be a neighborhood park?
o Who will maintain the area?
o Who will keep it safe at night? Different people at night, bottles, needles etc at
Willamalane Park.
o Distance from Willamalane Park‐why a park here?
o Currently not maintained by the city or Willamalane.
o Access is easement, utility co's, improvement will restrict access.
o Design for utility access.
o 1996 drug traffic problem, 4 years
o neighbors come together to plan are, maybe a simple plan, moderate
improvements
o Looks ugly!
o What will happen if a park does not get built? ADA improvements‐ramps, walks,
etc
o Does city have a reason for maintaining?
o Why doesn't the city sell the property?
o Neighborhood potluck in ROW‐L St & M & N?
o 2007‐Robbers in the area
o Existing‐not safe‐upgrade and improve
Attachment 2 - Page 9 of 10 of 10
o Next steps?
o Resents people 2 blocks away voicing opinion
o Thankful for what it is! Son played catch there.
o Where is the funding source?
o Played there for 19 years‐not scary‐why not try to improve it?
o last 10 years has had to work w/enforcement officer
o neighborhood has changed‐drugs
o Will there be law enforcement?
o children deserve better
o this is about community
o street crossing at 12th
o light on 14th near Centennial‐use that to access Willamalane
Attachment 2 - Page 10 of 10 of 10
Attachment 3
Attachment 4