HomeMy WebLinkAboutRecommendation Sheet Miscellaneous 6/19/2007
.' ,.
BEFORE TH~ PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, OREGON
RECOMMENDATION TOUiE CITY COUNCIL
CASE NO. LRP2007-00019
NATURE OF THE APPLICATION
VacatIOn of a one-block segment ofB Street located between 4th Street and PIOneer Parkway East
1. On May 7, 2007, the Springfield City CounCIl ImtIated the vacation actIOn In accordance with Spnngfield
Development Code 9.060(3)(a), Planmng Case No. LRP2007-000l9 - CIty of Spnngfield PolIce Department,
applIcant.
2. The applIcation was InItIated In accordance wIth SectIOn 3 050 of the Spnngfield Development Code. TImely
and sufficIent notIce of publIc hearing, pursuant to SectIons 14.030 and 9.050 of the Spnngfield Development
Code, has been prOVIded.
3. On June 5, 2007, a public hearing on the vacation request was held and the wntten record for submIttal of
publIc testimony was held open to June 12, 2007. The Development ServIces Department staff notes and
recommendation together with the testimony and submittals of the persons testifyIng at that heanng have been
conSIdered and are part of the record of thIS proceeding.
CONCLUSION
Based on thIS record, the requested vacation applIcation is consistent with the cntena of SDC 9.030. ThIs general
finding is supported by the speCIfic findings of fact and conclUSIOn in Attachment A, Vacation Staff Report.
RECOMMENDATION
The PlannIng CommissIOn hereby recommends the CIty CouncIl approve the vacatIon request at a public heanng.
ATTEST
AYES: tf
NOES: ~
ABSENT: t
ABSTAIN: 0
~j(/-
PlygpOmmiSSion Charrperson .
Date Received:
" Planner: Al
G /1/JL7(}7
/ /
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
DATE OF MEETING: June 19,2007
TO:
Spnngfield PlannIng CommIssIOn
FROM:
Andy LImbIrd
ot-
PLANNING COMMISSION
TRANSMITTAL
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
Request for VacatIOn of PublIc
RIght-of- Way
ISSUE
The Planning Comnl1ssIOn IS requested to conduct delIberatIOns for a request to vacate a 66-foot WIde by 264-foot
long segment of B Street located between 4th Street and PIOneer Parkway East The PlannIng CommIssIon will
decIde whether to advise the CIty CouncIl t? approve, approve wIth condItIons or deny the request.
DISCUSSION
On February 28, 2006, the Spnngfield CIty CouncIl conSIdered four site optIOns for the Justice Center project. The
SIte optIon selected by the CIty CouncIl utIlIzes CIty-owned property which is located between 4th Street and
PIOneer Parkway East, and WhICh extends from A Street to the mid-block alley north of B Street The selected SIte
optIOn mcorporates a one-block segment ofB Street nght-of-way into the development area .for use as a secure
polIce parkIng lot, and a bUIldIng pad for an ancillary buildIng servIng the JustIce Center.
The City Council ImtIated the street vacatIOn action (Case LRP2007-00019) at the regular meetIng on May 7, 2007.
The public nght-of-way proposed for vacation consists ofa 66-foot wide by 264-foot long segment ofB Street
extendIng from the western edge of the 4th Street right-of-way through to the eastern edge of the PIOneer Parkway
East nght-of-way. The street is located Immediately to the north of the publIc and polIce vehicle parking lots
serving the CIty-owned bUIldings frontIng onto A Street.
A Public Heanng for the proposed vacatIon was held on June 5, 2007 and the written record was held open for an
additIOnal seven days follOWIng the heanng Seven people testified In favor otthe proposed nght-of-way vacatIOn
and two people submItted testimony OppOSIng the vacatIOn. At the PublIc Hearing, Mr. Scott Olson provided
verbal testimony opposmg the vacation and requested that ills previous testImony submItted on March 26, 2006 for
the Justice Center DIscretionary Use and Zone Change requests (DRC2006-00013 & ZON2006-00007) be entered
Into the publIc hearing record (Attachment 4). AddItIonally, Mr. Olson submitted wntten testimony opposing the
proposed vacation during the extended publIc hearmg record (Attachment 5)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the vacation request based on the attached findIngs
ACTION REQUESTED
AdVIse the CIty CounCIl to approve the vacatIOn request at a publIc heanng by motIon and signature of the attached
recommendatIon by the Planning CommISSIon ChaIrperson
ATTACHMENT 1. Staff Report and FIndIngs
A TT ACHMENT 2. Memo from PolIce Cruef Jerry Smith
A TT ACHMENT 3. TestImony from Bob Foster opposing the proposed vacation
ATTACHMENT 4. Testimony from Scott Olson dated March 28, 2006
ATTACHMENT 5. TestImony from Scott Olson dated June 12,2007
ATTACHMENT 6. Memo from JIffi Polston regardmg alley SIdewalk
A TT ACHMENT 7. Maps shOWIng the proposed vacation area and B Street overview
ATTACHMENT 8. Recommendation to CIty CouncIl
Date Aeceived:
Planner: Al
1/11/t()IJJ
I .
ATTACHMENT 1
V ACATION REQUEST
STAFF REPORT AND FINDINGS
Case No. LRP2007-00019
APPLICANT
The City of Spnngfield/Spnngfield Police Department
REQUEST
The vacatIOn of a 66-foot Wide by 264-foot long portIOn of street nght-of-way
LOCATION OF PROPERTY
The segment ofB Street nght-of-way (ROW) proposed to be vacated is located west of 4th Street and east of
PIOneer Parkway East in downtown Spnngfield. The public nght-of-way lies on the boundary between Tax Map
17-03-35-24 and Tax Map 17-03-35-31
BACKGROUND
The affected segment ofB Street was created as publIc nght-of-way with plattIng of the original Map ofSpnngfield
m 1872. There are eight City-owned properties (Tax Map 17-03-35-24, Tax Lots 13900, 14000, 14100 and 14300;
and Tax Map 17-03-35-31, Tax Lots 1500-1800) that have frontage on the nght-of-way area proposed for vacation.
From a functional perspectIve, the subject nght-of-way IS part of the downtown gridded street system and IS
designated as a City collector street.
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY
Nme people provIded testImony at the PlannIng ComnllssIOn Public Heanng on June 5, 2007. seven supportIng the
vacatIOn and two opposed Mr. Bob Foster and Mr. Scott Olson submItted written testimony pnor to and dunng the
extended publIc heanng record for this vacation request (Attachments 3-5). The submitted testimony OppOSIng the
vacatIOn IS critIcal of the proposed vacation and the CIty'S recent adoption of new vacation critena, but does not
speCIfically address the relevant cntena of the Spnngfield Development Code 9.060(3).
At the publIc heanng, the Planmng ComrrnsSIOn InqUIred about the potential for IncorporatIng a SIdewalk Into the
mId-block alley north of the secure pohce parking lot servIng the JustIce Center. A response from Jim Polston,
Assistant Project Manager for the JustIce Center Project is attached for the PlannIng CommISSIOn's InfOrmatIOn
(Attachment 6).
SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE CRITERIA
Spnngfield Development Code (SDC) 9.060(3) estabhshes cnteria for vacatIon of nght-of-way where the property
will remaIn In pubhc ownerslup and wIll contInue to be used for a publIc purpose. The follOWIng fIndmgs address
each of the cntena.
(a) The Vacation was initiated by the City Council pursuant to ORS 271.130(1);
FIndmg l' Oregon ReVIsed Statutes (ORS) SectIOn 271 l30( 1) reads as follows' "The CIty govermng body may
InitIate vacation proceedIngs authorz;ed by ORS 271 080 and make such vacatIOn WIthout a petItion or consent of
property owners NotIce shall be gzven as prOVIded by ORS 271 110. but such vacatzon shall not be made before
the date set for hearing, nor if the owners of a majorzty of the area affected, computed on the baSIS prOVIded In ORS
271 080. object In wrltzng thereto, nor shall any street area be vacated WIthout the consent of the owners of the
abutting property if the vacatzon WIll substantzally affect the market value of such property, unless the CIty
govermng body prOVIdes for payzng damages PrOVISIOn for paying such damages may be made by a local
assessment, or In such other manner as the CIty charter may provIde."
Fmdmg 2. ORS 271 080( 1) proVides for vacatIOn of" .all or part of any street, avenue, boulevard, alley, plat,
pubhc square or other pubhc place.." In accordance WIth ORS 27l.080( 1), the vacatIon actIOn requires "a
ATTACHMENT 6 L~ /j.~~1
Date Recejved:_71-~-fl2-v-
1-1 Planner: AL
, '
descnptlOn of the ground proposed to be vacated, the purpose for whIch the ground IS proposed to be used and the
reason for such vacation."
FIndIng 3. The Spnngfield CIty Council Imtiated the vacatIon actIon at the regular meetmg on May 7, 2007 The
nght-of-way proposed for vacatIOn IS generally depIcted and more specifically descnbed In Exhibit A to thIS staff
report. The purpose of the vacatIOn IS to retam the segment of vacated publIc nght-of-way in publIc ownership, and
to use the area for construction of a secure polIce parkIng lot and ancillary bUIldIng servIng the JustIce Center.
FlIldIng 4' In accordance WIth ORS 271 130(1), the declSloI!- on the vacation actIon WIll be made at a future CIty
CouncIl meetIng, and after PublIc Heanngs before the Planmng CommIssIon and CounCIl
FmdIng 5 All propertIes that dIrectly abut the segment ofpubhc nght-of-way proposed for vacatIon are owned by
the CIty of Spnngfield
ConclUSIon: The proposed nght-of-way vacatIOn complIes WIth Cntenon (a)
(b) Notice has been given pursuant to ORS 271.110(1);
" 1
Fmding 6. In accordance WIth ORS 271.110(1), publIc heanng notIces were placed III the newspaper of general
circulatIOn (The RegIster Guard) on May 18 and 25, 2007.
Fmding 7' In accordance with 271.110(2), publIc notice of the proposed nght-of-way vacatIOn actIon was posted at
two conspicuous locatIOns unmedIately adjacent to right-of-way proposed for vacation (at the northeastern comer
adjacent to 4th Street, and at the southwestern comer adjacent to PIOneer Parkway East).
, "
FIndmg 8 In accordance WIth SDC 271 080, adjacent landowners and reSIdents/tenants WIthin a 400-foot radIUS of
the 66-foot by 264-foot linear right-of-way proposed for vacation were notified-by mail.
Conclusion. The notificatIon proVIded for the proposed nght-of-way vacation complIes :VIth Cntenon (b)
(c) Approval of the vacation would be consistent with provision of safe, convenient and reasonably direct
routes for cyclists, pedestrians and vehicles as provided in OAR 660-0012-0045(3);
Findmg 9. As stated m Oregon AdmirnstratJve Rules (OAR) 660-0 12-0045(3)(d), "safe and convenient" means
bicycle and pedestnan routes, faclhtles and Improvements whIch'
(A) Are reasonably free from hazards, particularly types or levels of automobIle traffic whIch would
zntelfere wzth or dIscourage pedestnan or cycle travel for short trips,
(B) PrOVIde a reasonably dIrect route of travel between destznatlOns such as a transIt stop and a store,
and - '
(C) Meet tr~vel needs of cjlCllsts and pedestnans consldenng destznatlOn and length of tnp, and
conslderzng that the optImum trzp length of pedestrzans IS generally ~ to 12 mzle
Fmdmg lOIn accordance WIth OAR 660-012-0045(3)( d), vacatIon of the subject nght-of-way and closure to
publIc travel would not mterfere WIth or dIscourage pedestnan, cycle or velucle travel on the adjacent publrc street
system due to exceSSIve traffic or other unusual hazards. East-west traffic CIrculatIOn can be accommodated on
adjacent local and collector streets - partIcularly A Street, whIch IS located 1,ess than 300 feet to the south.
Finding 11' In accordance WIth OAR 660-012-0045(3)( d), vacatIOn of the subject nght-of-way would not result m
pedestrian, cyclIst or vehIcle trips that are more than ~ mIle from being a direct route of travel between destmatIon
points Figure lIll~strates approxunate travel dIstances for all potentlal modes of travel from one SIde of the
vacated nght-of-way to the other. Should the segment ofB Street be vacated and closed to publIc travel, the
maXImum out-of-dIrectIon dIstance for passage from the eastern end of the subject nght-of-way (at 4th Street) to the
western end of the nght-of-way (at PIoneer Parkway East) would be about 600 feet (<118 mile) for bIcycles and
Date Received:_ 6fVJblIl
1-2 Planner: Al .
Figure 1- Approximate Travel Distances
V \L. , ) ~
,
[ .1
\ :(
...:
Ill:
Ill:
....
::I:
n:
....
I'
I ~
-jUU reet
'"
~..
,+ ,
C Street
./ \."
-300, feet
~
:CD
;!
:0
.It)
:....
. I
~...
~.
,"\. ,/
J
(
- .-
III : III
~ :CD
~l ~~
/, \ .) l~ '
:( ~" ~ ~~'... ",,~, ........... ...,~ ~ , ~... I ~ T I
, ' ~( :,:"~, -, ,-'\OO...ie.et " ' j ~...
'~., .<;0,'" ...' ... .... 1':
I :
8 Street
,/ "
I
~ r
\..
-
III
III
i:[1
I:
:(jj
11 ~~ .
:0
:1"')
: I
,
,
1-/
I
".
'" .
-300 feet
~"1
.~
\..
A Street
L
.~ r
>.
'm I'
/~l
(J)
c
o
'11 n= II
, r
, '
~ J
, .....
-
en
:5
~
I I , I I
J l
I~ ~
Main Street
~L
.....
fI
-:'\ r
~'~\~I~
~,~~:\
~~~
Right-of-way proposed
for vacation
Travel directions and
r,
approxImate dIstances
.........
Out-of-directlon travel
directions and distances
1-3
Date Received: ~-;lUJo/
Planner: Al ~
vehIcles USlOg surface streets. vehicles and bIcycles have the optIOn of us 109 either A Street or C Street for the
east-west segment of the tnp. The out-of-dIrection distance would be even less for pedestnans USlOg the pubhc
sidewalk system, or bIcycles and vehicles pas~lOg through the mid-block alley north of B Street. The use of the
mid-block alley for east-west passage IS not a preferred route for vehIcles, but is depicted on FIgure I for
illustratIve purposes
FIndmg 12. ProvIsion of travel routes for cychsts, pedestnans and vehicles would be VIa the eXIsting publIc street,
alley and Sidewalk system. The apprOXImate travel distances shown on Figure I assume travel around the
penmeter of each route, and short-cutting through parkIng lots or simIlar open areas is not conSIdered.
FmdIng 13 There are existmg SItuatIOns m downtown Springfield and elsewhere throughout the CIty where
portIOns of the gndded street system are not connected and out-of-dIrectIOn travel is required for cyclIsts,
pedestnans and vehIcles Nearby examples lOclude portIOns of A Street east of lih Street, A, C, D and F Street
east of 14th Street, 8th and 9th Streets north ofG Street; and G Street west of 4th Street
FmdIng 14 A Traffic Impact AnalySIS (TIA) was prepared by an mdependent traffic engIneenng consultant m
support of the proposed nght-of-way vacatIOn (Sprzngfield JustIce Center Revised Task 2 Report - Traffic Impact
'Study, Access Engineenng, July, 2006) The TIA examined the eXIstIng and post-vacatIon street system In the
vicImty of the JustIce Center and evaluated the pOSSIble impacts of the proposed 'nght-of-way vacation to vehicle
movements and the performance of nearby intersections. The TIA concluded there would be mmlffialImpact on
the downtown transportation system WIth the proposed vacatIon of public nght-of-way
FIndmg 15 The TIA prepared for the proposed nght-of-way vacatIon also concluded that no traffic mItIgatlon
actIons would be required to ensure safe and effiCIent flow of traffic in the VIcinity of the Justice Center. Among
the SImplest and most effective measures to structure traffic movements in the area wilrbe strategIC placement of
directional signage for the JustIce Center. The TIA suggests pOSSIble measures to dIscourage traffic from travelmg
to and from the downtown core using nearby reSidential streets, includIng placement of STOP SIgnS at key
intersections and mstallmg curb extensIOns to prevent undeSIrable turnmg movements
Fmdmg 16 Special vehIcles, such as tranSIt buses, can be accommodated on adjacent public streets (pnmanly A
Street). There IS one transit stop for west-bound buses that IS located wIthm the segment of B Street proposed for
vacatIOn. RelocatIOn of the bus stop can be done m consultatIOn with Lane Transit Dlstnct.
ConclUSIOn: Staff have concluded that the proposed nght-of-way vacatIOn WIll have no adverse effect on safety,
connectivIty or mamtaInmg reasonably direct travel routes for pedestnans, cyclists and vehicles. As proposed, the
pubhc right-of-way vacatlOn complies WIth Cntenon (c) .
(d) Whether a greater public benefit would be obtained from the vacation than from retaining the right-of-
way in its present status; and
c
FIndmg 17 The nght-of-way presently contaInS a two-lane collector street With SIdewalks on both SIdes. Upon
vacatIOn of the nght-of-way, the subject area would be mcorporated mto the Spnngfield Justice Center and used for
secure polIce parking The nght-of-way would be closed to all pubhc travel The Spnngfield PolIce Department
adVIses that a secure parkmg lot - close to the JustIce Center buIldmg - protects publIc property (mcludmg polIce
vehIcles and case eVIdence stored m the anCIllary bUIldmg) and enhances emergency response times as respondmg
officers do not have to cross publIc streets to reach their verucles.
FIndmg 18: Jerry Smith, Spnngfield Cruef of Police, submitted a memo in support of the proposed nght-of-way
vacatIOn (Attachment 2) which reads as follows'
ImDortance orB Street C10szne to the JustIce Facllztv ProTect
"The purpose of thIS memo IS to summarl=e for the Planning Commlsszon the Importance of closing B Street as
part of the JustIce Center project As deSIgned, the area currently occupied by B Street would become part of a
t //9 h()P7
/ /
1-4
Date Received:
Planner: Al
fenced and secured parkmg area
. Closing B Street IS necessary for the secunty of portIOns of the facility. The planned Justice facility
me/udes an ancillary bwldl11g that will be a repository for eVidence In crlml11al cases, storagefor pollce
and court records, and storage for speciallzed pollce eqwpment and weapomy CLosing B Street will allow
the entire anCillary budding and parkl11g lot to be fenced m, significantly improving the security of these
records and evidentiary items Without the security fencmg 111 place, the ancIllQ/Y buildmg as designed
does not provide suffiCient securzty for these Items
. Closmg B Street Will provide secure fleet and employee parlang To date, Department vehicles and
employee parkmg has not been secured by fencmg Whde this does not cause significant Issues durmg
normal workmg hours, the Department has experzenced damage to fleet vehicles, and employees have
suffered damage to their personal vehicles. durmg late evemng and early mormng hours Damage has
ranged from paint scratches to slashed tires and broken wmdows
. CloslI1g B Street will Improve the safety of pollce officers and citizens The street closure Will allow
officers respondmg to emergency calls from Inside the buddmg to access their vehicles Without crossing a
pubhc right of way, thereby reduczng the nsk of an aCCident during an emergency response
. ClOSing B Street will prOVide a secure area for evacuatwn of muniCipal Jad pnsoners' The fenced area
Will serve as an outdoor holdzng area for municipal jad prisoners 111 the event,that the Jad must be
evacuated Without the street closure andfencing. there Will not be an area outSide the mumcipal jad
adequate and accessible/or holdmg prisoners Instead. an evacuatIOn event would necessitate the
uncontrolled release of all muniCipal Jail prisoners. ..
Findmg 19: As descnbed m the statement from the Pohce ChIef, the vacated right-of-way will be used for secure
pohce parkmg and IS also des1gned to prOVIde a fenced-in area that IS large enough for evacuatIOn of jaIl prisoners
ill the event of an emergency. PrOVlSlon of a secure muster area for evacuated pnsoners prOVIdes a dIrect benefit to
the jail staff, pohce personnel, and the pubhc.
Fmdmg 20- As noted in the Pohce ChIefs statement, ensuring respondIng pohce officers do not have to cross a
pubhc street m order to reach theIr vehIcles enhances safety for both Police Department personnel and publIc users
of the street system.
Findmg 21: Passage of the Pubhc Safety ballot measure In 2005 that secured pubhc fundmg for the Justlce Center
project demonstrates Springfield reSIdents' commItment to the project. ComparatIvely few people withIn the CIty
regularly use the segment ofB Street proposed for vacatIOn However, all Spnngfield reSIdents (and vlSltors)
benefit from a strong polIce presence wIthm the commumty-
ConclUSIOn: Staff have concluded that the proposed nght-of-way-vacatlOn serves a greater benefit to the pubhc
than retamIng the one-block segment of nght-of-way ill 1tS present status The proposed vacatlOn also prov1des
dIrect benefits to the C1ty'S Pohce Department, whIch ultImately benefits Spnngfield reSIdents. As proposed, the
nght-of-way vacatIOn comphes w1th Cntenon (d)
(e) Whether provisions have been made to ensure that the vacated property will remain in public ownership.
Fmdmg 22' The vacated nght-of-way IS to be incorporated mto the Justlce Center development, whIch is a
publIcly-funded project OwnershIp of the JustIce Center bU11dmg and the land on which 1t 1S to reSIde (whIch
mcludes the portIOn of nght-of-way proposed for vacatIOn), 1S to remaIn w1th the CIty of Spnngfield.
Fmdmg 23: Upon vacatIOn of the nght-of-way, the land ownersh1P automatIcally reverts to the CIty as it owns the
abutting property. Because the ownershIp of the vacated nght-of-way does not pass through-a thIrd party (wluch
could occur If there were pnvately-owned parcels fronting onto the right-of-way), remaInmg 10 publIc ownershlP 1S
1-5
Date Received:
Planner: AL
{,!f/jdJ7
,--, ,-
assured.
Conclusion The proposed nght-of-way vacatIOn complies wIth Critenon (e).
CONCLUSION
In summary, the proposed right-of-way vacatIOn. (a) allows construction of a publIcly funded project approved by
a vote of the public, (b) mcreases law enforcement's publIc presence In the downtown core through construcllon of
a PolIce, Courts and Jail faCIlity; and (c) prOVIdes constructIOn features that Increase the secunty and safety to the
City'S PolIce Department and the general public during operatIOns The loss of publIc good In terms ofvemcle,
pedestnan and bicycle connecllvity has been demonstrated to be mImmal and within State statutes for connectlVlty
under Criterion 9.060(3)(c) oftms report and can be reasonably mItigated.
Based upon the above findmgs and testImony contained herem, Staff concludes that the proposed nght-of-way
vacation for a Justice Center facilIty (mcludIng JaIl, courts and polIce statIon) serves a greater benefit to the general
publIc than retaInIng the one-block segment of nght-of-way ill ItS present status. As proposed, the right-of-way
vacatIOn complies WIth Cntenon 9060(3)(a-e).
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation of approval of the proposed vacatIon to the CIty Council.
r
1-6
Date Received: t/;! !ZP07
Planner: Al I I 1--
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
COMMITTED TO EXCELLENCE
May 16,2007
TO: Andy LimbIrd
FROM: Jerry SmIth, PolIce ChIef
SUBJECT: Importance ofB Street Closing to the Justice FacilIty Project
The purpose of this memo is to summarize for the Planning Commis~IOn the importance closing
B Street as part of the Justice Center project. As deSIgned, the area currently occupied by B
Street would become part of a fenced and secured parking area.
. Closmg B Street IS necessary for the security of portions of the facility. The planned
Justice facilIty includes an ancIllary building that will be a repOSItory for evidence in
criminal cases; storage for police and court records; and storage for specIalized police
equipment and weaponry. Closing B Street will allow the entire ancillary building and
parkmg lot to be fenced in, significantly improving the security of these records and
evidentiary items. Without the security fencing in place, the ancillary building as
designed does not provide sufficient security for these items.
. Closing B Street will provide secure fleet and employee parking: To date, Department
vehicles and employee parking has not been secured by fencing. WhIle this does not
cause sIgmficant issues during normal working hours, the Department has expenenced
damage to fleet vehicles, and employees have suffered damage to their personal vehicles,
during late evening and early morning hours. Damage has ranged from paint scratches to
slashed tires and broken windows.
. Closing B Street will improve the safety of police officers and citIzens: The street
closure will allow officers responding to emergency calls from inside the building to
access theIr vehicles without crossing a public right of way, thereby reducing the nsk of
an accident during an emergency response
. Closmg B Street will provide a secure area for evacuation of muniCIpal JaIl pnsoners:
The fenced area WIll serve as an outdoor holding area for municipal jail pnsoners in the
event that the jail must be evacuated. WIthout the street closure and fencing, there WIll
not be an area outside the municipal jail adequate and acceSSIble for holdmg pnsoners.
Instead, an evacuatIOn event would necessItate the uncontrolled release of all municipal
jail prisoners.
2-1
Date Received: ~ ~f~L
Planner: Al ---f7
ATTACHMENT
,~/-/~ ..... ~ / ~ I ,,-- t. %<r w~'~57!.-er;-( CC)m '
,CL), A 0 L~ IL~~)+ If) , f(;Ylrtrf!4\!JR ~
· ~ ~ . P1C / 11A~0, y, )1. / / tM.-1f1IS5IGl{
\ -J' y-eq [; 2c2- -{Iv'. doS.L0S2' ~ J5 Slreef- !
, a:t %cJ7~iS III4ct -hA~~ .
~ r~~ /V1D1orfSls00Gqld~
s~ ~,arrqVt'}t?fld2d:t2~~ ~_.. !
declc!-ed. -h ml'h~ ~ <'..JiM /. _ --@( r:'I'~ .
ylAe>~hes/1 '\I." C( ~/>4~~L/~ I/L~ !
:J t.<-c,t:~ ~ ftu<~J;;;:;: ~7 ~ <:Scry I
~ {)N\ .' 91/)--< ~~, ~ ~ .
W30_~~~f~~r;~ ':
tJr/0.. B Sjn:v'--/ b~~ -;-~7J i
~ (/ de;) cSt: C5) >>37': ~ :
. VI ~ v-~ of Cl.....:L.
-1~:: ;::::r2~!3~t;y~;,_.~~t~ ;
~ 1 ., '. ~ '- -, v\... c:Lf~ --:::>--.~ i
~-~ / p-,,~ '
~Lk~~-6? 7,~T '
ty[i;(' ~ P--e ~ --!o ;b2 -;b ft.R1e "fj .
~~~ Pc:sfOf{-f~.B~:5'~.
'fo ~ ~ (<5/ V~--JI'~! ( I=e. iAA..Q ~ .
CZo-e cHi tJe.sr psi. - r -
-/' w-zrd1 d-<J q, vo/~ 0..:.( SjJltl1.;rldJ1,
tihV4 5cq; ~ ~/~" Sc ':r/U-
~~~ esr~ i/~ kg
~
11+ ~}j~fo~~1Sl
I~. ~ ~tv.Y}ct-~ CO(
jJ5f.~~~rp~,;(o1-~~,?0<77 .
A TT ACHMEllhlanner: Al
,5~ ']::f. .~ A ~ fJqyt:~~ ~. ,
, e{;VUflv~ CW-- S~-p~ -~; f~~
\ ~ rC az b Sf: 7l1.fZU..- ::f~ ( ~$ ~, em J) ~ .
". J:~~eP:J}I;:~P~ ~~ ,
tt.JL /lla/l.,fUvj ~ (U o~ V~ '6LL,;:;p- :
?fM.., dT~~~~ l
~ v-$:Vj fL-o ;:P =;;;( ~ !BQ. .
~~~~q~~ ;
07~~o,P.IJ~ ~ ~ av{ e;:iP-
'a/~ -fo~~. .
-.:r T j.s.~ ~ ~ or. C0/( u~-eO>Lc:z
~) /Ik-e~~~~~k
(~ ~~)A__() .. {/ ~
['VA ". ()_ ~ \)(~~ ,C?L.. ~ ~
l~ W~/ 1-J~)0 _ ('CJ~
~ (cr4') ~/ Jl ~ -V fY-~ <::L -
f1cz2.Jl cP .JJcYu.J IT IS~ -1-6 -.: q .<~
TT ~ seeM:) {; ~ tz1 (3-/on-s6 ~ ~
tlc5'~/~~~~V~ C-r~
~O~fO~._.~ ~/~d-r't4c
'fVd>>~S ~ [) ~
~ re;re:t ~' -rht's 'r3~~
--0rvL1C{i'~ ['Y[ ~ pr~ ~ ~~~ ). .
a-::r 1{P4-V-&'% ~.5~ lik 14> cP~ch--\ 'a~
Dl1cJ2 ~ . /. ~~~ tu ~ ' /<t~
~ ~ f(3U. ~J /tU.~SfbYI(! .
f~. po~~~~~7fJ:::>-/~_c:' ~~J
, _ (),"",. hO~~ / ~ vrit:j~os ~ ~
~C~I~-_~ { ~(
(,' iL9- ~~ 1t-.Q;C(~j ~lA.e
r~W~b->1~~sf~ ~ kR~
-I ~ CLd~1-~ . :;C~J (/k q -f-~(:l>k ~~~
, ----h7~ 0 h \ ~ <' Jb~ ~3 --10 -;c
6e~ IJ 5j ~a..ce. He:t./fn -It-o5fl ( ~(
3-3 Date Received:-#f/.Ja:>l
PI!:lInncV" .6.1 I -
'. ~~ ~~ ~r l.e/*el1 /dvtt I Clly ~cil.H.
: . / ~~
\. '-1 ,~ ~. ~ C{: ~ :
\ fOP.Yd ~ iJ/ocL 111 'R ~ ~ ~ .
4ft t/W $>I t'{/U(q~ ._~~
:;: tJ (!#/ Ifq4~ ~
If1CiJI1t181t'mce ~ k ~ c/cJ ~
~ k#7 C yf :fv.~ ~ ..~
fJ # / I//;r rf /r H I .d!Z - '..-r7. ~
nf-~~~ i~;I/ ~ --f<<^-
I(~' fof~ 13 51: ~ U ~/
. ~ c(@sd '. ~fldn 17,,,
J--P ~!S -. ~
~ f1J- ~ qf .~ ~ //l _
jJ~/ :r- ~ _~ ~
fld /J ~ -f&?~Cf ~ ~ . /~.
~r, 4~~
t!1o/laz ~ ~ - -, ~ ~ (/~ .
~ ~~ rb ~.13 sr ~~
006~- , ~
;:t- u~ c0 5)7fCiJGdI J!.~~
J- ~c'~A, d/7/;/;..// ~-p, .J1~ J' ~
3-5 Date Received: b /;? /~~7
Pll:Inncr' .dl '/
. ,
.
~-
w~ u~ 1fr M ~teI/"-/f
Lr~ r0 ~ ~/.~
~ to ~ f!{sP ~qzi~
- ' ~ ~ /_~ ~
/l.^^- spr1l1~ n;P Jl1i::CdiJ ' ' - 0(' I.-.U' ~
~ I ij: l'
~~~~~~/11 ~
~ OJ c;bsk0C fjf(ddYfl- .)b ~ Ji
iv~., ~ -- rtJJ ~ ~ ~~
.' / r ?b~.h:eo' .
~ ~.V;;U(!uue~~
I5f crCUr . /t'/e ~ ~ ~
~ p --M 0/ U~ ).b~J
we jJ ~ ~ ~tJ?~~ ~. i
~ fz .;--4 51 ~
~Z ~j~~1 ~1;;(1$~uJ
J7/ _. _ -jeflf M ~ -:1/nV1Jl/EjQ; ~
r~ . ~l/f:y~ -
~ ~ ~M}"r':t8r ~ 8Y1'1f~
~ ~~6(.11k'~);e '/0 ~e~ ~--. -~ '.
6'h !t5 ~:J:y ~ HiJ";fO'1i',:~g CotLdv(yq /Uo6//:ze ~r/-z%. "
~ ,fL(j1Fr-nn'-/ ' ,. s,~ f(:Y!r - R~~L ~
. 1_ _n~ I-L~~ A _.. JA ~ ~-;~.ln1J ~~ ~;;.d))J:~V,
. .
J9~ 57~
(J /ea5::: 0( () /10 f (J a cci/e
B 51 ~ tj1J 1/11)'
Y; ukJ{(1d -f;'hd rk;S
'RF:CRfVED1
FIB Z 200-
.....-:! I
&: t'wI I
. r' (
1V11/cr ;/1 coil r/ef/le/1C? - drlulltJ
-ftJ fM cllf IJqll---- elk11- tda(/J~J;b
{ht !/brlff-
P/6t:Z recc:};t5l~ pOfti1 r
c4Y5 cd 5~ l()ca~;/1 .C;&r~ ~'
1115+#0 ~ ~ JlSf- ~ .,-M ~,
~ d- =?2N:Jl..;-~ yf;:- ~ 'JR' ~.
pM. <:lUre - ~ I<i!
S# ~ (jse B~- ~ i~
fU t tP' ' L~ / d'r-P an:
Ld f'/Ie kf1CU) rV'- .,- ~-' ~
~ ahJ ~c6s)t1J #:s:f. ~
perM e7/JmItvt J _ ~ ~1?i&d!7 - . . -~
:;: r 11 of' d /0 ff? III ~ c C! 0 ayY1Avd 1, L-1 ~ ,
...(l{~ -5;, ~ [db(.JA,d J '''''/ I \
f!tv,flc!i)5ure:. ..Bo~;-. ~ '
3-9 9t/1 ~5"-r]P5-1dF/ ~
.k' /J yo-).., C1 -f /,#~('t:f11 ZJI c:rJ777
/
. .
'r;;~~;~'~ ~~_oo ~~ cU
MnA_/ 1+ 7/1 ~~
. VVVC/V\,. ~ :;; CA-4 rJ . ;2 U
111 V '21//;C(./:; , ~ ~
.J. re<<(7-:ze ~ oro6clhi~ tv/!f ~L
d~~ F 7 ~Q~
!l 51 ~~ ~ ~~-
:;; ~ tdcYrK q -/ /U 5jJrl''l-{}d'if
tlJrcUh?(J 4, 5'helof21 S-~/~Q5
,1/. 0 ~ /. --fis2 !j)r~ 0#01. - ·
a. (j{/{u.r;rreer, ~ (j- to /
:r r~cdiu -tt~ ~ ~ 1lf- C S;(-.~ ~
/AJ;(( ~ slNI /pR ~ - Sd :.y(1 u)Cll'k
{tUi"AAUj ~ g 7S ~ cd- tjP.-
W~~1,o-M 461C :};f tvllf. M /4~ (~~
(+~- C tXJ/fl ~ jzJ ~ Lf ~
~ o-n 5 -7 ..;- cs::f- ,7 (?1 /v~ C /vccJ-a2 ~
CU"-' - ;to r"I~ ~. r/~ 6Y'
. U/1 .gsf ' U
.,
\
\
'.
3-11 Date l'lecelved:~~7
Planner: AL
~ - - --- --- ---- - --- -- ... -.......-....
~..,>J . _, ,.4--{tIt!~/.::r:- {.~.P'V1.i's~ t/~ ~_~~ fl~ ~~~..~-~7d:f...
.:-.t.f...ol~~:"-,b./;er IJCtC~} kS-6' ~ -f1t-.e /~ U--4-'< ~ ~.~ /~ /~ {S J:.:-(:zt
_ _ ct'f; !kIllS' Ci-r8:l'( .0/<1:<)--;0 drivetS ~ -+~ 1.U2'37'./}$
-.. . ",' '.. _ /J r C2cJrVt.f1,.{c:;;rt S"~\S"e
f(pfJe -tlz/s CQI1 ~ qoerT~1 'Sdq-/--/d/l'
prevo': I IV/ex.>< -;0 -t I~
W
I
-'
W
'1JO
-0)
1>>_
::JlJ)
::J
ro:lD
;"'!(])
(")
:t>Sl!.
.<
CD
c..
~
f'
--..J
-- --.-- --- .- .-- - - - -----
.._.....,r-
/t-~. : rfn#; ~,4~6(/&
f I a /1/l1 11; CotVZjV1~ ~5it:711
;2.:1-5 Ff-fYIr Sy,
_ _--,--7
5fr)I~;<1~CJR 97'1/1
::;";- -1---'1- ;.j.-S -..\. 11,/"1",1,1,,1111,111111.1111.11,,1,,,111,111,1111,1,,1111,1
· (j)f2C{r 5/("'l-fi€kl (,;h-. ,11:, y'l{fle~'()b i
'. . . '. . 1/ ./?Ile'rJ 7 --------J
" -I-- -fJt11l1<.r Ii C{f/e a ?rd6{Ff'-vr - i
biz; C!2)J1;Q o-ff'- 13 S+ C{S a-- QIfj qrf.e · ./ ;
. , or<<i .hU;~/ nq/ '
..{o bttdd ~ f1r;5iPtr;~/;c.e ~S")~ IS'
not Or /t:JCJq ;~ c:'(f q// / or S'~
T~ aWM~ ~~
Lu-rH.db( s~ '1-fry/~ -p c/'i7 l'
~~/( claw 11 ;f Sf I dr7 fi1:ik C $-1- (' q ~\
r-es/~ s~ ~ dC<.;-;e-r \:rfp-~_ 1 <i!
-J-- d~dfU;Plcfer~://~ nJ~ ~ ~ ~
c/....A'// tJ')# L U /l ,;;: '? F' - t3 ~
~~ ;:Jk/(.:::( V( ?JrlSt7Ztf ~'?n <?.<'t~
fW-rt err SprJI1 /~G(.-. /7oT -6~ck q ^1C(i'-P7
.5f~ef' to do Pz?5' A/1# k:;: ~ ~
to tp:Ke ~ ('tt'>!d'~ :~r's t~y/z ~0'r.r~.fr-
bt-d- !.5" jU ~!hllr~ ;-f- ~.~.
/;u/lf/ ~ wfg?S Ilk /1.-L.e C-ulll Uo;; ~.
i-r b/~ r vJil/ ..6~cy{T 8--f; ·
li~ r:!f/'R~ fGJ [;z6.1~ ..J- -. d'~-<< SII'CV~ I
~~ Ullfi7 i10 -C/-r ~/S 17 he-€".P-e
;;r s/rMJtt 5~ jJl//S~/ _tr- Mdf/'e o-f?f9~-"
;j~ ~ /rl ---('quor o-P :fa-t' c?Crr-<{?f/!;L ,
c..ot1s-{-l/'ud;0'7I 7~.h/dYf~ c:a:;(f$5' ~ (/;4::;,
If~ fed o-f{)CR -f1.-e ?tont1,Q( uJ~ ~ J~
-i LU01~ b4 M~re ~ ~
4hOU.k '--fIi)5~"t~...-f1 (ked M-eefi/~ ~
f .7~5(/~ ~-7~~
.,
\
\
. (G~ -~~/{ - --{-h:zy:~.
I -t1~ ~ c~ I?(~ ~ It
COJ15ldr4 ~/-~.I/k t<<J? .
t)~psR f1u0 ;~. .
-t -f -f~ t<.Jtfl4 a ~
:1 V-J~ {)Yie~. .
"1: ~11k€~~5P ~/~
r f~ 4fJ/J&jrt~-soo1 .I /
. col-C? _ ~O~~
L -;; ~4 ~~/
p~. Yf;*~ 2J5f Avry -{lrU .
\J~~cv; tJn~~ -4/1' . cifi2--6z;
~(~ . I~~ Cr"; ~ c;i~
lLV, It~ 0 5;oo'1~ef01/()R.
#Jf' -' vv?-~ . . 97'177
1,of1V\~'~ ~
./~ n~) J(
YA'
RECETVED '
J 1._1 JUN 0 5 2006'
Date Recelved:~/.2t"'7 ac -r
Planner: Al BY: ~
3-17
Submittal to the record' of the city of Springfield
Planning Commission
Discretionary Use and Zone Change Request (Justice Center)
Case Numbers
DRC2006-00013 (Discretionary Use Application)
ZON2006-00007 (Zone Change Request)
March 28, 2006
Submitted by:
Scott E. Olson, P.E.
1127 B Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Comments and assertions of error In the staff report findings and 'conclusion are
presented below. Portions of the staff report are replicated wIth my comments In anal
font following. The staff report identifies the cntena for approval with summary
concluslonary findings with little or no discussion of how the application supports the
findings No indication that the applicant has addressed any of the approval criteria in
the applicatIOn IS presented In the staff report.
The staff report includes;
Proposed Findings In Support of Discretionary Use Approval
Criterion (1): The proposed use conforms with the appllcable'
(a) Provisions of the Metro Plan;
Finding: The Metro Plan speaks in broad terms about development in the greater
Eugene/Springfield urban area, and there are no policies specifically related to Justice
Center or correction facility projects. However, the proposal is consistent with the Metro
Plan objectives for siting public/government buildings and services in nodal development
areas such that population and employment are concentrated in well-defined areas with
good transit service and a mixture of compatible land uses (Metro Plan Chapter II-E(4)).
Finding: The Metro Plan's Public and Semi Public plan designation provides for the .
accommodation of major government facilities and office complexes. Springfield's
Public Land and Open Space zoning district implements this plan designation in the City.
The Justice Center, a large public facility, is proposed to be located within this plan
designation and, therefore, is consistent with the Metro Plan Chapter II
Comments
The staff report fails to IdentIfy that the TransPlan Goals, ObJectIVes, and PolIcIes have
been adopted mto the Metro Plan. The followmg IS extracted from TransPlan
Under state law, TransPlan is a functional plan of the Metro Plan The Metro Plan is the
official long-range general plan (public policy document) for the region comprised of the
1 Of 16
ATTACHMENT
4-1
Date Recelved:#P7
Planner: Al
cities of Eugene and Springfield and metropolitan Lane County. The Metro Plan
establishes the broad framework upon which Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County make
coordinated land use decisions As a functional plan, TransPlan must be consistent with
the Metro Plan. Metro Plan amendments required for consistency will be adopted by the
elected officials concurrent with the adoption of TransPlan.
TransPlan strategies include nodal development and transit-supportive land use patterns,
new and expanded TDM programs, and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), in addition to roadway
projects that benefit pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists All of these strategies can
increase the attractiveness of transportation modes other than the single-occupant vehicle
(SOV). The integration of transportation and land use planning is especially important to
support compact urban growth, which provides for more pedestrian-, bicycle-, and transit-
friendly environments, rather than urban sprawl that. supports auto dependency.
The TransPlan policy framework (Chapter Two) and implementation actions (Chapter
Three) are structured around three fundamental components of transportation planning:
I. Land use,
2. Transportation ,demand management, and
3. Transportation system improvements.
The land use component of transportation planning is addressed by TransPlan policies
and implementation actions that encourage meeting the need for transportation-efficient
development patterns, such as nodal development and transit-supportive land use
patterns. These development patterns reduce tnp lengths and auto dependency and
support transit, bicyclmg, and walking.
Clearly, The first criteria of "The proposed use conforms wzth the applicable:
(a) PrOVlSlons of the Metro Plan;" Includes consistency with the applicable elements of
TransPlan. Again from TransPlan
Goal #1: Integrated Transportation and Land Use System,
Provide an integrated transportation and land use system that supports choices in
modes of travel and development patterns that will reduce reliance on the auto and
enhance livability, economic opportunity, and the quality of life.
Definition/Intent: This goal recognizes the need to. integrate transportation and land use
plannmg to enhance livability, economic opportunity, and quality of life Integration
supports transportation-efficient development patterns and choices in transportation
modes that reduce reliance on the auto.
ClOSing off a collector street at It'S intersectIOn with an artenal street, diverting collector
street traffic to adjacent local street, shutting off pedestnan and blcylce public ways,
seeking vanances to street connectivity and block length standards In a nodal
development overlay zone IS not consistent with thiS goal
2 Of 16
4-2
Date Recelved:.49 /~L
Planner: Al 1-
Goal #2: Transportation System Characteristics
Enhance the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area's quality oflife and economic
opportunity by providmg a transportation system that is:
a) Balanced,
b) Accessible,
c) Efficient,
d) Safe,
e) Interconnected,
f) Environmentally responsible,
g) Supportive of responsible and sustainable development,
h) Responsive to community needs and neighborhood impacts, and
i) Economically viable and financially stable.
DefinitionlIntent: The goal is to provide an overall transportation system that provides
for all of these needs. Transportation decisions on specific facilities and services will
require balancing some characteristics with others. '
a) A balanced transportation system is one that provides a range of transportation
options and takes advantage of the inherent efficiencies of each mode.
b) An accessible transportation system is one that serves all areas of the community and
offers both residents and visitors convenient and reliable transportation options.
c) An efficient transportation system is one that is fast and economic for the user,
maximizes the mobility available through existing facilities, and leverages as much
benefit as possible from new transportation facilities.
d) A safe transportation system is one that is designed, built, and operated to minimize
risk of harm to people and property and allows people to feel confident and secure in
and around all modes of travel.
e) An interconnected transportation system is one that provides for ease of transfer
between different modes of travel, such as auto to bus or bicycle to rail.
f) An environmentally responsible transportation system is one that reduces
transportation-related environmental impact and energy consumption.
g) A transportation system that is supportive of responsible and sustainable
development integrates transportation and land use planning in support of
transportation-efficient development.
h) A transportation system that is responsive to community needs and neighborhood
impacts is flexible and adaptable, and addresses transportation-related impacts in
residential areas.
i) An economically viable and financially stable transportation system is one that is
cost efficient; financially feasible; and has sufficient, ongoing financial support to
ensure transportation system investments can be operated and maintained as desired.
Closing off a collector street at It'S mtersectlon with an artenal street, divertmg collector
street traffic to adjacent local street, shuttmg off pedestnan and blcylce public ways,
seekmg vanances to street connectIVIty and block length standards m a nodal
development overlay zone IS not consistent With thiS goal
3 Of 16
4-3
Date Received: ,/;r/U>07
Planner: Al ;- /
TransPlan Objectives
Consistent with the Metro Plan, the following definition is used for TransPlan
objectives:
An objective is an attainable target that the community attempts to reach in striving
to meet a goal. An objective may also be considered as an intermediate point that
will help fulfill the overall goal.
Objective #1: Accessibility and Mobility
Provide adequate levels of accessibility and mobility for the efficient movement of
people, goods, and services within the region.
Definition/Intent: Accessibility refers to physical proximity and ease of reaching
destinations throughout the urban metropolitan area. This objective supports the need for
multimodal accessibility to employment, shopping, other commerce, medical care,
, housing, and leisure, including adequate-public transit access for people who are
transportation disadvantaged This objective also supports the need for improved access
for tourists to destinations. Mobilityis the ease with which a person is able to travel
from place to place. It can be measured in terms of travel time. Access and mobility are
provided at different levels on different classes of transportation facilities. For example, a
local street has a high level of accessibility for adjacent"residences and businesses, with a
low level of mobility for non-local traffic. An arterial street has a lower level of
accessibility, with a higher level of mobility for through movement of travelers. Local
jurisdictions will determine what constitutes adequate levels of accessibility and mobility
and what is efficient movement of people, goods, and services within the region. Provide
adequate levels of accessibility and mobility for the efficient movement of people, goods,
and services within the region.
ClOSing off streets, rerouting a collector street at It'S intersection with an artenal street,
diverting collector street traffic to adjacent local street, shutting off pedestnan and
blcylce public ways, seeking vanances to street connectivity and block length standards
in a nodal development overlay zone IS not consistent with thiS objective
Objective #2: Safety
Improve transportation system safety through design, operations and maintenance,
system improvements, support facilities, public information, and law enforcement
efforts.
Definition/Intent: TransPlan Goal 2 sets forth safety as a key characteristic of the
desired transportation system. This objective supports the need for taking a
comprehensive approach to budding, operating, and regulating the transportation system
so that travelers feel safe and secure.
"-
ThiS objective did not Intend to result In street closure because It IS unsafe for the police
to need to cross a public street to get to the secured vehicle parkmg area The
objectIVe IS aimed at making the street a safe place for all of us
r
Objective #3: Environment
4 Of 16
4-4
Date Aecelved:~:Po/Jt-
Planner: Al
Provide transportation systems tha,t are environmentally responsible.
Definition/Intent: This objective places a priority on fulfilling the need to protect the
region' s natural environment and conserving energy in all aspects of transportation
planning processes. The primary intent of this objective can be met through compliance
with all federal and state regulations relevant to environmental impact and consideration
of applicable environmental impact analyses and practicable mitigation measures in
transportation decision-making processes. Significant benefits can be achieved from
coordinating the environmental process with the transportation planning process, such as
early identification of issues and resources, development of alternatives that avoid or
minimize impacts early in the project development process, and more rapid project
delivery. The region's need to reduce transportation-related energy consumption can be
met through increased use of transit, telecommuting, zero-emissions vehIcles,
ridesharing, bicycles and walking, and through incre~sed efficiency of the transportation
network to diminish delay and corresponding fuel consumption.
This proposals street closures do not support thIS objectIve because It limIts access to
the transIt statIon, mhlbits walkmg, bIcycling, and created out of direction auto travel.
Objective #5: Public Involvement
Provide citizens with information to increase their awareness of transportation
issues, encourage their involvement in resolving the issues, and assist them in
making informed transportation choices.
The applIcant created a cItIzen adVISOry commIttee to assist wIth sltmg Issues but has
refused to conSIder project alternatives that are wlthm the financial limItations of the
project and keep the streets open The adVISOry commIttee recommendatIon to the CIty
CounCIl was to consider alternatIves to the closure of B Street but the Council voted to
proceed with street closures. The applicants testimony at heanng was maccurate wIth
repect to the consitency wIth the committee's recommendation and the subsequent City
CounCIl actIon and directIon to staff ThIS applicatIon also mappropriately tIes the street
vacation to the discretIOnary use approval through the proposed condItIOns of approval
yet has not addressed the vacatIon approval cntena or done the necessary publIC notice
for a street vacation
Objective #7: Policy Implementation
Implement a range of actions as determined by local governments, including land
use, demand management, and system improvem-ent strategies, to carry out
transportation policies.
The land use polIcies m thIS area were denved from thiS objective of TransPlan and It's
dependance upon Nodal Development and creatIOn of attractIVe modal chOIces The
proposed use IS inconSistent WIth the followmg polICIes of TransPlan
Land Use Policy #1: Nodal Development
Apply the nodal development strategy in areas selected by each jurisdiction that
have identified potential for this type of transportation-efficient land use pattern.
5 Of 16
Date Received: f;/r~7
Planner: Al
4-5
The nodes will be pedestrian-friendly environments with a mix of
land uses, including public open spaces that are pedestrian-, transit-, and bicycle-oriented.
Land Use Policy #2: Supportfor Nodal Development
Support application of the nodal development strategy in designated areas through
information, technical assistance, or incen tives.
Policy Definition/Intent: The intent of this policy is to encourage nodal development
through public support and incentives, recognizing that there is public benefit to the
transportation and land use efficiencies of nodal development.
Land Use Policy #3: Transit-Supportive Land Use Patterns
Provide for transit-supportive land use patterns and development, including higher
intensity, transit-oriented development along major transit corridors and near transit
stations; medium- and high-density residential development within Y4 mile of transit
stations, major transit corridors, employment centers, and downto,~n areas; and
development and redevelopment in designated areas that are or could be well served by
existing or planned transit.
Policy Definition/Intent: The intent of this policy is to encourage more concentrated
development and higher density housing in locations that are or could be served by high
levels of transIt service. By doing so, transit will be more convenient for a greater
number of businesses and people and, in turn, the higher levels of transit will be
supported by more riders.
Land Use Policy #4: Multi-Modal Improvements in New Development
Require improvements that encourage transit, bicycles, and pedestrians in new
commercial, public, mixed-use, and multi-unit residential development.
Policy Definition/Intent: This policy supports efforts to improve the convenience of
using transit, biking, or walking to travel to, from, and within newly developed and
redeveloped areas. This policy recognizes the importance of providing pedestrian and
bikeway connections within the confines of individual developments to pro'vide direct,
safe, and convenient internal pedestrian and bicycle circulation.
Land Use Policy #5: Implementation of Nodal Development
Within three years of TransPlan adoption, apply the ND, Nodal Development
designation to areas selected by each jurisdiction, adopt and apply measures to
protect designated nodes from incompatible devt;lopment and adopt a schedule for
completion of nodal plans and implementing ordinances.
Policy Definition/Intent: This policy was added at the request of the Department of
Land ConservatIOn and Development. The nodal development strategy anticipates a
signIficant change in development patterns within proposed nodes. Development of
theseareas under existmg plan designations and zoning provisions could result in
development patterns inconsistent With nodal development. This policy documents a
commitment by the elected officials to apply the new/ND nodal development Metro Plan
designation and new zonlOg regulations to priority nodal development areas Within three
years of TransPlan adoption, subject to available funding
6 Of 16
4-6
Date R.eoelved:. {, /; '1/ ZOIl 1
Planner: Al I ' I
TDM Policy #2: Parking Management
Increase the use of motor vehicle parking management strategies in selected areas
throughout the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area.
Policy Definitionllntent: Parking management strategies address both the supply and
demand for vehicle parking. They contribute to balancing travel demand within the
region among the various modes O,ftransportation available. To promote parking equity
in the region, consideration should be given to applying parking management strategies at
a region-wide level, in addition to downtown centers.
The proposed use Will sprawl surface parking thoughout a slgmficant portion of the
property within the Nodal Development zone, eliminating potentIal for development
more consIstent wIth the objectives of the zone
TSI System- Wide Policy #1: Transportation Infrastructure Protection and
Management '
Protect and manage existing andfuture transportation infrastructure.
Policy DefinitionlIntent: This policy calls for the protection and management of
transportation facilities for all modes, within the limits of available fundmg, in a way that
sustains their long-term capacity and function. Given the limited funding for future
transportation projects and operations, maintenance and preservation activities, the need
to protect and manage existing and future transportation investments and facilities is
crucial. Strategies related to access management, TDM, and land use can be
implemented to reduce trips and impacts to major transportation facilities, such as
freeway interchanges, thereby postponing the need for investments in capacity-increasing
projects.
ClOSing B Street, a collector street of recent reconstructIOn wIth federal funding
assistance, and dlNertlng traffic to local streets not constructed to the same standard IS
mconsltent wIth thIS policy
TSI System- Wide Policy #2: Intermodal Connectivity
Develop or promote intermodallinkages' for connectivity and ease of transfer among
,
all transportation modes.
Policy Definition/Intent: An intermodal transportation system is one that includes all
forms of transportation in a unified, connected manlJ.er. An intermodal trip is one that
involves two or more modes between the trip origin and destination. Intermodallinkages
are the transfer points along the way, such as Park-and-Rlde lots. In transit, intermodal
transfers allow providers to serve a greater segment of the population. For freight,
intermodal transfers allow shippers to take advantage of the economies of each mode,
such as truck and rail, to achieve the most cost-effective and timely delivenes of goods
TSI System- Wide Policy #3: Corridor Preservation
Preserve corridors, such as rail rights-of-way, private roads, and easements of
regional sigmficance, that are identified for future transportation-related uses.
7 Of 16
4-7
Date Aeeeived: t/;fJolJ7
Planner: Al I /
EllmmatlOn of eXlstmg Improved public comdors to avoId walkmg across the street IS not
consIstent wIth thIs policy
TSI System-Wide Policy #4: Neighborhood Livability
Support transportation strategies that enhance neighborhood livability.
Definition/Intent: Transportation-related impacts on neighborhood livability include
excessive intrusion of regional vehicle movement on local residential streets, excessive
vehicle speeds, and excessive traffic noise. Strategies aimed at improving flow on
arterials, suc~ as access management measures, may draw traffic from neighborhood
streets that, based on travel characteristics. should be properly using the arterial.
The proposed use IS not constent WIth this poltcy
TSI Roadway Policy #1: Mobility and Safety for all Modes
,
Address the mobility and safety needs of motorists; transit users, bicyclists,
pedestrians, and the needs of emergency vehicles when planning and constructing
roadway system improvements.
Policy DefinitionlIntent: This policy supports the design and construction of systems
and facilities that accommodate multiple modes. It also supports consideration of the
needs of emergency vehicles in the design and construction of system improvements.
The proposed use is not constent WIth this policy
TSI Roadway Policy #3: Coordinated Roadway Network
In conjunction with the overall transportation system, recognizing the needs of
other transportation modes, promote or develop a regional roadway system that
meets combined needs for travel through, within, and outside the region.
Policy DefinitionlIntent: The regional roadway system must meet the travel needs of
motorists, transit users, bicyclists, pedestrians, and commercial vehicles. Characteristics
of such a roadway system include adequate capacity and connections to roads entering
the region. TransP/an roadways will be coordinated with the Lane County Transportation
System Plan (TSP) roadways and ODOT corridor studies. All roadway system
improvements will also be consistent with other adopted policies in TransP/an.
The proposed use is not constent WIth thIS poltcy _
TSI Transit Policy #1: Transit Improvements
1m prove transit service and facilities to increase the system's accessibility,
attractiveness, and convenience for all users, including the transportation
disadvantaged population. .
Policy DefinitionlIntent: Continued improvements to the transit system, including
enhancements to the existmg transit service, exploration of transit fare alternatIves that
increase ridership and new and improved transit facilities for passengers, WIll make
transit a more attractive transportation alternative and encourage increased use of transit.
8 Of 16
Date Received: ~f ~07
Planner: Al
4-8
This policy also supports maintaining eXisting facilities in good condition.
By restnctmg pedestnan accesslbtltty the proposed use IS not constent with this poltcy
TSI Transit Policy #2: Bus Rapid Transit
Establish a BRT system composed of frequent, fast transit service along major
corridors and neighborhood feeder service that connects with the corridor service
and with activity centers, if the system is shown to increase transit mode split along
BRT corridors, if local governments demonstrate support, and if financing for the
system is feasible. '
BRT, when combined with other system Improvement, land use, and demand
management strategies, is expected to increase the share of riders who use public
transportation. BRT is also expected to help the region maintain conformity with federal
air quality standards. BRT, combined with nodal development, is a key strategy in the
region's compliance with alternative performance measures for the TPR.
Closure of streets wIthin the neighborhood of the transit station is not constent wIth this
policy or the very sigmfcant investment the publIc IS makmg the BRT system
TSI Bicycle Policy #2: Bikeways on Arterials and Collectors
Require bikeways along new and reconstructed arterial and major collector streets.
Closing collector streets IS not consIst wIth thIs policy.
TSI Bicycle Policy #3: Bikeway Connections to New Development
Require bikeways to connect new development with nearby neighborhood activity
centers and major destinations.
, Policy Definition/Intent: This policy recognizes the importance of providing bicycle
connectivity between new development, neighborhood activity centers, and major
destinations. When new development occurs, connectivity to the regional bikeway
system must be provided. In cases where the existing or planned street network does not
adequately provide bicycle connectivity, paved bikeways should be provided within
residential developments and should extend to neighborhood activity centers or to an
existmg bikeway system within one-half mile of residential developments. Major
destinations may include, but are not limited to, nodal development centers, schools,
shopping centers, employment centers, transit stations, and parks. This policy does not
imply that a developer would be required to provide bikeways through undeveloped
adjoining propertIes.
The proposed use IS not constent wIth thIs policy'
TSI Pedestrian Policy #1: Pedestrian Environment
Provide for a pedestrian environment that is well integrated with adjacent land uses and is
designed to enhance the safety, comfort, and convenience of walk mg.
9 Of 16
4-9
Date Received: ,f/;;~tJ1
Planner: Al
Policy Definition/Intent: This policy supports the provision of pedestrian connections
between adjacent land uses, improved pedestrian access to transit stops and stations, safe
and convenient pedestrian street crossings, and pedestrian amenities, including lightmg.
In more developed areas, such as downtowns, pedestrian design features improve the
accessibility of destinations.
The proposed use IS not constent with this policy
TSI Pedestrian Policy #2: Continuous and Direct Routes
Provide for a continuous pedestrian network with reasonably direct travel routes
between destination points.
Policy Definitionllntent: This policy supports an active program to develop pedestrian
pathways (e.g , sidewalks), especially in proximity to major activity centers. A
continuous pedestrian network is free of gaps and deadends and overcomes physical
barriers that inhibit walking. Direct routes between destination points are important
because out-of-direction travel discourages walking. "Reasonably direct" means eIther a
route that does not deviate unnecessarily from a straight line or a route that does not
involve a significant amount of out-of-direction travel for likely users.
The proposed use IS not constent with this policy
Finance Policy #2: Operations, Maintenance, and Preservation
Operate 'and maintain transportation facilities in a way that reduces the need for more
expensive future repair. I
Removal of a street in excellent condition is not consistent with this policy
Finance Policy #5: Short-Term Project Priorities
Consider and include among short-term project priorities, those facilities and
improvements that support mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly nodal development and
increased use of alternative modes.
Policy Definitionllntent: This policy supports consideration and programming of
facIlitIes and improvements that support nodal development and the increased use of
alternative modes Examples of such investments include funding Incentives for
Implementation of nodal development, fundmg ofTDM programs, and improvements
made to the transit and bike systems.
The proposed use IS not constent With this poltey The city's approval eritena and staff
report contmue below
(b) Refinement plans;
Finding' The proposal is consistent WIth provisions of the Downtown Refinement
Plan, mcluding recent amendments made to allow consideration of Justice Center I
proposals within the Plan area. The Downtown Refinement Plan - Land Use
Element, General Policy #2 contains the following enabling policy in support of the
proposed Justice Center development: "Civic and governmental uses serving the
1 0 Of 16
4-10
Date ~eceived: tJffv,ol
Planner: Al f I
Spnngfield community shall be encouraged to locate in the downtown area. Within
the downtown, governmental uses, including City Hall, the Justice Center and jail,
the library, Willamalane and SUB offices, shall be encouraged to locate and expand
along A Street."
Along the street not m It
(c) Plan District standards;
Finding: The proposal is consistent with provisions of the Public Land and Open
Space District (PLO), as Justice Centers are listed as a Discretionary Use in the
district.
What are the standards? How can It be determined if It IS consltent without discussion
about what they are? What does the NDO designatIon mean? This cntena has not
been addressed by the applIcant or staff
(d) Conceptual Development Plans; or
Finding: There are no conceptual development plans for the subject development
area.
(e) Special use standards in this Code;
Finding. In accordance with SDC 23. I OO(a-b), the applicant would be required to
~ddress special use standards applicable to this proposal at the time of Site Plan
Review application.
This cnteria applIes to thIs appltcatlOn of dIscretionary use approval There need to be
findings that thIs applicatIOn is consIstent with the Speczal use standards m this Code.
The staff report contmues;
Criterion (2): The site under consideratIOn is sUitable for the proposed use, conslderzng
(a) The locatIOn, Size, design and operating characteristics of the use (operatmg
characteristics mclude but are not lzmlted to parkmg, traffic, nOise, vibratIOn,
emiSSIOns, lzght, glare, odor, dust, vlsibllzty, safety, and aesthetic consideratIOns,
where applzcable),
Finding: The proposed Justice Center will be oriented to streets that already serve
the downtown commercial area, and will occupy City-owned land already used for
municipal police and court functions within Springfi_eld. Conceptual site design has
provided for separation from residential uses to the north, and the operational
characteristics of the JustIce Center will be compatible with existing office,
commercial and institutional uses in the immediate vicinity.
The publtc street IS not sUItable for the proposed use as a secured polIce compound and
IS not compatable with the neIghborhood or the eXlstmg publIC use of the street The
applicant nor staff have addressed the locatIOn size or operatmg charactenstlcs of a }a1l
m addressmg thIS cntena The relatIOnship of the jatl and the church entrances should
be addressed A }atlls not an office
11 Of 16
4-11
Date Received:
Planner: AL
6t~b1
/ I
(b) Adequate and safe circulatIOn eXists for vehicular access to and from the proposed
site, and on-site CirculatIOn and emergency response as well as pedestrian, bicycle
and transit czrculatlOn,
Finding: The proposed Justice Center will be served by the existing grid street
system of downtown Springfield, including Pioneer Parkway East which is
'classified as a minor arterial. Sidewalks and on-street bicycle routes already exist
to provide non-motorized access to the site. The site will be designed such that
access points and on-site circulation patterns are safe, effective, and recognize the
operational characteristics of the surrounding street system.
Finding: The secure parking lot located on the north side of the facility will
provide a secure area for jail mmates in the event that the facility is evacuated
providing for publ ic safety in the event of an emergency response
Bicycle, pedestnan, and traslt clfcualtJon WIll be Impeded by the proposed use A traffic
Impact analYSIS typically reqUIred by the city for this type of applIcatIon was not
submItted WIth the applIcatIOn The project archItects have stated that the secure
parkrng area is not reqUIred for emergency evacuatIon and is not Ilkey the pnmary
evacuatIon route
(c) The natural and physzcal features of the szte, includzng but not limited to, riparzan
areas, regulated wetlands, natural stormwater management/drainage areas and
wooded areas shall be adequately conSidered in the project deSign,
Finding: There are no existing natural and/or physical features that will be affected
by the proposed JustIce Center
(d) Adequate publzc facllztles and services are avazlable, mcludmg but not lzmzted to,
utzlzties, streets, storm draznage facllzties, sanztary sewer and other publzc
infi-astructure
Finding: The Development Review Committee I held a meeting to review the
proposed conceptual site plan, Discretionary Use, and Zone Change requests. Staff
and Springfield Utility Board representatives have determined that suffiCient
capacity exists in the adjacent street and utility system to allow conSideration of
Discretionary Use and Zone Change requests Specific details on utility servicing
and other potential effects on public facilities would be finalized with a Site Plan
Review application.
The traffic analYSIS had not yet been revIewed by cIty staff at the tIme thIS findmg was
prepared The testImony at the heanng whIch mdlcated that the reported mcreased
traffic volumes on C Street would not requIre mItIgation IS not consIstent WIth cIty
Imposed requirements on other recent developments m the cIty WIth over 1,000 vehIcles
per day on a local street
Criterion (3). Any adverse effects of the proposed use on adjacent properties and on the
, publzc can be mltlgated through the
(a) ApplzcatlOn of other Code standardsJor example bufferzngfrorn less intenszve uses,
12 Of 16
4-12
Date Received: fl :/2001
Planner: AL
mcreased setbacks, etc.,
Finding: The proposed Justice Center has been intentionally sited on the block between
A Street and B Street to increase separation from existmg residential uses on C Street.
Site design strategies also will include building entrance orientation, landscaping,
screening and other mechanisms to minimize the impact to nearby residential and
institutional uses.
Other than avoldmg any improved use at all of the property abuttmg the residential
neighbors, the application does not address how entrances, (which the architect
dlscnbed as akward) landscapmg, (which there may not be any room for) screenmg or
other mechanisms are being proposed to address this cnteria
(b) Site Plan Review conditIOns of approval, where applzcable,
Finding: Conditions of approval may be applied to the Site Plan Review for the proposed
Justice Center to address specific site development issues if the Discretionary Use and
Zone Change requests are approved.
What does where applicable mean? If It means dunng site plan review then that 15
where this crltena would be located not under discretionary use approval critena. There
should be eVidence and findings that IS seems likely or at least possible that this
proposal can comply with the code reqUirements.
(c) Other conditIOns of approval that may be required by the Approval Authorzty,
Finding: The use of public right-of-way is necessary to implement the site design, as
proposed, and additional conditions may be part of the decision if deemed appropriate by
the Approval Authority.
(d) A proposal by the applzcant that meets or exceeds the cited Code standards and/or
conditIOns of approval.
Finding: The Justice Center proposal will meet or exceed all relevant Code standards
required for approval of the Discretionary Use and Zone Change.
How can the adverse affects be mitigated through future conditIOns or code standards?
The staff findmg fails to address how the proposed street vactlon can meet the
standards for a street vacation or any of the PLO/NDO zone standards.
Conclusion: The staff has reviewed the application and supporting evidence submitted
for the Justice Center Discretionary Use approval. The staff recommends support for the
request as the proposal meets the stated CrIteria for Discretionary Use approval as listed
above. In the event that new or contradictory representation that could lead to a different
conclusion is introduced at the public hearing for the Discretionary Use request, staff will
undertake addItional analysis and prepare findings to address this testimony.
As proposed, the Discretionary Use application will require the vacation of B Street so
that the right-of-way can be developed with a secure parking lot. A secure parking area is
integral to the normal functions of the jail and police station, and also serves an important
13 Of 16
4-13
Date Received:
Planner: Al
6 t 'l/;tb07
// '
role as emergency evacuatwn space for jail detainees in accordance with standards of the
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 101 Life Safety Code.
The segment of 4 Ih Street between A Street and B Street also will require vacation as it is
part of the dedicated parking area for the complex. To allow this to occur, staff
recommends that the following conditions of approval are endorsed by the Commission:
Staff Recommended Conditions of Approval:
I. Prior to Final Site Plan Review approval for development of the Justice Center, the B
Street right-of-way between 4 Ih Street and Pwneer Parkway East shall be vacated
2. Prior to Final Site)lPlan Review approval for development of the JustIce Center, the 4 th
Street right-of-way between A Street and B Street shall be vacated. The Planning
Commission may choose to apply addItional conditions of approval as necessary to
comply with the Discretionary Use and/or Zone Change criteria.
Additional Approvals
The subject applications are the first steps in a series of development applications for
Planning Commission and Council consideration in order to allow development of a
Justice Center at the proposed location. Ifthe Planning Commission approves the
Discretionary Use and Zoning Change requests, an application would be taken to Council
for a Type II TransPlan amendment to remove the affected portion of B Street from the
collector street network. Application also would be required to have the affected portions
of B Street, 4 th Street, and the alley between A and B Streets vacated. If a TransPlan
amendment application is submitted, the Planning Commission would be required to
provide a recommendation to City Council on that matter and proposed street and alley
vacations. A variance to the block length requirement also would be required upon
vacation ofB Street between Pioneer Parkway East and 4 Ih Street, as the perimeter travel
distance would exceed the parameters established by the SDC.
The followmg IS taken from the city's Site Plan Review Package Submittal ReqUirements
and the Spnngfield Development Code
4 Copy of the deed and a preliminary title report issued Within the past 60 days documentmg ownership
and IIstmg all encumbrances If the applicant IS not the property owner, written penmsslOn from the
property owner IS requIred
5 Right-of-Way Approach Permit application must be provided where the property has frontage on an
Oregon Department of TransportatIOn (ODOT) faCIlity
6 Traffic Impact Study must provide four (4) copies of the study prepared by a Traffic Engmeer where the
proposed development WIll produce more than 250 vehicle trips per day 111 accordance With the current
vemon of the Transportation Engmeers Trip GeneratIOn Information Report.
Before the Plannmg CommiSSIOn or Hearings Official can approve a Discretionary Use request,
there must be informatIon submItted by the applicant which adequately supports the request In
reVIewing a request, the City must consider both the posittve and negatIve elements of a
Discretionary Use request. AU of the Discretionary Use Criteria must be addressed by the
applicant. If msufficient or unclear data is submItted by the applIcant, there is a good chance the
14 Of 16
4-14
Date Received:
Planner: Al
bl?~7
I /
. - .
request will be denied or delayed It IS recommended you hire a professIOnal planner or land use
attorney to prepare your findings.
Discretionary Use Criteria Checklist (SDC 10.030)
1. Except for private/public elementary and middle schools and certain wireless
telecommUnicatIOns systems facilities, a DiscretIOnary Use may only be allowed if the Planning
Commission finds that the proposal conforms with the following critefla:
a. The proposed use shall conform with existmg uses in terms of scale, lot coverage, design,
intensity of use and operating characteflstlcs.
b. The proposed use shall not generate more traffic on local streets or more demand for public
facilities than would permitted uses in the same zoning district
c. The proposed use conforms with applicable Metro Plan policies and applicable descriptions
of Land Use DeSignations shown on the Metro Plan Diagram Expansion of an existmg
DiscretIOnary Use shall be exempt from conformance With Metro Plan land, use designations.
3.050 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL.
(3) An application shall consist of items required by this Code and the following:
(a) An explanation stating the nature of the proposal and information that may have a
bearing in determining the action to be taken, including findings demonstrating
compliance with applicable approval criteria.
(b) Evidence that the property affected by the application is in the exclusive ownership or
control of the applicant, or that the applicant has the consent of all owners of the affected
property to act on their behalf.
The city proposal depends upon the use of considerable property for which they do riot
yet have control The proposed use depends upon the use of parking facilities north of
Fourth Street which are not city owned The city also need to complete street vacations
pnor to havmg a buildmg right to the street ThiS proposal can not comply with the
street vacation cntena which mclude no loss of any benefical use. Until the city can
demonstrate their ability to effect the street vacation they do not have control of the
street for their facility
(c) The legal description and assessor map and tax lot number of the property affected by
the application.
(d) Additional information includmg maps, site plans, sketches and calculations as
reqUired
by apphcable Sections of this Code or in information packets provided by the
Development Services Department.
(e) The required number of copies of the application.
(f) Payment of the applicable application fee at the time of application submittal. No
application will be accepted without payment of the appropriate fee in full, unless the
applicant qualifies for a fee waiver
10.020 REVIEW.
(3)A complete application together with all required materials shall be submitted to the
15 Of 16
Date Recelved:..4~9'~7
Planner: Al /--=
4-15
,'.I"l ,
Director prior to the review ofthe request as specified in Section 3.050, Application
Submittal.
ARTICLE 9, VACATIONS
9.060 CRITERIA OF APPROVAL.
(2) Where the proposed Vacation of public rights-of-way, other City property, or Partition
or Subdivision Plats is reviewed under Type IV procedure, the City Council shall
approve, approve with conditions, or deny the Vacation application. The application shall
be approved if the Vacation is found to be consistent with the following approval criteria.
(a) The VacatIOn shall be in conformance with the Metro Plan, TransPlan, the Conceptual
Local Street Map and adopted Functional Plans, and applicable Refinement Plan diagram,
Plan District map, or Conceptual Development Plan; \
(b) The Vacation shall not conflict with the provisio,!s of Springfield Municipal Code
1997; and this Code, including but not limited to, ~tree~ connectivity standards and block
lengths; and
(c) There shall be no negative effects on access, traffic circulation,"emergency service
protection or any other benefit derived from the public right-of-way, publicly owned
land or Partition or Subdivision Plat.
ARTICLE 11, VARIANCES
11.013 APPLICABILITY.
The Variance provisions apply:
(I)To buildings, structures and lots/parcels;
The vanance provIsions of the cIty code do not apply to the vacatIon of streets The
vacatIOn cntena refer specifically to the street conectivlty and block length standards
Respectfully submitted to the City,
Scott E. Olson, P.E.
1127 B Street
/-
/
'-
I
I
16 Of 16
Date Received: t;:fjp~7
Planner: Al / I
4-16
I::" I
. RT7"',(" 'F1'\T'H""'D'
"if1, . '" J
Submittal to the Record
City of Springfield
Street Vacation Request
Case No. LRP 2007-00019
Testimony in opposition
June 12, 2007
JUN 1 2 ZOO?
t1GK
BY:
Submitted by: Scott E. Olson, P.E.
1127 B Street
Springfield Oregon
I have been involved wrth the planning and development of the urban form for more than 30 years I
feel privileged to live and work within SIX blocks of Spnngfield's City Hall I am attracted here In part
by the potential we have to make Springfield even better th~n It already is. The fact that our street
grid is still largely intact is essential to my feelings about this area and Its Mure.
We are considenng development of a JustiCe Center in a highlY sensitive lOcation at the Interface
between our prized historical neighborhood, the town's commercial center and the VVillametle RIver.
We can not create new historical town centers. The ones we have are special places and deselVe
careful conSideration of any plans to significantly change their character. The street gnd and open
public ways are the underlying fabric from which we create the sense of place and vitality we seek.
Achieving the kmd of place we desire requires that we carefully consider both what activities we place
there and how those activities are located and interrelated with each other. Success demands both '
the right mix of functions and the nght facilities. In fact It IS our Insistence upon developing a
compatible mix of activities and their Interrelationships that must gUide the decision making process.
We must not compromise the larger area for the functionality of any single element If a
. function can not be made to fit within the larger context of the a, ca, then it belongs In a
different place. Our land use planning pr~ss requires that we work our way down
from macro broad state WIde goals, down to comprehensive plan poliCIes. to development codes,
refinement plans, and finally site specific developments. ThiS is the context In
which we must proceed with all new development proposals. I believe this is particularly
true when we are working on the development of a public facility
It seems to me that the Justice Center planning has somehow become reversed and IS asking us hem
we need to modify our planning framework to accommodate. the project instead of how can the project
be developed to fit the area's plans.
I am dlsappomted that the city has steadfastly refused to consider any alternatives during the project
development process which considered tradeoffs in the functional and space program wIth the
assocIated site constraints Placement of a lower cost anCIllary bUilding within a street right of way IS
an example. I do not see how thIS project can be made feaSible at the selected site unless the
elements that have been lumped Into the bUilding program can be open to diSCUSSion and
reconsideration
5-1
Date Received:h, t!.rf'L
Planner: Al
ATTACHMENT
.f '
'Nhen consldenng the siting of a justI~ center In downtown Spnngfield we should ask two questions;
1) How does including this activrty contnbute to the desired vitalrty of the area? And 2) How does the
facility contnbute to our overall ~ense of place? If thiS project requires a three block area WIthout
Intervening streets then we are looking in the wrong place I am totally convinced that we are far better
off dOing nothing in thiS srtuatIon then we are to proceed with the wrong project.
If the funcbonal demands of a justice center can not fit harmoniously within the requirements for a
healthy town center and preserve the Integnty of our public ways and spaces, then It simply needs to
be located elsewhere If concessions need to be made they should to be In the functional
requirements of the new facilrty, not the function of the neighborhood and greater communrty.
This area is evolving and the nght things will happen if we are patIent and responsive when
opportunrty presents Its self We may have an opportunrty before us now We must not be short srted
and sacnfice the integnty of the greater community to accommodate the infleXIble requirements of city
staff. The public has very narrowly supported the project In bOth bOnd and jail operations elecbons.
The projects approval can hardly be considered a mandate to Ignore our land use policy and give the
police anything they ask for Including a collector street so they can park nexfto the door and store paper
records and stolen bICYcles in what IS now the crty street
I along with many others worry that our local efforts to solve what ha~ become a crisis in the Lane
County cnmlnal JUstice system may be confounding the problems and aggravating a more' hofistic
regional solution. I wonder how many others of the 53% of voters that supported the bond measure
were unaware as I was that the new Jail would not do anything with the felony offenders accounting for
85% of Spnngfield's 2004 charges. The felony criminals will continue through the Lane County
revolving door while Spnngfield locks up the misdemeanor offenders How many of my neighbors
understood that the closed 310 floor of the Lane County Jarl is empty and available for 100 additional jail
beds rf we can only find a way to staff It.
I believe It IS past time for the CIty to prOVide its police and court WIth decent facilities I also believe
that those actMties could contnbute to the vitality of the downtown rf sited wrth sensitivity to the
reqUIrements of the larger community and netghborhood.
If the Justice Center is to be bUIlt in the downtown area, we need to find a way to have it fit in and to
contnbute to the greater function of the area while respecting the historical framework of its public
ways. If that can not be achieved, then we must locate a srte better suited to the secunty and space
reqUIrements which were Imposed upon all of the altematives considered in the project development
process.
The City inappropnately presumed In the development of the preliminary planmng and cost
estimating that the street nght of ways were available for incorporating Into the new Justice
Center FaCility The fact that the pOSSibility of street closures was mentioned In the ballot
measure does not have any meanrng In the context of the land use approval for this project, or
exempt the City from adhenng to their own land use policies and code requirements. The
police chief has testified that plan to build across B Street was based upon the [ower cost to
build Into the street.
Twelve years ago the city improved B Street at a cost of $875,000 The improvements to the
collector street were paid for With federal funds If B Street IS severed from the artenal at
B Street VacatJon, Testimony Opposing
Scott E Olson, P E
2
Date Received:~ i?~7
Planner: At '" I' "'1
5-2
(\
~ 11 ..
,
Pioneer Parkway, immediately adjacent to the proposed street closure, B Street will no longer
function as a collector As a local street, the improvements would not have been eligible for
the federal Investment in the street improvements. The value of B Street both in terms of
Improvements and function has not been considered in City decisions to pursue the street
closure The value of the investment the public made In improving B Street in 2007
construction costs IS over $1.2 million. It has been suggested that the city could be obligated
to repay the federal government jf the street is indeed closed.
The city contracted for a traffic study of the impacts of the proposed closure of B Street. The
study is appropriately focused on the capacity of the adjacent streets to absorb the diverted
traffic Street capacity has never been the issue related to the closure of 8 Street. A local
street and a collector can and often do look the same. Two travel lanes with parking on both
sides of the street. The ability of A and or C Streets to handle the increased traffic should
never have been questioned. The issue is about the function of the streets, and maintaining
the effectiveness of the collector and arterial street system which has been designed to
accommodate through travel as opposed to access to abutting property as local streets do.
Further, the street grid IS almost entirely intact in thiS area of Springfield. No other
neighborhood has developed the degree of street connectivity as exists in thiS historical core
of the Springfield community. The traditional street system has become increaSingly valued
by urban planners as we struggle With how to reduce our impacts on greenhouse gas
emissions and global warming Closure of B Street in a Nodal Development Overlay Zone
which emphaSizes pedestrian and bicycle mobility is clearly moving in the wrong direction and
is inconSistent With all of the adopted land use policy in the City of Springfield.
The CIty approved a zone change from Mixed Use Commercial/Nodal Development to Public
Land and Open Space/Nodal Development because a JustIce Center is not listed in the
MUC/NDO Dlstnct. None of the staff reports reviewing the projects history have mentIoned
the fact that several months prior to making the zone change application the city added
Justice Centers as an allowed use in the PLO/NDO zone. The project was not an allowed use
at the site at the time the City asked voters to fund the project.
The City has failed to appropnately prOVIde for public Involvement In a meaningful way
throughout the planning process. A citIzen adVISOry committee, (CAC) was formed "to provide
input throughout the deSign process In regard to outward design of the faCility and Its
relationship to downtown Spnngfield". I volunteered for the CAC and during my interview for
the pOSition I Informed the City council of my opinion With respect to the street closure and
indicated a deSIre to work on appropriate alternatives.
City staff and their consultant developed a Functional and Space Program prior to formation of
the CAC The draft document was presented to the cAc. However the committee was told It
was for their information only and they would have no Input on the contents of the space '
program. The Functional and Space Program was adopted by the CIty council without public
heanng or any changes to the consultant's recommendations. The public was not proVided
any opportUnity to partiCipate in what was being Included In the project.
Later In the process every alternative considered Incorporated aJl at the elements of the space ,1
program. Ultimately all of the alternatIves exceeded the project available funds but the
closure of B Street was the lowest cost alternative conSidered That alternative was
supported by a majonty of the CAC and ultimately adopted by the City councIl.
8 Street Vacation, TestImony Opposing
Scott EDison, P E
3
5-3
Datel ReceIved:
Planner: Al
_fl;Po~I---,
i " ..
No attempt was ever made to develop an alternative that was within the available funds and
respected the land use requirement for new development in this zone including the closure of
streets City staff has orchestrated a plannrng process from the very beginnings of this project
In which no meanrngful consideration has been given to alternatives to closing B Street. This
effort has resulted in a failure to comply with Goal 1 requirements for the entire Justice Center
Planning process.
Staff has consistently refused to even diSCUSS alternatives to closing 8 Street and steadfastly
argues, often in absurd ways why the street should be closed. In last weeks hearing the
police chief stated more than once that If officers responding to an emergency must cross the
street to reach their vehicles, ultimately one IS gOing to be so distracted with responding that
they will run In front of a car and be hit. One must question the wisdom of such statements
when we are trusting that sa'me individual to get In a police crUiser and dnve 50 miles per hour
down my reSidential street and appropnately handle deadly weapons. Such arguments
demonstrate the desperation with which supporting arguments for the street closure have
been constructed. '
Other absurd arguments have been constructed throughout the planning process On at least
two separate occasions suggestions to construct a pedestnan over-crossing of B Street have
been rebuffed by police statements that such a facIlity would be vulnerable to driving under It
with a bomb. We also need secure parking for the police to prevent keying of their personal
vehicles or slashing tires which hardly seem to justify sacrificing the functionality of a million
dollar collector street. Arguments about police response times seem equally absurd from my
perspective.
Statements about the need to evacuate inmates to the secure parking area in B Street are
inconsistent with what the CAC was .told about jail evacuations. The secure parking area IS
adjacent to the Police Courts bUilding not the jail on the opposite side of the block from B
Street. The need for thiS function in B Street IS not part of the Functional and Space Program
and IS not the primary evacuation plan
The City has modified the code cntena for a street vacation in an attempt to avoid the
inconSistency with thiS project and the adopted land use policy. The cnteria tailored
speCifically to get thiS project around the land use policy Impediments to deSired street closure
are not grounded In any adopted land use policy and are vague and misleading in the intent.
Ensunng that the vacated property Will remain In public ownership Inappropriately assumes
that the public Interest IS better served by maXimizing public property ownership of opposed to
protecting the publics legItImate Interests the function of the right of way. Technically the
public does not own the nght of way, but has an interest in the use for street purposes. The
City can not ensure continues public ownership because it does not own the property until It IS
vacated. Once vacated there is no way of preventing future city councils from selling the
property to a pnvate party
Substituting pedestnan and bIcycle connection cntena from the states OAR, the minimum
required anywhere in the entire state for the specifics ,of the local Comprehensive Plan,
Transportation System Plan, Refinement Plans, Zoning Requirements and other local code
requirements IS an obVIOUS attempt to avoid compiling with the local adopted policy and code
requirements Additionally staffs findings that adding 46% to the length of the deSirable X
mile pedestrian tnp length IS not consistent With accepted pedestrian planning principles
B Street Vacation, Testimony Opposing
Scott E Olson, P E
4
5-4
Datel Received: ~p,~,----
Planner: AL ~
v . I .
Further "Whether a greater public b,:nefit would be obtamed from the vacation than from
retaining tne nght-of-way In Its present status' lacks any cntena or measures grounded In any
adopted public policy and are purposefully vague and amorphous. It IS clearly a relatIvely
crude attempt to avoid complying wIth the land use policies of the City
The street vacation can not meet any of the three cnteria previously established in the code.
The CIty'S process has attempted to skirt or bypass addressing the street closure
inconsistency wIth the Comprehensive Plan, the Transportation System Plan, the ZOning
Dlstnct, the Nodal Development Overlay, and the Code Cntena. The cntena related to the
street closure have not been addressed during the zone change, the discretIonary use
approval, the site review, and now the street vacation. Somewhere in the approval process
the city must confront these issues There IS no vanance that makes these policies go away
The city staff has the hIerarchy of the project planning criteria reversed The community has
planned for the development desired In the downtown area. Those plans are embodied In the
adopted public policy documents. The approach to this'project has been how we can change
the code to accommodate everything the pollee are asking for instead of how we can bUild
consistent with our community plan and vision. .,
We can have both a jail and a livable community. This project must conform to block and
connectIvity standards. Particularly smce this IS a Nodal Development Overlay zone which
relies on enhanced connectivity and pedestrian and bicycle mobility.
r
B Street Vacation, TestImony Opposing
Scott E Olson, P E
5
5-5
Date ReoejVed:;(!~e7
Planner: Al
l./
ME MORAND U .L....
City of Springfield
To: Andy Limbird, Planner IT
From:, Jim Polston, Assistant Project Manager
Date: June 11, 2007
Subject: Sidewalk in the alley north, ofB Street
r,
, -
As a result of the request from the Plannmg Commission meeting of June 5th, I have looked into the
effects of installmg a sidewalk in the alley north of the secure parking area of the Justice Center. The
request was to mstall a three foot WIde walkway along the alley to make pedestrian travel quicker and
safer at this mId-block location.
A three foot walk is acceptable under the Amencans with Disabilities Act as long as a five foot wide
passing lane is incorporated at least every two hundred feet This could be accommodated in this area;
however there are other factor~ to consider prior to requrring:~ walk in this area.
1. If the SIdewalk is mstalled withm the alley right-of-way it will give vehIcles less space to
maneuver making the alley Aess safe for them, whIle offering only limited protection to the pedestrian,
unless the sidewalk is raised behind a curb.
2. The SIdewalk (whether m the R-O- W or not) would likely need to be installed on the south side of
the alley because existing condItIOns on the north SIde, such as poles, fences and driveways would make
construction along the north side problematic
3. The City of Spnngfield Engineering Design Standards calls for the minimum sidewalk width to
be five feet. While It does not speCIfically mention sidewalks along alleys, sidewalks along residential
and cul-de-sac streets are to be five feet minmlUm.
4. The Springfield Development Code requires a five foot wide landscape setback along the north
side of the Justice Center ProJect. If this SIdewalk IS installed ill th_e alley one of two problems occurs.
A. If the sidewalk is to be included m the landscape buffer then it reduces size of the
planting area wIDch creates conflICts between code sections, impacts the survival of the landscape
plantrngs by reducing planting area and creates opportunities for tree roots to damage pavement.
B. If the Sidewalk is rnstalled between the alley and the landscape buffer then the secure
parking lot would have to be redesigned. It appears that to accommodate this situatIon the secure lot
would lose at least six parking spaces. It would also elImInate open space currently reserved for the
expansion of space in the ancillary buildmg l!=lst during value engineering.
4 The SIdewalk would have to be built behind a curb or to road specIfications or vehicle traffic
would damage the SIdewalk not deSIgned for vehicle traffic. .
In dISCUSSing this WIth the Engineenng and Traffic Divisions ofPubhc Works it was suggested that
allowing pedestnans and bicycles to use the alley WIthout a, SIdewalk IS an acceptable solution, because
most, if not all, alleys currently have this type of shared use. Also the pavement width in the alley is
suffiCIent for shared use The alley IS a low speed area, by ordinance, and that mixing uses in this
situation should not be a problem here because It has not been a problem in other locations In thIsocase
the design of the secure parking lot.also elimmates several ingress/egress points to the alley greatly
reducing the amount of traffic that access the alley Finally the street-side SIdewalk system in the area
will be uninterrupted throughout the area gIvmg people the option to detour to A or C Streets if they do
not feel safe shanng the alley
As a result it is my recommendatIOn to leave the deSIgn as IS and allow pedestrians and vehicles share the
alley for mid-block access, WIthout a sidewalk, should they choose to do so
ATTACHMENT
Date Received:. ~;: ;;itfld,7
Planner: Al
6-1
I
I
.. , ,
I
-'
I WHfTE STRlPlNC
(m.l
I
I
I
I
I
I
1-
""
'"
....
o
o
sm. "c: PW'T f5\ - t2\
/ ,'€;I / ~';is ~.,~
j - . - _ __ __ G--) : / ·
I E.l{:b:%: 14S;;~}:W? :::1 ;ffl:P? :m; ;t*# izF;ti . - ~
~'I ~ ~~~~
~:l~~~~=')~:~~-~
I .,. 1:1' .... ... ...., , . .. .. .. . . , . .. . J I V'" .. .. . r' .. ...,. ..... ..... . ................... J I ~
"> ,i~':EY'?::::; 1M r:?g':y..::::, i::\ ::ii:: :i~:~ii i !lc::::::::H:tMHt+::f'l :
I I ':::~':::::::::.':::':::':':': ),~ \ I . I ,;/., ~.:::::::::::::::~ . , \. 5'ItI. C:ONc:.. (2!\ I :'::X:::::::::::::::::::)':,"II ~
I ' . ..Ui.......\1 I .....,......................:::~. I CURB (T"l'P)~ I-r:.:::~................ '~''III -+
, ~\}::}}~{:~:}~:~:i:i~:}~ I I ~~~]/{{{{:?~:~:}~:~:~~~::.5 \ ' ,An~iIl~ry . ! ::::::::~::::::::::{{:}~{{:}~::::::::{:;}:i! I g
~.::::::::::::::.....rr;... I .F...,......................."..... I BUilding 1...............................,,..:,1 . S-'WCJ
'::::::::.'::::.:: ~:!::: I ,:: ~ r..::: :.:':-:.:.:.:':.:;..:.:.:.:'::: =:::::: 1 . I ,:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:,:.:.:.:,:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:-:,:-:.::::::...!l':j1 IE+62
v'::::::::::::::"" ......, I ,...,.. ................ .......><..... I ExpanSion I .......... ...... .....~: ..~..,~I I 62.
I ^ .::::::::::::::::::::::::::::':':'~'~:':':'I! ~':':~:r:':':::::::::::::::::::::::::::::':':'~:':':':':':! .J' ~'::::::::::~.f:i.:~i.:.:,::-:.:::::::::g:::,,'! / ~
_ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::$~::::::: I I ;::::~:r::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~::::::::: : r 1 ! :,:.:.:.:.::,:,:.::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::~.:::::::::::'::::11 ' V s/W
~ .' ~ ~- . I~~\~:~i.;::\1\8ii::klli;:5il;,(((::t@ttlli' ~:. ~ ~ - - J i~::~~:ttl:i~~@;;:!i I 3 r ~
\, " '... I ,......................... II J I.........:............................. CURB (m l@ --L ...,..:....................( ~'-/ 1 SlD c:L (2
~.~ ~~ :::::::::::::::::. :::::::-~:~i:'~::::::::::::::\:::::::::::\:::::::::.:-:.:~:@::$'::::::::: . -t,::::::::::::::::::::::::::-'::::'\':~~fU\:J:~":':',::.::j~ rCJFia c:.~
.-{ : .. ...:'.:" /CllRB:(~,t'ei....................~.::.~;t::........~.... I .. .......... ~"" ....:\ej...r::: '/ " -, ~
'1 ~~: ~ {:}~ ;:{~~f~{{~:~tL%W~0~m{':}:{}{}{ J:;;Wi2:;;l,l'i)::: ;:: \'--.
I '" .m'" ';ii(;;;;:ym...............m....... 'T'."'" '~'''j,-:;- jo ~
I;:: :.""*~gi€gh@IE.gimlt;; ~"P /m:tn;')' .'.1Z~ t~ I ~
[. ,:::X' &::::, ~.::::~.:::: :::]~..:Js::, :,':::,:::::, '1 11 ~u.'-.. ~:..; ';"~i~~ I/" r- t-
By moving the landscape buffer to the' south by fiveJeet all other dimensions within the
lot must also be moved south by five feet. The dark line on the drawing above,
represents a critical area, which when moved south will cause the parking spaces along it
to be narrowed below a useable size and therefore must be eliminated. Also note that
while we anticipated losing a few spaces when we expand the ancillary building, the shift
caused by the sidewalk will impact the size of the building as well.
6-2
Date Received:
Planner: AL
6/;? /:;0117
I /
..::
PROPOSED STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION
PORTION OF B STREET BETWEEN 4TH STREET AND PIONEER PARKWAY EAST
CASE LRP2007-00019
......"
'-....~
~
C)
'-....l
Springfield. OR
,::'; , ':.: ;",:':L.. '::('~;~", '
w;--_ __.~_' _~.~'~-:-I~ .' r=... .: ... ,-
~~, :"':"'l"~;:'
-:~---- ,,' r -=:_q~ ):.;r'J~""
_:-_~;.' -t' 1l1::' '. t.'
,i:
'"
,:~' ':',
)>
~
~
...... )>
...!... ()
I
$:
m
Z
~
"tJ0
Qi'0>
::J(p
::J
CD::D
:"!CD
)>~.
.<
(1)
a.
p"..._"_..~...,,.... _rilti.",.J..:t
(,l,.nI ...,....# ,..,.,....'iIi"..'-,.",...... _ ~....ri#III'
J---J''-'. _"-'_.,.JI--.J____,..."",.J.ct .
o 0,5
~,
, Mile
I '
1_( , .
PROPOSED STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION
PORTION OF B STREET BETWEEN 4TH STREET AND PIONEER PARKWAY EAST
CASE LRP2007 -00019
SUBJECT SITE
\ \
.'
,
~_.
,
,
,
,""'--
j ,
I
"
-\\ \ ~
,
, -:.-! ~-~ ---"1
,
,~
, ,
I'
, I
, ,
, ,
--~r--,
I '
I'! '
'----
,1; I ,
, '
: I r
i:
-"--
II
,
,
,
, ,
,
lj
.~\
--r;r--\
>,._ l
~_..J
If>-i-- \
I i!; l \
--1-_J' I \
,-~ ,-........,..----
\ ;:' I; ill
) lFI ; i I I ;
.., -~~~ fJ) ----J -L.._..... I
l \ \ -l\ I
\ \ r----
___...--.1 ~
, ,
I
~f-
i '
\ !
Lj'
,
I '
r-
f ....l
'Ul
BST w
,-'---"" $:
'I )-'
,~ ;~,
l::.:=l__
'!f
{ a. {
'a:
w'
w
t j --;~;
I 1 a: I
__---...J I
,
---t ~
!.
r---1
I I
,
AST
----;
, ,
i
f---
I "
I , ,
I , '
J , {
'7"
" ,
" I
,I I
!
J ---.I
SAST
...........J.---
..."..,'"
--_..;'
,,""..... /""~
....__--1 I
,
i
:-
I
r---
,/'"'...-..~
~/....... ~..___~- i
"""' r :
"..r r....-
/-
~- ..-/-- ,
-------
"'__...----M _
--,
-____H_
.
",'
~~
Thin an: no WGmIIIl1t2 IItdJ tJerO"P1n1' Ihu product
tie" QUl1iiit' DJJ r~ponrrJJtJI n' fOr am' Iou 01' dtJfffD~ GlUing
ftomam' ""or, omU'.r,atf iT fN'nuIfDi fllDC~I'Ortlllf product
\ \ ..:.
\ ',....-- >
I---J
f~
\ l "
\ , ~
(-1-1
I ,I
L~
I I
I
1 I
h
\ '
, ,
\ ,
, '
\_..-:. _ 1
,
,
---'
_.~"_4 ___
It'
I I
t~'""1 , ,
1--1
'-l
I I 1 I I
! i : i
: \ '
EST
I--
I ! i
r--: : I ,
L-.J_~ __:_ ~
I ,
!--i
: '
i I
!--
, '
~
i
, I
-,
, ,
,;
;~--.! Ii I
! h,!:
I' : ' II'
:, r---i
! I : I"
CST
, ,
I, ,
!, I
I' .
~
,
II
I i
. \
r-.
: I ! , I
I ii'
~-:_--L-.._
:
, I
'I
I
I, I
I' ,
:! I
-;
i~1
,i i~~;~.. ~c;:.
1ft I l I
I: , ' I ,I I
I I 1 I
I" 'I
:-
. '; ! I ;
I 1'-' I
,t; : J' !
'iiLI III
1)- ,', II
<(, ,I:
'$: ,
':0:: '
.0:::" II
:~:i ; 11 :
, a: ! 1 < I 1 If i
W "
~ I: :;: i 1
'~.J :1 I I ~
r--r' ,
! ,(llL--': !
......--. l, l l
I ~ ~ " i I i
: i
'....'
:Ul
I 1=.
, ....1
1 :
I I i-l---11-:;~
,...._~ ~l pt:...-t~
, ':r ..::.h~
, l-
i ; 11);
! I 1
I Ii; I
~:Il
I I
I
L_l__
I'
f!
,....' I 1,:,---.'
.__~_ (J)*_ ___~'~___
(!J:r-"'"- -
,I--, .
i ' lO,
,;1; ! '
I < Iii: i 1
MAIN ST
\ ii'; 1 i !: J
~ ! I i ~; l: ~
ril---:;~
1 . J l I II
_.l.__'_":'-""_
--...:::;:::..:=:....:-.,::---
---
f\
r
, I
, I
I ,
---",
,
~-
),
, I i ~_~
"'------::::-----
----...-..
:---~
...----.~-
- -..----.
r_! -~----~-----
:,......~... "."" /,..-~--~ ---...._-~:----...~~..,
r-: ~---
o 100 200 Feet
Spnngfield, OR
- , --;-;-' ~;---;--'
i" I
, i
I I
._j--
: I j ; I
, I I ,
: I I J
;-- -r-;- J I ,
~! '
I I /! 11
j , -,
--1 I' , I
f I I :
l l ~ ,
I J i 'T--1' I
! I: I
, -_ -i.._L_~
l_t
I I
,
, '
r-'
~:..
i i
, ,
;=::""'-::::=."
i ;
I :
I I ,
~
I '
L;
i
!! 1 j j
; J--! t-;
.___J
I
1
~--
,
r-:
. I
f-i:
I :,
1--
, ;
j { I
I ! ,
1 1._.1...-:
,
, '
.---4 1
! !'
, I
: 1
i---~
I 'IM-;
, ,
, ,
,
;.1
--- --------
~--_.......l j
......~---
-......-
, --
--~--
----~
, :
I '
, I
--.1___
;--~,
, '
,
, i
r-M-.-.,....
, 11 ji
I l! ,
I ',; I
._.:.....:L..2:..:
.........--
--~"'-
--..---......-
!
'----
May, 2007
7-2
Date Received:~;j?~() 7
Planner: AL / /d__
)... f. .
PROPOSED STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION
Po.RTION OF B STREET BETWEEN 4TH STREET AND PIONEER PARKWAY EAST
CASE LRP2007 -00019
SUBJ ECT SITE
"I j i ; i I
i
, I I 1
I i
I I i !
! i i i
i j I I
1 I I I
i I I
i I I
J ,
i I ,
1 I I
; I r i
f I
, i ; I
! I
j i i i
I i
f I I
I I I i 1
I I I
i I I I I
, ! j 17-03;'35-24 I !
I I ! I
I j I -~ ! I
I I I I
i I 13900 14000 I
I ,) i 14100
I i 14300 I
I
i I i "j
I i i
I
! I - I I
j I i I
" I i
i i I 264.00' I
I !
i I
I
I N
i
i ~ en
I
I 1.0 CI:!
co, co
i' co
! l- I I
m I I 264;00'
I <: I
j i I
I w I !
>- I ; 1800 i
<: I I
I I
i ~ 1 i ! 1600 1500
I ':x: i i 1700
J
I ~ I i I
i I
J <: i I i
I a. I I 1000 f 17-03':'35-31
I ~ I i i I
J i I I
! w I j I i i
W I I
j z I I
i ,
I Q I i /
I i j
t
I a. J I
I I I
I I I i I
I j i I
I I I
i I I I
I I
I i I
I I I I I !
I I
I I i
I i I I
I I -; I
J I i t
I I i ! I
I
A STREET
-~
!
"f ..
---
Ll,--- ~
~,."
- -
, ,
.Th..... GIY ItO "'."""_ t#wlIXt'Hf'O'" dtis prrnJMc'L
U~,., lIJ"RMff.JJ rr:rptJlISibiJiff/o,....' Ja.a or dIImcIr' IlfUillr
fro". ...r.trTGr. "",Udall rT flUilJlHUll ;UCCUtTlC,CJ/lltiJ pro.Nct
o
50
100 Feel
7-3
. ';'"!. ~>: ~
B STREET
I-
m
J:
I-
~
, .'
-;:~ of
Springfield, OR
,
i
1
I
l
I
I
i
,I
i
1+
I !
" ,
.Il3y,2fX11
Diltc, V~eceived:
Planner; Al
6;:'~()7
J I ,.'
\ I ~ ~
PROPOSED STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION
PORTION OF B STREET BETWEEN 4TH STREET AND PIONEER PARKWAY EAST
CASE LRP2007-00019
SUBJ ECT SITE
1iL~
-i
I-
en
<(
w
>-
<(
5:
~
a::
<(
a..
a::
w
w
z
o
a..
-----_~r_h___
,
17-03-35-24
13900
14000
14100
14300
264 00' ,
_ 'n----____m_n____n____ __n_n_n__n_____________. I
N J P'Mng -. n_U_' _h__
m -
. m
, ~ nnn-____m_______m.l~~~__________~:~~_~:~~_____.um_______ ;
264.00'
1800
1700
1600
1500
1!Xl0
17 -03-35-31
A STREET
--- ----- ~ ---.--- - -- - - ---
17Itrt arr IrcI wllmlnlll!J ,hal Q('C'tJ"J"D'" dlls prodJ/rt
Lief"$ asmmerJJJ rapolUWl/lnjoralf1 IossortUlInagcofUl/ff
jrrJfrr.iJlfl l'f'P"Or O,"W1Dn cr p1Jlutlnlli /1I<<a,ran rJf/hu product
o
50
100 Feet
7-4
Spnngfield, OR
I
B STREET
I-
en
I
I-
-.r
.~-~
/Jay 2007
0atEI HeCeiVe(l~Y' /:U'~L
Planner: Al /
B STREET OVERVIEW
..-
'.
"
,.,,1 -.- ,. 'UL II ~ II
ill I . ~ ! _-~: L--J
~L ~e_~ II I ~-~
_ ' _ /r=-==1
trl \ \ U\\" j" ~ ~H' ~LJ
.. ---~ ~ L II I( J1, I r
)] ~F ~T\W:"II ~ ~ -:;: II fiiT'II' '-_. 1-
iCD\ \1 ~ L-JI 111- ,-, I
LJ\WES~ I~) ~ III II -,- I 11__- If II ,1
l 1-.1 \IT "- =Yt =- t JI IL-JL II
~=u\~ ~ =t =;;JH ~I~, "L_ ~ ~ ) ..
\Ir -l-aJ -IJ c - Jr-:r '~I I -,~ ',- ~'
~-\ ~ fJ~~I~! if c~_~1 ~ ~ ~.- - -
'\~\~ I ~nl !I - II----,J ',I _ ' c'-B'sm".,.=' J,--.. " I. -
==I - . I r- - ~,- - , ,". :r.
/ I I-
l I 'I I 1 --" I ~11 ii'" - L -.lL -;': .",T
~; : ),1< j ,', J~L- L-:::::-
y \\\\ - II W-- _I I~
-~~I =-- ~ D=-.3
I ,!
f-iR _
IH~
, , r-]
/1J-.
J
I "
II
II
Total Length of B Street
From Mill Street to 16th Street. 6117.83 Feet (1 16 miles)
Date ~eceived:_ r~~~_
Planner: AL
"
~~I ~I "' :~l'
~I :" Jl~ ~ ~ ~
I- ---,n, ~
~ u u If' '
I 1- ~ 1- .~ ~
, ::" . Ur-
l- I- j!: I-
UJ UJ I- tilt> UJ
~ UJ
::r: I
t:: ~ j!::1;j ~
::r:
I- a/ ~ "
~ N '"
.
In
~
UJ
.u-C-
~I_,~[l J--
1/ ~ 1 I U -
I- v
U)
~
UJ<
J
'"
I
, l
o 250 500 Feet
t
\, ..
<. \. ,
q, , . ...
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, OREGON
RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL
CASE NO. LRP2007-00019
NATURE OF THE APPLICATION
VacatIOn of a one-block segment of B Street located between 4th Street and PIOneer Parkway East.
1. On May 7, 2007, the Spnngfield CIty Council Irul1ated the vacation actIOn in accordance wIth Spnngfield
Development Code 9.060(3)(a), Planmng Case No. LRP2007-00019 - CIty of Springfield PolIce Department,
applIcant
2. The applIcatIOn was initIated in accordance With Secllon 3.050 of the Spnngfield Development Code. Tlffiely
and sufficient nollce of publIc hearing, pursuant to SectIOns 14.030 and 9.050 of the Spnngfield Development
Code, ~as been provided
3. On June 5, 2007, a public heanng on the vacation request was held and the written record for submittal of
publIc teshmony was held open to June 12, 2007. The Development Services Department staff notes and
recommendatIOn together WIth the testimony and submIttals of the persons testIfyIng at that hearmg have been
conSIdered and are part of the record of tills proceedIng.
CONCLUSION
, '
Based on thIS record, the requested vacatIOn applIcatIon IS conSIstent WIth the critena of SDC 9.030. ThIs general
finding IS supported by the speCIfic findmgs of fact and conclusion In Attachment A, VacatIOn Staff Report.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning CommIssion hereby recommends the CIty CounCll approve the vacatIOn request at a publIc heanng.
ATTEST
Planmng CommISSIon ChaIrperson
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN :
ATTACHMENT
Date Received: 6/? ~ 7
Planner: AL / /
8-1