HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018 02 06 AIS DPW Transportation System Plan ImplementationAGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 2/6/2018
Meeting Type: Regular Meeting
Staff Contact/Dept.:
With Lane County (Continued)
Emma Newman/DPW
Staff Phone No: 541.726.4585 Estimated Time: 60 min
S P R I N G F I E L D PLANNING COMMISSION Council Goals: Maintain and Improve Infrastructure and Facilities ITEM TITLE: Transportation System Plan (TSP) Implementation Project
ACTION
REQUESTED:
Continue the joint public hearing, deliberate, and make a recommendation to City
Council with regards to the proposed TSP Implementation Project materials.
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
The City of Springfield adopted the 2035 Transportation System Plan in 2014.
Implementation of this Plan requires updating the Springfield Development Code, adopting the Conceptual Street Map, and making minor changes to the TSP Project
List and Figures to further implement the existing, adopted policies.
ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1: Planning Commission Memo Attachment 2: Springfield Development Code Amendments Table 4.2-1 Update
Attachment 3: Additional Street Supplement for Draft Staff Report and Findings Attachment 4: Updated Community Feedback Summary
DISCUSSION:
City of Springfield Planning Commission reviewed and discussed the TSP
Implementation Project draft materials during the November 21, 2017 work session. The City and County Planning Commissions met in work session and then
conducted a joint public hearing on January 23, 2018.
Attachments 1-4 of this AIS are intended to be read as supplements to the January
23, 2018 Planning Commission packet. That packet and audio recording are
available on the Planning Commission webpage at http://springfield-or.gov/dpw/PlanningCommission.htm.
Attachment 3 is intended as an insert to the Draft Staff Report and Findings from the Jan 23, 2018 packet to provide additional information for specific conceptual
local streets shown on the draft Conceptual Street Map, which were the subject of public testimony on January 23, 2018.
In addition to these attachments, staff requests the Commissions to please review the public comments received between January 11, 2018 and January 26, 2018
posted on the project webpage: http://springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm.
The Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissions will continue the joint
public hearing on the evening of February 6th; deliberation and recommendations
will follow the public hearing.
COMMUNICATION MEMORANDUM Meeting Date: 2/6/2018
Staff Contact/Dept.: Emma Newman/DPW Staff Phone No: 541.726.4585
S P R I N G F I E L D
PLANNING COMMISSION
INFORMATION SHARE:
Revisions to Draft Materials
Springfield Development Code Amendments Table 4.2-1 Update (ATT2):
A new version of the Table 4.2-1 section of the Springfield Development Code Amendments has
been incorporated into the draft proposed changes, which adds footnote 5 to the table. Footnote 5 applies to the Major and Minor Arterial Street Classification sections of the table and states,
“Arterials that are Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) facilities are not subject to the
standards in Table 4.2-1, but must meet ODOT design standards.” This amendment was presented at the January 23, 2018 joint Planning Commission work sessions and public hearing as a
recommendation from staff to further clarify the role of Table 4.2-1 as it pertains to ODOT
facilities, such as Main Street.
Information in Response to Planning Commissioner Inquiries and Public Hearing
Annexation Nothing in the proposed amendments directly affects the City’s annexation regulations, which are consistent with state law. However, some property owners in the urbanizable area are concerned that the
amendments could lead indirectly to annexation, by enclosing unannexed areas in new City right-of-way and leading the City to involuntarily annex the enclosed area through a process called “island annexation.” For the following reasons, the proposed TSP amendments and Conceptual Street Map (CSM) would not
directly or indirectly cause annexation of the urbanizable area. First, the City is prohibited by state law from forcibly annexing property based only on the fact that it
becomes surrounded by City streets. Under ORS 222.750, island annexation is not available when more than 25% of the perimeter of the island area is public right-of-way that does not border the City on the
other side.
Second, neither the TSP nor the Conceptual Street Map require streets in the urbanizable area to be
dedicated as City right-of-way. Jurisdictional transfers of roadways from Lane County to the City of
Springfield are separate from the TSP, as are decisions to annex Lane County roads into the City limits. Should any streets be annexed in the future, the City is required to provide notice and an opportunity for
adjacent property owners to testify before the City Council. All annexations, even those for right-of-way only, require notice to the owners and occupants located within 300 feet of the property proposed to be annexed. The City Council is required to hold a public hearing on proposed annexations, which is included
in the mailed notice.
Main Street
A number of property owners and their representatives testified in opposition to applying the minimum right-of-way and paving width standards in SDC 4.2-105.C. and Table 4.2-1 to the Main Street corridor.
Previously, City staff and legal counsel met with several Main Street property owners to discuss the code amendments’ impact on Main Street. The property owners were concerned that the minimum standards in
Table 4.2-1 would apply to Main Street in the future if a joint planning effort with ODOT to adopt the
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 5
currently on-hold Main Street facility plan fell through. During that meeting, staff further clarified that it
was possible that a private development could be required to dedicate and improve right-of-way on Main Street, depending on the particular development, if there were no Main Street facility plan.
However, after additional research, the minimum standards in Table 4.2-1 could not be directly applied to require dedication or improvement of right-of-way on Main Street because it is under ODOT’s jurisdiction
and ODOT owns the right-of-way. The City is limited to enforcing ODOT’s standards. The Main Street
facility plan would be enforceable, because it would be adopted by the City into the TSP and co-adopted by the Oregon Transportation Commission; however, at this time, that project does not propose requiring any
adjacent property owners to dedicate or improve the right-of-way. To make clear that the City’s minimum right-of-way and paving standards do not apply on ODOT facilities, staff have proposed a new footnote to Table 4.2-1 stating that ODOT facilities (which are all arterials) are subject to ODOT’s standards. See
Attachment 2: Springfield Development Code Amendments Table 4.2-1 Update. Goal 12 and Existing City Pavement
Jim McLaughlin testified at the public hearing and submitted comments to the record regarding Statewide
Planning Goal 12, Guideline B, part 2. Mr. McLaughlin urged the Planning Commission to consider the
City’s existing pavement conditions before recommending approval of the Conceptual Street Map or changes to the TSP project list.
Goal 12, Guideline B is advisory only, and does not limit the City to a single approach under the Goal (ORS 197.015(9)). It also applies only to “major transportation facilities” – and while not defined in the
Goal, likely does not include any local streets as “major” facilities. The Goal’s Guidelines do not provide a
direct basis to conclude that the TSP amendments or development code amendments are inconsistent with Goal 12.
The Transportation Planning Rule, OAR 660-012-0010 et seq, implements the policies and guidelines of Goal 12 and contains mandatory requirements for TSP amendments and the adoption of land use
regulations to implement the TSP. The Staff Report and Findings identify the TPR sections that are applicable to the proposed TSP and code amendments, and explain how the amendments comply with those provisions.
Regarding the City’s existing pavement, the TPR states that the operation, maintenance, and repair of
existing transportation facilities are not ordinarily subject to the TSP or to land use regulations (OAR 660-
012-0045). The City’s efforts to maintain and preserve the existing system fall under the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP), which is adopted through a separate process. The CIP is also the process
used to prioritize planned projects in the TSP for actual construction. The scope of projects that are funded
through the CIP primarily depends on the City’s street fund revenue, including system development charges for private development. No changes to the system development charges methodology and rates
are proposed as part of this project.
As relevant to the proposed TSP project list amendments, the adopted TSP currently states at page 3:
“Transportation project development
This Plan includes projects that will support expected growth in the City. While the Plan does not prioritize projects, the City will prioritize investments through annual updates to the Capital Improvement Program. Once the City identifies a project for implementation through the Capital
Improvement Program and project development begins, the City will conduct project level planning, public involvement, and engineering to confirm the need, define the project limits and
develop a design for the project.”
Staff has not proposed any changes to this structure for prioritizing projects identified in the TSP through
Attachment 1, Page 2 of 5
the CIP. In addition to prioritizing the construction of TSP projects, the CIP considers the maintenance and
operational needs of the City’s existing transportation facilities. For that reason, Mr. McLaughlin’s comments regarding weighing the City’s need to maintain pavement in the City’s existing facilities against
the need for new or improved facilities would be more appropriate for consideration as part of the next CIP
update. The City’s CIP website contains more information regarding the CIP update process and public involvement opportunities: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/CIP.htm.
Sidewalk Improvements Springfield Development Code Section 4.2-105.G. governs the circumstances in which private
development is required to provide additional right-of-way or street improvements, including sidewalks:
Dedication of additional ROW (but not improvement): Required whenever a development area requiring development approval abuts or includes an existing street of inadequate width (i.e. not
meeting the minimum ROW in SDC 4.2-105.C.).
Street improvements: Required when a proposed land division or development would increase
traffic on the City street system, and there is unimproved street frontage along the development area. SDC 4.2-105G.2.a. sets out specific improvement requirements:
o Must fully improve property frontage when a fully improved street abuts the property line (i.e. the required minimum curb-to-curb elements in Table 4.2-1 or otherwise required
under SDC 4.2-105.C.). o Must fully improve the property frontage when a fully-improved partial width street is
opposite from the property, to provide a full-width street across entire property. o Must construct “the minimum level of improvements necessary to provide safe and
efficient movement of vehicles and pedestrians” when property frontage is along unpaved street.
o Must improve an unimproved street when multifamily, commercial, or industrial development sits at the intersection of an improved and unimproved street, and access is
taken from the unimproved street.
Improvement Agreement: SDC 4.2-105.G. also allows improvements to be delayed through an
improvement agreement with the owner. This improvement agreement generally provides that in the future, if the City forms a local improvement district (LID) to construct street improvements
and assesses the benefitted properties, that a particular property will not file an objection to the
LID. The City frequently allows improvement agreements for sidewalks when there is no existing sidewalk in the area subject to development approval.
These triggers for sidewalk improvements occur only when there is an application for development approval. Construction of a single-family home on an existing legal lot (i.e. not in conjunction with a
partition) requires a building permit but not “development approval,” and therefore does not trigger dedication or improvement of ROW. In that case, the City can only require a setback from a future right-of-way location as determined by the minimum street standards.
The City’s other option for requiring an adjacent property owner to pay for sidewalk improvements is through the formation of a Local Improvement District, which is governed by the Springfield Municipal
Code. No changes to those code requirements are proposed by the TSP Implementation project, and nothing in the proposed amendments triggers an LID. A City Council decision to designate an LID is entirely independent from the TSP and the development code. Under state law and the Springfield
Municipal Code, assessing private owners for the cost of an LID requires advance notice to the affected
Attachment 1, Page 3 of 5
property owners via mail, newspaper publication, and physically posting in the affected area. It requires
the City Council to conduct a public hearing, and allows property owners to file objections. Under Springfield Municipal Code Section 3.008, a public improvement under an LID cannot be approved if two-
thirds or more of the property owners benefitted by the improvement file objections. This requirement is
consistent with state law regarding LIDs. Conceptual Local Streets
The draft Conceptual Street Map is intended to assist the City achieve a number of objectives of the TSP
including street connections in support of access to and through infill and redevelopment sites, reducing out
of direction travel, creating block lengths consistent with the goals of public safety agencies and the city’s development standards, and using the proposed layout of these planned local streets as clear and objective
standards that meet Goal 10 requirements for residential development. In their absence, the City could apply the block length standards, dead-end street standards, and Fire Code.
Please see Attachment 3 for responses regarding specific conceptual local streets.
Planning Commission Changes to Staff Proposal
The Planning Commission’s role in this Type IV legislative land use process is to review the information in
the record, including the staff recommendations and public testimony, and make a recommendation to City
Council whether to approve or deny the proposed amendment, or approve with modifications. A recommendation to approve the amendments must be consistent with the criteria of approval.
For the proposed code amendments and TSP amendments, the Planning Commission can recommend and the City Council can decide not to approve amendments for policy reasons not directly related to the
criteria of approval, because this decision is entirely legislative and not quasi-judicial. The City has a
general obligation under the TPR to implement the Transportation System Plan through the adoption of land use regulations, but the City is not bound to adopt any particular set of regulations that meet those
policies. There is no requirement, for example, to adopt the Conceptual Street Map’s depiction of local streets, or to adopt any particular provision in the Development Code. If the Planning Commission finds that their obligations to implement the TSP can be met without adopting a particular regulation, no specific
findings would be needed to remove that regulation from their recommendation to Council.
For TSP projects that have already been adopted and acknowledged and are not proposed to be changed,
the Planning Commission should recommend findings to the City Council justifying removing these projects from the TSP under the criteria of approval for a Metro Plan amendment, including compliance
with the TPR.
The Planning Commission does not need specific findings to recommend removing a multi-use path from
the Conceptual Street Map that is already included in the TSP, as long as no changes are made to the TSP Project List itself. The effect of removing the path from the CSM would merely be that it is not shown on that map – the City could still require dedication and improvement through the proposed amendments to
SDC 4.2-150 because the path would remain in the TSP.
Attachment 1, Page 4 of 5
Community Feedback
Please read Attachment 4: Updated Community Feedback Summary and additional public comments
received (see project webpage). Below is a high level summary of the total quantity and type of feedback received prior to February 26, 2018.
190 phone calls 104 contacts corresponded with via email
>90 walk-in conversations with staff at City Hall >100 open house participants 31 Fairhaven Street petition signatures
>220 public hearing attendees, 36 public comment testimonies (January 23, 2018 public hearing)
Attachment 1, Page 5 of 5
Attachment 2: Springfield Development Code Amendments Table 4.2-1 Update
01262018 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 13
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
. . .
C. Minimum street curb-to-curb widths and minimum Sstreet right-of-way widths are as specified in Table 4.2-
1, unless otherwise indicated in TransPlan the Springfield Transportation System Plan, an applicable
Refinement Plan, Plan District, Master Plan, Conceptual Development Plan, the Conceptual Local Street Plan
Map, or the adopted bicycle and pedestrian plan;, or where necessary to achieve right-of-way and street
alignment; or as needed to meet site-specific engineering standards, including but not limited to
requirements for multi-way boulevard and/or modern roundabout designs. Example street layouts meeting
minimum street standards are provided in Figures 4.2-B through 4.2-P for illustrative purposes only. These
Figures are intended to demonstrate potential street configurations that meet the requirements.
Table 4.2-1
Minimum Street Right-of-Way and Curb-to-Curb Width SpecificationsStandards
Type of Street Minimum Right-of-Way Minimum Curb-to-Curb
Major Arterial 100’ 76’
Minor Arterial 70’ 48’
Collector 60’ 36’ (3)
Local Street
<15 percent slope (1) 50’ 57’ 36’
>15 percent slope (1) 40’ 28’ (2)
<1,200’ length and <1,000 vehicle trips/day 40’ 28’
Cul-de-Sac Bulb 83’ 70’
Alley 20’ 20’ (4)
(1) i.e. the average slope of the development area.
(2) 20’ streets are allowed with approved parking bays of 8’ x 24’ per vehicle
(3) Additional right-of-way may be required to accommodate a center turn lane where significant
volumes of left-turn traffic occur
(4) Alleys do not have curbs, 20’ is entire paving width
Fig.
No.
Street
Classification
Right-of-
Way (1)
Curb-to-Curb
Width (1)
Travel
Lanes
Travel
Lanes
Width
Turn Lane
Width (2)
Bicycle
Lanes
(3)
Planting
Strip and
Curb (4)
Sidewalk
4.2
B-D
Major Arterial
(5)
100’/92’/
84’
76’/69’/60’ 4 12’ 14’ where
required
6’ both
sides
5’ 7’ both
sides
4.2
E-G
Minor Arterial
(5)
76’/68’/60’ 52’/44’/36’ 2 12’ 14’ where
required
6’ both
sides
5’ 7’ both
sides
4.2
H-J
Major Collector 72’/64’/56’ 52’/44’/36’ 2 12’ 14’ where
required
6’ both
sides
5’ 5’ both
sides
4.2
K-M
Minor Collector 70’/62’/58’ 50’/42’/34’ 2 11’ 13’ where
required
6’ both
sides
5’ 5’ both
sides
Attachment 2, Page 1 of 3
Attachment 2: Springfield Development Code Amendments Table 4.2-1 Update
01262018 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 14
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
4.2
N-P
Local Street <15
percent slope (6)
57’/49’/41’ 36’/28’/20’ 2 10’ N/A Not
required
5’ 5’ both
sides
4.2
Q-S
Local
percent slope (6)
48’/40’/32’ 36’/28’/20’ 2 10’ N/A Not
required
6” curbs
only
5’ both
sides
Cul-de-sac Bulb 83’
diameter
70’ diameter N/A N/A N/A N/A 5’ around
bulb
5’ around
bulb
Alley 20’ No curbs, 18’
paving width
N/A N/A N/A Not
required
Not
required
(1) Minimum right-of-way widths and curb-to-curb widths are listed in this order: Streets with parking on both
sides of street/Streets with parking on one side of street/Streets with no on-street parking. Where indicated,
parking width is 8’ per side of street. Minimum right-of-way widths and curb-to-curb widths listed above do
not include additional right-of-way width and curb-to-curb width required to accommodate a center turn
lane or center median.
(2) When a center turn lane or center median is required to address a significant volume of left-turn traffic or
other safety or site-specific engineering concerns, additional right-of-way width and curb-to-curb width is
required to accommodate the turn lane and/or center median. Width of the turn lane will be not less than
the standard provided in Table 4.2-1 above.
(3) Bike lanes on one-way streets must be on the right side of the street, except in the case where a left-side
bike lane would cause fewer conflicts, and people riding bicycles can return to the right safely.
(4) The planting strip and curb includes 4.5’ planting strip and 6” curb on both sides of the street, unless
otherwise indicated in Table 4.2-1.
(5) Arterials that are Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) facilities are not subject to the standards in
Table 4.2-1, but must meet ODOT design standards.
(6) Slope is the average slope of the development area per the calculation in SDC 3.3-520.A. Minimum curb-to-
curb width for local streets includes 6” behind the sidewalk for property pins.
D. Functional Classification of Streets. The City’s street system consists of streets that are classified as Major
Arterial; Minor Arterial; Major and Minor Collector; and Local, consistent with the Springfield Transportation
System Plan (Figure 2) and the Federally Designated Roadway Functional Classification map, contained in the
Regional Transportation Plan. Local Streets include all streets not classified as Arterial or Collector streets.
E. Dead-End Streets.
1. Dead-end streets shall must terminate in a cul-de-sac bulb, “hammerhead,” or other design that
provides an adequate vehicular turn-around areas, Public Works access, and pedestrian and bicycle
connections as may be approved by the Public Works Director and the Fire Marshal.
2. A dead-end street, excluding the bulb or other approved vehicular turn-around area, shallmust have
a minimum length of 65 feet and shallmust have a maximum length of 400 feet as measured from
the nearest curb line of the intersecting street. The right-of-way and paving requirements for cul-de-
sacs, including the bulb or other approved vehicular turn-around area, are as specified in Table 4.2-1
of this Code, the Development & Public Works Standard Construction Specifications and the City’s
Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual.
Attachment 2, Page 2 of 3
Attachment 2: Springfield Development Code Amendments Table 4.2-1 Update
01262018 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 15
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
EXCEPTION: Where streets that are planned to be through streets are partially constructed during
phased development, temporary dead-end streets with temporary vehicular turn-around areas will
be permitted as specified in the City’s Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual. In this
case, the 400-foot maximum length standard shall not apply temporary dead-end street with
temporary vehicular turn-around area will have a maximum length of 600 feet as measured from
the nearest curb line of the intersecting street.
3. Where there is an existing dead-end street without a turn-around at the time of development that
generates additional vehicular trips, the property owner shall provide for a turn-around area to the
satisfaction of the Public Works Director and the Fire Marshall. Permitted vehicular turn-around
areas may include, but are not limited to hammerheads, and partial cul-de-sac bulbs and private
driveways.
. . .
Attachment 2, Page 3 of 3
Attachment 3: Additional street supplement to be added to the Draft Staff
Report and Findings from 1/23/18 packet.
Fairhaven Street
Findings:
The northern conceptual local street connection shown above will provide the residents and visitors
from Fairhaven Mobile Home Park with direct access to the By-Gully Multi-Use Path.
Attachment 3, Page 1 of 21
On the other side of the fence is a private road that is already stubbed out and planned to connect at
some point. The By-Gully Path is shown to the right, which connects to the northern extent of Fairhaven.
If the conceptual local street were to be built, direct access to and from the mobile home park to the By-
Gully Multi-Use Path would be provided. This would support TSP Policy 3.7 which states, “Provide for
pedestrian environment that supports adjacent land uses and is designed to enhance the safety,
comfort, and convenience of walking by providing direct routes and removing barriers when possible.”
Additionally, TSP Policy 3.4 states, “Provide for a continuous transportation network with reasonable
direct travel routes to destination points for all modes of travel.” TSP Chapter 7 states that the
implementation measures for the TSP need to address system connectivity (page 83, Springfield 2035
TSP).
Attachment 3, Page 2 of 21
Delrose Drive
Findings:
2680 Harvest Ln house is not located in alignment with the logical extension of right-of-way.
Attachment 3, Page 3 of 21
Delrose Dr is too long without a turnaround to meet current dead-end street standards. The Delrose Dr
dead-end was built without a turnaround, which would have been required if this were a planned dead-
end street. No sidewalk connects at the current end of the street, anticipating a connection to Yolanda
Ave in the future to complete the sidewalk network.
The Delrose Dr to Yolanda Ave street connection would support TSP Policy 3.4 which states, “Provide for
a continuous transportation network with reasonable direct travel routes to destination points for all
modes of travel.”
Additionally, TSP Policy 3.7 states, “Provide for pedestrian environment that supports adjacent land uses
and is designed to enhance the safety, comfort, and convenience of walking by providing direct routes
and removing barriers when possible.” TSP Chapter 7 states that the implementation measures for the
TSP need to address system connectivity (page 83, Springfield 2035 TSP).
Attachment 3, Page 4 of 21
Garden Avenue
Findings:
Right-of-way has already been dedicated at both ends of Garden Ave and the western extent of Richland
St in preparation for the conceptual local street connections shown below.
Attachment 3, Page 5 of 21
The conceptual local street connections could be accommodated without removing any approved
structures. The roof shown to the western extent of the area indicated above is a barn.
The conceptual local street connections between Kintzley Ave, 34th Pl, Dondea St, and Garden Ave
provide the connectivity necessary to avoid dead-end streets that exceed permitted design standards
for secondary emergency access, and achieve the smallest block length given the already built
environment. The connectivity would provide residents with more direct routes to the 32nd and Jasper
Middle Fork Path Trailhead, primarily along low volume, low speed, local streets as opposed to a higher
volume, higher speed major collector. This supports TSP Policy 3.7 which states, “Provide for pedestrian
environment that supports adjacent land uses and is designed to enhance the safety, comfort, and
convenience of walking by providing direct routes and removing barriers when possible.”
The street connections would support TSP Policy 3.4 which states, “Provide for a continuous
transportation network with reasonably direct travel routes to destination points for all modes of
travel.” TSP Chapter 7 also states that the implementation measures for the TSP need to address system
connectivity (page 83, Springfield 2035 TSP).
Attachment 3, Page 6 of 21
Don Street and Lochaven Avenue
Findings:
Attachment 3, Page 7 of 21
The gated barrier at Don St and Lochaven Ave separates two residential communities. The conceptual
local street connection shown would provide more direct access from the Scotts Glen neighborhood to
access Guy Lee Elementary School, the Shoppes at Gateway, and other destinations by motor vehicle.
Additionally, TSP Policy 3.4 states, “Provide for a continuous transportation network with reasonably
direct travel routes to destination points for all modes of travel.” TSP Chapter 7 the implementation
measures for the TSP address system connectivity (page 83, Springfield 2035 TSP).
Attachment 3, Page 8 of 21
Kintzley Avenue and Osage Street
Findings:
Attachment 3, Page 9 of 21
The Osage St to Kintzley Ave connection could be built without removal of the existing Douglas House.
The conceptual local street could be adjusted to flatten out the corner to more clearly show that the
house may remain if the property owner chooses to develop.
Kintzley Ave currently is built anticipating extension to the north. The street light to illuminate the
intersection already exists and sidewalk was not built, anticipating the future connection.
The current Osage St dead-end was built without a turnaround, which would have been required if this
were a planned dead-end street. No sidewalk connects at the current end of the street, anticipating a
connection to Kintzley in the future to complete the sidewalk network. Osage Street was also named as
“Street” instead of “Court” to indicate the future connection.
The street connection would support TSP Policy 3.4 which states, “Provide for a continuous
transportation network with reasonable direct travel routes to destination points for all modes of
travel.” TSP Chapter 7 states that the implementation measures for the TSP need to address system
connectivity (page 83, Springfield 2035 TSP).
Attachment 3, Page 10 of 21
Aaron Lane
Findings:
42 homes are currently built fronting 65th St north of Thurston Rd; only 30 single family homes can be
located off of a single access without planned secondary emergency access. 2014 Oregon Fire Code
Appendix D Section D107.1 states, “One- or two-family dwelling residential developments.
Developments of one- or two-family dwellings where the number of dwelling units exceeds 30 shall be
provided with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads, and shall meet the requirements
of Section D104.3 Exception… 2. The number of dwelling units on a single fire apparatus access road
shall not be increased unless fire apparatus access roads will connect with future development, as
determined by the fire code official.”
Attachment 3, Page 11 of 21
Even with the conceptual local street shown, the block length that would be achieved would exceed the
proposed maximum block length standards by more than double. This connection is necessary to
connect neighborhoods to the backside of the school so that people accessing the school on foot or
bicycle from the neighborhood can avoid the only east-west major collector in the area.
The street and accessway connection would support TSP Policy 3.4 which states, “Provide for a
continuous transportation network with reasonable direct travel routes to destination points for all
modes of travel.”
Additionally, TSP Policy 3.7 states, “Provide for pedestrian environment that supports adjacent land uses
and is designed to enhance the safety, comfort, and convenience of walking by providing direct routes
and removing barriers when possible.” The connections shown above would also help implement Policy
2.3, Action 2, which states, “Coordinate with Springfield Public Schools to implement the solutions
outlined in Safe Routes to School Action Plans.” TSP Chapter 7 states that the implementation measures
for the TSP need to address system connectivity (page 83, Springfield 2035 TSP).
Attachment 3, Page 12 of 21
Prescott Lane / Riverview Boulevard / Edgemont Way
Findings:
As shown above, the right-of-way has already been dedicated from Riverview Blvd to Prescott Ln and
partially from Riverview Blvd to Edgemont Way. The conceptual local street connection between
Edgemont Way and Prescott Ln would only occur if the property owner of 500 Edgemont Way chose to
develop the property.
Attachment 3, Page 13 of 21
Edgemont Way is a non-conforming dead-end street that was planned, as shown by the lack of sidewalk
connectivity and the current dead-end having no turnaround.
The street connections between Prescott Ln, Riverview Blvd, and Edgemont Way would support TSP
Policy 3.4 which states, “Provide for a continuous transportation network with reasonable direct travel
routes to destination points for all modes of travel.”
Additionally, TSP Policy 3.7 states, “Provide for pedestrian environment that supports adjacent land uses
and is designed to enhance the safety, comfort, and convenience of walking by providing direct routes
and removing barriers when possible.” TSP Chapter 7 states that the implementation measures for the
TSP need to address system connectivity (page 83, Springfield 2035 TSP).
Attachment 3, Page 14 of 21
A and B Streets west of Water Street
Findings:
Attachment 3, Page 15 of 21
Future development which blocks the conceptual local street connection shown between A St and B St
would eliminate the only secondary emergency access to the main entrance of Island Park, which is a
park that consistently accommodates large public events. Analysis and determination of wetland areas
has not been performed and is typically performed at the time of development and is the responsibility
of the developer to delineate on the land use application. Given analysis and delineation through the
development review process, adjustments to the street connection alignment could be provided based
on findings to correlate with the proposed street connectivity standards provided in the Springfield
Development Code Amendments, Section 4.2-105 Public Streets.
Attachment 3, Page 16 of 21
Even if the local street connection was not depicted on the draft Conceptual Street Map, the
development code street connectivity standards and block length would still apply. The block length
standards would not be fulfilled without a connection between A St and B St. The appropriate time to
address previous agreements, wetland issues, and traffic analysis in accordance with Section 4.2-105 is
at the time of development proposal through the City’s development review process. The existing
private connection is currently being used by the public to access Island Park, with the currently built
road split between public and private property.
As shown, the already adopted TSP PB-19 project that identifies a “Bridge between Downtown and
Glenwood or modify Willamette River Bridges” would not have as many direct connection options to
Island Park, City Hall, and Downtown Springfield.
The conceptual local streets connecting A St and B St and B St and C St would support TSP Policy 3.7
which states, “Provide for pedestrian environment that supports adjacent land uses and is designed to
enhance the safety, comfort, and convenience of walking by providing direct routes and removing
barriers when possible.”
Additionally, TSP Policy 3.4 states, “Provide for a continuous transportation network with reasonable
direct travel routes to destination points for all modes of travel.” TSP Chapter 7 implementation
measures for the TSP address system connectivity (page 83, Springfield 2035 TSP). The system
connectivity to and from the park from Downtown, Washburne neighborhood, and City Hall relies on A
St and C St for access to Island Park since B St is blocked between Pioneer Parkway East and 4th St.
Attachment 3, Page 17 of 21
Tyson Park and 35th Street
Findings:
There are currently 108 single-family or duplex lots on 34th St, C St, and 35th St. Without a
planned secondary emergency access this development would violate the fire code. Only 30 single
family homes can be located off of a single access without secondary emergency access according to fire
code. 2014 Oregon Fire Code Appendix D Section D107.1 states, “One- or two-family dwelling residential
developments. Developments of one- or two-family dwellings where the number of dwelling units
exceeds 30 shall be provided with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads, and shall
meet the requirements of Section D104.3 Exception… 2. The number of dwelling units on a single fire
apparatus access road shall not be increased unless fire apparatus access roads will connect with future
development, as determined by the fire code official.” Either the 33rd St to 34th St conceptual local street
connection would need to be provided triggered by development or the street extension of 35th St
would need to be provided to fulfill Oregon Fire Code requirements.
TSP Policy 3.4 states, “Provide for a continuous transportation network with reasonably direct travel
routes to destination points for all modes of travel.” TSP Chapter 7 implementation measures for the
TSP address system connectivity (page 83, Springfield 2035 TSP).
Attachment 3, Page 18 of 21
Thurston Hills Natural Area Trailhead and S. A Street
Findings:
Willamalane provided input about the conceptual local street alignment during their review
serving on the TSP Implementation project’s Technical Review Team. The draft conceptual
street map reflects the adjusted alignment that is in accordance with the Annexation
Agreement between the City of Springfield and Willamalane Park and Recreation District. Below
is email correspondence that shows the adjustment was made.
The street connections shown above support TSP Policy 3.4, which states, “Provide for a continuous
transportation network with reasonably direct travel routes to destination points for all modes of
travel.” TSP Chapter 7 implementation measures for the TSP address system connectivity (page 83,
Springfield 2035 TSP).
Attachment 3, Page 19 of 21
Attachment 3, Page 20 of 21
Attachment 3, Page 21 of 21
Attachment 4: Springfield Transportation System Plan Implementation Public Notice Comment Log
(Emails, Letters, Phone Calls, Written Public Comment, Walk-In Comments)
See copies of all emails, letters, open house comment cards, and written public comment submitted on project website at http://springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
Citizen Contact
Date
Staff Contact
Date Format of Comment Address First Name Last Name Email PDF Action Taken/Comment or Question Received
12/20/2017 12/20/2017 Email Centennial Blvd Charles Eggen
RE_ Proposed Land Use Regulation amendments
& Street Improvements.pdf Replied with information about Mill Street maintenance
12/20/2017 12/20/2017 Email Connie Neuschwanger RE_ Norice of public hearing I recieved.pdf
Replied back the proposed development code changes
would not impact RV parking
12/20/2017 12/21/2017 Email Centennial Blvd Marjorie Rater
RE_ Springfield Proposed Land Use Regulations -
Centennial Blvd. 21st Street to 28th Street Five-
Year Plan.pdf Replied with answers to questions sent
12/20/2017 12/21/2017 Email Centennial Blvd Marjorie Rater
RE_ Springfield Proposed Land Use Regulations -
Centennial Blvd. 21st Street to 28th Street Five-
Year Plan1.pdf Follow up email
12/20/2017 12/21/2017 Email Yolanda Ave Jerry Ritter RE_ TSP updates.pdf Replied with answers to questions sent
12/20/2017 12/21/2017 Email Yolanda Ave Jerry Ritter RE_ TSP updates_Becky addition.pdf
Becky Taylor with Lane County provided a follow up email to
Mr. Ritter as well
12/20/2017 12/21/2017 Email & Phone Call Main Street Dani Wright
RE_ What Conceptual Street map are you asking
for approval on_ .pdf
Emailed Conceptual Street Map and link to project web page;
called to answer questions
12/20/2017 12/21/2017 Email Main Street Dani Wright
RE_ What Conceptual Street map are you asking
for approval on_ .pdf
What street map is this meeting about? Haven't seen any
designs. How will it affect me? Re:Provided links to maps. Re:
heard about call and offered to call before vacation. Re: set
up a time to talk after vacation
12/20/2017 12/21/2017 Email Main Street Dani Wright
RE_ What Conceptual Street map are you asking
for approval on1_ .pdf Provided follow up emails to clarify what the project is about
12/20/2017 12/21/2017 Email 31st St Lorena Young
RE_ Can you please verify the change on 31st
street and cost to property owners_.pdf
Replied back with the proposed connections for the
neighborhood
12/20/2017 12/21/2017 Email Centennial by 9th St Jim RE_ Public notice Centennial.pdf
Replied with link to Conceptual Street Map and proposed
connection for neighborhood
12/20/2017 12/22/2017 Email Centennial by 9th St Jim RE_ Public notice Centennial1.pdf Follow up email
12/20/2017 12/22/2017 Email Centennial by 9th St Jim Re_ Public notice Centennial2.pdf Reply back from Jim
12/20/2017 Phone Call No Name Didn't leave enough information to call back
12/21/2017 12/21/2017 Phone Call 922 M St Bruce Abbott Information
12/21/2017 12/21/2017 Email 601 63rd Street John Antone RE_ ORS 227.186(5) (a) ORS215.503(5) (a)..pdf
Replied back with link to project web page and a list of main
topics that are being proposed for amendments in the
Springfield Development Code
12/21/2017 12/21/2017 Phone Call 442 S. 67th St.Juanita Bassett
Went to website. Talked about Dogwood St.CSM. Owns 442
S. 60th, Father owns 460 S. 60th
12/21/2017 12/21/2017 Phone Call 5660 Daisy St. #45 Pat Brickfield Daisy & Bob Straub Pkwy. crashes
12/21/2017 12/21/2017 Email 241 S 32nd Street Cheryl Brownell
RE_ Code amendments street map transportation
system plan.pdf
Replied back with link to project web page and a list of main
topics that are being proposed for amendments in the
Springfield Development Code
12/21/2017 12/21/2017 Email 241 S 32nd Street Cheryl Brownell
RE_ Code amendments street map transportation
system plan1.pdf Follow up email
12/21/2017 12/21/2017 Phone Call 1624 S. 60th Veronica Calnetts Information.
12/21/2017 12/21/2017 Phone Call Pleasant St.Mary Anne Craig InformationAttachment 4, Page 1 of 18
Attachment 4: Springfield Transportation System Plan Implementation Public Notice Comment Log
(Emails, Letters, Phone Calls, Written Public Comment, Walk-In Comments)
See copies of all emails, letters, open house comment cards, and written public comment submitted on project website at http://springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
12/21/2017 12/21/2017 Phone Call 3570 Cherokee Dr.Roxanne Fernleave?
What will you do to my property. No sidewalks - does not
want them (waste of $'s and time).
12/21/2017 12/21/2017 Phone Call John Hammer
Property owner. Wants to meet and see impacts. Coming to
City Hall for SDC changes Questions about 42nd St.
12/21/2017 12/21/2017 Phone Call 589 Harlow Rd. #I Diana Hensley Looking at website; needs information.
12/21/2017 12/21/2017 Phone Call 1237 Island St.Donna Hodges Information
12/21/2017 12/21/2017 Phone Call 1222 30th St.Cheryl Hunter Information. No drastic changes fine by her
12/21/2017 12/21/2017 Phone Call Joann Jones Web error. Information
12/21/2017 12/21/2017 Phone Call 562 Pinedale Ave.Linda O'Rourk Information
12/21/2017 12/21/2017 Phone Call 2520 A Street Tracy Roak Information (brief).
12/21/2017 12/21/2017 Phone Call 540 E. Street Jonathan Siegel
Former Planning Commissioner - terminology questions. E
Street questions.
12/21/2017 12/21/2017 Phone Call Lesley Spence Information? Mobility impaired
12/21/2017 12/21/2017 Phone Call Mike Wayne Information
12/21/2017 12/22/2017 Email E 20th Kevin Biersdorff RE_ Transportation System Plan Project List.pdf
Mr. Biersdorff stated - "I noticed your list does not include
remedying the access to E 20th in Glenwood which is a
public right-ofway but does not have any public connection
or satisfactory fire ingress/egress to adjacent streets
(Franklin or Nugget). There has been a standing verbal
agreement with past planning staff that this problem will be
corrected in the future. Please see the attached map and
notes."
12/21/2017 12/22/2017 Email E 20th Kevin Biersdorff RE_ Transportation System Plan Project List1.pdf Reply back from Mr. Biersdorff
12/21/2017 12/22/2017 Email 1669 Sequoia Tim Christie RE_ TSP.pdf Replied with answers to questions sent
12/21/2017 12/22/2017 Email Janus Ct Bruce Jolley RE_ Public Hearing.pdf
Replied with information about the why mailing the postcard
was necessary, a quick explaination of what the project is
trying to accomplish, and a link to the Conceptual Street Map
and project web page.
12/21/2017 12/22/2017 Phone Call Nancy Jones
Followed up in person on 12/22/2017 as questions related to
Virginia-Daisy Project
12/21/2017 12/22/2017 Email 505 Kelly Blvd Christopher Logan RE_ Notice of Public Hearing_.pdf
Replied with information about why mailing the postcard
was necessary, quick explaination of what the project is
trying to accomplish, a link to Conceptual Street Map and
what the severability clause means and why it was necessary
to include.
12/21/2017 12/22/2017 Email 505 Kelly Blvd Christopher Logan Re_ RE_ Notice of Public Hearing_.pdf Follow up email
12/21/2017 12/22/2017 Email 5967 E Street Tami Mesecher RE_ Changes in our street .pdf Emailed Conceptual Street Map and link to project web page
12/21/2017 12/22/2017 Email 6613 Main St Bonnie Mogstad RE_ Notice on proposed TSP projects.pdf
Replied with Michael Liebler copied as Ms. Mogstad had
questions about the 66th and Main Street Pedestrian
Crossing Project.
12/21/2017 12/22/2017 Email 6613 Main St Bonnie Mogstad RE_ Notice on proposed TSP projects1.pdf Reply from Ms. MogstadAttachment 4, Page 2 of 18
Attachment 4: Springfield Transportation System Plan Implementation Public Notice Comment Log
(Emails, Letters, Phone Calls, Written Public Comment, Walk-In Comments)
See copies of all emails, letters, open house comment cards, and written public comment submitted on project website at http://springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
12/21/2017 12/22/2017 Email Hayden Bridge Kenneth Phillips RE_ Hayden Bridge Road.pdf Replied with answers to questions sent
12/21/2017 12/26/2017 Phone Call Thomas Finney
12/21/2017 12/26/2017 Phone Call Paul Hasley
Web error, Needs good information. Mark Rust gave info
and explained project.
12/21/2017 12/26/2017 Phone Call 36460 Jasper Rd.Marilou Hickson
Two lots (house, gravel w/gate for camper trailer. Need infor
- no computer
12/21/2017 12/26/2017 Phone Call Virginia Keizer Went to website. Prefer call.
12/21/2017 12/26/2017 Phone Call Barbara Raley
Information. LTD? Property take? Mark Rust returned call to
answer questions.
12/21/2017 12/21/2018 Phone Call 6838 Main St.Robert Weinhold
Doesn't like freight traffic and nois near 69th signal. J-brake
prohibition signs/ enforcement.
12/21/2017 1/3/2018 Email 1736 Rainbow Dr.Connie Parsons RE_ notice of.pdf
Re: notice of public hearning. Asked how this might pertain
to her property. Explained the Springfield Development Code
document and what it includes. Also the draft Conceptual
Street Map and TSP project lists and maps show additional
future street connections throughout Springfield and
proposed changes to planned transportation projects in her
area which including possible connection from Rainbow Dr.
Included conceptual map attacments.
12/21/2017 Walk-in 2361 Dornach St Lucy Daugherty Provided FAQ sheet
12/22/2017 12/26/2017 Phone Call 16th St. & Hayden Br. Area Pat Greenwall We error. Mark called back - Mail box full
12/22/2017 12/26/2017 Phone Call 36460 Jasper Rd.Marilou Hickson
Called before - awaiting call back. Bus line? Changes to us?
Jasper already widened before. Mark returned call
12/22/2017 12/26/2017 Phone Call Desiree Jones/Jarvis?Information?
12/22/2017 12/26/2017 Phone Call 580 Hayden Br. Place Delores Kinbrack Information?
12/22/2017 12/26/2017 Phone Call 6700 blk. Dogwood Charlie McCalin Lives in Pleasant Hill - Info? Mark returned his call.
12/22/2017 12/26/2017 Phone Call N/A N/A N/A Broken leg - can not attend.
12/22/2017 12/26/2017 Phone Call Sheryl Reed Information
12/22/2017 12/26/2017 Phone Call 2833 Game Farm Rd.Beverly Reed Info. Impact?
12/22/2017 12/26/2017 Phone Call 65th & Thurston Rd.Kathy Stone 65th dead end? No longer? When?
12/22/2017 12/26/2017 Phone Call 6617 E Street Mary Taylor Information - confused. ASAP. Mark returned her call.
12/22/2017 12/26/2017 Phone Call Joyce
12/22/2017 1/3/2018 Email Main Street Dani Wright
RE_ What Conceptual Street map are you asking
for approval on_.pdf Proposed dates to meet with Dani.
12/23/2017 12/26/2017 Email Candace Higginson RE_ Notice of Public Hearing1.pdf Provided a link to the project web page as requested.
12/23/2017 12/27/2017 Email Main Street Jon & Ruth Heacock Re_ Main Street Update2.pdf
Asked if TSP update influence will influence outcome of the
Main Street Planning efforts. Explanined once a design
concept is selected for Main St. it will require City Council
approval. Another update to the TSP will be required after
further public involvement for Main St. corridor planning.Attachment 4, Page 3 of 18
Attachment 4: Springfield Transportation System Plan Implementation Public Notice Comment Log
(Emails, Letters, Phone Calls, Written Public Comment, Walk-In Comments)
See copies of all emails, letters, open house comment cards, and written public comment submitted on project website at http://springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
12/23/2017 12/27/2017 Email 310 33rd St Dave & Mary Jo Sanders RE_ 2035 TSP.pdf
Replied back with information about the proposed future
local street connection for 33rd and 34th Streets and what
would trigger its implementation. Additionally, provided Ben
Gibson's contact information as follow up for street
maintenance questions.
12/24/2017 12/27/2017 Email Main Street Jon & Ruth Heacock RE_ Main Street Update.pdf
Provided clarification that the Main Street Project and the
TSP Implementation Project are two separate projects.
12/26/2017 12/27/2017 Email 935 Lochaven Ave Jeffrey Gordon
RE_ Question_Comment on Proposed Conceptual
Street Map.pdf
Provided information about the proposed future street
connection between Don St and Lochaven Ave and Lochaven
Ave and Laura St.
12/26/2017 12/27/2017 Email 935 Lochaven Ave.Jeffrey Gordon
RE_ Gate at Junction of Don Street and Lochaven
Avenue.pdf
Gordon wants to know what's going to be done on Don St.
wehre it crosses Lochaven. Explained that future local street
connection may be built at some point in the future
connecting Don St. and Lochaven Ave. connecting currently
blocked intersection.
12/27/2017 1/3/2017 Email 935 Lochaven Ave.Jeffrey Gordon
RE_ Gate at Junction of Don Street and Lochaven
Avenue.pdf
Gordon against removal of barrier at junction of Lochaven
Ave and Don St. plus other comments. Explained his
comments are provided in the outreach summary to the
Planning Commission and City Council.
12/27/2017 12/27/2017 Phone Call 832 D Street Lynn Brown D Street Alt project
12/27/2017 12/27/2017 Phone Call 234 10th Anita Browning
12/27/2017 12/27/2017 Phone Call 234 10th Anita Browning
12/27/2017 12/27/2017 Phone Call 918 66th St. Chris Davidson Has more questions. Placement of road.
12/27/2017 12/27/2017 Phone Call 7474 S st.Philys De
22 acres beyond my house has arrows pointed at it on the
map. What does that mean?
12/27/2017 12/27/2017 Phone Call 1008 Oak Meadow Place Harold Freedman How will this apply to my property?
12/27/2017 12/27/2017 Phone Call P.O. Box 21255 Eugene Lea Menzel Fact sheet- send. Error in address, sent again 1/23/2018
12/27/2017 12/27/2017 Phone Call PO Box 21255 Lea Menzel Loralyn sent factsheet on 1/8/18 & again on 1/23/18
12/27/2017 12/27/2017 Phone Call 2680 C St Gerald Moller Interested in Virginia-Daisy Project. Mail Information
12/27/2017 12/27/2017 Phone Call Pheasant Blvd.N/A N/A
Home imp. Project. Street widening - Malard going thru.
Path?
12/27/2017 12/27/2017 Phone Call High Banks Rd.Lisa Rich EWEB prop?
12/27/2017 12/27/2017 Phone Call 834 N. 58th Street Ron Saurer
12/27/2017 12/27/2017 Phone Call 235 S D st.Richard Simmon web access issues
12/27/2017 12/27/2017 Email Wayside Loop Tricia Smith RE_ Springfield TSP Implementation Project.pdf
She can't attend meeting so emailed her questions. Mark
explained an additional opportunity to provide input at
subsequent public hearing in front of City Council (hearing
date not yet scheduled). Emma also included information re:
TSP policies calling for system connectivity and supporting
walking and biking.
12/27/2017 12/27/2017 Phone Call 29 Shady Loop Tina Starr Website doesn't work.
12/27/2017 12/27/2017 Phone Call Mike Watson
12/27/2017 12/27/2017 Phone Call Mike WatsonAttachment 4, Page 4 of 18
Attachment 4: Springfield Transportation System Plan Implementation Public Notice Comment Log
(Emails, Letters, Phone Calls, Written Public Comment, Walk-In Comments)
See copies of all emails, letters, open house comment cards, and written public comment submitted on project website at http://springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
12/27/2017 12/27/2017 Phone Call Larry Wiser
12/27/2017 12/27/2017 Phone Call 246 S 51st Pl.Tony Wright
12/27/2017 12/27/2017 Phone Call Nina
12/27/2017 12/27/2017 Phone Call 1519 Delrose Sam Website doesn't work.
12/27/2017 12/28/2017 Email 6613 Main St Bonnie Mogstad
FW_ 66th Street and Main Pedestrian
Crossing.pdf Bonnie's email back to Michael
12/27/2017 1/3/2018 Phone call & Email Shady Loop Dean & Tina Starr
RE_ City of Springfield Transportation System
update.pdf
Not happy with TSP update information. Explained there are
no proposed changes to planned transportation projects in
close proximity to their property. Attached link to draft
Conceptual Street Map and TSP Project Maps.
12/28/2017 12/28/2017 Phone Call Karen Anderson
19th St. between Main St. and E St. Wants to know the
impacts to this sector.
12/28/2017 12/28/2017 Phone Call Quinalt Barabara Perey
Is considering buying a home at Cornault. Would like to know
more about the project.
12/28/2017 12/28/2017 Phone Call Phil Ravineh
Has property at 1045 Gateway :oop. What impacts will there
be to my property?
12/28/2017 12/28/2017 Phone Call 10th St.Sherri Steinberger
Would like more information. Lives in Salem but owns
property in Springfield.
12/28/2017 1/2/2018 Phone Call 416 W D St.Josh Marean Asked about bike projects. Added to BPAC interest list.
12/28/2017 1/3/2018 Email 3 different properties David Beck
RE_ Properties.Ref. ORS 227.186 (5) (a) and ORS
215.503 (5) (a)1.pdf
Re: Public Hearing Notice that may impact his 3 properties in
Springfield. Asked for other informaton regarding this
ordinance. Explained project webpage has copies of the draft
propesed changes to Springfield Development Code. Also
attached draft Conceptual Street Map. and draft proposed
changes to the TSP project lists and maps and explained the
purpose of each.
12/28/2017 1/3/2018 Email 3220 Raleighwood Avd.Mark Cushman RE_ Notice of Public Hearing2.pdf
Noted link to website on flyer did not work.Turns out he
mistyped one of the words. Sent him link to website and
directed him to FAQ sheet with copies of draft proposed
changes to Springfield Development Code, draft Conceptual
Street May, and draft proposed changes to the TSP project
liss and maps and explanations. Included link to draft street
map and TSP project maps.
12/28/2017 1/3/2018 Email & Phone Call West D Street Josh Marean RE_ TSP etc.pdf
Looked at the website but felt daunted reading through
some very long documents. Ask for a brief chat about the
vision for the project. Spoke with Josh on the phone and sent
him links to TSP Project List and Map with proposed
amendments. Also added his name to the interest list for the
Springfield Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee.
12/29/2017 12/29/2017 Phone Call 157 12th St.James Dancey How will my property be affected?
12/29/2017 12/29/2017 Phone Call Jeff Gates Called before and did not receive a call back/
12/29/2017 12/29/2017 Phone Call Paul Ryan Is this related to the Main Street project? Curbs?Attachment 4, Page 5 of 18
Attachment 4: Springfield Transportation System Plan Implementation Public Notice Comment Log
(Emails, Letters, Phone Calls, Written Public Comment, Walk-In Comments)
See copies of all emails, letters, open house comment cards, and written public comment submitted on project website at http://springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
12/29/2017 12/29/2017 Phone Call 25 Ann Ct. Jennifer Snyder
Did not receive the public notice and would like a copy. PB-4
Question
12/29/2017 12/29/2017 Phone Call 3910 E 19th Ave Shannon Wilson Lives in Glenwood. How will this affect my property?
12/29/2017 12/29/2017 Phone Call 1890 Raubling Dr.Debbie
Calling on behalf of some elderly neighbors. Haces the main
rd.
12/29/2017 1/3/2018 Email Bill Chandos RE_ Transportation System Plan.pdf
Bill had questions about what will be discussed at 1/23
meeting. Explained notice is regarding 3 items: SDC changes,
Draft Conceptual Street Map, and TSP Project List and Map
changes and a link to website where they are located was
included.
12/29/2017 1/3/2018 Email & Phone Call 3154 Pheasant Blvd Ann Swartz RE_ public hearing1.pdf
Since Pheasant Blvd is currently zoned a Blvd is the plan to
chang that designation. Explained that further down on
Pheasant Blvd from her property is an already adopted
transportation Ped-Bike Project #3, however no planned
transportation project on her section of Pheasant. It is listed
as a 20-year opportunity project and no funding is dedicated
to it at this time.
12/29/2017 1/4/2018 Phone Call 4631 Daisy St.Donna Brooks
What will be done in my area- 46th-47th St and intersection
42nd?
12/29/2017 1/4/2018 Email S. 67th Street & Dogwood Terri Fackrell RE_ TSP.pdf
Questions regarding some of the TSP and code changes as
they might apply to property owner desire to build a home
on the lot. Emma explained specific of proposed changes to
SDC 4.2-105 and 5.1-110.
12/29/2017 1/4/2018 Phone Call
Darglege Ave and Beverly
St.Robyn
Concerned about on street parkinh on Beverly St. and
Hartman/Guy Lee Elementary School. Good bus stops at
mall.
12/30/2017 1/3/2018 Email Pheasant Blvd.Kat O'Brien RE_ TSP.pdf
Wants summary of proposed land use changes. Explained
website has coies of the draft proposed changes and
included links to the draft Conceptual Street Map and TSP
Project Maps.Noted there are no proposed changes to
projects or conceptual local streets along the unicorporated
lportion of Pheasant Blvd.
1/2/2018 1/2/2018 Phone Call 1124 6th st Eric Biazi
Looked at website. Information please. Confused about
street classification colors- understoof explanation.
1/2/2018 1/2/2018 Phone Call 35 Ann Ct.Steven Brewer
Information. Talked with Greg Mott. Does not want PB-4.
Gave PH information. Shared PB-4 no changes proposed.
1/2/2018 1/2/2018 Phone Call 6875 B St.Linda Jankard Information please/ Can't see website or make sense of it.
1/2/2018 1/2/2018 Phone Call
Hayden Bridge on 16th St-
Lane Co Shandra Lozarks
Information. What is it about? Looked at website, no web
access now. Call after 4:30pm today and leave voicemail.
1/2/2018 1/2/2018 Phone Call T St.- 14th area Juanita Maybry Information
1/2/2018 1/2/2018 Phone Call Shelley St. Industrial Park.Leonard Stoehr
Called to clarify conceptual street map local street
connections and PB-7 alignment.
1/2/2018 1/2/2018 Phone Call 656 Laksonen Loop Steven Swift
Went to the website and didn't know where to start. What is
this project about? How will it affect me?Attachment 4, Page 6 of 18
Attachment 4: Springfield Transportation System Plan Implementation Public Notice Comment Log
(Emails, Letters, Phone Calls, Written Public Comment, Walk-In Comments)
See copies of all emails, letters, open house comment cards, and written public comment submitted on project website at http://springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
1/2/2018 1/2/2018 Phone Call 1605 12th St.Melvina Uchroth
What is the project about and how will it affect my property?
Wants more good restaurants in Mohawk. N and 12th-
terrible and breaking. Sit Empty.
1/2/2018 1/2/2018 Phone Call 431 52nd pl.Darrell
Questions about land development and if the changes will
affect his property
1/2/2018 1/2/2018 Phone Call Centennial Blvd.Nancy
Public hearing notice and open house information. Went
online.
1/2/2018 1/3/2018 Email Centennial Blvd Nancy Rarick
RE_ Post Card Recv'd for_ Notice of Public
Hearing -- 1_23_18 & 1_9_18.pdf
Asked for maps and details for any
updates/changes/proposals for Centennial Blvd. Emailed
info re: the TSP Implementation project and draft Conceptual
Street Map and explained there is no current planning
underway for that project and community members along
the corridor would be engaged if and when that study occurs
as a separate project.
1/2/2018 1/3/2018 Email Lilly Shibou RE_ proposed land use regs_.pdf
Asked if she provided address or lot number would staff
respond with information as to whether and what impact
this will have on her property. Explained more info would be
provided if she provides an address.
1/2/2018 1/3/2018 Email 212 Q Street David Willis RE_ Land use regulations proposed changes.pdf
David tried to access Ref. ORS numbs on line but couldn't
figure it out. Explained ORS references and included link to
project webpage that has copies of draft proposed changes
to SDC, Conceptual Street Map, and draft proposed changes
to the TSP project list.
1/2/2018 1/4/2018 Email
DAVE JACOBSON IS A
STAKEHOLDER SOUNDING
BOARD MEMBER Dave Jacobson
RE_ TSP Implementation - Additional Feedback
Requested on Draft Conceptual Street Map.pdf
He asked about the many streets that don't go all the way
through and if emergency vehicles have gotten stuck and not
be able to turn around. Asked Dave if her had any locations
or examples in mind the City may have missed.
1/3/2018 1/3/2018 Email Bill Gabriel
Questions regarding the Transportation Plan
upcoming meetings.pdf
There is a lot to cover. Will you be taking public comments
and feedback regarding the individual projects and studies at
the upcoming meetings? Will there be future events? Who
should we address our concerns? Re: Listed the additional
meetings and ways to comment.
1/3/2018 1/4/2018 Phone Call Barry Davis Ann Court attorney. Follow up PB-4
1/3/2018 1/4/2018 Phone Call & Email Barry Davis
Public Notice Re_ TSP Implementation Follow
Up.pdf
He asked about Project PB-4. Responded that it is an
acknowledged project the the Springfield TSP and no
changes to the project are proposed at this time.
1/3/2018 1/4/2018 Phone Call 25 Ann Ct. Jennifer Snyder
Vacant lot development- would it trigger PB-4 if house were
built?Attachment 4, Page 7 of 18
Attachment 4: Springfield Transportation System Plan Implementation Public Notice Comment Log
(Emails, Letters, Phone Calls, Written Public Comment, Walk-In Comments)
See copies of all emails, letters, open house comment cards, and written public comment submitted on project website at http://springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
1/3/2018 1/4/2018 Phone Call & Email 25 Ann Ct Jennifer Snyder
Public Notice Follow Up - Ann Court Path
Project.pdf
Staff shared that PB-4 is an already adopted project and no
changes to the planned project are proposed. Explained
proposed amendments to SDC 4.2-150.A outline when
dedication or improvement of private property for path
would be required. Staff also shared that in general under
SDC 5.1-110.G, construction of a single-family home on a
lawfully created parcel or lot within City limits does not
require development approval.
1/3/2018 1/4/2018 Email Main Street Dani Wright RE_ 10_45 Friday1.pdf Confirmed meeting date.
1/3/2018 Walk-in 1172 Delrose Dr Ken Scott
Not supportive of Delrose conceptual local street
connection shown on draft map. He understands
the need for secondary emergency access, but
bought property since he wanted to be isolated
and is concerned about crime from river area at
the end of Harvest Ln becoming more prevalent
in his area.
Explained role of Conceptual Street Map and documented
comment.
1/4/2018 1/4/2018 Email 1496 8th St. Rory Donoho Transportation Citizen Concern.pdf
Resident came in and talked with Toste. Couldn't get a hold
of anyone from the project. Thought the city was taking their
property. Wants to know closest impact on house.
1/4/2018 1/4/2018 Phone Call 1496 8th St. Rory Donoho
Came to City Hall and talked with Toste. He was concerned
City was taking his property. Emma called back and worries
alleviated.
1/4/2018 1/4/2018 Phone Call Robyn
Information. Received callback. Overview please. (See earlier
entry)
1/4/2018 1/5/2018 Phone Call 72nd St.Mary Bowdy Information and impact.
1/4/2018 1/5/2018 Phone Call Carol Clifton Explain please. Explained and she is not affected.
1/4/2018 1/5/2018 Phone Call 2700 C St.Lorane Flattery/Flannery No internet. Direct impact?
1/4/2018 1/5/2018 Email
GEORGE GRIER IS A
STAKEHOLDER SOUNDING
BOARD MEMBER George Grier
RE_ TSP Implementation - Additional Feedback
Requested on Draft Conceptual Street Map.pdf
George Grier's response to additional feedback requested on
draft conceptual street map.
1/4/2018 1/5/2018 Phone Call Thurston Jeff Plumber
Information and will attend meeting. Directed to website.
Not affected by changes.
1/4/2018 1/5/2018 Phone Call 544 Manfield St.Larry Sullivan
Reviewed- has questions about impact to Manfield St. Lane
Education Service District Superintendant, retired. Called
with voicemail full.
1/4/2018 1/5/2018 Phone Call Raleighwood
Revisiting openeing up former railroad tracks behind
Gambird Village and Raleighwood? Bad. Gateway/Beltline?
1/4/2018 /2018- cannot con Phone Call 510 Pacific Ave Dana, Jesus, Trystan Donaeu, Quintin, McClain
Does not understand terms. Please send additional
information- larger format.
1/4/2018 Walk-in 1496 8th Street Rory Donoho RE_ Transportation Citizen Concern.pdf
Citizen walk-in received flyer and thought it was a
notification of the City claiming eminent domain on his
property.Attachment 4, Page 8 of 18
Attachment 4: Springfield Transportation System Plan Implementation Public Notice Comment Log
(Emails, Letters, Phone Calls, Written Public Comment, Walk-In Comments)
See copies of all emails, letters, open house comment cards, and written public comment submitted on project website at http://springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
1/5/2018 1/8/2018 Phone Call 343 5th St.Elsea Bergold
Information. Asked if there were any changes proposed for
immediate neighborhood- no.
1/5/2018 1/8/2018 Phone Call Irene Camlile
Information about public hearing and land use changes.
Asked if open house was drop-in format- yes.
1/5/2018 1/8/2018 Phone Call 5th St. property Jacqueline Reed
Written copy please. Lives out of state. Asked for mailing
address and provided link to website. Mailed written copy.
1/5/2018 1/9/2018 Phone Call 11635 34th Pl.Jeanette Froman
Property south- are they going to be developed? Answered
all her questions except if the 2 properties south of her are
being developed. If you know the answer, can you call her
back?
1/6/2018 1/9/2018 Email 936 Lochaven Ave.Stephen Reay
RE_ Proposed Barrier Removal at Don St. and
Lochaven Ave..pdf
Against the barrier removal at Don and Lochaven. When
Mayor Lundberg was on council she promised it would never
come down. Wondering why neighbors got postcards and he
didn't. There is no stakeholder on the SSB from the
neighborhood. Re: Your comments will go to the Planning
Commission to be heard. Agree that there should be traffic
calming efforts. In 2002, council acknowlecged that another
council may make changes at another time. Provided web
links.
1/7/2018 1/8/2017 Email 1732 T Street Dianne Rush
RE_ Public Hearing about ordinance
amendment..pdf
Cannot attend the January mtgs. Asked for emailed info
regarding proposal and how it would affect their property.
Emailed explanation requested and included link to website,
draft Conceptual Street Map and TSP Project Maps.
1/8/2018 1/8/2018 Email 2525 Olympic Rhonda Stoltz RE_ Jan 23 public meeting1.pdf
Rhonda unable to access website that is listed on the
website. Emma sent link to website. Rhonda asked if
anything specifically affects Jerry's Home Improvement
Center or thar shopping center development on Olympic St.
Emma responded the commercial location where Jerry's is
located is not proposed to change as part of the TSP
Implementation.
1/8/2018 1/9/2018 Phone Call 4380 Smith Dr.Tammy Carasoe-Suttlemeyer
Proposing putting street through property owned by family
for over 60 years. Heard from neighbor. Realtor in Bend.
Contacted by phone and email.
1/8/2018 1/9/2018 Email Phil Farrington
Comments- the deadline to submit written comments?
Emailed back 1/9
1/8/2018 1/9/2018 Phone Call 1702 28th St.Bob Gresham (Cascade Automotion)
Information. Interested in land use. Will attend open house
to learn more about Springfield Development Code changes.
1/8/2018 1/9/2018 Phone Call 69th area Sue Hartman
1/8/2018 1/9/2018 Phone Call 3760 Cherokee Dr.Ron Keefoffer Email link to website? Call number is to working hours.
1/8/2018 1/9/2018 Phone Call 523 65th St.Fran Morris
Husband uses wheelchair- would like ADA ramps in
neighborhood.Attachment 4, Page 9 of 18
Attachment 4: Springfield Transportation System Plan Implementation Public Notice Comment Log
(Emails, Letters, Phone Calls, Written Public Comment, Walk-In Comments)
See copies of all emails, letters, open house comment cards, and written public comment submitted on project website at http://springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
1/8/2018 1/9/2018 Email 204 N 19th St.Phillip Pirisino RE_ Land use regulations.pdf
Will there be any changes to my area? What should I be
looking at? Re: Every property owner within the UGB
received this notice. The changes only affect you if you
redevelop. Maps can be found online (provided links)
1/8/2018 1/9/2018 Phone Call Thurston Rd.Jeremy Shera
1/8/2018 1/9/2018 Phone Call 441 W. D St.Mariam West
Call between 3-5pm.Busy Signal. Asked Molly yo call about
Glenwood Refinement Plan. West D St. future, corporate
planning projects.
1/8/2018 1/9/2018 Phone Call
Virginia Daidy around 32/42nd/S.50th? Affect taxes? Traffic
issues? Roundabouts- thinks they are dangerous. Interested
in Virgnia Ave. Mailbox full.
1/8/2018 1/9/2018 Phone Call 472 S 71st St Ray
Information. Shared information about Bluebelle Way and
coceptual local street.
1/8/2018 1/9/2018 Phone Call 1147 Quinalt Yvonne Required to attend? Mother is spanish speaking only.
1/8/2018 1/9/2018 Phone Call Ron/Rob
1/8/2018 Email 935 Lochaven Ave.Jeffrey Gordon
Jeffrey emailed in response from Emma on
1/8/18 with additional comments.
1/9/2018 1/9/2018 Phone Call Pacific Coast Real Estate Max Jordan
Calling on behalf of property owner- East of 66th St, Noth of
Thurston Rd. Looks like nothing in area. 885 66th St. Lots:
1702341102400, 1702341102401. Discussed Aaron lane
connection
1/9/2018 1/9/2018 Phone Call 257 @. 47th St.Ed Paver Information/ Call between 9am-3pm
1/9/2018 1/9/2018 Phone Call 999 Old Orchard Ln.Charles Robert
Open House- will there be specific project information or
same as webpage information? Hayden Bridge Rd. is busy.
Traffic has increased.
1/9/2018 1/9/2018 Email
Westwinds Estates Daisy St
and 48th Phyllis Robin RE_ REF. ORS 227.186(5)(b)_215.503(5)(a).pdf
Is there impact where I live? RE: Is there a proposed change
that you are concerned about? (provided project website)
1/9/2018 1/9/2018 Phone Call Phyllis Robin
Westwinds estates- Daisy and @. 48th. Please leave detailed
VM message. Thankful for call. Understands
1/9/2018 1/9/2018 Phone Call Joyce Summer
Wants to come to Open House but can't make it at 4pm. Is
that okay?
1/9/2018 1/9/2018 Phone Call
Clearwater Ln and 23rd D
St.Marie
2nd time called. Affect property? Cannot find information.
Call two times or leave message. Emailed webpage.
1/9/2018 1/10/2018 Email Ron & Michelle Barth
RE_ ORS 227.186(5)(a) and ORS 215.503(5)(a)
comments.pdf
Have concerns with proposed changes that don't require
street parking. Explained this comments will be shared with
the Planning Commission and City Council
1/9/2018 1/11/2018 Phone Call Scott Brown
Information and affecting property value. Called and gave
information. Not affected.
1/9/2018 1/11/2018 Phone Call Vickie Nelson
Impact? Cannot attend open house. Called and gave
information. Not affected.
1/9/2018 1/11/2018 Phone Call Rod
Called and left message 1/11/2018. Rod called back and is
not affected.Attachment 4, Page 10 of 18
Attachment 4: Springfield Transportation System Plan Implementation Public Notice Comment Log
(Emails, Letters, Phone Calls, Written Public Comment, Walk-In Comments)
See copies of all emails, letters, open house comment cards, and written public comment submitted on project website at http://springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
1/9/2018 Walk-in Yolanda and 17th Property Owner
Supportive of Delrose conceptual local street
connection - would provide alternative to Hayden
Bridge Road if it gets blocked up. Documented comment.
1/10/2018 1/10/2018 Phone Call
Douglas House 33700 Sage
St Joan Daley Phone call.pdf
Attened open house. No web access. Paper copies please.
Douglas House owner. Plans to contact wetland registry and
Springfield Museum to attend public hearing.
1/10/2018 1/11/2018 Email Dani Wright
RE_ Simple, I request Main St be Exempt from the
TSP..pdf
Wording needs to be added to TSP that Main St. from Mill to
21st including So. A and Main St. from 21st to Bob Straub is
not included in the TSP. Emma ensured her comments were
documented and provided to Planning Commission.
1/10/2018 Letter McKenzie Glass Joe Tokalty
JT Ltr to Planning Commissions 0111018
Scanned.pdf Original letter to city staff.
1/11/2018 1/11/2018 Phone Call 4948 Main St. Linda Borsek
Need Information and cannot attend meeting. Not affected
but needs to be put on Main St. Interested parties.
1/11/2018 1/11/2018 Email Phil Farrington RE_ Conceptual Street Map testimony.pdf
Phil asked that the attached written testimony to Springfield
& Lane County Planning Commissions be forwarded prior to
1/23/18 public hearning. Emma will make sure attachments
are documented and provided to Planning Commission.
1/11/2018 1/11/2018 Phone Call 561 Nth 37th Mary Flack Just wants information on effect. Called and not affected.
1/11/2018 1/11/2018 Email Mitch Hanan
RE_ Public Comment on Proposed Springfield
Development Code (SDC) Amendments.pdf
Mitch provided additional public comments re: proposed
amendments to SDC code. Emma documented and provided
to Planning Commission.
1/11/2018 1/11/2018 Phone Call 111 S 47th St Mitch Hanan
Mitch had some additional questions with regards to
potential development impacts and said that he has been
reviewing the proposed changes more since he received the
copy of the proposed Springfield Development Code changes
at the 1/9 Open House. Emma explained that Mitch can
come into City Hall and ask questions at the Current
Development front desk with a planner on duty to gain a
better understanding of how the development review
process works and to be able to discuss what he may want to
do with a property he has in mind.
1/11/2018 1/11/2018 Email McKenzie Glass Joe Tokalty RE_ TSP Comments.pdf
Joe delivered TSP comments. Emma will make sure they are
documented and provided to Planning Commission.
1/11/2018 1/11/2018 Phone Call Carolyn Vike
General information on impact to property. Called and not
affected.
1/11/2018 1/11/2018 Phone Call
Trying to send email and need help. Left message with
correct email information
1/11/2018 1/11/2018 Phone Call Donna
Wants information/ Called and provided information. Not
affected.
1/11/2018 Letter Phil Farrington
CDC ltr to PCs re Conceptual Street Map
011118.pdf Original letter to city staff.Attachment 4, Page 11 of 18
Attachment 4: Springfield Transportation System Plan Implementation Public Notice Comment Log
(Emails, Letters, Phone Calls, Written Public Comment, Walk-In Comments)
See copies of all emails, letters, open house comment cards, and written public comment submitted on project website at http://springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
1/11/2018 Letter 401 N. 71st Street Mitch Hanan
City of Springfield ODOT, LTD Main Street Project -
Code Amendment Issue....pdf Original letter to city staff.
1/11/2018 Walk-in 111 S 47th St Mitch Hanan
Mitch stopped by City Hall to drop off a hard copy of the
additional comments he wanted submitted to the Planning
Commissions. He asked some additional questions. Staff
explained the adopted TSP Policies and project direction
provided that guide the project proposes changes to the
Springfield Development Code and adopting the Conceptual
Street Map. Emma also explained the connection between
the local conceptual streets shown and the Public Streets
street connectivity section of the Springfield Development
Code proposed changes.
1/14/2018 1/17/2018 Email 4912 Holly St.Sher Castro RE_ Planned street change for Holly St..pdf
Answered questions about extending Holly St. and emailed
conceptual street map.
1/15/2018 1/17/2018 Phone call
Thurston Rd. past Weaver
Rd.Sherry Southworth
3-lane cross-section w/sidewalks to UGB - how far? Zoning
A? t acre parcel? Information please.
1/15/2018 1/18/2018 Phone call
2574 27th St. (near
Yolanda)Don Woodskow Impact? Exact location. 3rd call.
1/16/2018 1/17/2018 Email 1505 Main St.David Clyde RE_ Transportation plan.pdf
Answered questions. Provided link for sign up to receive
project updates about Maint Street planning efforts.
1/16/2018 1/17/2018 Phone call & Email
1505 Main St. - listed for
sale David Clyde Called and emailed caller.
1/16/2018 1/17/2018 Phone call & Email 1505 Main St. BJ Jones How will it affect Main St. Returned call and sent email.
1/16/2018 1/18/2018 Phone call 1530 T Street Laura Coffman Confused by website. Please call.
1/16/2018 1/18/2018 Phone call
12th & C, 23rd &
Centennial Noran Hart
Walkin. Would like like call back. Emma called back & shared
informatio. No more questions at this time.
1/16/2018 1/18/2018 Email & Meeting
200 International Way,
McKenzie Gateway
Business Park, 950
International Way Connie Levine
RE_ Springfield Transportation Plan, Street
Concepts, and Development Code Changes2.pdf
Emma Newman and Tom Boyatt met with Connie Levine and
David Divini from G Group to discuss the proposed changes.
They both were supportive of the plan and were
appreciative of the meeting and being kept in the loop. They
commented that it seems to align with the previously
adopted plan and discussions and will benefit development
in the Gateway area.
1/16/2018 1/22/2018 Phone Call 1217 R St.Erma Dieterly Lives in Illinois, info please. Emma left VM, cutout <10 sec.
1/17/2018 1/23/2018 Email Sher Castro Re_ Planned street change for Holly St.3.pdf Emailed Sher additional information about previious emails.
1/18/2018 1/18/2018 Phone call
2620 31st St. (north of
Yolanda, south of Hayden
Br.Jim Branch Woulk like to meet w/staff pre P.H. Set up meeting for 4 p.m.
1/18/2018 1/18/2018 Phone Call Dean Burkhart
Opportunity at the hearing to present info? Talked with
Emma @ City Hall
1/18/2018 1/18/2018 Phone Call Zach Cardo Information
1/18/2018 1/18/2018 Phone Call
Royal Dell, Blackstone
Street Marilyn Gude Affect? Info pleaseAttachment 4, Page 12 of 18
Attachment 4: Springfield Transportation System Plan Implementation Public Notice Comment Log
(Emails, Letters, Phone Calls, Written Public Comment, Walk-In Comments)
See copies of all emails, letters, open house comment cards, and written public comment submitted on project website at http://springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
1/18/2018 1/18/2018 Phone Call 1435 W. Quinault St Chuck Mueller
Looked at website. Doesn't look as if street is - would like to
see Anderson Ln. connect through as shown on CSM
1/18/2018 1/18/2018 Phone Call/Email 4th & Main St. 3rd - 5th Jim Ronbach
Public Notice Follow Up and Main Street
Information.pdf
Rec'd postcard 1/13. No planned construction, right?
Website was pretty good.
1/18/2018 1/18/2018 Email 3245 Virginia Ave.Mike & Debbie Sweeney RE_ Contact on Friday 1_19_18 1.pdf Will meet with Emma on 1/19 @ 9 am.
1/18/2018 1/18/2018 Phone call 5881 Thurston Rd.George Wickheizer Area covered? Affect?
1/18/2018 1/18/2018 Phone call 7th north of Centennial Barbara P.H. notice. VM please.
1/18/2018 1/22/2018 Phone & Walk-in 733 54th Street Opa/Detzler
Emma explained info . Opal said that answered her
questions. 1/18/2018 Phone, Walk-in 1/22.
1/19/2018 1/23/2018 Email 918 66th St. Chris Davidson RE_ Springfield transportation plan updates.pdf
Emma will submit his additional comments to the Planning
Commission for their consideration.
1/19/2018 1/23/2018 Email Raymond Miller RE_ TSP Truck Route.pdf
Raymond thinks roundabout at Marcola and 42nd and then
another at 28th and Marcola is a bad idea. Emma ensured
his comments are documented and shared with the Planning
Commission.
1/22/2018 1/22/2018 Walk-in & Phone 1025 Kelly Blvd Wayne Baker
Wayne came in and talked with Toste. He inquired about the
flyer he received. Staff called Wayne back and answered his
general project information questions.
1/22/2018 1/22/2018 Phone Call Glenwood Michelle Foxman
Talked with Michelle and explained what was going on
around the coffee plant. The coffee plant owner has been
working with SUB on a private access road for SUB to get to
its new proposed facilities and for the coffee plant owner to
access some areas for security that he has had some issues
with homeless camping. No public road is planned for up
there. She appreciated the call and had nothing further in
relation to the TSP code update.
1/22/2018 1/22/2018 Phone Call 551 Mallard Ave.Susan Kelley
Where in City Hall is 1/23 mtg? Questions re: TSP. (Walk-in,
phone follow up) Doesn't like R-8, PB-2 makes sense.
1/22/2018 1/22/2018 Phone Call 47th Street Ruth Rice
Vela Scott on behalf of mother Ruth,. Ruth is puzzled and
concerned. Cost? Impact?
1/22/2018 1/23/2018 Phone Call Carma Cockran P.H. questions.
1/22/2018 1/23/2018 Email Philip Farrington
Re_ Springfield TSP Implementation Project
Update1.pdf
He plans to speak at 1/23 meeting. How much time will he
have?
1/22/2018 1/23/2018 Email 936 Lochaven Ave.Kathy Reay RE_ Barrier at Lochaven and Fon.pdf
Emma ensured Kathy her comments will be submitted to the
Planning Commission.
1/23/2018 1/23/2018 Email 250 S. 32nd St.Eric Adams
RE_ Springfield TSP Implementation Project
Update.pdf He will be submitting written testimony at the hearing 1/23.
1/23/2018 1/23/2018 Email Eric Adams
RE_ Springfield TSP Implementation Project
Update3.pdf
Resubmitted new attachment originally included with email
he sent earlier this morning.
1/23/2018 1/23/2018 Phone Call 4949 Main Street Bill Boresek
Questions re: 4949 Main St. not affected but need to be on
MSSP IP List
1/23/2018 1/23/2018 Phone Call Rory Donohoe Meeting is about my street. Wen is the meeting?Attachment 4, Page 13 of 18
Attachment 4: Springfield Transportation System Plan Implementation Public Notice Comment Log
(Emails, Letters, Phone Calls, Written Public Comment, Walk-In Comments)
See copies of all emails, letters, open house comment cards, and written public comment submitted on project website at http://springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
1/23/2018 1/23/2018 Email 2329 Dornoch St.Brian Ellison RE_ T.S.P plan.pdf
Brian is opposed to the multi-use path that runs through the
residential neighborhood from Laura to Dornoch. Emma
ensured his comments are documented and provided the
the Planning Commission.
1/23/2018 1/23/2018 Phone Call 1242 N Street Lavone Hamlin
Called to ask about project. Questions answered. Would
share info with elderly neighbors.
1/23/2018 1/23/2018 Phone Call Mitch Hanan
Someone sent email about pause in TSP Code. Email wants
to talk to Emma. Emma returned phone call and clarified
Main Street planning efforts vs. TSP Implementation Project.
1/23/2018 1/23/2018 Email 111 S. 47th St.Mitch Hanan RE_ Main Street Update January 23, 2018.pdf Answered questions in Mitch's email.
1/23/2018 1/23/2018 Phone Call Sue Hartman Should I come to the meeting.
1/23/2018 1/23/2018 Email
DAVE JACOBSON IS A
STAKEHOLDER SOUNDING
BOARD MEMBER Dave Jacobson
RE_ Springfield TSP Implementation Project
Updat2.pdf
Emma provided Dave's comments regarding CSM to the
Planning Commission.
1/23/2018 1/23/2018 Walk-in Larry Knight Don't quite understand what they are wanting to change.
1/23/2018 1/23/2018 Email SUB Jeff Nelson
RE_ SUB comments on City's Transportation
Plan.pdf Emailed SUB's comments on the City's Transp. Plan.
1/23/2018 1/23/2018 Phone Call 3501 Garden Ave.Laura Olds Wants to know about a road across property.
1/23/2018 1/23/2018 Phone Call 910 Nancy Ave.Chet Rob
Is there anything we should bring. What is meeting about?
Want barriers removed off at Don Street!!!
1/23/2018 1/23/2018 Phone Call 2727 20th Street Mark Roeman What is meeting about?
1/23/2018 1/23/2018 Email Richard Satre RE_ TSP3.pdf
Emailed Rick link to the TSP Implementation project
webpage for the most current project schedule.
1/23/2018 1/23/2018 Phone Call Mansfield St.Larry Sullivan
Calling for info / clarify proposed changes close to Mansfield
St. Reviewed material. Emma answered questions. May
attend P.H.
1/23/2018 1/23/2018 Phone Call Nancy Waymeyer P.H. info please. Emma explained changes.
1/23/2018 1/23/2018 Phone Call 733 S. 68th St.Maria Is our property directly affected or not. Not affected.
1/23/2018 1/23/2018
Phone call to Toste @ SE
Quad 3501 Garden Ave.Laura Olds 3501 Garden Ave - Objection to TPIP.pdf She is against project.
1/23/2018 1/23/2018 Petition & Letters Fairhaven Street N/A N/A
Gentleman dropped off a packet of petition
signatures and letters from 31 residents in the
Fairhaven Street area.
Staff scanned and uploaded the documents to the project
webpage for review.
1/23/2018 1/24/2018 Email James McLaughlin FW_ Tonight's meeting.pdf His comments re: 1/23 meeting
1/24/2018 1/24/2018 Email Hayden Homes Shane Johnson
Shane met with Gino and the Mayor and
expressed concern about curb and gutter
standards for new development and wants the
City to consider alternative options.
Emma and Michael left Shane a voicemail to try to better
understand his concerns and suggestions.Attachment 4, Page 14 of 18
Attachment 4: Springfield Transportation System Plan Implementation Public Notice Comment Log
(Emails, Letters, Phone Calls, Written Public Comment, Walk-In Comments)
See copies of all emails, letters, open house comment cards, and written public comment submitted on project website at http://springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
1/24/2018 1/24/2018 Phone Call 3501 Garden Laura Olds
Laura followed up with Becky following the public hearing
and had additional development questions that were outside
of the scope of the TSP Implementation project. Emma and
Becky suggested that she contact one of the City's current
development planners to discuss potential development
opportunities for her property and the current status of
other developments she had questions about.
1/24/2018 1/24/2018 Email 672 Anderson Lane Bruce White RE_ Proposed Land Use Regulations.pdf
Requesting additional information re: the proposed TSP
Implementation Project items. Emma answered questions.
1/24/2018 1/26/2018 Email Menlo Loop Charlene Larison RE_ last nights meeting.pdf
Questions re: her street. Explained unless she planned to
develop property further proposed changes in SDC most
likely not directly apply to her property.
1/24/2018 Email Michael Koivula Parking code.pdf Has additional comments re: last nights work session.
1/24/2018 Email Michael Koivula
Sidewalk standards & flush mount utility
covers.pdf
Additional comments re: sidewal standards from last nigts
meeting.
1/25/2018 Phone Call Gary Burnett Questions re: 1/23 P.H.
1/25/2018 Email 672 Anderson Lane Bruce White Re_ Proposed Land Use Regulations1.pdf
Bruce said the plans makes sense and seems to be part of
Springfield's continuing efforts to move in a positive
direction on a number of fronts. He wanted to know if the
proposal directly involves his street or affects his property in
any way. Bruce and his wife have no plans to partition or
develop property. They are particularly interested in
transportation part of plan that affects roads & bike paths.
1/26/2018 1/26/2018 Phone Call 1750 Yolanda Sara L.Questions re: 1750 Yolanda, No real impact.
12/28/2017 12/28/2017 Phone Call Kristen Dyelly
Lives in Donnelly. What do the changes nearby mean for me?
Looks like intersection changes at 26th and Harlow?
1/29/2018 1/29/2018 Phone Call Hayden Bridge area Pearl Wedmore
Pearl left voicemail. She had heard about the project from a
neighbor and heard that some streets were trying to be
pushed through. She requested information sheets. Staff
returned her call and left a voicemail, offering information
and copies, awaiting her direction.
1/4/2018 1/5/2018 Phone Call 1217 R St. (2 4-plexes)Erna Diederly
Live in Illinois. Called and no voicemail. Goes straight to busy
tone.
12/20/2017 Phone Call Vicky Mello Left voicemail on 12/20/17
12/21/2017 Phone Call 1575 West Quinalt Tom Aldrich
12/21/2017 Phone Call Don Dougdale
12/21/2017 Phone Call 7955 S A St Lesa Evans Provided information about the project
12/21/2017 Email & Phone Call 272 44th St Jeremiah Farish Draft Conceptual Street Map.pdf Emailed Conceptual Street Map
12/21/2017 Email & Phone Call 272 44th St Jeremiah Farish Re_ Draft Conceptual Street Map.pdf Follow up email
12/21/2017 Phone Call 1443 Centennial Blvd Thomas Finney
Provided information on how the proposed changes could
possibly impact his property if he developed
12/21/2017 Phone Call Virginia Keizer Called back and provided website addressAttachment 4, Page 15 of 18
Attachment 4: Springfield Transportation System Plan Implementation Public Notice Comment Log
(Emails, Letters, Phone Calls, Written Public Comment, Walk-In Comments)
See copies of all emails, letters, open house comment cards, and written public comment submitted on project website at http://springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
12/21/2017 Phone Call 246 Hayden Bridge Way KC McVay
12/21/2017 Phone Call Corner of 6th & M Carla Patterson
12/21/2017 Phone Call 241 Seward Ave.Barbara Peery
Requested hardcopy of project materials; called back to let
Ms. Peery know it would be roughly 100 pages
12/21/2017 Phone Call 2055 Otto St Joyce Reilly
Called back and answered questions about annexation and
how it could impact a property owner in the future if they
decided to develop or redevelop their property
12/21/2017 Phone Call Tina Sanford
Provided information about the project and how it could
impact a property owner in the future if they decided to
develop or redevelop their property
12/21/2017 Phone Call 1632 Main St Jerry Tanten
Provided more information about the project, how, if, it
could impact develop in the future; additionally confirmed
the project was separate from the Main Street Project
12/21/2017 Phone Call 47th & Main St - State Farm Kay Vargee?
Called back and Ms. Vargee is out of town until January;
questions about traffic flow and property value impacts
12/21/2017 Phone Call 21st & G Linda Woodland
12/21/2017 Phone Call 2563 I St Marilyn Woods
12/22/2017 Phone Call 918 66th St Dawn Craig
Answered questions about proposed street through
property on the Conceptual Street Map
12/22/2017 Phone Call Curt Switzer Emailed back
12/27/2017 Email 6613 Main St Bonnie Mogstad 66th Street and Main Pedestrian Crossing.pdf Michael's follow up email
12/27/2017 Phone Call 2174 N 11th St Henry Morales
Letter to Henry Morales RE TSP
implementation.pdf
Requested hardcopy of project materials; didn't leave
enough information to call back so instead mailed letter to
let him know if would be roughly 100 pages - see attached
letter
12/29/2017 Phone Call 4631 Daisy St Donna Brooks Left voice mail message.
12/29/2017 Phone Call 157 12th St James Dancey
Provided information about what the project is, that no
proposed changes to the Conceptual Street Map would
impact that address or general neighborhood plus explained
how it could impact a property owner in the future if they
decided to develop or redevelop their property
12/29/2017 Phone Call Jeff Gates
Provided information about what the project is, that no
proposed changes to the Conceptual Street Map would
impact that address or general neighborhood plus explained
how it could impact a property owner in the future if they
decided to develop or redevelop their propertyAttachment 4, Page 16 of 18
Attachment 4: Springfield Transportation System Plan Implementation Public Notice Comment Log
(Emails, Letters, Phone Calls, Written Public Comment, Walk-In Comments)
See copies of all emails, letters, open house comment cards, and written public comment submitted on project website at http://springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
12/29/2017 Phone Call Main Street Paul Ryan
Asked if the project was related to the Main Street Project
and particularly curbs. Explained it is separate and confirmed
he is on the Main Street project interested parties list.
12/29/2017 Phone Call & Email 25 Ann Ct Jennifer Snyder
Springfield Transportation System Plan - Public
Notice.pdf
Provided a information about what the project is about.
Jennifer owns a vacant lot directly behind her residence and
the Conceptual Street Map shows a multi-use path on it. She
has questions about how it was proposed.
12/29/2017 Phone Call 3910 E 17th Ave Shannon Wilson
Provided information about what the project is, that no
proposed changes to the Conceptual Street Map would
impact that address or general neighborhood plus explained
how it could impact a property owner in the future if they
decided to develop or redevelop their property. Additionally,
had questions about the New Franklin Blvd project, which
were answered and confirmed he is on the project
interested parties list.
12/29/2017 Phone Call 1890 Rambling Dr Debbie
Debbie called on behalf of her elderly neighbor at the
address provided; let her know what the project was about,
that no proposed changes to the Conceptual Street Map
would impact that address or general neighborhood plus
explained how it could impact a property owner in the future
if they decided to develop or redevelop their property
12/29/2017 Phone Call Darney Ave & Beverly Ave No Name
Left voicemail on 12/29/17 asking for a call back with exact
address
1/4/2018 Email E 20th Kevin Biersdorff RE_ Transportation System Plan Project List3.pdf
Emma responded that after talking with other staff they
agreed this is a location that was missed by accident during
initial creation of the draft Conceptual Street Map and
recommend to the Planning Commission to show local
conceptual street connections at either end of E. 20th Ave. in
Glenwood.
1/18/2018 Email Jim Rombach
Public Notice Follow Up and Main Street
Information.pdf
Sent email address where Jim can sign up for email updates
about ongoing and future Main St. corridor related planning
efforts.
1/18/2018 Email 675 S. 2nd St.Steven Schultz
Springfield Transportation Open House Follow Up
- S. 2nd and F St.pdf Answered questions & senr link to website.
1/18/2018 Email Amberle & Josh
Springfield Transportation Open House Follow Up
- Fairhaven.pdf
Emma sent their comments to Planning Commission for
review. Attachment 4, Page 17 of 18
Attachment 4: Springfield Transportation System Plan Implementation Public Notice Walk-In Counts
Date
Number of People
City Hall re: Public
Notice
12/20/2017 9
12/21/2017 11
12/22/2017 13
12/26/2017 2
12/27/2017 3
12/28/2017 1
12/29/2017 0
1/2/2018 2
1/3/2018 5
1/4/2018 5
1/5/2018 3
1/8/2018 2
1/9/2018 6
1/10/2018 3
1/11/2018 3
1/12/2018 2
1/16/2018 4
1/17/2018 2
1/18/2018 1
1/19/2018 2
1/22/2018 4
1/23/2018 2
1/25/2018 5
TOTAL:90Attachment 4, Page 18 of 18