HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014 07 29 AIS PC Memorandum Apepal of Directors DecisionCOMMUNICATION MEMORANDUM Meeting Date: 7/29/2014
Meeting Type: Regular Meeting Staff Contact/Dept.: Mark Metzger/DPW
Staff Phone No: 541-726-3775
Estimated Time: 60 Minutes S P R I N G F I E L D PLANNING COMMISSION Council Goals: Mandate
ITEM TITLE: APPEAL OF A DIRECTOR’S DECISION FOR LAURELWOOD SUBDIVISION
CONTINUED FROM JULY 15TH PUBLIC HEARING AND JULY 22ND CONTINUED MEETING.
ACTION REQUESTED:
The Planning Commission is requested to consider the staff report and all other
evidence submitted into the record; make a decision to affirm, modify or reverse the Director’s Decision; and adopt findings in support of that decision. The decision should include consideration of all new evidence that addresses the criteria
of approval for subdivision tentative plans as found in SDC 5.12-125;these criteria are included in the staff report. As part of its decision, the Commission may add, modify, or remove conditions of approval.
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
On July 22nd, the Commission voted to hold the record open an additional two days
until July 24th at 5:00 pm in response to a request to extend the record to allow additional written comments. The attached documents were received during the
record extension. The Commission has the responsibility under SDC 5.3-115 (E)
to make a final decision on the proposed Laurelwood Subdivision.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. E-mail submittals from Tamie Yarnall, Appellant 2. “Reply to the City of Springfield’s Appeal of Director’s Decision…” Barbara
Parmenter 3. Letter from Wayne and Joyce Estabrook 4. Letter from Curt Lantz
5. Memorandum from Michael Liebler, Transportation Planning Engineer
DISCUSSION: Concerns received from residents during the comment period have centered on the
impact of extending Ivy Street to connect to the proposed subdivision. Part of the
concern is with the intersection at S. 55th Place and Glacier Drive. The City’s
Transportation Planning Engineer has included a memorandum addressing all of
the issues included in the testimony identifying the safety of the intersection
(Attachment 5).
The letter from Wayne and Joyce Estabrook express concerns that the City will
require them to remove a berm on their property at the corner of S. 55th Pl. and Ivy
(Attachment 3). This subdivision decision does not require removal of the berm.
As with any other corner in the city, property owners are required to maintain
visual clearance near street corners for safety at intersections.
Mr. Lantz expresses his concern about the capacity of existing streets to support
fire trucks (Attachment 4). Condition of Approval #14 is a standard condition
requires new streets to be built to support an 80,000 lb. load. Staff contacted
Battalion Chief Leo Giles regarding the issue. Chief Giles knew of no problems
with trucks being able to respond to calls on Glacier Drive or on S. 55th Place. The
required load rating for new streets reflects the weight of the heaviest apparatus
types. These vehicles seldom respond to residential calls.
From: TamieY [mailto:tamiey@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 3:59 PM To: METZGER Mark
Subject: First Face to Face with Jesse
July 24, 2014 - 4:00pm
To: Mark Metzger and The Springfield City Planning Commission From: Tamara A. Yarnall
996 S. 55th Place Springfield, OR 97478 541-741-3222 FIRST AND ONLY FACE TO FACE MEETING WITH JESSE LOVRIEN
Jesse Lovrien called me out of the blue around 2:30 on Wednesday July 8. I remember the time pretty well because I was not dressed and he said he was at Barbara’s driveway and had a couple of hours before he needed to leave back for Portland. He said he had just finished meeting with the BPA (Luke Kinch) and a couple of city planning division employees. He said he was headed to an
appointment with one of the other neighbors. I asked him which one and he said the people on the other side of the property. I asked him if I could go with him he said yes and I asked him to give me a half hour to get dressed. I suggested he visit Barbara while I was dressing as I was sure she was home and they both had mentioned they kept missing each other.
He came more quickly than I expected saying Barbara was not answering her door. He said since she would not talk to him “it was sure going to be a surprise when she woke up one day to all the trees gone around her home”. I told him I was ready to go with him to
meet with the other neighbor and he said he had just cancelled the meeting with the other neighbor so he could spend all the time with me. He asked me if I knew what the other neighbor was concerned about and I told him it was probably about the trees as they had purchased the land next to barbara and the trees thinking they would be in a forest for the rest of their lives. Now they were pretty upset to find out the trees were all coming down around them. I asked him why he was in town today? Besides the meeting with the other neighbor he said they had recently realized the soil under
the towers was indeed a slide area and so they had just today revamped the building plans to take away the water lines from under the towers and pipe the water away from the retention pond instead of hooking it up to the sewer system at Ivy and South 55th. Which
meant it was highly likely we might not be able to get the extra water pressure he had promised me a few weeks earlier for the neighborhood for around $2,000 to hook up to the system. Earlier he had said it was just a few feet of pipe and he would be happy to pay for the engineering cost. Because of the “slide problem” he said he had misquoted me and it would now probably be more like
$20,000. I told him I had indeed called SUB like he suggested and that they had told me it was a quick and easy hookup and it seemed like it was the right time to do it.
But, since I had sent the letter saying I had Barbara’s Geological study which said there should be NO WATER under the power towers he agreed inferring Branch Engineering had just told them it was a slide area as well. He also said they were now going to put a liner in the water retention pond to protect the land under the power towers. He wanted me to know they were listening to what the
neighborhood was saying and led me to believe he would be the white knight in shining armor at the hearing. It felt like to me he was trying to fix all of my Appeal Hearing concern points BEFORE the hearing so he could LOOK GOOD to the Planning Commission. I asked him about what if the rains came like they could and fill up the retention pond. He diverted my question and said that I needed to
remember their would be two ponds and the bigger one was at the other end of the land. I asked him about Earthquakes and told him I knew we experienced them here on the hill because my house had cracks from them. He never did answer that question.
I told him how Barbara’s trees had slid down the hill one winter because she had a small leak in her water pipes. She had told me there was no water showing on the ground anywhere but her water bill was extremely high. She said she had looked and looked and one day she found her trees had slid down the cliff. I told him I could not believe he was still planning on putting a water retention pond under the power towers and how it seemed pretty dangerous still even with a liner.
We met primarily across the dining room table except for when I gave him a back yard tour to show him my and his property line and tried to beg to save my two holly trees that had been planted by the original owners on the other side of my fence. I told him the previous owners had leased the land from Barbara Parmenter for about ten years so they could have a vegetable Garden, blackberries
and some “sun” flowers since my yard was primarily a shade yard. He told me he would be glad to use his equipment to dig them up and transplant them for me wherever I would like. I thanked him and said I don’t have anywhere to place plants that need “sun” and talked about the possibility of maybe planting them in the neighbors yard next door.
I told him I thought it was pretty sad that he seemed to think everything on their property had to be leveled to the ground. He said there was going to be a city required home owners association because of the retention ponds and they would be required to mow the land
once a year. They would have a manager who would report to Jesse. I laughed and said that was a joke because that meant we would still be up to our eyeballs in blackberries and weeds if they only mowed once a year. We spent a lot of the discussion time with me trying to talk him into saving trees around each of the 65 houses like Barbara had with our subdivision back in 1979. I told him there had been a forest where our subdivision was as well. I told him I had spent a considerable amount of time plotting each and every single, double and triple trees in our entire subdivision and that none of the 53 trees had ever
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 7
fallen down due to wind problems. They had only been cut down by people who moved in from CA and didn’t understand “Old” fir trees had tap roots. Yes, small shallow ball roots on younger trees but also a tap root that dives in and holds older trees from wind and rain storms. I talked with him about not using Ivy Street as the thorough faire from his subdivision through our subdivision to get to Albertsons,
Safeway, Burger King, etc. I told him he was just giving us a line telling us that the subdivision would divide and half would go out Mt. Vernon. He even led me to believe I was right when I told him most women would go the quickest way in their mind when going shopping and being in a hurry and that they would ALL end up going out glacier instead of the long way around using Mt. Vernon. He
told me that I was “right that Glacier COULD be built safely but it would cost him too much money. Any extra cost makes the cost of the houses go up”. He told me he was willing to build up and extend Glacier St. but the city had insisted he use Ivy St.
He told me Barbara was telling a lie about not being able to have a lawyer represent her in the state of Oregon. He said she had just as much right as anybody else. He said he had been following Barbara’s appeal process for a very long time and had waited until she had run out of all options of getting back her property. He then came in and purchased the property from Umpqua Bank. He said even if
Barbara did win a case against Umpqua Bank for illegally taking her property, it didn’t even matter because he would still keep the property and she would just get paid off by Umpqua. He told me the “TOASTER STORY” so I would understand it better. He said if someone has a toaster for sale and you go to purchase it from them, so long as you ask them if it’s a stolen toaster and they say no, then that let’s you off the hook and you can then purchase the toaster forever.
He said she had been telling people that Hayden Homes had stolen her property from her and how awful Hayden Homes was. He said she had turned our neighborhood against him. In reality we didn’t even know Barbara was even living at the home for the last year and a half. She had been leading a very quiet life. I don’t believe she had been talking to anyone in the neighborhood. We did not even
know she had lost the property until the notice came from the City of Springfield saying that Hayden Homes was building their 65 home development.
During that meeting with Jesse I mentioned that Mark Metzger had sent the Tree Felling letter saying “some” of the trees were being removed from the property. I told him I called right away asking about what “some” meant on April 22nd and that Mark said he had supposedly just talked to a forest guy who told him the trees would be dangerous from wind blow so the “majority of trees were going to
have to be cut down except for a few at the south west end”. I told him how I had said to Mark that he misrepresented to the neighbors the gravity of the situation and that he had probably known before mailing the letter that the majority would supposedly have to come down and that he had said “some” so the neighbors would not cause a stir about the tree felling application. In reality that is exactly
what happened, the neighbors did not write about the trees because they were told in the letter it would only be “some”. Only a very small handful of neighbors went to the public meeting so only a handful of neighbors knew the majority of trees would be coming down.
I accused Jesse of planning on clear cutting in reality and he agreed with me saying “it would be to cost prohibitive to work around trees as they would slow the process down. He said they would “plant the two required trees in the front yards at the end”. He said if he
were “forced to work around trees then the cost of the homes would be much higher and they would not be affordable for people who make $40,000 a year”. I said he had got the tree permit in a very slimy way. I told him not only had I been very clear with Mark Metzger about my intention to write about the trees when I called him right after I got the notice but that a few other people had written about the trees as well. Jesse said I have a tree permit and “you are not going to stop that by asking for a hearing”. He said the only reason he had not cut the trees earlier is because it would make the neighbors unhappy and they would all end up in the hearing. He told me he did not want anybody at the hearing so it would go much smoother for him. (That is when I got the idea about going around to all 53
homes and telling the neighbors that he was indeed clear cutting ALL of the trees and to get a petition signed for us to have our rightful Tree Hearing that we were denied. All 77 people were furious about the Trees!
I asked him if he had considered purchasing the house that was for sale on 57th street. I showed him the springfield conceptual map and showed him that was the exact location they had on their map for a future road. I showed him how easy it would be to connect to his property thru the LLGains property and the one other couple’s corner of their acre lot. I mentioned how it would be really cool for
them because they could build a house and make money and also get paid for selling their little corner of their lot. Also how it would be great for LLGains because they would have two outlets to their property then. He told me they had not purchased the LLGains portion of Barbara’s property because it was land locked. He said I thought like a developer and it was good but I needed to understand that it
would take 6 months to get that all straightened out. He would have to go thru the same process as what he was now going thru. He told me he wanted to have his homes available to live in by the first of December and the only way that would happen is using Ivy Street because it was basically already built and ready to go. I mentioned wouldn’t it be better to build during the fall because then they would get an idea of how much water is really on this hill. It would show them the problems instead of building in the summer and then finding out after it was all built there were things they hadn’t taken into consideration about the land that We who lived on this hill and
dealt with all of the water on a constant basis already knew. I had talked with him on the phone for a couple of hours a few weeks before this visit and told him I had been scalped by an industrial
fan at Sheldon High School. I had told him how I had spent 6 years in the hospital and two years in the care facility because MRSA staff had got in my skull in the emergency room. I told him I had just got home for about three months and my head had finally just healed over after 8 years and that I had tripped and fallen over a curb and broke both knee caps, wrists, my tail bone and had torn my left
shoulder all apart. After that fall I had gone to Florence, OR for the last three years to heal at the coast cabin my parents owned. During the visit he brought up the fact that I was disabled and that this process had been very hard on me. He said he knew what he
was doing because he did it for a living and frankly I was going “to lose anyway so I might as well drop the case and stop myself from the heartache I was going to feel after the hearing”. He told me that if I dropped the hearing I would then make his life much easier because Barbara Parmenter would then be out of his life for good. He explained her intervention was hooked to my hearing so if I went
away she went away. He then said but he also understood that if I needed to continue the hearing it was ok because I did “have the
Attachment 1, Page 2 of 7
right to be heard”. He told me the next time he saw me he would not be so nice to me like he had been during this meeting. He said he had a job to do and that was to make money making and selling homes. He said he was also due to take his law exam very soon. He had been going to law school to become even smarter at making and selling homes. He told me I had already cost him a full month of his schedule. At one point he even told me if the hearing were to go on as planned
and if Barbara thought she was going to try and slow down the process, He said if she makes me lose any more than this month that you have already cost me he would then bring out “THE BIG GUNS”. He said he liked me and said I had been nice to him during the process, but “Barbara had done nothing but piss him off. I’ll not be slowed down any more”, he said.
Jesse told Tamie he firmly believed he would have Mt. Vernon as the primary entrance by December 1st. Because he believes the county annexation process will be over any day now. He told me they put a request in to annex the county into the city at least 4
months ago. So at the hearing they tried to make the city planning commission believe they did not have a road to use except for IVY. By the time the subdivision is ready to go on the market for sale they will have the Mt. Vernon entrance built and ready to go (by DEC 1st) There is no reason why Ivy should even be used other than to “HELP” sell homes.
Tamie asked Jesse if at the end of all of this they could put the posts across Ivy St. that break away for fire trucks (COMPROMISE use Ivy St. until they have another entrance). He said NO because Ivy Street was going to make it easy for him to sell homes quickly because everyone would see they could get to Albertsons, Safeway, and Bob Straub quicker that way then going around Mt. Vernon which would take longer.
Using Ivy street disrupts an entire subdivision where using 57th possible entrance doesn’t upset anyone and there are no power towers to drive next to. Using 57th street entrance really could make it BETTER for those that it affects. Using Mt. Vernon also does not
adversely affect others like using Ivy does. Please use MT VERNON ONLY UNTIL a safer and more suitable 2nd entrance can be found (such as using the South 57th entrance). Please either have Hayden homes purchase the south 57th house which is for sale. Or, please have the city purchase the south 57th house. The City could purchase the lot at 57th and then charge the developers
to use it and make back the money they spent. Jasper meadows has only one outlet at all of their subdivisions why cant Pinehurst known as laurelwood at the appeal hearing. Hayden
Homes has been in such a hurry to cram this subdivision in that they didn’t even do their homework and used a name already given to a subdivision (so JUST BEFORE the appeal hearing they changed their name to pinehurst??!!)
This new 65 home subdivision, Jesse agreed, is really the beginning of a subdivision of nearly 300 homes just like Jasper Meadows. Do you the planning committee really want to send the majority of even half of those homes down Ivy St. and South 55th and Glacier Dr? BUSES COULD COME UP FROM my proposed 57TH entrance VERY EASILY SINCE THERE IS NO STEEP hill to
CLIMB AND NO CURVES. AND BUSES COULD also COME IN AT MT. VERNON, then maybe the kids from the 300 homes would make it to school ON Time. Having all the buses go thru the mount Vernon entrance to all of the 300 homes would be a nightmare for the buses. They deserve two ways in. BUSES CANNOT MAKE IT UP GLACIER even on a summer day. Ice Snow Storms take out
Glacier Dr. completely and EVERYDAY from 4-8 the sun blinds your eyes. FIRE TRUCKS - CAN NOT MAKE IT UP GLACIER AND MAKE THE CORNER AT IVY ST. and SOUTH 55TH PL. with all of the cars
that regularly line both sides of the streets. But, firetrucks COULD make it up from 57th up with no sharp corners. FIRE TRUCKS would have to go in using Mt. Vernon only and seconds count when a fire is happening. SAFETY FOR OUR SUBDIVISION SHOULD BE FIRST, making it easier for a developer to sell homes to go shopping, eating out or even going to work should be
second. CITY CODE SAYS the streets need to be able to hold 80,000 Lbs. for fire trucks. After speaking with several city officials I don’t believe Ivy St., South 55th Pl. or even Glacier Dr. were built for 80,000 Lbs. All I get as an answer to my question is “these
streets were built to the existing code back in 1979”. Please remember if you choose this route you will be turning it into a main arterial street. Firetrucks are getting heaver and larger every year. Our little out of code streets cannot hold up to a busy arterial of heavy vehicles (Moving Vans, Large UPS Trucks, etc. etc.)
Please remember it is not just 65 homes we are talking about, it will SOON BE IN THE YEARS TO COME 300 HOMES. Given the logic of the city engineer even if half of those go out thru Mt. Vernon and the other half goes out thru Glacier Dr. that is still a whole
bunch of extra cars going around 2 already very dangerous corners. Please also remember YOU will be turning those two corners into possibly life threatening corners, at the least there will be accidents and reports of accidents. CAN YOU AS A CITY PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBER SLEEP AT NIGHT knowing you may have personally helped kill or maim a child at those two already
precarious corners. Even one child counts!!! You have the POWER to stop a problem BEFORE it happens!! ALSO, do you as a planning committee realize the city will be held liable if the power towers come down because there was a water retention pond a few feet away from the towers? Can you as a committee person sleep at night knowing there was not to be any extra water around those power towers because the ground is a SLIDE AREA like OSO, WASHINGTON.
In conclusion, PLEASE DON’T FORGET 77 PEOPLE IN A 53 HOME SUBDIVISION (Royal Ridge) have asked you by three Petitions signed in only four days (taken around by one disabled lady myself who can hardly walk and two young men who kept her company
along the way) from July 10-13 to please; 1. Not use Ivy Street in Any Way, 2. To please allow us to have our rightful tree hearing, and 3.To remember the two corners are a serious danger. The city planners may tell you the streets are just like any other streets in Springfield. Don’t believe them. Come and find out for yourself.
If you were to go ahead and require Glacier Dr. to be extended like you did 7 years ago it would automatically take away the water retention pond from in front of the towers and take away that possible real danger. Glacier is not really unsafe to build. Wildish have
said they can build it safely. It would just cost a lot. Why not allow Mt. Vernon to be used until Glacier could be extended. Remember
Attachment 1, Page 3 of 7
Mt. Vernon will be available for regular use by regular traffic in about one month anyway. Permission has already been granted for the heavy trucks to begin building and the road will be ready for regular use by December 1st. Please also remember even if there was a computer glitch how is it only 4 homes received the initial mailing when the supposed “computer glitch” encompassed 17 homes (53 homes should have been notified on the first mailing). If I had not come home from
Florence that day (April 1st), only 3 homes in 53 homes would have even known about the subdivision. Those three didn’t know what to do with the letter and felt their voices would not be heard anyway “You can’t fight City Hall” and decided not to write a concern letter. April 1st would have been a sick April Fools joke on the entire subdivision if we received a mailing from Hayden Homes inviting
us to a “Get to know the new neighbor meeting”, “Oh, and by the way we’re building not only 65 but really 300 homes right above you in the very near future” and “No one wrote about concerns so we ARE your new neighbors”. I’m sure glad I opened that envelope. At least the neighborhood got to know about the new subdivision and did get a chance to write their concerns and to sign the petitions.
I, Tamara A. Yarnall, do believe what I’ve written to be true and accurate to the best of my recollection.
Attachment 1, Page 4 of 7
Attachment 1, Page 5 of 7
From: TamieY [mailto:tamiey@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 4:47 PM To: METZGER Mark Subject: Third time is a charm
Mark, I forgot to sign the bottom of this letter when I sent it to you. Please consider this the corrected copy. Mark, Third time is a charm!. I found I did not finish my thought in paragraph two.
7/24/14 - 4:04pm
4:45pm TO: Mark Metzger and The City Planning Commission
FROM: Tamie Yarnall, appeal hearing applicant FIRST CONTACT WITH JESSE LOVRIEN
I first talked with Jesse Lovrien on the Telephone on 5/30/2014, I CALLED HIM. During the two hours we spoke Jesse talked with me about the neighborhoods concerns about the subdivision. I told him the neighborhood was pretty upset that he didn’t even make the
neighborhood “Get To Know You Meeting” at city hall that he had personally arranged for. He told me he was taking his final law exam. He told me he had been going to school to get his law degree so he could have even more power and knowledge in working on property acquisition and development. I thought to myself he knew when these exams were going to be IN ADVANCE and he could
have arranged the FIRST NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING FOR A TIME WHEN HE COULD HAVE BEEN THERE. I also felt like he was trying to scare me and let me know he was really important.
I told Jesse the neighborhood was not against the new subdivision. I told him we were concerned greatly about the use of Ivy Street as the connector and Glacier Dr. I told him how Barbara several years back had proposed Wild Goose Landing trying to use Ivy Street as the connector and she had been told if she wanted to do any development ever, she had to extend Glacier Street. He said, “I don’t care
if I need to extend Glacier Street, it’s the city who is telling me I have to use Ivy. Later he said, I know that Glacier street is not that dangerous to build, It just will cost a lot of money and I don’t want to spend that kind of money. If I do then I will have to sell my houses for more money.”
Another one of the topics was the very low water pressure we had Royal Ridge. He explained they were putting in a special water
pump for the new subdivision and that he didn’t see why we couldn’t tag on to his line and give us better water pressure. He said he would be more than happy to pay for the engineering costs and he thought it would only cost the neighborhood around $2,000ish for the piping. He told me to call the SUB and verify if it could work. Immediately after talking with Jesse I called S.U.B. 5/30/2014 and talked to Scott who was actually the person who was designing the water lines for the new Laurelwood Subdivision. I believe he said the pipes from the new laurelwood subdivision were on the plans to
be connected at Ivy Street and south 55th Pl. He said it appeared it was definitely the time to do it and he thought it would be very simple and inexpensive for the neighborhood to connect to the new Laurelwood subdivision. I believe he talked about connecting at Ivy street, but I think he also mentioned a connection point could be at the walking path where it enters Royal Ridge just one house
down from mine. Both of the conversations took place BEFORE I appealed the city’s decision about allowing the subdivision to go forward and grant their
application. During that first call with Jesse he set up an appointment to come and talk with me about the neighborhoods concerns and my personal concerns. The day of the appointment he called and said his mother was in the emergency room in the hospital and he would not be able to make the appointment with me. He then said he would call me very soon and make another appointment. Weeks
went by and he never called. During which I appealed the city’s decision. He then called out of the blue and left a message on my answer machine, saying he would be in town the next day (Friday) and wondered if I could throw together a quick meeting with some of the neighbors. When I got home late that night it was too late to call him and tell him I was completely tied up the next day. This was his only real attempt at meeting with the neighborhood and he only gave us a few hours notice. The final time he called me was a week before the hearing and again called out of the blue and said he was in the neighborhood and
would I meet with him. I said yes and met with him. However, I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS WAS REALLY TRYING HARD TO SHOW HE (Jesse Lovrien) REALLY WANTED TO MEET WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. The three times of contact I called once and he called twice giving no real notice time, I believe we were just a second thought and he could say in the hearing “he tried his best to
meet with the neighborhood”.
I, Tamara A. Yarnall, do believe what I’ve written to be true and accurate to the best of my recollection.
Attachment 1, Page 6 of 7
From: TamieY [mailto:tamiey@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 4:56 PM To: METZGER Mark
Subject: Clarification Needed, Please 4:56pm 7/24/14
CLARIFICATION NEEDED
Mr. Metzger told me Ivy Street would be off limits to ALL construction people, meaning subcontractors, contractors, employees coming to work and ALL construction equipment. In the hearing it sounded like heavy construction equipment would be the ONLY thing not allowed into the new subdivision entering thru Ivy Street. COULD YOU AS
A COMMISSION make sure to spell out that all workers, subcontractors, city employees use the Mt. Vernon entrance to the subdivIsion and do NOT use Ivy street during Phase One AND Phase Two construction. AND BY THE WAY, IT’S 4:50 AND THESE ARE MY LAST THOUGHTS By the time homes are ready to be sold december 1st the road to Mt. Vernon will be completed for regular
use. if that is what Jesse expects to be the main road then make it the main road until a safer less invasive road can be acquired.
by purchasing the 57th street house and connecting to 56th Royal Ridge will then have connectivity to the new subdivisions. It will be easy to go to Albertons etc. You won’t be backing up traffic clear up glacier dr. during rush
hours, etc.
Annexation is almost completed for Laurelwood, can the commission speed things up to give them a usable road in the next month? then Ivy could be put on hold. PLEASE you have the power to hold them back and to make an
intelligent decision for our community we embrace the subdivision and connectivity, please just connect us at 57th instead of using 2 dangerous corners (Ivy St. and Glacier Dr.). They’ve never been lifethreatening. There have been no reports of car accidents at the corners of Glacier Drive and South 55th Pl. and Ivy Street and South 55th Pl. in the last many years. YOU WILL BE MAKING IT DANGEROUS AND POSSIBLY LIFE THREATENING BY ADDING EXTRA TRAFFIC OF PEOPLE WHO
DO NOT KNOW THE TWO CORNERS LIKE THE FEW OF US WHO LIVE HERE DO. jesse said in the hearing they are “pushing hard” and “are on a fast track”
You as a State planning commission have the power to do “the right thing” for
springfield’s future. Using the Mt. Vernon entrance and our proposed 57th street entrance is safer and more logical, and does not tear apart a
neighborhood, or make anyone angry (like using Ivy Street and Glacier Dr.).
7 years ago, the neighborhood had a complete fit when Barbara made a proposal to use Ivy as her egress out of her
proposed subdivision. We fought hard and the city agreed Ivy should not be used for safety reasons (the towers). Now the city finds Glacier should also not be used (the Cliff). So don’t use either one. Just use Mt. Vernon until you can gain the 57th St. entrance.
Attachment 1, Page 7 of 7
Attachment 2, Page 1 of 13
Attachment 2, Page 2 of 13
Attachment 2, Page 3 of 13
Attachment 2, Page 4 of 13
Attachment 2, Page 5 of 13
Attachment 2, Page 6 of 13
Attachment 2, Page 7 of 13
Attachment 2, Page 8 of 13
Attachment 2, Page 9 of 13
Attachment 2, Page 10 of 13
Attachment 2, Page 11 of 13
Attachment 2, Page 12 of 13
Attachment 2, Page 13 of 13
Attachment 3, Page 1 of 2
Attachment 3, Page 2 of 2
Attachment 4, Page 1 of 4
Attachment 4, Page 2 of 4
Attachment 4, Page 3 of 4
Attachment 4, Page 4 of 4
Memorandum
To: Mark Metzger, Senior Planner
CC: Brian Barnett P.E., P.T.O.E, City Traffic Engineer
From: Michael Liebler P.E., Transportation Planning Engineer
Date: 7/23/2014
Re: Pinehurst Subdivision Appeal Testimony Response by Staff
In response to testimony put forth on July 15, 2014 to the Planning Commission I have prepared the
following responses to issues expressed:
Traffic operations at the intersections of Glacier Drive and Ivy Street with S. 55th Place:
The two T intersections at these locations are typical and common throughout the City
of Springfield. Volumes associated with these intersections are well within the norms
for a local street both now and with the added traffic volumes associated with proposed
development.
o ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) single family trip generation for
existing homes with driveways onto S 55th Pl. of 18 homes = 172 daily trip trips
and 18 PM peak hour trips.
o ITE single family trip generation for existing homes with driveways associated
with phase one of proposed development of 25 homes = 238 daily trips and 25
PM peak hour trips
o Total trips associated with both existing and proposed development would be
410 daily trips and 43 PM peak hour trips.
o Typical road volumes for a local road are at 1000 or less daily trips or 100 or less
PM peak hour trips. With development, the streets would have half of what we
would expect for a local street.
Staff has visited these locations on multiple occasions and has observed that there is
some vegetation which has overgrown into the ROW at the top of the T intersection
which may visually narrow the travel path for vehicles making a left turn movement
from Glacier Drive onto S 55th Pl. possibly causing vehicles to flatten out their turn at
this location (See picture below). Staff will instruct maintenance crews to remove this
vegetation to the curb line to ensure traveling vehicles have the benefit of this area to
maneuver at the intersection.
Attachment 5, Page 1 of 3
Figure 1: Blackberry Intrusion Into ROW
Staff has also evaluated the sight distance for vehicular movement characteristics at the two T
intersections and determined that vehicular sight distance for the turning movements given
responsible driving behaviors is available at these locations. City code requires a 25 foot by 25
foot vision triangle at corners of private properties abutting the intersection of public rights of
way. Code enforcement procedures regarding these vision triangles are citizen complaint
driven and have not been formally expressed by the citizens, including the appellant, as official
complaints which they wish the City to take action. If the appellant, any citizen, city official or
the Planning Commission wish to pursue a complaint of safety due to non-code compliance with
one or more of the property owners, then the private property owners at these locations would
be required to provide an unobstructed view between 30 inches and 8 feet above the driving
surface. Where necessary, the City’s code enforcement staff always seeks voluntary compliance
in these matters and works with property owners to reach acceptable levels of clear vision. .
No action in respect to vision clearance is suggested due to City staff engineering interpretation
of the site supported by the lack of recorded traffic incidents, vehicular sight vision availability
and local citizen’s lack of desire to identify violations of clear vision areas as a safety hazard with
any formal request for code enforcement action.
According to city and PD records, there were NO existing reported traffic incidents related to the
intersections of concern between the years of 2003 to present.
Attachment 5, Page 2 of 3
Slope of Glacier Drive approaching S 55th Pl. is a hazard during cold weather events and sun
glare:
The slope of Glacier Drive at this location, during certain times of the day and weather
conditions, may present issues for the traveling public. These conditions are shared
with a multitude of other locations within the city and are typical conditions that drivers
throughout the City may encounter and accommodate on a regular basis. Staff has
added the Glacier Road slope to our maintenance priority list for cold weather events
and is working with residents to possibly alleviate some of the concerns with sun glare
such as working with the BPA to install some shading trees at the stubbed out end of
Glacier Drive. Both of these issues are typical existing conditions and not introduced or
directly related to the proposed development.
Alternative routes possible that would negate the need for an Ivy connection:
Testimony provided during the PC hearing proposed alternative access to the
subdivision south of the Ivy connection. The proposed alternative location is planned as
expressed by a stubbed out section of the proposed Holly Road shown on the proposed
subdivision site plan. Neither the City nor the development applicant can compel a
private owner to provide this area or pay for this connection. In addition, due to winter
weather concerns and fire code requirements, regardless of this development a
connection to the S 55th Pl. neighborhood thru Ivy is necessary to provide the much
needed secondary access. As of now, if for any reason access to the neighborhood was
blocked at the bottom of the Glacier Road slope, emergency services would not be able
to get to citizens on S 55th Pl. This development provides this necessary second
emergency access which does not have the same slope issues as the current glacier
connection.
I believe the above covers the substantive concerns expressed by appellant at the meeting. Assuming a
typical range of driving behavior and normal visibility of designed facilities, the subject intersections can
accommodate the expected additional traffic resulting from the proposed subdivision. Please let me
know if you would like further elaboration on these topics or if there was an issue I missed that you
would like for staff to address.
Attachment 5, Page 3 of 3