Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018 02 06 Joint RS with lane County City of Springfield Regular Meeting MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION HELD Tuesday, February 6, 2018 The City of Springfield Planning Commission met in a regular session in the City Council Chambers, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 7:00 p.m., with Commissioner James and Lane County Commissioner Rose presiding. ATTENDANCE Springfield: Present were Chair James, Vice Chair Koivula, Commissioners, Vohs, Dunn, Landen, and Sherwood. Also present were, Current Development Manager Greg Mott, Current Development Senior Transportation Planner Emma Newman, City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith and Management Specialist Brenda Jones and members of the staff. Lane County: Present were Chair Rose, Vice Chair Weeks, Commissioners, Coon, Kaylor, Dignam and Hledik ABSENT Springfield: Commissioner Nelson- Excused Lane County: Commissioner Kaylor, Sisson, and Thorp PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chair Greg James DECLARATION OF CONFLICT • Read by City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING 1. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN(TSP) IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT Springfield # 811-17-000165-TYP4 Springfield Development Code Staff: Emma Newman 811-17-000166-TYP4 Plan Amendment Lane County # PA 1359 Staff: Becky Taylor STAFF REPORTS Chair James: Tonight, we have a continuation of a legislative public hearing related to our Transportation System Plan implementation project. Chair James would just like to state, for the record, before he ask staff or, or legal counsel to begin their process, that he is a member, elected member of the Willamalane Board of Directors. He wants to say publicly and make sure to let the public know that he feels that he can make decisions related to the Transportation System Plan that are not influenced by my board membership. Those decisions related to, not only the TSP, but the Conceptual Street Map and changes to the Springfield Development Code. So he feels that he can do that fairly and justly. With that he turned it over to our legal counsel, Mary Bridgett Smith, just to cover the specifics of the criteria and what they have before the Commissions. Mary Bridget Smith City of Springfield Legal Counsel wanted to take a few moments to explain the process for this evening. This is a continuation of a public hearing. Purpose of tonight's hearing is to receive information about the City and the County's proposed plan to amend the Transportation System Plan and the Springfield Development Code and the Conceptual Street Map. The Planning Commissions tonight, their role is to provide a recommendation to the City Council and to the Board of County Commissioners, who will then make the decision. There will be another opportunity to go before the Elected Officials at that point as well. Tonight, the Planning Commissioners will most likely decide whether to close the hearing and how to handle the record and then whether they will continue on and deliberate. City of Springfield and Lane County Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 6, 2018 Page 2 Chair James thanked Mary Bridget and then turned to Springfield City Staff Emma Newman Senior Transportation Planner for her presentation to City and County Planning Commissioners. Emma thanked the Commissioners. Emma gave a brief overview of the thesis and key responses to some of the things that you identified at the initial public hearing on January 23rd. This evening, the Transportation System Plan implementation project, which follows direction from the Transportation System Plan itself to update the Springfield Development Code, adopt the Conceptual Street Map and make changes to the TSP project listed maps, is before you to help further implement the already adopted policies. The criteria for approval have been posted behind the Commissioners that apply to this decision. For the TSP project list and figures and Conceptual Street Map, the criteria of approval, also shown here on the screen are that the Springfield City Council must adopt findings that demonstrate conformance to the applicable criteria. One amendment shall be consistent with the relevant statewide planning goals and two: adoption of the amendment shall not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent. Second, approval criteria for the Springfield Development Code amendments consist of: in reaching a decision to adopt and amend the Springfield Development Code, the council must adopt findings that demonstrate conformance to the following: One, the Metro Plan; two, applicable State Statutes, and three: ethical Statewide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules. Next, Emma spoke briefly to the direction for this project. In the adopted Transportation System Plan, chapter two lays out the goals, policies and actions that were adopted in 2014 to help dispel this transportation system needs for the City of Springfield. These goals and policies are the basis for the recommendations that are before the Planning Commissioners. Chapter seven of the Transportation System Plan provides implementation measures, which she will now cover. It says, "This project, the implementation project should be making sure to address these areas. Needs of the transportation dependent and disadvantaged system connectivity, support and promote walking, biking and transit, transportation facilities land-use planning, and [unintelligible 00:05:56] practices, and updating/adopting the Conceptual Street Map. The three project components are the Springfield Development Code amendments, the Conceptual Street Map and TSP project list and figure updates. Emma spoke briefly to the item about communication and public involvement and then she will pass it over to Becky Taylor to talk about some Lane County specific items and then Emma cover a few more topics as well. To summarize the public involvement today, on January 20, 2016, the City of Springfield Planning Commission, acting as the Committee for Citizen Involvement, reviewed the scope, timeline and outreach methodologies for the project and endorsed with the engagement strategy. Public involvement has included the following community engagement opportunities; drafts of all the public-- all the project materials are available for review and have been on the project web page, which is linked on the City of Springfield homepage. There's been involvement but at stakeholder sounding board, involvement of the Springfield Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, mailed public notice to all Springfield property owners within the Urban Growth Boundary, public open house held on January 9, 2018 for stakeholders to review the proposed changes, learn more and provide feedback. Public hearing process is before the Planning Commissions both on January 23, 2018 continuing this evening with the Planning Commission and there'll be additional hearings before the City Council and Board of Commissioners. Staff has received emails, phone calls, City walk-ins, mail correspondents with staff answering people's questions. The current totals are over 200 phone calls, 115 email correspondences and 100 walk-in conversations with staff at City Hall. Additionally, a Technical Review Team consisting of agency partners and an Oversight Team consisting of management staff reviewed the draft materials and provided input during the draft development process. A frequently asked question sheet is available on the project web page. It was also handed out at the open house in the January 23, 2018 public hearing. It's also available at the development review front counters and also this evening on the table here at the hearing. In total, staff has had almost 800 interactions with stakeholders regarding the project so far. Additional comments received since January 29, 2018 will be provided on the project web page and at the Commissioners seats this evening. Emma would also like to know, and she thinks the copies are now ready to be distributed, this neighborhood street design guidelines packet was an attachment to the McLaughlin testimony. Now it's provided to you here as an attachment to the comments that were originally in the email at the Commissioners seats tonight. Becky Taylor Senior Transportation Planner with Lane County. Becky directed her presentation to the Lane County Planning Commission. Chair Rose and Lane County Planning Commissioners, tonight is a continuation of the January 23, 2018 public hearing with the Springfield Planning Commission on the City's proposed amendments to the Springfield Transportation System Plan and Springfield Development Code, which Lane County would need to co-adopt for applicability to the; that's the area between the City limits and the Urban Growth Boundary. The Commissions agenda packet provides a summary of public testimony specific to the Urban Transition Area and staff responses to the areas of concern. Staff is not recommending that you make a decision tonight and staff will have more details about next steps after we hear from the public tonight. First, Becky has a few slides to highlight some of the key points. Number 1: why is Lane County involved in this process? It's required by State Law, Oregon Administrative Rules City of Springfield and Lane County Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 6, 2018 Page 3 660.012, requires Cities and Counties to adopt Transportation Plan s for lands within their planning jurisdiction as part of their Comprehensive plans. Number 2: City and County has a shared Comprehensive Plan for the affected area known as the Eugene- Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan or Metro Plan. Number 3: Co-adoption of the Springfield, TSP encode, is required for application within Urban Transition Area; and Four: State Law also prescribes the expectations about the content of the TSP. What specifically is the impact to the Urban Transition Area in this amendment package? There are three new projects proposed. There's the Springfield Development Code and there's a Conceptual Street Map. Becky does have a correction to the agenda packet. She noted that there were four new projects, there are actually only three and she will highlight those in the next slides. The proposed TSP amendments include some revisions to existing projects and three new projects shown in the Urban Transition Area. Becky has maps of each of these in the next slides. The important thing to remember is that this TSP is a Long range Planning document required by State Law that identifies transportation needs over a 20-year period. From this citywide 20-year perspective these projects are at the planning level, without design details or precise alignments. Naturally, potentially affected property owners want to know how the project will impact them, but that's a subsequent step in the project development process. Prior to constructing projects, there's a public outreach and design process. At this stage the timing, development and funding haven't been determined. Actually, this TSP helps a community compete for State and Federal funding sources. There are many scenarios for how a project is funded. Some projects can be funded by State and Federal grants, while some are implemented incrementally as properties to further develop, and sometimes projects include assessments in adjacent properties. Becky clarified, that if there were assessments outside of City limits, it would require approval by the Board of County Commissioners. This is one of three projects. It's called PV56 multi-use path. This is for bicycle and pedestrian bridge over the railroad tracks, South of Daisy, North of Jasper Road; US 20 Oakdale Avenue north of Harlow Road, East of Gateway Street. This is to complete the gap in the existing and proposed collector street network by modifying Oakdale Avenue to a two-lane cross section with sidewalks and bicycle facilities. The last project is one that will recommend that the Commissions will direct staff to remove from the TSP, because it's outside of the Urban Growth Boundary. At the time that this project was developed the timeline between the City's UGB expansion was entitled alignment with the TSP. This project was intended to facilitate the employment lands and UGB expansion area. Since the UGB expansion area has not been acknowledged, yet, staff recommends this project be removed from the TSP at this time, and it could be processed as a future TSP amendment. We can discuss this further at deliberations following the public hearing about the specific recommendation that the Commissions would need to make for this change. There are very few TSP projects proposed with this amendment package that apply to the Urban Transition Area. Most of the public testimony that you heard at the first hearing, was about previously approved projects and the 2014 TSP or about local street connection shown on the Conceptual Street Map. Becky wants to talk a little bit about what this Conceptual Street Map. As shown on this map, the arterial collector and multi-use paths would be considered formally part of the TSP, but the local streets would not. The local streets shown on the map are to provide clarity about development review expectations for implementing street connectivity. Becky will defer to the City to explain more about the benefits of this map and street connectivity in general. Similar to the staff recommendation about removing the City projects shown outside of the UGB, on this map, there are some bypaths, future bypaths, shown outside of the Urban Growth Boundary. Rather than removing those from this map, staff would like to change those lines to dashed lines to show that they indicate future vision for regional bicycle and pedestrian connections, that would need to be formalized, would need to be considered by Lane County when we develop the Lane County bicycle and pedestrian master plan, which we anticipate initiating this fall. The Lane County co-adoption package also includes proposed amendments to the Springfield Development Code. Other than the allowance for linear parks and their urbanizable fringe overlay district, most of the code laying bridge would only be invoked with the development proposal. Most development proposals that would trigger the code requirements would require an annexation of the property, rather than to lands outside City limits. In these cases, the property owner would petition the City to be annexed, so that they could develop their property. Last slide, we did here at the first hearing, some concerns of organic station. Particularly, annexing streets would create islands of unincorporated land and the perception that would enable some sort of forced annexation. Becky wanted to publicly provide State Law provisions that provide protections from that. Under State Law, Oregon revised statutes 222.750 island annexation, is not available when more than 25% percent of the perimeter of the island is public right-of-way that does not border the City on the other side. All annexations, even those provide right-of-way only, require notice to owners and occupants within 300 feet of the property proposed to be annexed with the public hearing of Lane City Council. Once again, annexation is not proposed as part of this package. City of Springfield and Lane County Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 6, 2018 Page 4 Emma would like to speak to a few more items and then start hearing testimony. The Commissions have heard quite a lot of comments about the local streets on the Conceptual Street Map. Emma would like to speak to that for a moment. First, Emma would like to speak briefly about why we need street connectivity throughout Springfield and what would trigger the development of a conceptual level street. First with the "why", the draft Conceptual Street Map is intended to assist the City with achieving a number of objectives of the Transportation System Plan. The policies that Emma referenced earlier and to be in alignment with statewide planning goals requirements such as the criteria posted here this evening. These objectives include street connections and support of access to and through infill and redevelopment sites. Reducing out of direction travel and making it easier to walk, bike and take transit throughout Springfield. Creating block lanes consistent with the goals of public safety agencies such as Fire and Emergency response and the City's development standards, and, even proposed layout of these planned local streets as clear and objective standards, that meet Goal 10 requirements for residential development. The conceptual local streets, shown on the draft map are for reference and pair with the street connectivity standards in chapter 4 of the Springfield Development Code, to achieve the street connectivity goals. The Springfield Development Code also contains Glocken standards and dead-end street standards, and the Oregon fire code regulates the number of dwellings that can be located along a dead-end street without a planned secondary emergency access connection. By providing additional transportation system connectivity and our planning documents and standards, Springfield will enhance the opportunities for additional housing and development to align with the City's vision and goals. As more connectivity is established within the transportation system, the trips taken are more dispersed and therefore would help to relieve some congestion points. Now the "what”, How does this come about? How does the local street shown on the map, actually come into being constructed? Emma believes that there's been some confusion about how the local Conceptual Streets on the draft map would be used, if it's approved. To clarify, the Conceptual Local Streets on the map are primarily used as a tool during the development review process, when development occurs. Many of the streets shown on the map, may never be built depending on which private property owners choose to develop in which larger lots in Springfield develop first. However, when development occurs, the proposed map would provide more clarity for developers as to how they could help achieve the statewide and cities system connectivity goals. Emma can also turn it over to Michael Liebler Transportation and Planning Engineer later on, if the Commissions would like to hear more about the current development context since he is reviewing plans that is coming in and being submitted daily. He can speak about emergency vehicle access to neighborhoods and various uses, efficiency of system balancing, lower speed roads and safety, and school connectivity. Emma highlight that Attachment 3 in the Commissions packet, provides some responses regarding specific local streets that were spoken about during the January 23, 2018 hearing. Lastly, Emma would like to know that even if a conceptual local street were to be recommended for removal from the map, the Springfield Development Code provisions would still apply, such as street connectivity, block length and dead-end street standards. Next, Emma talk a little bit about transportation maintenance and operations since that was another topic rose at the January 23, 2018 hearing. These comments mentioned included items such as signage needs, street maintenance and planning process, financial impacts, and more, which are not within the scope of this project and the proposed project components. Goal 12 of the Transportation Planning law states that operation, maintenance, and repair of existing transportation facilities are not ordinarily subject to the TSP or its land use regulations. This is located in OAR, Oregon Administrative Role, OAR 660.012.0045. Emma highlighted the Capital Improvement Program process. The City's effort to maintain and preserve the existing system falls into the City's Capital Improvement Program, which is adopted through a separate process that has a separate public involvement opportunity. The CIP, Capital Improvement Program, is also the process used to prioritize planned projects in the TSP for actual construction. The scope of the 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. There are also no proposed changes to the structure for prioritizing projects identified in the TSP through the Capital Improvement Program as described in the TSP transportation development section on page 3 of the TSP itself. Emma reiterated the integration of footnote 5 on table 4.2-1 and that's the minimum curb-to-curb and right-of-way widths that Emma spoke to on the January 23, 2018 hearing, that attachment 2 in the Commissioners packet. The addition of footnote 5 says that arterials that are ODOT, Oregon Department of Transportation facilities are not subject to the standards in table 4.2-1, but must meet ODOT design standards. That's in response to some of the mainstream concerns that staff has heard. There's additional information in the Commissions packet. Lastly, Emma would like to remind public that once the Planning Commissioner wraps up their public hearing and recommendation, there will be additional public hearings, deliberation, and recommendations by the Springfield City Council and Lane County Board of City of Springfield and Lane County Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 6, 2018 Page 5 Commissioners. Emma turned the microphone over to Mary Bridget Smith, our legal counsel to speak about the role of the Planning Commission in this process. Mary Bridget Smith talked about the role of the Planning Commission and how they will make a recommendation to the Elected Officials, to the Board of County Commissioners and City Council. That recommendation is based on the criteria, which is posted behind the Commissioners tonight, which talks about the criteria for Metro Plan Amendments and then the criteria for Code Amendments. Unless the Commissioner has any other questions for her, the Commissioners can start with the Public Testimony. Commissioner James asked the Commissioner if they had any questions, seeing none. Now the Commissioners will begin taking public testimony. If the audience have not signed in and would like to address the board-- Yes? Emma told Chair James that she had one addition to her staff report there is now additional copies to handout. Becky spoke to one project that staff was recommending a change. Emma has the handout that provides proposed changes for a few different items; some based on the UGB expansion area, timeline for acknowledgement, there were a few projects shown that we're recommending be pulled at this time and not shown on the map outside of the Urban Growth Boundary or adjusted to have conceptual arrows that would make those future connections with the bike/Ped planning process that the County will be starting soon. Then one additional Conceptual Local Street that would provide more clarity, so if the Commissioners have questions about these proposed items, staff would be happy to respond to that later as well. Commissioner Dignam asked if this is on the County's website. He is concerned that now the Commissions are handing out something that you're recommending changes to the plan that the public hasn't seen yet. Emma said she would be happy to walk the Commissioners through them. It has not been posted to the website yet, but they will be posting on the project website tomorrow. That's one reason for keeping the record open. Chair James, the Commissioners will at this time began the public testimony. Chair James reminded the audience that they will need to hold their comments to three minutes. If they have already had an opportunity to address the Commissions during the previous session they would hope that you bring-- and are going to address the Commissions again this evening. They would hope that they are bringing new information for the public record rather than restating what has already been entered into the public record. There are additional cards, if anyone has not had an opportunity to sign in. Commissioner James asked when they approach the microphone, if they could announce their name and address for the public record that that would be preferred. Commissioner Koivula added, whether you're a City of Springfield resident or a resident of the Urban Fringe, not in Springfield but in the County. Chair James responded that’s correct. The County will be dealing with the portion of this plan from the City limits out to the Urban Growth Boundary. It will help the Commissions greatly if the testifiers announce that they are resident within the City limits or within the Urban Fringe between the City limits and the Urban Growth Boundary, or even outside the Urban Growth Boundary. Any of that information that would be helpful so it can be directed to the Commissioners that will be making decisions based on that information. • Joseph Tokatly; 86745 RR Baker Road; Springfield, Oregon 97478; (Business at 2219 Main Street; Springfield, Oregon 97477) He is a property owner and owns multiple businesses also in the City of Springfield, primarily on Main Street. He has been following the plans for Main Street development for the last couple of years. As of late, this particular project came onto the radar and as he started to look into it, had some meetings with the City staff and City attorney. He was told that this particular amendment to the TSP is - - may or may not affect properties on Main Street. So he started to drill into that, "What does that mean?" As a matter of fact, he would draw the Commissioners attention to the staff report regarding the Main Street. It lists a property owner upon change of use or redevelopment of that property on that corridor, could be requested to meet these minimum guidelines that are now requested by the change. He then drilled further the City came back with this idea that Main Street is actually an ODOT facility and does not fall under this particular plan. The City included footnote number 5, which is fine and nice, but they know that ODOT would love to give that jurisdiction to the City and at some point that could be a reality. If that happens, then it will fall under this particular change or this amendment. Main Street owners request the Commission to make the record very clear, so there's no ambiguity, there's no chance down the road – they all know where they stand. They would love to have the Commissions exempt Main Street corridor, because of its complexity, he would love to have the Commission exempt it from this plan regardless of who has jurisdiction over it. At some point, when there is a plan for Main Street, and there is one, but it's stalled right now. It could abandoned, which means this will take precedence again. Regardless of what the plan for Main Street is, and whatever that point in time is, he would love to have the property and business owners that are really true City of Springfield and Lane County Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 6, 2018 Page 6 stakeholders on Main Street to be involved in the planning for that corridor. Not this so-called stakeholder committee that develop this that could ultimately affect them and they have no say in it. Commissioner Dignam asked Mr. Tokatly what he is showing the Commissions Mr. Tokatly responded that what he is basically if this plan takes effect somehow on Main Street, (pointing to a photo of his properties) this is one of his several properties he owns. Pointing to his brand new development that he spent several million dollars in developing, just this last year, attracting new business into the City. This is an existing building he’s had as well. But as the Commissioners can see, that's a 22-foot loss of already existing parking, which will devastate the parking facility, any chance of circulation and any business being done at that location. This is just one example of hundreds along this entire corridor. That's why he’s saying this corridor is a unique, special corridor that requires special attention and special planning. Thank you. • Dani Wright; (McKenzie Feed) 4441 Main Street; Springfield, Oregon 97477 Some weeks ago she asked that the Commission to remove Main Street from the general description to a statement that Main Street will need a formal and separate transportation and then until that point will remain as is. Main Street has very wide widths in Thurston area it has very narrow widths in specific areas. If you draw the lines on the map where the 100-feet and then you add a median and a safety, that line takes out almost 300 businesses, parking front entrances, access to the buildings and also goes through the middle of many buildings that are on Main Street. • Dean Burkhart; 1244 Delrose Drive; Springfield, Oregon 97477 Dean had a handout for the Commissioners and attached are updated report they received from staff at the last hearing that address Delrose Drive. Residents of Orchard View subdivision, acknowledge that Delrose drive was built to access our property in the 1998. The street was built without a turnaround or bulb at the end of the street. So some time in the future the street could be extended. Twenty years later, this is not a good idea and would create unsafe conditions. The street is narrow meeting only the requirements of a local street and not those of a collective street. Staff correctly put TSP policy 3.4 and starting to get continuous transportation network and TSP policy 3.7 concerning pedestrian environment. Additionally, staff put aside TSP policy 4.2-105 public streets 1a sections 1 through 10, which addressed connectivity standards. They were aware of these and acknowledge that they exist. However, we still believe that TSP policy 4.2-105, general provisions 3, overrides in this case, the previously cited policies like sections- -. Printed below is policy 3, the state's approval that would create unsafe traffic conditions shall not be granted. He is here tonight representing the owners of Orchard View properties. There are 22 different lots and Owners, and all of them signed the petition that they presented at the last hearing. They are here to request that the Commissioners not recommend approval of connecting the Yolanda Avenue to Delrose Drive, connection will create unsafe traffic conditions to drivers, their passengers, pedestrians and residents due to the widths of the streets and the blind curves that are built into the street at both ends. • Steve Reah (Ray); 936 Lochaven Ave.; Springfield, Oregon 97477 Mr. Reah has lived at this address since 1983. He only pay taxes on the home and did not receive the mailer on the TSP implementation plan. He’s talking about the diverter that it's proposed for removal at Lochaven and Don Street. He has seen two efforts on this and has defeated both of them and plan on doing it a third time. July of 2002 when the last effort came up, traffic engineer Brian Barnet stated that the purpose for the barriers removal was to help remove or relieve traffic flow on Harlow Road using the neighborhood and as a shortcut to Laura and I-105, thus, increasing traffic on the narrow streets and saving two minutes for those commuters using the new shortcut. After the City Council meeting a mailer from Mr. Barnet stated, "This means the traffic diverter will remain in the place it is today and the City Council will not reconsider this issue”. This neighborhood is a transitional neighborhood it's full of empty nesters, retirees such as he is and new families. The reasons for the opposition in the past, hasn’t changed, he stated them for the Commissioners: The removal of the diverter will turn Dornoch, Beverly and Hartman Lane into a collector for Traffic move from Harlow Road to Laura and Shelly Streets and then to I-105. This brings traffic to narrow residential streets, those streets stated above and the side streets of Darlene, Nancy and Lochaven. Darlene. Nancy, Beverly, do not have sidewalks. These streets are heavily used by the residents, walking kids to and from Guy Lee School, riding bikes, playing basketball, walking dogs and strolls for us older folks. Removing the diverter places all those participating in these activities into peril from the increased traffic flow by drivers not familiar with the neighborhood. This also begs the question, if sidewalks are to be installed, who pays for them and who pays for the land that is taken from the homeowners. City of Springfield and Lane County Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 6, 2018 Page 7 They have semi-trucks trying to access the Industrial area off of Don Street and then I-105 via Shelley and Laura Streets coming through the neighborhood. When cars are parked on both sides of the street, we're reduced one narrow lane of traffic on all of those streets in that neighborhood. He has witnessed semi-trucks in two blocks, now imagined that, to get out of the neighborhood. We're lucky that there hasn't been any property damage, so for the safety of the residents of their neighborhood, he hopes that the Commissioners do not continue with this and thanked them for their consideration. • Kathy Reah; 936 Lochaven Ave.; Springfield, Oregon 97477 Thank you for this opportunity and thank you for your service. As Steve, mentioned they have lived in their home since 1983, lots has changed since 1983. Gateway Mall wasn’t there most of the businesses up and down Gateway were not there. They had a whole area that was completely empty at that time that has now completely filled with mobile home type homes. That barrier has helped to keep the neighborhoods, neighborhoods. The first time this came up was in 1992, and at that time they had complete-- in agreement that the idea of taking that barrier down was not a good idea. There was one person who didn't like this idea, who wanted that barrier taken down. It was because they were the brand new owner of a mobile home on the corner. People kept driving through their front yard. The City came and installed bollards, so that took care of that. The second time, the only people who really didn't like the barrier were people who were on the mobile home side, which is Lochaven and Scotts Glen, and some other things over there. It was because they couldn't take their kids to school easily because they had to go out to Laura, and Laura was a pretty hairy left turn onto Harlow, then those streets got changed. Now there is a streetlight there, so it became an easy access to get up to Guy Lee Elementary and of course if you're walking it's very easy to get Guy Lee Elementary. She feels like those things got taken care of. They were, of course, promised during that time that this issue would not come, and that was our understanding of it, it would not come up again. When she emailed earlier, it was clarified for me that that Council was not going to consider it again, but that doesn't necessarily mean that another Council wouldn't, needless to say they were a little surprised. One way or the other, if this was to go through, and she actually gets it, the fact is, our City is growing up. We enjoy the fact that the businesses have moved into the area, and so on, but as Steve mentioned, it's a very small savings in time. Yet she does understand the fact like half mile from Beverly to Laura might be slightly impacted by not taking people through our neighborhood, but if people come through the neighborhood, they have to weave through the cars. If we increase that, people are going to be a lot -- They're going to be hanging out a lot weaving through cars. • Mike Reeder; 800 Willamette St. Suite 800; Eugene, Oregon 97401 Mr. Reeder represents Joe Tokatly that was here before at the January 23, 2018 meeting. He would like to emphasize a couple of things that he brought to the attention of the Commissioners in written testimony and also in my oral comments. To expand on those in regards to the proposed changes to the standards for arterials, he wants to emphasize is that this particular process at hand right now is the time to make a recommendation to the Elected Officials to change the proposal. He talked last time about the devastating effects that could occur on Main Street and basically the unlawful taking that can occur by imposing additional requirements on Main Street properties without any regard to how those properties could develop in the future. Normally, what happens is a development proposal is waiting-- the exactions that are required by the City are weighed against the actual impacts of the development. In this particular case, they are giving the zoning and standards cart before the planning horse, because the required planning for Main Street has been done. His recommendation tonight is -- that there is a simple solution, and that is the staff's proposed footnote 5 should be stricken and in place of staff's language, footnote 5, should say, "The entire length of Main Street is not subject to the standards of Table 4.2- 1," and the reason is because the City has assured us that there will be a Main Street Planning process. So there is no need to adopt these particular standards that will have the effect of showing proposed future redevelopment of Main Street. You'll be able to provide certainty to the business owners along Main Street. Certainty is what businesses need. They need to understand what the rules of the game are. The proposed footnote 5 talks about ODOT standards, but they are not clear as to what those standards are. To be clear, they don't believe that ODOT would impose any standards. The proposed footnote 5 right now doesn't provide them much comfort. The business owners along Main Street need that certainty, and the best way to provide that is by adding the proposed language that Main Street is not subject to these arterial standards. Main Street is already developed. So if you're going to change the standards, really what you're saying is any redevelopment is going to pay for the widening of the right-of-way and the improvement of that right-of-way even though that's an arterial. It's an arterial those costs should be borne by the public at large, not that particular property owner that's being required to come up to standard. City of Springfield and Lane County Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 6, 2018 Page 8 • Heather Hawthorne; 1772 Fairhaven; Springfield, Oregon 97477 The Commissioners likely remember the two young men that spoke on behalf of Fairhaven in the January 23, 2018 meeting. She had the privilege of speaking after them. She’s already spoken about her concerns of our children's safety, the size of their yards, the curve and the narrow road, and the increased traffic. The Commissioners heard how they use these common areas and how valuable they are to their community. What she failed to mention was how Lennon and Lucas were not only representing two separate households but were also representing how close and supportive their neighbors are. If you remember Lucas finished because the speech [unintelligible 00:47:11]. Ten of the fourteen houses on Fairhaven were purchased through the St Vincent DePaul Home to Build Program. They helped to build each other's homes. Over half these original homeowners are still there. This neighborhood was not built by people who sit idly by and let life happen to them, it was built by people who set goals that will benefit their family, work hard, are willing to do extra to reach those goals, and had a strong sense of family and community. Of all the neighborhoods she has lived in, this is the closest group and they will stand together to fight to a threat to our neighborhood and our neighborhood family. The petition and form letters and opposition to the Fairhaven connection were drafted by one household. They were distributed by another, and dropped off at City hall by a third household. You received 31 signatures and 15 to 20 letters from our 14 household neighborhood, and immediately adjacent residents of the mobile home park. Based on the Planning Commission's agenda for the February 6, 2018 meeting, they appear to be the most active and unified objectors. During the January 9, 2018 Open House, they were told the purpose of the connecting Fairhaven to the private drive at Fairview Mobile Home Park was to give those residents at Fairhaven additional vehicle outlet for our safety and that would only happen if the other neighborhood was under development for other reasons. Our community has made it clear that we do not want or need this additional outlet. The Planning Commission agenda now states that the connection is needed to allow the residents of the privately owned Fairview Mobile Home Park, not the stated Fairhaven Mobile Home Park, safe access to the By Gully Bike Path. She wonders which one is accurate. The residents of the mobile home park have a gate to the bike path that they have chosen to lock. They repaired our connecting fence and posted private property signs. They do not want an additional access to the bike path. It makes no sense the City to connect Fairhaven to the private drive and two locations for better access to a bike path, and we're wondering who was paying for all of that. It raises concerns that our friends and neighbors at the Fairview Mobile Home Park will be pushed out and forced to move. These residents have not even received formal notification of the connection being a possibility. Not everyone affected is able to voice their opinion. If this remains on the project list, those who can, will continue to speak for us all, we will continue to write letters and protest, and teach our children to stand up for what we feel is right. • Lennon Mathews; 1780 Fairhaven Drive; Springfield, Oregon 97477 He is here for the same reason he was last time, because you're taking away my field. Now he is even more upset that you still are. In five hours he will turn 10 and he’s lived there all of his life. So please just let his field and neighborhood stay the same. He doesn’t want this in his cul-de-sac, so why do you? Thank you for his time. • Amberle Mathews; 1780 Fairhaven Drive; Springfield, Oregon 97477 Thank you for allowing her to come back and say their piece again. Her son took the stand as you saw. Please remove our street from the project. Nothing was resolved, so now it's her turn. The first round everyone who they talked too kept saying you should – it’s for future development and it probably won't happen for 20-years just to keep everyone from asking. Now, just a few days ago, the City sent out, only to a few people email saying that the reason is for pedestrian safety, to remove barriers and allow for safe access. This was all scripted lines from all the responses the City received from the first meeting. The City also had an excuse for each submission. For them to say it's to allow for safe pedestrian access from the Fairview Mobile Park to Bi Gully Bypass that is located next to her house. This doesn't sound like 20-years from now, for future development. The City is talking about who's there right now. She’s off the gate of the fence that is at the end of Mobile Park. The fence and rail of the Bi Gully bypass. It allows for safe direct pedestrian access to and from the Mobile Park. Why come in cul-de-sac, the two-vehicle roads in our streets are already narrow, less than 500-feet long and would go nowhere. City of Springfield and Lane County Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 6, 2018 Page 9 By opening up the cul-de-sac, you're now endangering all the children, people who have pets in our community and the old folks. You're inviting more traffic to seep through. You're inviting more cars to park in our already narrow streets that's jam packed with cars that live there. The small community meant just for us. They bought this house because it was a family friendly cul-de-sac. They didn't buy a Trailer Park. They have lived here for over 13-years in peace and quiet. She’s watched many of these children grow from being babes to being adults, and still is. The children are like her children, especially when it comes to their safety and well-being. You're endangering her livelihood, her son’s and her career and family. You're also wasting time and money where it doesn't make sense. I gave you all this money to spend, to see improvements and then it has to go somewhere. If your excuse this time around is to create safe access for pedestrians to places, then use the funds meant for this particular area and create sidewalks along Fairview Drive through to Centennial Elementary. It would create a much safer access for pedestrians to walk to school, to ride a bike path access and all around the area. By putting up the fence and taking away the children's playfield, you are taking away childhoods and creative imagination time. Children need to have a safe place to be free. In today's society, they're bogged down by all the things they can’t do. All the things that is not safe for them. This playfield is their safe get-a-way and their tight knit community. It's good for their growth and their minds. You will be destroying so much for letting this go through. No one benefits from this. Thank you. • Josh Mathews; 1780 Fairhaven Drive; Springfield, Oregon 97477 He’s owned his home at Fairhaven Drive for over 13 years. He has lived in Fairview neighborhood his entire life. He is asking that the Fairhaven Drive cul-de-sac changes be completely removed from this plan. When he and his neighbors purchased their home they signed legal binding contracts with St Vincent DePaul. It says the purchase-- it says in the contract that the common areas are co-owned by the 14 houses of Fairhaven Drive and any changes need a 75% approval vote from the neighborhood. Community-owned common areas that this plan would affect or remove include the field that they have all used for countless neighborhood barbecues, birthday parties, even a wedding was held there. The place was purposely designed for their children to play soccer, football, baseball, etc. because of how extremely small the yards are for each home in their cul-de-sac. They as a neighborhood have turned in countless letters, signed petitions that the City mentioned on the website, but what they failed to mention is those signatures are from both sides of the fence, including the manager of the Trailer Park, neither side wants this. At first, the City continually told us that it was for future development. Maybe it won't happen for 20-years down the road. He signed a 30-year contract for my house, 20-years down the road matters to him as well. Now that you are stating that the changes to provide comfortable pedestrian safe access for the people of Fairview Mobile Home Park, a privately owned Trailer Park, to the By Gully bike path. How does adding two, three streets into a small winding, 500-foot cul-de-sac improve pedestrian safety? Why does a privately-owned Trailer Park need access through our cul-de-sac, especially when it already has a gate at the back of the Trailer Park that directly connects to the bike path? He urged the Commissions to come to our community to see these are not just dots on a map that need connected. See the reality of this proposal and how truly unnecessary and destructive it is. He has spent hours in his neighbor's living room shedding tears. He’s lost sleep and has been violently sick to my stomach with anxiety. That said he’s not giving in. Not now not 20-years from now. Whether it'd be petitioning, ticketing, doing interviews with papers or news outlets, seeking legal advice or outright chaining himself to the fence, if need be. People often have a sense of patriotism or pride in their country or their state. For him, Fairhaven Drive is his country. Fairhaven Drive is his state. Fairhaven Drive is his family and he would do anything to protect his family. He would take a bullet for his family. He would go to war for his family. He demands the Commissioners do the right thing. Do not destroy his haven on Fairhaven. • Steve Booher; 35 Ann Court; Springfield, Oregon 97477 There's a proposal to have a bypass right through his eastern part of his property. When he left the meeting last January, he felt kind of like he was in front of a steamroller. Jumped back and down asking them to stop, with no way to stop it, he still has that feeling. He’s been there for 60 years. He has seen everything, he’s been told everything. He’s still here. The County and whoever it was, took 30-feet of his backyard and now they want to take 12-feet of his front yard, and put in this bike thoroughfare and it's almost City of Springfield and Lane County Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 6, 2018 Page 10 an arterial at 12-feet. He would petition the City, please reconsider. You've already got two bike paths, 60-feet to the west that border the extension. They go on each side of the extension of Pioneer Parkway Extension. Consider that, and also consider Manor Drive when you're looking because you want to put a bike path all the way through there. Manor Drive's dead-ends right at the river and it’s a shorts escape right through up to the hospital property. They brought another bike path right out there by the river. He’s speaking for a 94-year-old person, it's his neighbor, he’s speaking for the ladies that are going to come up here and talk. But please consider what it would do to your place before you put this into the plan and keep it there. You've already got the bypass. You've already got the bike paths; you've already got the clearer shots to do this. Don't do it in his front yard after taking his backyard, please. • Kirsa Whedon; 1786 Fairhaven; Springfield, Oregon 97477 Attachment 3 in your booklet here, she can't say anything more than what Heather, Josh and Lennon and everyone else has already said. They are a community and they would really appreciate this part of the proposal being removed. She has seven grandchildren, 12 and under, who live with her, who plays on that street, and she won't be allowed to let them out the door if this goes through. • Erik James Whedon; 1786 Fairhaven; Springfield, Oregon 97477 He has lived here for 13 years. In that time, he has seen the children in his neighbor, including his grandchildren, growing up to being great individuals through social interactions with all the neighborhood, children and adults. This is made possible because they have a safe environment to be able to play and grow in. Our community is a tight knit cloth. By going through with the proposal, improved proposal, would unravel and destroy their safe areas for their children, and the sense of security. They don't need the added vehicle traffic, and if these get opened up to being throughways- Why subject yet another community, he’s referring to the Fairview Mobile Home Park, to the criminals against the By Gully bike path for easy access and getaways in his neighborhoods. The Fairview Mobile Home Park has a gate directly into the bike path, and they keep it locked, top keep the crime down. If you look at petitions that were turned in last month, the 31 signatures that are their Fairhaven community and that directly affected Fairview Mobile Home Park and their manager. They would like to see the Fairhaven portion removed from the plans. . • Jay Miller; 3131 Wayside Loop; Springfield, Oregon 97477 His property is outside of Springfield City limits. He lives three houses down from Steve Miller. He would like to ask anybody here that knows how much debt America has right now, as a nation? 23 trillion and we’re talking about building bike paths. Isn't that amazing? His wife goes out walking with her friend in the evenings down in some of these bike paths, she has seen garbage from the homeless that have laid on the benches and built fires on the bike paths. His neighbor has testified about drug needles coming home in his grandchild's bike from a bike path. He thinks it's silly to waste money like that right now. As far as his neighborhood, he doesn’t want to see an access-way through his neighbor's yard; it just doesn't make any sense. He has seen what happened on the parkway extension. He’s been there 28-years. They were deceived. They were told things that weren't true by engineers. The wall, they are going to have canceling devices put in it. The noise level he said he’s seen I-105 what they did out there. He has the same noise problem, it’s not super severe, but it wasn't truthfully stated. They have seen that kind of stuff through this whole parkway thing. Federal money, he believes, for a flower or little things down the parkway that were torn up later to plant more trees. He has seen the same thing down by the hospital. He doesn’t know if they just died miraculously, but the same thing. Money wasted. It's time to be accountable. It's his tax dollars, whether it's State or Federal. Either way, we're all paying for it. That's enough trying for me. • Jennifer Snyder; 25 Ann Court; Springfield, Oregon 97477 She lives outside of the City limits. She’s here to finish the testimony that she went over at last meeting. She want to thank the staff for all the time and the hard work that they do, she knows it takes a lot to get these events going. Since the last session, she was able to spend a little bit of time reviewing the task Patient Service Plan and she decided she would particularly look for any reference on how this City and the County will conduct business, in respect of, and cooperation with the property owners, and the residents that are being impacted. She couldn't find anything that related to people like we've been hearing from today. People like herself who have bought their home, love their home, love the neighborhood and improve according to what their dreams are, within the boundaries that they live in. Then we find out that there could be major changes now. There's progress, there's a growing City, but they really need, from the City and the County, more input, more invitation to participate. Because she thinks these are their rights, so that at a City of Springfield and Lane County Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 6, 2018 Page 11 time the project begins, and you all may not be a part of it at all, at that point. They need in the Codes and in the Transportation Plan that at the time a project begins, those property owners, those residents have input and participation into how that development goes on. They would like the City to put clear language in the Transportation Plan to make certain these rights of property owners and the relationship with the City and the County so that there's a better communication. Safety, of course, is the other aspect. They've heard, her eyes were opened last time, and they are again, but the kinds of things-- The safety needs to be acknowledged in the Transportation Plan. In conclusion, we've seen how the City and the County worked closely with large developers and corporations, and they need to have the City and County, work with them more to create the environment that works for everyone. • Earl McElhany; 2600 31st Street; Springfield, Oregon 97478 He lives on approximately on nine-acres, which is in the Urban Growth Boundary area. He’s also 50% owner in a one-acre piece that's on the west side of 31st Street where the Slough comes across 31st Street, and goes west over to the 28th Street area. The Slough goes along the south side of the one-acre parcel and then goes diagonally through his nine-acre piece. He would like to object the way the street conceptual plan is in relationship to -- the proposed street plans shows Canterbury Street being extended easterly from 28th Street to 31st Street, which means approximately 400-feet-- Commissioner Koivula asked Mr. McElhany to pause for just one second. Commissioner Koivula asked staff to bring up a map on a couple of these things. Some are pretty familiar to them. They’ve seen Fairhaven a bunch of times. He doesn’t remember what the map looks like here. Mr. McElhany continued, you see that little hook right there? That's right there where his property is. Basically, the street will go from 28th of Canterbury to 31st Street. What it’s going to do, it’s approximately 400-feet of that street extension to 31st Street, will be right on top of that Slough area. He doesn’t understand why they have a street going through where that street isn’t going to be needed. It’s going to severely affect that wetland water area. He believes this is environmentally wrong, and that Canterbury Street should be extended only about 50% of the distance that’s shown on the proposal, which would mean terminating the street on the eastern edge of the four- acre filbert orchard property, which is on Yolanda Avenue. He believes also on that design, it shows a North-South Street connecting Canterbury Street to Yolanda; he thinks that should be moved easterly to a point about 100-feet from the eastern property line of the Four-Acre Orchard. Also, there’s the North-South Street shown on the plan that runs from Hayden Bridge to Yolanda. This new street will cross that Slough, going through his nine-acre property. There is no need for the street to do this as the southerly portion of his of his nine- acre property can be developed with an extension of Burlington Avenue to the East, through to the new 29th Street and then connecting to the south with the new shortened Canterbury Street, going East. Then the northern portion of his property can be serviced with the East-West propose Viewmont Avenue, going from 28th to 31st Street. Then, by extending a 200-foot street south of that intersection of Viewmont and 29th then going eastwardly into the northern portion of his nine-acre property, which then, can reconnect back up into that Viewmont Avenue Street. Also, on the very northern part of that, what would be 29th Street connecting to Hayden Bridge, it looks like it’s going to have to be removed 1 or 2 existing homes at 2557 and 2889 Hayden Bridge Road. The wetland area from 31st Street, westward to 28th Street should be left undisturbed from street development in the future. In that area there is three large parcels of his nine-acre piece, the nine-acre piece that Jim Branch, and Virginia Branch owned and that’s a four-acre orchard, which comprises 22-acres, can easily and functionally be serviced with streets that don’t harm the sensitive area. The sensitive area connected to the neighborhood. You would have connectivity without going through the creek area. He attached copies of portions of this Conceptual Street Plan along with my proposed street provisions, and will supply that to the Commissions. Chair James Thanked Mr. McElhany, he really appreciate his testimony. He thinks his descriptors were great, but it would be great to see a visual representation. Mr. McElhany took an overlay of the Conceptual Street Plan and put it on top of a Google earth photo and you can kind of see how it affects the wetland area and that we shouldn't be developing that, so were not impacting that area at all, and still do a good job of future development of that part. Commissioner Koivula asked if Mr. McElhany would include his description of the streets and wetland. City of Springfield and Lane County Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 6, 2018 Page 12 Mr. McElhany responded yes. He would also like to speak with Emma in the future sometime about that. • Paul Bedortha; 2580 N. 31st Street; Springfield, Oregon 97477 Lives right next to Earl McElhany. He opposes the plan to put anything through on Canterbury as Mr. McElhany discussed, for all the same reasons. There’s no reason for that to connect 3rd to 31st for various reasons, these are already mentioned. There’s no reason for me to take three more minutes and repeat everything Mr. McElhany testified too. When they make the map, when they send it out, they should have an aerial so you could see. He knows it’s an approximation where that street is, but he has a high degree that, probably, a lot of people never even really looked at, just drew that line through there. If they don't look at where the houses are already developed on Yolanda and if they look at where that wetland is, you can see that half of that [unintelligible 01:15:15] planning wouldn't make sense. That would just be an obvious thing, if they looked at the Google map. It would save a lot of time, planning, energy, and all of our time having to come up to City Hall to oppose it. It’s just really obvious, look into Google maps. You don’t have to drive out there, because it doesn’t make sense. • Robert McPhersan; PO Box 70291; Springfield, Oregon 97475 He spoke at the last meeting and now he’s even more aware of some things. He’s in the City limits, also has property outside of the City limits, in the Urban Growth Boundary, in two of these areas. The North 35th Street off of Main Street goes behind the road through the park to the north. Everyone that he knows in that neighborhood, including family that cannot be here today, are not excited about that. Much like all the other neighborhoods that are protesting, have the same problems. Don’t want the traffic, a lot of kids, all these things. He’s just appalled that seems to be not well planned together for everybody involved that owns real estate in this area. Who’s responsible for putting this plan together? Is there any individuals that can be-- Chair James answered, absolutely. Our City staff has developed the plan with public input. Mr. McPherson answered, great. Another problem is that, your new PV56 won’t use half of the Jasper road. You could pop that one out. That’s a great one. There’s already trouble all of that area with transients, and crime, and what have you. If you’re going to pop another bike path, it will bring more of that to more people in the area. When the gentleman, he thinks his name was Jean, was explaining to you about how much debt we have. He just doesn’t get it. He’s trying to wrap his head around it, that how this can be such a great idea when, so far, it’s about unanimous on everybody that’s spoken, that nobody wants this, it’s not well thought-out. He just doesn’t understand, but here we go. You’ve done this with the Glenwood thing, making a pair of prance around roundabouts, spending how much money when the traffic flow is pretty good already through there. How much real estate was taken out of that from other people? You talked about the System Development sure; it's not going to be changed. You guys have already jacked them so high only the big developers can do anything. Look at that. It’s just outrageous, this tiered plan of, “Well, let’s punish the little guy right away and take all this money, and then we’ll help the big developers, and make them great deals and they’re going to do 100 homes.” That’s all great, He just doesn’t understand it, and it’s really frustrating to him. It repeatedly seems to be a pattern of state, local city government’s just jamming stuff down our throats, enslaving us with taxes and regulation. I thank you for your humbleness of allowing me two seconds to say something. Have a great day. • Danielle Smith; 1210 Dondea Street; Springfield, Oregon 97478 She lives in the Urban Transition Area. She also own 3069 Richland, both properties are on the Conceptual Street Map to be affected by the Garden Avenue extension. It's attachment 3 in your packet, page 5 of 21. First of all, thank you for your added clarification, Emma, in your packet. Also, you’re more thorough presentation at the beginning. She appreciated the PowerPoint, as she is a visual learner. She understands that this may be 20 plus years out, or it may never happen in my lifetime. She does hope that we can take the local Garden Avenue extensions off the Conceptual Street Map, until there is an amendment to be made when that is absolutely necessary, or there's a neighborhood vote. She doesn’t know how that process works. She saw that on page 6 of attachment 3 that we are trying to support TSP policy 3.7 which states, "Provide for a pedestrian environment that supports adjacent land uses and it's designed to enhance the safety, comfort, and convenience of walking by providing direct routes, and removing barriers when possible." She thinks that could easily, without extending Garden Avenue, be accomplished by just improving Dondea Street by adding sidewalks to that non-existent plan. The plan would take up approximately three City of Springfield and Lane County Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 6, 2018 Page 13 eighths of our property lines, 1210 Dondea, and the adjacent lot. On a map, it shows that it would take out the barn on her property. Thank you for your time. • Brian Jones; 2550 31st Street; Springfield, Oregon 97477 He’s with Earl and Paul who spoke earlier. They're the neighbors to the north. They were talking about that road is projected to be built over the slough connecting Canterbury across. That will be on the North side of his property. The thing that he likes the most about Springfield is, development is acute, and it's wonderful, because we can't stop greater national increase with human progression, and we can't stop just more people showing up. It's just going to happen. 20 years from now, what we don't want to see is a growth belt over creek and a wetland to forget that these places of beauty exist. That we want, when people do show up, "Where do you want to live?" These are the places that we-- These are gems. These are not places that you pave over. That's all he has to say about that road that you have on your map there. Thanks for your time. • Marian “Lela” Trope; 1688 Hayden Bridge Road; Springfield, Oregon 97477 My husband didn't want to come with me tonight because he tends to be much less, patient than she is. They are in the fringe. She knows that she has some neighbors, Jerry Ritter for one-- Marion: No. We're in the County. Hayden Bridge Road has been this wonderful little battleground for a very long time. They've been there 18-years. What she wants to say is that Jerry Ritter wrote her a text message during the last legislative session in Salem. He said, "Forget it. We're done. There's no sense in fighting anymore." Because they passed a bill but she couldn’t remember the name of the bill. A couple of people have made a point, the last gentleman especially, or two of them. Where, if you have an area that seems to be of services to people, that are in umbrella that say that is good for the community, that they no longer have to give, or request a vote of the people if they want to be annexed or not. That they can just kind of come in and say, "This is a really good idea." She ran for the Rainbow Water District and lost by 27 votes. She realizes, now, she should have tried a whole lot harder. The Rainbow Water District is a gem. The Rainbow Water District services the County. If we become annexed into the City, She doesn’t care if that bill has gone from $4.95 cents of base rate to 11 something at the base rate which people complained about it at their doors, which shocked her. If only they saw SUB's rate for water and sewer. They saw EWEB's rates they would be sending thank you cards to Rainbow. What people don't understand is, that the more this stuff that keeps happening, and spinning around them, and not realizing, "It's for a walking path. It's for the ease of walking. It's to make this car be able to drive easier, or a sidewalk." No, that's giving an excuse for annexation. We have a zombie house which is what the County Commissioner calls it. Living across the street from my mother-in-law, who's in the third stage dementia, and she's 89 years old. They will never be able to sell her Springfield house because it is a burnt-out shell. It's a zombie house. The Springfield people here, who she was told to go to, to talk to from a real estate woman, said they don't have time to follow-up on the absent owner. She went home, and got on the computer, and was able to find the relatives of that absentee owner living in Veneta, and all around us. They keep sending these letters to South Carolina or Georgia. If they don't have time or money to get somebody to take down the shell of a burnt out two-story house, inside the City limits. You tell me how they've got time and money to build extra roads, extra sidewalks, extra sewers, extra bike paths, when they can't get the job done on the regular streets. She will not go without a fight of. She doesn’t want to be annexed. She doesn’t want the Water District to go up. She doesn’t want her taxes to triple. She doesn’t want to lose her front yard. Take care of business that you have at hand. • Craig Rash; 3859 Hayden Bridge Road; Springfield, Oregon 97477 Since the last get together, he did some research, by using a tape measure and by driving up and down the neighborhood. One of the problems he has is he doesn’t think these ladies or whoever planned this, ever drove down Hayden Bridge Road. He thinks they saw it on a map. Said, "Okay, let's do this. We can spend money here." There are a lot of people that live on Hayden Bridge; they're going to have one big question. A: where are they going to park their cars? Because you're going to take their driveway; B: what are you going to do for my front yard when you take it away for a sidewalk, and a little bike path. Because you're going to take the value of my home, and you're going to dump it in the garbage, and I'm going to step out my front door, right onto a sidewalk. The other problem you're going to have is you're going to shove more traffic down that road. They already have people running off the roads because they take that corner too fast. They have a lot of retired people, and elderly people there who probably couldn't make it tonight. The big thing is if you go down both sides of Hayden Bridge Road, you're going to put a sidewalk right by people's front doors. Who's going to pay these people when you tank their property value, but raise their property tax? City of Springfield and Lane County Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 6, 2018 Page 14 • Laura Olds; 3501 Garden Avenue; Springfield, Oregon 97477 She lives in the fringe. She’s here to ask that the Commissioners take them and the whole black line off of the TSP. And that you exclude them from these regulations that aren’t going to happen for at least over 20-years, as they have been told. Take them off of the map they don’t need to be there. She’s concerned about having the idea of the developmental standards before any funding for development takes places, more than 20-years out. However, there are zoning changes that are proposed. For the curved line that is to the top, that curved black line to the top left. Large apartment developer owns land right around that line. Zoning changes are being asked for immediately adjacently to the West. She’s concerned about large development forcing her hand. She’s worried about who pays for the 300-feet that she owns of this forced development for roads of 312 feet. She’s concerned about who will be paying for that? She asked, but they said there’s no money yet. That came from the City from Neatler, so she’s a tad concerned. Next question was, she’s talked with every neighbor on that black line, 1200 Kinsley, 1176, 1163, South 34th , that’s three lots total, with two owners. 1211 and 1210 Dondea, 3501 is her. 3553 and the direct neighbor to the East her direct neighbor. He owns the lot directly across from his half an acre. He owns an acre, and then half an acre. She talked to 3510, and 3550, 3600, 3725, and her two-acres immediately East of her, which then goes into [unintelligible 01:32:09] 39th goes a little bit more into Richland, to continue on. She has talked to everybody on that street, except for two owners, and we are all against it. Not one of us wants this. Specifically asked, “Why are they even doing this?” [unintelligible 01:32:23] four, page three says, “To give secondary access, and achieve the smallest length possible.” However, as she looked at Dondea as it goes into Garden Avenue, which is directly in front of my front windows. The only one that would even help out would be her. Thank you, no thank you, she doesn’t want it. They have a fire truck turnaround at the end of Garden Avenue that has already received a dedication. Again, that’s on page three. It will show a dedication that’s right in front of my front door. There's already a fire truck turnaround. Water supply, there’s a fire water supply that’s not on the City lists, they told me it didn’t exist, she said, “Okay.” It’s there, there’s already a fire truck turnaround. We’re good. The next part is that, “It will improve the connectivity for residents, with more direct routes to 32nd and Jasper, in the Middle Fork Trailhead. They have less than a half of mile to walk, and they already there. They don’t need improved walkability. They don’t need improved fire truck access, it’s already there. Don’t waste your money to give me something she already has. Thank you, but no thank you. Also, her friend Myrna who lives at the very end of Garden where she has three acres and it would be her land that Richland would connect on to Garden Avenue. The road would go directly through her house. You would chop her house down. She’s 82; let’s not chop her house down. They tell me it won’t happen in 20-years; however, big apartment owner owns that black line. That curved one that’s in the top left, he owns it. Just acquired it, didn’t buy it. There’s property zoning changes going on that are adjacent to that. They are being requested right now. She’s concerned about that. She hopes the Commissions will take a look at that again. She wants the Commissions to exclude this Garden Avenue lot. She needs to confirm with the Commissions, that it says, “Dedication for the land from the Garden Avenue.” The black line has already been dedicated. She’s not aware that she has a dedication to the City/County, across my land. She thought it vacated in 1918. • Jim McLaughlin; 2600 19th Street; Springfield, Oregon 97477 He spoke last week, and some of his comments were responded to. He wants to get to one focus. He understands your challenge to be, to approve this proposal; it's to ensure that it meets, as it says up there, that it's consistent with state-wide planning goals. State-wide planning goals came into an existence in 1973. His questions go to, when you get your findings, and you come up to having to make this very difficult decision, he is curious about a couple of state-wide, many of them, but a couple he’s going to pull out. He mentioned the one, and he will go back to it, about Goal 12, but let me start with Goal 6. Goal 6, under implementation says, “Plans should take into an account methods and devices for implementing this goal, including but not limited to the following." 6 say, "The enforcement of local health and safety ordinances." Okay. A large portion of this TSP, resides in the Drinking Water Protection Overlay district. That overlay district specifically prohibits injection pumps. He would like to know and he thinks you all need to know, what is the plan to take care of the storm water run-off for all of this development? You’re not going to put it into any other receding waters; you’re not going to put it into the ground, that’s already City of Springfield and Lane County Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 6, 2018 Page 15 illegal. You can’t just whitewash that whole concern and say, “We’re going to put in all this development.” It’s a huge question. In 1973, it might not have been an issue. When did the drinking water protection come in? He believes it’s going to be a giant issue that you have to have in your findings, to make sure it does meet those criteria. Now, the second one he wants to highlight is Goal 12. I mentioned that before, “Plans for the new, or improvement of transportation facilities, should identify the positive and negative impacts on the existing transportation system.” He mentioned that. The response gave me some direction on what the pavement management system is for the City of Springfield, and how it’s part of the CIP. That isn’t the issue. The issue is how does this plan positively and negatively impact the transportation system that exists? He asked some questions that would specifically help identify what the current situation is of the pavement management system, if there is one. You need to know, what is the future? How is that going to affect what the existing is? That’s why he asked those questions. The CIP and the pavement management system have nothing to do with this plan. It was just trying to lay the groundwork to say, “This is what you have to have answered before you can decide that it meets the proposed amendments consistent with state-wide goals." There are a couple of them in here in the packet that he has addressed. You can have this packet. Good luck. He hopes you get the findings you need, and you should follow the findings. Thank you. • Frank Wydra; 2121 Firth Street; Springfield, Oregon 97477 He lives in the county. First off, he does have some positives. You or part of your group as part of the Gateway area, the improvements in the downtown, the new wing of the hospital is stunning and Hamlin Middle School. He is a Springfield guy, he loves it. The issue is, a lot of the people here, they moved into their neighborhoods because of economic reasons or the look of the neighborhood, and that’s his concern. When you start changing the look of the neighborhood, then you need to start doing the right thing. • Erik James Whedon; 1786 Fairhaven; Springfield, Oregon 97477 When he testified earlier he was passionate about his speech. He did also have pictures with him, and he started noticing everybody bring up this screen. If you wanted to bring up the Google Maps of the Fairhaven and the Trailer Park right next door, He would love for the Commissions to take a quick peek. He handed that packet to Brenda Jones, with those couple of pictures of the gate. He has also emailed those to the Commissioners as well. Up in that back left, right where it comes down, like on the bike path, and then, yes, chops down, right in that, inside they have a gate that's been chained up for 17-year that they, obviously, don't want the access that you're trying to force through my neighborhood. That gate, he took pictures of giant chains, but he has a torch, and I could get rid of that, if it helps. • Sandra Anson; 1973 MacTavish Court; Springfield, Oregon 97477 Last night she was out walking her dog, big Golden doodle. She lives off of Lochaven. She ran into a gentleman, which she hasn’t seen here tonight. He was telling her how the Commissions are going to open that gate. She has lived in her place for five years, and the traffic that swoops around, that goes back down to Laura Street, since we put in the ODOT place, it has gotten really bad. Sometimes, you have to sit there, and it's become more dangerous trying to get out and take a left hand turn on that street. She can't imagine you guys trying to open up that [unintelligible 01:41:22] to go -- I've always known it as Beverly Park area. Because that means a lot more traffic will be cutting through our neighborhoods. She just can't imagine. She knows it would be easier for the kids that got to go to Guy Lee School and stuff. Then, you have Shelley Street with all those industries, and stuff. Trucks will be cutting through. There'll be a lot more traffic that will be coming speeding through their neighborhood. She can't imagine you guys trying to open that. It's a really quiet right now, a lot of people like to walk with their dogs, and you get kids out on their street. We won't be able to do that anymore. • Marian “Lela” Trope; 1688 Hayden Bridge Road; Springfield, Oregon 97477 She has two big dogs. 120 lbs. white dog, and a 90 lbs. white dog. She won't walk down the walking paths anymore. She talked to Andy earlier. She won't use the walking path that goes along the river. She won't use the walking path that goes behind her neighbors' houses across the street anymore. If you put in another walking path that goes toward the hospital -- If you're on a bicycle, and you're a grown man, you're going 15 miles an hour, great. A female, by themselves, walking a dog, there is not one walking path in this town that she would use, not one. • Dannie Wright; 4441 Main Street; Springfield, Oregon 97478 (McKenzie Feed) City of Springfield and Lane County Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 6, 2018 Page 16 This gentleman asked that we make sure that you guys got copies of this. There's a whole main street with the dots on the map. This is the actual widths of what's in the plan 116 feet, which includes a median and LTD transport. The City already has this whole thing that shows all the way from 21st to -- Dannie: This is a different project. Not this project, but we need this whole thing. Chair James: Are you entering that into the public record? Dannie: Yes, she’s entering the whole thing from 21st to 78th. It's already - - and the mayor [unintelligible 01:44:06] produced. End of Public Testimony Chair James at this time, we'll move into questions from the commission. He would just say to all of the citizens, thank you for your input. This is an incredibly important part to this process. They are all volunteer citizens just like you. They have homes as well. The Springfield Commissioners have homes in this community as well. He was born on in McKenzie Willamette in 1961, and he’s very invested in this community. He appreciate, a part of the state planning goals are around public input and process. He really appreciate the audience in taking their time, and he understand their frustration, and understands how difficult it is, at times, to get the information you need, to be able to feel like you're effective in a process. Coming to the Planning Commission is a great start, and he appreciates each of them, and the time they've taken to give the Commissions their input. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION Chair James asked if the Commissioners have any questions. Commissioner Hledik asked Becky, when she introduced the plan this evening, you mentioned there were three projects that the County was to look at. We've been hearing about a number of other projects in other parts of the transitions zone, are we not to address those? Or are those on the table for us to discuss? Becky responded that everything is on the table for you to discuss. If you want more information about an existing project, and what that means, we can provide that for you at the time of deliberations to see whether it's a possibility legally. There might be some legal parameters about prior approval. We can certainly explore it. She’s not here to defend what's being proposed. She’s here to provide the Commission with the technical information that they need to make their decision, and this is the time in the process for you to recommend changes to the proposal. Chair Rose has a question for Emma. He’s curious, he sees that Emma had several stakeholder meetings, and different public input. How were people notified? He doesn’t think a lot of these people got in on the basic, the found. How was it determined who-- Emma answered that the composition of the stakeholder’s sounding board was approved by the City of Springfield, Planning Commission acting as the Committee for Citizen Involvement, based on the scope presented. It was primarily continuing stakeholders who had been on the Stakeholder Advisory Committee for the TSP development adoption process itself. There was continuity from the stakeholder group that was advising on the policy development to take this next step to further influence those policies that they've advice on initially. Commissioners Dunn and Vohs served on the stakeholder’s sounding board as liaisons to the Planning Commissions. If you would like to ask them more questions they can also speak to that process. Commissioner Koivula First of all, he would like to say, again. As Commissioner James said, we really appreciate all you’re input as citizens. He also appreciate the amount of time and effort the staff has put in for this entire proposal, which was pretty gigantic, and addresses an awful lot of things, beyond even what many of us are interested in, and our particular concerns. With that in mind, he’s wondering if there is a way forward that we may be able to approve, or recommend approval to the City Council, and the Lane County Commissioners for certain parts of this proposal that are not controversial. Because he understands that he doesn’t think that there is, actually, going to be a way, we're actually going to meet eye to eye on a few of these. His concern is that, to delay a lot of the stuff would seem unwise if there's so much of it that is uncontroversial. Maybe that's a question for legal, I don't know. City of Springfield and Lane County Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 6, 2018 Page 17 Mary Bridget Smith responded Commissioner Koivula your question is in your approval tonight, we'll forward items that aren't controversial or have specific recommendations about items that are working and leave off things that are controversial. Is that right? There are several things before you tonight. There's the actual Springfield Development Code, the actual Springfield Development Code, regulations, proposed regulations that implement the policies in the Transportation System Plan. Then, there are changes to the TSP. There are a project list, and the figures. Then, the third item, which is, she thinks, what we've heard, the majority of the testimony tonight is about the conceptual map. The Conceptual Street Map is adopted as part of the Metro Plan Amendment, and then also as a local land uses regulation. So it make you relied upon in the future. You can make a decision tonight about the Springfield Development Code separately from the Conceptual Street Plan, and also those TSP plans that changes to the transcription system plan from project list, any figures. For the Conceptual Street Map, you can do that separate, and then that leaves you with the Conceptual Street Map. For the Conceptual Street Map, she thinks you have a couple of options. You could move forward with an approval as proposed to the City Council, and then the City Council can evaluate it, understanding that all this information is in the record available here, again, I'm sure, and also be able to evaluate the information that's already in. You can try and make specific recommendations about specific things that you've heard tonight, or you could recommend that the Council and the Board of Commissioners do not approve the Conceptual Street Map and try to find another way to comply with the TPR as not [unintelligible 01:51:10] Conceptual Street Map. Does that answer your question? Commission Koivula, first of all, there's the code changes. The second of all is that-- well, actually the third that I understand really clearly is the Conceptual Street Map, and the third was the right-of-ways and the proposed street cross section designs. Commissioner Koivula asked, what was the third part? Mary Bridget Smith answered that the third part was changes to the Transportation System Plan that are the project list and the figures. Mary Bridget Smith added that it was in their January 23rd packet were those particular chapters. Commissioner Dignam added that it seems like most of the objections- not all, but most of the objections have to do with the Conceptual Street Map. Staff talked at- in their opening remarks about what this project is being driven by- the TSP update is being driven by state law. Does state law specifically require the Conceptual Street Map to be included in the TSP? Emma answered that the Conceptual Street Map is addressing two different things. The first of which are in compliance with some of the TPR rules in the staff findings related to start roadway plan. It's showing our existing and our planned collectors and arterial. That is fulfilling a TPR element. The conceptual local streets, however, are our attempts to provide more clear objective ways to show local streets for development purposes that combined with the Springfield Development Code requirements. It's a hybrid approach that's showing a visual representation of a conceptual local street connection that pairs with the chapter 4.2-105 public street connectivity standards, as well as the dead end street standards and the fire code that she mentioned earlier. Commissioner Dignam asked if that was a no. Mary Bridget Smith answered that the arterials and collectors are required. Yes, as part of the TPR in the Conceptual Street Map. The local streets, is not a requirement that has to be in the TSP. The City has tried to have the local streets beyond the Conceptual Streets Map as a way to provide certainty for folks about what the future plans would be. Commissioner Rose, regarding the Street Maps, he sees no avenue for utilities or fire hydrants, streetlights, transformer vaults, splice vaults. Where do those come in on the Conceptual Street Map? Emma answered that those specific details are not shown on the map itself; the rest of the Springfield Development Code addresses all the different elements that are required with development. Chair James asked if he was referring to the cross-sections. Commissioner Rose, if you do the roads, the planning strip, the sidewalk, you got six inches to the property line. Emma asked to defer to Michael Liebler to speak for the items. City of Springfield and Lane County Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 6, 2018 Page 18 Michael Liebler the Transportation Planning engineer. He works on development review, so he can answer that question. Utilities are often located within the right-of-way cross section, or within a public utility easement on either side of the right-of-way. Your electric and power will often will become a Public Utility Easement that is outside; it's pretty common throughout all of our roadway systems to run their utilities. They often do also run them in the right-of-way. Other utilities such as franchise utilities or telecom or other things, maybe some of the poles are also under grounded within those public utilities. Commissioner Rose said that he understands that, but what he wants to understand is where do you plot? Where do you put the services that if it's running down the street, middle of street, you got laterals that come out to the property owners? Pedestals, you've got transformers, major power poles, lighting- where do you put that in this? Michael responded that those typically go into the public utility easements, or they will go into the landscaping strip, like street lighting poles. There's engineering design standards for whether it's curbside or setback sidewalk. If it's curbside sidewalk, the pole will go right behind the sidewalk, and if it's landscaping strip, then the street light would go within the landscaping strip in one on one with the street trees. Then you have street trees phasing standards that work with that. It's an extra design element that's usually part of the actual road design in coordination that team, Springfield members, in terms public utility easement or within the right-of-way from where you run a lot of the specifics. Commissioner Rose would like that to be put on the map. This is his business, somewhat, and he doesn’t see where you're going to put it. There are two things, there's one within the sidewalks where you can't have service mounts. That's raising big issues that he think- and also where do you plant everything else. Michael: Very often, we try to have the meters for maintenance purposes place like a SUB water meters usually placed right outside the right-of-way on the actual private property that it serves, for that water. Telephone risers also working with public utility easement for a specific property that is along that frontage. They are trying to focus in the Springfield Development Code; it's typically the utilities that will be occurring within the right-of-way, not so much within the public utility easement as dedicated to serve those properties. He could see how you don't see the streetlights, which are most of the time always placed within the right-of-way. Michael continued Fire hydrants as well. The amount of clutter on the visuals we could add, it's a given the spacing and other requirements for the fire hydrants depending on hose lay length and other things like that are very detailed in terms of the actual roadway design. The visuals are just the support of what the developer, as their responsibility, to put into the roadway infrastructure would be. The utilities are an added thing negotiated with the property owners and the developers outside the public utilities, but also the fire hydrants. You may have a stretch of road that has lay length that doesn't have the hydrant in that location. You may have other characteristics that we just do-- how much do you want show on the sheet in terms of specifics. We wanted to show the basic minimums, the developer would be responsible in the specific site stuff. He can see showing some streetlights as to where they would come in there and we can show a hydrant, but cluttering a little bit more. Commissioner Rose asked, you just worked that out as in the development phase Michael answered, yes, once it gets into the public improvement process, and the plans are starting to develop, SUB and the other utilities come in and add their hose and add their things and if they need place something in the right-of-way because there isn’t enough room or typography features or various other things spending work within the site does. Most of the time outside of anything that would be sidewalks or obstructing ADA and having other issues of operation. Chari James, a couple of things in summary. He heard some themes tonight, again. One certainly has around the Main Street corridor. He heard some recommendations come forward in relation to removing the Main Street process, a corridor from the Transportation Systems Plan. He heard that stated in two or three different ways that it should constitute its own process. He heard removing -- he thinks it was removing that element that was said several different ways. He also heard a continuing theme of how to engage, how to be part of the process. He thinks the City is constantly trying to improve that process that is part of the role that we play as a Planning Commission and as a CCI, and making sure that there is opportunity for public input and for the public to be able to get into the information that they need that potentially could impact them. He appreciates that input greatly that's part of our role as a Planning Commission. So thank you for that input and we will continue to strive. Things that can be frustrating is getting out on the website and just trying to find what it is that you're looking for. It's difficult at times, and he understands that. They talk with staff frequently about the ease of access is a very important part of this, it's important to your commission as well. He heard again some major concerns about the mapping of the streets, the Conceptual Street Map amendments. What he heard was from staff and from legal counsel, was that there is a requirement, statutory requirement to include arterials and collectors in your Transportation System Plan and the Conceptual Street Map. City of Springfield and Lane County Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 6, 2018 Page 19 However, it's the City's desire to have those other elements, the local streets, in that map as well. So they will have to, as a commission, deliberate about that. Then also he heard a theme around wetland issues and making sure that if you are going to project development that you've really gone to the site and looked at the site. Not saying this that staff hasn’t done that, but that was the feedback that we got from the public, that that was incredible report. We also had issues related to the goals, the development, a code that we had to live, breathe and that there are still some concerns. The goal 12 issue came up again and some other issues related to planning goals. So he thinks that's a good recap for what we had tonight, we took in a lot more public input, there were a lot of items that you brought tonight, to public, to present and become part of the public record. That's an important part of this process. So thank you for your time, for providing that information, and entering it into the public record. Commissioner Hledik he would like to ask County Staff for some more information as we're going forward. Chair James was going to state that we've had much more information entered into the public record at this minute. So he would suggest is, he will put it on the table for the Springfield Commission. We need to co-walk this, but talking in terms of the public hearing itself and also the public record. He thinks it's important to allow time for staff to be able to deal with information that's been entered into the public record, and provide feedback to the commissions related to this additional information that's there. So as Commissioners, we need to consider that. There has been a lot of information put into public record tonight. At that point, we'll get to a point where we will have to make some determination about how we move the process forward. But at this time, he will certainly turn it over to you, Commissioner Hledik for his question. 2 :05:35 Commissioner Hledik: Thank you. I was taking a look at the findings that were included in last week's packet. It looks to me like the findings address, the state wide goals as well as consistency with the Metro Plan and the Springfield Plan. The part that I am hung up on those is conceptual map is that it relates to connectivity with the local streets. As Mr. Burke has pointed out, he read first 4.2-100, the infrastructure standards for transportation, specifically 4.2-105 public streets. He referenced sub paragraph A3 of the general provisions, which I'll just repeat it since its developmental approval shall not be granted where proposed application would create unsafe traffic conditions. We heard this evening and last week, or every week before, whatever, we have a lot of [unintelligible 02:06:36] . A lot of concern about safety issues that these connections will create. Introducing traffic in areas that don't have side walks or a number of children playing, et cetera, et cetera. More specifically in that same section of infrastructure standards and sub-paragraph A1- A sub paragraph IV and VI of the 10 criteria for determining local streets, those two sub-paragraph IV and VI specifically talk to safety. Streets must accommodate pedestrians and bicycles safely, and also this issue of the waterways and wetlands that's VI street alignment must minimize impacts the water ways and wetlands. It must follow slope contours where possible. I don't see in the findings, then maybe I just have't read far enough, but in terms of balancing, this is a TSP, and so very understandably, the policies and objectives are all geared towards efficient safe transportation activities. Though we have land use plans as well, comprehensive plans, and I think there needs to be some balancing. I don't see in the documents in the materials that we have received, and there's a lot of information here and they're just domestic, how the safety issue has been balanced. How the connections that have been made on that map. How they have been evaluated to make that balance between improving traffic law and efficiency, versus neighborhood safety. I don't know if that's a requirement in the findings for this, but I think to be fair with the public, we need to address and analyse and figure out why those lines were drawn, and maybe they should be reconsidered at least at some place [unintelligible 02:08:51] Participant: Yes. Participant: This is for Randy. Randy touched on some of the things and I was a little bit concerned about, when we talk about obviously we need to have traffic moving to a place- maybe get somewhere [unintelligible 02:09:08] offsite of area [unintelligible 02:09:11] that I wondered do we have automated procedures if you will to say, we're going to make this connected, we're worried about speed, so we are going to add to calming devices. City of Springfield and Lane County Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 6, 2018 Page 20 Raise crosswalks, roundabouts, lane restrictions, things that slow things down. So if you have the movement, the movement is slow, safe, things that make me feel better better as a neighbor. I don't know the answer to that. Maybe Emma-- Becky: So those elements that you're speaking about whether I should [unintelligible 02:09:47] different design elements could be considered at time of development as part of a proposal. If there's a specific area that the commission would like to- will add additional study of the neighborhood traffic calming project, that's something that you consider adding to the TSP project list as a study item. I think that's-- [unintelligible 02:10:12] list. Michael: I would like to add. As development occurs and as a system is built out, very often there is a traffic analysis that goes along with that. Sometimes that analysis will bring up certain points in terms of the number of connectivity points needed to balance the load, so that one side of the development that's closer to the entrance that it hasn't had a dead end so far, which is loaded very much with traffic when it needs to have a secondary access in order to balance it. So that it evens it out between the development in terms of the traffic. A lot of traffic at one end that all flows to one spot really impacts the people right at that one spot where it opens up. Often there's analysis, especially on local roads, to keep it within the volume. The connectivity would keep that volume to balance it between them and share the load for those to concentrate that load on the one specific spot. Also, the volume impacts in relation to connectivity. Add to your arterials and collectors, which are also looked at. The connections through neighborhoods to allow for smaller trips are considered in relation to pushing traffic onto arterials, which have higher speeds, higher traffic, turning movements and safety issues as well. As development occurs, often with larger developments or with previous developments or known safety issues, like crash history, we look at all of those things in relation to some of the connectivity standards, and put those local streets on the Conceptual Street Map. Participant: Which I definitely appreciate, thank you for mentioning that. Particularly, especially given the interest, I think--[crosstalk] Deliberately looking at calming and let's make sure that we [unintelligible 02:12:09] our residential streets and the freeways. Michael: I do believe that TSP does has a section on traffic calming and the application of traffic calming. Participant: Thank you, appreciate it. In the development of this plan, have you done any traffic analysis, any minor, looking at this when you were putting it together? Michael: There are definitely areas over the seven years of being of the Transportation Plan ning Engineering of the City of Springfield where I have reviewed consecutive developments and traffic analysis associated with that, which justifies at certain times, for example, a secondary needed connection. Areas that say, for example, a local road typically has a thousand average daily traffic, it can probably handle up to 2,000. But when you don't have another access off for that to balance the load, you're increasing speeds, you're increasing volumes, which requires another balancing act. In looking at the map, we're looking at 10,000 feet. You really need to see all the different 10 feet, 100 feet, 1,000 feet, and it's not an easy task. You're not always going to catch everything, you're not always going to catch every wetland, you're not going to catch every condition. These public hearings are actually very useful to me to hear from the individuals at a very specific spot, and then take it out to a meso and a macro scale to really look at it in the environment [unintelligible 02:13:46] . Participant: Have you seen anything to the testimony, and looking at this changed your mind on some of these connectors? Michael: In terms of development, I really try to focus on looking at need and want. When a road needs to go through, or we're talking about connectivity standards, often we're looking at what's the need and what's the want. In terms of need, I look at safety. Fire trucks typically don't like to back up, they're not designed to do that, like a City bus. Having a turnaround is very important for certain dead end streets. Secondary area emergency access is required by the fire code after you hit 30 units. You really don't want to have too many houses off of one single access in case that access gets blocked and there's an emergency. At that state, you really need to push to the other ones. Those would say needs. I would say operation wise to make sure that the road isn't volumetrically too large. City of Springfield and Lane County Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 6, 2018 Page 21 Or in the case of, say, routes to school, or maybe connections so that children in our neighborhoods can travel along lower volume, lower speed streets as opposed to being forced at higher speed, higher volume arterials are also a consideration. It moves up and down and really considering the need and the want. Participant: I've got a question for you. As I recall, this is a few years ago, but police and fire are generally opposed to effective traffic calming because it slows the response time. Is that still true with the modern traffic calming or is there as much resistance? For instance, were we to approve a local street connection, and then say, "We'd like--," people would say there'd be traffic calming [unintelligible 02:15:48]. Would we get enough pushback from police and fire that- from public safety that we wouldn't be able to do that? Michael: Recently, we did go through an exercise in relation to the Daisy-Virginia Bike Boulevard which we worked with our fire department. One of those discussions is response time. Connectivity helps them in relation to traffic calming as well. They have preferred routes that they take throughout the City. They often have to spend a couple of days training their fire department officials in order to train them up on how to get around in places that have these and don't have that. In relation to traffic calming, yes, there are design elements making taper[sic] safe, softer in terms of table crossing, speed cushions that have emergency vehicle cut throughs, and making sure that you design whatever facilities you have for traffic calming that get the speed qualities that you want, but allow for that access to go through at the speeds that you want. I know a lot of the firefighters say, "Don't put anything that's too abrupt that I'm bouncing my head off the top of the fire truck when I go over it." But very often, we're able to design by softening that out or doing a separate treatment that still gives them the whole near the 20 feet, but may do more of a human factor adjustment and change the mentality of the driving public as opposed to putting in more physical vertical. So yes, there are design elements that can incorporate traffic calming to the accommodate perimeters. Participant: Commissioner? Participant: When you speak in terms of design elements, and [unintelligible 02:17:31] in the air, and other things like that. I guess the plan reads-- I think there's a perception when people look at a black line on a map, they imagine a 20-foot paved street connecting one dead end to the other. In my hearing, you say that the conditions are correct, they could be a bollard with maybe even a gravel emergency access connection between the two streets, or is something that limited off the table? Michael: I guess it would have to end. It's difficult to speak to that one because every development, every road, every traffic condition is special on its own. Participant: I understand that. In my own neighborhood, though, we have connections that are rather than paved 20-foot streets, just the two real well gravel connector with the bollard at the end of a paved strip for emergency access. I guess if it isn't in the plan, and I haven't looked at the traffic calming section of this, but I think this idea of these things were evaluated at the time of development. These are the kinds of options that may or may not be developed in terms of either need or want. That may be- could be clarified and put it in the plan in a much more direct, John Q. Public[sic] understandable manner than a lot of this hundreds of pages of plan reads. I think that would be helpful. Participant: Yes. Participant: I wonder if I could ask you a little bit about the picture. This is a conceptual map, and you've spoken about analysis and how you use analysis. Going forward with this conceptual map, what are the steps going forward? Will people inquire about it elements of going to- concerns coming from the public. Are there going to be analysis done which look further into these different concepts, different conception? Michael: Yes, that's part of the development process. A gentleman earlier, very eloquent, he talked about shifting this 200 feet, moving this 300 feet, are you aware of this wetland going through. Part of the flexibility that's built into the connectivity in the streets standards is looking at that, and providing options for changing of alignments or changing how the roads that are shown on the street City of Springfield and Lane County Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 6, 2018 Page 22 map could be done to accommodate these different wetlands, because wetlands change. Over time, we're not sure exactly what the edge is. At the time of development, it's typically when you will do a wetland delineation so that you actually know- survey where that's at, where are the available property is, and where else it could be. Our language allows for the adjustment of the Conceptual Street Map and the moving of the lines, as long as the basic standards of connectivity, and those emergency access and turnaround and secondary access requirements are met. Participant: Yes. Participant: Mr. Chair, I feel like I have a lot of additional reading to do. I wonder if we should consider closing the public hearing, but perhaps leaving the record open for a certain period? Participant: I was going to suggest that. Of course, we are acting independently, commissions, although we have to press walk this together. I think what I was saying earlier was there's been a lot of additional information aired into the public record. It's very important that we have an opportunity- we have an opportunity to review it as Commissioners, and that staff have an opportunity to give the information. I think the question for us is we had fewer turn out tonight. I don't know if we have a number, but I would say there's probably 80 or so. We had 220 attend, I believe, on the 23rd. Becky: 25 people speak tonight. Participant: We have 25 speak tonight. My question for commissions are, do we feel comfortable closing the hearing tonight and leaving the public record open for a time? I feel like we have taken excellent public testimony. We've had two good opportunities for public to come. I personally feel that we could close the hearing at this time. We are already moving into some beginnings at deliberation. I think we've had excellent input. I think we had reiteration at several levels for public input tonight. We had some new information shared as well. If we left the record open, say until like February 13th or so, typically seven days, and if we were to chose to close the public record tonight, then we could- excuse me- close the hearing tonight, leave the public record open until February 13th, that would allow time for even additional public information entered in the public record. Then we can meet at a subsequent date like February 21st or even into March, and allow staff to be able to respond to that information and get any additional questions answered that we have, and then move fully into deliberation. Does that make sense? Participant: Did you get those dates? Becky: I'd just like to know if you do chose to leave the record open, staff would recommend that you have your next meeting on March 6th to give us enough time to prepare materials. Participant: Leave record open till February 13th and close the public hearing tonight would be an option. Becky: Close the record February 13th, and then an additional seven days for staff to respond to what's been put into the record, so you'll have that when you come back on March 6th. Participant: March 6th, yes. Participant: Greg, do you need a motion for that? Participant: Are we ready to take action? Yes, you have a question? Participant: Should we close the public hearing now, will we be moving past our opportunity at direct questions at staff and legal? [crosstalk] Participant: No. [crosstalk] Participant: We'll continue to [crosstalk] City of Springfield and Lane County Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 6, 2018 Page 23 Participant: Absolutely, yes. Participant: One other quick question. We did state that local streets are not required in TSP, are pipe [unintelligible 02:24:59] also included, multi-use pass also included in that sectional street plan? Becky: Multi-use pass are shown in the TSP as adopted projects, and the Conceptual Street Map shows the already adopted and the proposed new multi-use facilities. Participant: But it's not required in TSP? Becky: They are already adopted by fed projects and that's how we are reflecting the plans private facility, whether you don't have to require that but it does align with it. It does align with the policies around walking and biking. And we didn't have those projects identified, then they wouldn't be fulfilling as total policy elements. Participant: Yes. Participant: I have multiple use- [unintelligible 02:25:47] bike paths, who pays for those? Can those be assessed to just [unintelligible 02:25:52] Becky: It depends on the path. If there's a path through a large site, shown through a large site and that development comes in, or say a river bed or a hospital came in, there was a multi-use path that was built as part of that development project. In relation to use, [unintelligible 02:26:10] provided with like project number four off of the [unintelligible 02:26:13] Blue, that would not be the private developer. In order for that section that's through residential in their area to be built, which is not being proposed to change at all. But for that to be built, the City or County would have to negotiate with property owners and figure out the alignment to actually make that connection occur and purchase property to do so. Participant: But they won't be required to pay for the obstruction. Becky: Correct. Participant: All right, Springfield commission, at this time I will certainly entertain a motion if we have no more questions, to close the public hearing. Participant: The motion to close the public hearing is [unintelligible 02:27:01] . Participant: Yes, it's accepted. Participant: Just to clarify, you said if we have no more questions, so you want all questions to be asked before we close public hearing? Participant: No. [crosstalk] Participant: Okay, thank you. Participant: There's a motion on the floor to close, for Springfield Commission to close the public hearing at this time. Participant: Second. Participant: The motion has a second on the floor with the Springfield Planning Commission is to close the public hearing at this time. All those in favor signify by raising your hand? Aye? Opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Turn it over to Lane County. Participant: Lane County Planning Commission, do I have a motion? Participant: You do. The Lane County Planning Commission proposed to close the public hearing, but extend the comment through to February 13th, setting the date at March 6th meeting with deliberations with the Springfield Planning Commission. City of Springfield and Lane County Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 6, 2018 Page 24 Participant: Second? Participant: Second. Clarification, though, when you said the comment period, I want to make sure you mean the public record, is that what you meant with your motion? Participant: Yes. Participant: Okay. Participant: Okay, all in favor? Say aye?[crosstalk] Participant: There's a motion on the floor, go ahead. Participant: All in favor support? Aye? Opposed? Carried unanimously. Participant: The public record, and maybe I'll turn this over to our legal counsel. Participant: The status right now is that both parties have moved and agreed to close the public hearing, which has left the second one that you did tonight. What they are talking about now extending is what's called the record. That's the ability to send in written information to staff via email or mail or drop off at the counter. The County has moved to keep that open until February 13th, that's a week from now, and that [unintelligible 02:29:09] the same motion here in the second. And then staff will have an additional seven days to respond to that information so to provide additional information. We are all going to come back on March 6th, which it will be a subsequent public meeting of the Planning Commissions, but it won't be a public hearing where you will be able to submit information. It will be a time for the commissions to deliberate on all the information that they've been receiving and reviewing, all of that situation. Does that make sense? We need a Springfield version record and then [crosstalk] Participant: That's right, we need a motion from the Springfield Planning Commission to leave the record open until February 13th, and to reconvene on March 6th. [crosstalk] In this room on March 6th. Can I make a motion without repeating it all? Participant: Yes. Participant: So move. Participant: Second. Participant: It's been moved and seconded that the Springfield Planning Commission leave the record open until February 13th, and that we reconvene here in this room on March 6th in a joint meeting with the Lane County Planning Commission to deliberate. All those in favor, signify by saying aye? Speakers: Aye. Participant: Opposed? Participant: Mr. Chairman? Participant: Yes? Participant: You said if you want to confirm your motion. Participant: Motion carries. City of Springfield and Lane County Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 6, 2018 Page 25 Participant: Question? I wasn't aware that we had made a motion for joint deliberation. Is that really what everyone's intent was? Becky: Can I just provide you with an option? So I did check in with your planning staff, March 6th is your regular meeting. You could chose to hold that meeting with Springfield or you could hold it separately as your own separate meeting. It's the Lane County Planning Commission's choice whether to deliberate with the City or not. The City's moved to meet with you to deliberate, but you could do it either way on March 6th as a regular meeting for you. Participant: I could see advantages both ways certainly it would be more efficient with a smaller group. Perhaps there would be additional information which we could benefit from if we met together. I don't know Mr. Chair, what's your recommendation on that? Participant: My recommendation would be meet separately. [crosstalk] Becky: If that's the case if you want it, and I completely understand. I think that's definitely how it works is you deliberate separately. In that case, I would suggest that you deliberate on March 20th which would be your next regular meeting. The reason being as typically when we separate for deliberations, the County likes to see what recommendations the City is making and how that might change your decision. Participant: Typically we've done this, where we've separated in the same building and then they get deliberations and we get deliberations. Becky: We could do that. Participant: Like what has [unintelligible 02:32:37] I would prefer to meet where we usually meet. If we are not meeting together, we are not meeting together, so why pretend like we are together? Becky: Except that I think they would benefit the people who want to attend. That they could attend our hearing as well as our deliberations as well as the City's.[crosstalk] Participant: As in it affects the people of Springfield, so we would like if it is public to be here to watch you guys deliberate. Participant: It will be hard to do it [unintelligible 02:33:11] Becky: It will be hard for the people in the public to attend both unless we have different days. [crosstalk] Participant: We are having different days. Becky: If you deliberate separately, I would recommend different dates, so that the public doesn't have to be at two places at once. March 20th is what I would recommend for separate deliberations. Participant: Question for legal counsel quickly. Would we need to revise our motion because we said collectively deliberating in our motion? Participant: I think that would be most correct. Yes. Randy: Let's rethink this. Why not meet with Springfield? I think there are general using of common interest. It's basically Springfield's plan, and if I'm correct, jurisdictional authority is for all intensive purposes handed over to Springfield, and so do other transitions on it, right? I think if there's anything that the County can bring of significance to the table is some representation for the people who live in that area, but essentially it's Springfield's calling, [unintelligible 02:34:26] somehow. I don't mind meeting with Springfield, I think in this case, it would be a good idea to everybody to watch this. Participant: The reason I had suggested separate meetings is that if the County's focus is much more narrower than what the Springfield Planning Commission is going to be focusing on. Therefore, really there's very little overlap, and the way I look at it in our deliberations. City of Springfield and Lane County Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 6, 2018 Page 26 Randy: I understand that, but the other side of the coin, though, in that if Springfield decides to go one way with an activity, and we decide to go 180 degrees the other way with connectivity, we are not going to the board and City Council with a common recommendation. To the extent that we can work towards that, I think it'll be important that Springfield can say something that would change our minds or we would say something that would informs their minds. So I understand we got a smaller piece of the pie, yet a bunch of the testimony that was here was from folks that are in that transition. I think Springfield Planning Commission needs to pay some attention to that as well, not just because it's a County piece. Participant: I got a little clarification I like, Randy, you could help me out a lot. Our focus is just on [unintelligible 02:35:53] is that correct? Randy:[unintelligible 02:35:55] UGB, yes. Participant: Do we have input on the other side of that in the City? They are Lane County residents, also. Randy: I don't think so. I have lived in County-- [unintelligible 02:36:09] No, I don't think we do, that's City business. Even though they're in the County, at City business. But it's still County. Main Street, I don't think any of that runs through the transitions on [unintelligible 02:36:22] . So we would just be sitting here quietly happy on what they are doing with Main Street. But then those pieces that are inside that transitions on, I think there are some commonality that needs to be discussed. Participant: I don't mean to get really involved because I have a hard time stepping into this with Springfield has done a lot of public input, to public meetings. And we're coming I here with two meetings and a bunch of paperwork, and trying to keep what they've done. To me, it's a little bit disturbing, to be honest, except for the UGB, that's our job. [crosstalk] Randy: We were invited to do this. [laughter] Participant: I'd like to say that although Springfield is developing this plan, that the actual political representation of a lot of people who've testified today are the Lane County Commissioners. So I would recommend that we meet together because they need to direct their comments to you. Participant: I would also like to support what [unintelligible 02:37:31] has said. [crosstalk] Thank you. I feel that things [unintelligible 02:37:38] cracks, and people who come here with a very strong feeling and that they need to know that things are being done squarely and right. I feel that we should meet together, both commissions. Participant: Okay, you got something? Participant: We're outvoted, I think so. [laughs] Participant: I'd like to put it to a vote. Participant: Okay, all in favor of the joint meeting, raise your hand. All opposed? We will have a joint meeting. Participant: We do not need to revise our motion. Participant: You do not. Participant: I think you said your motion was to meet here on March 6th, [crosstalk] you said meet on March 6th? Michael: Yes. Participant: But we now have an agreement, do they need to move that we will meet jointly? City of Springfield and Lane County Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 6, 2018 Page 27 Participant: They just voted and the motion carried for a joint meeting on 6th. [crosstalk] Participant: Okay. Then I'll close this again. [crosstalk] Again, thank you, public, for being- [unintelligible 02:39:00] your presence tonight. We really appreciate it. We will take a couple of minutes and allow the-- and you can adjourn, and I will just- you have about a two minute break. [background conversation] [02:39:31] [END OF AUDIO] SUMMATION FROM STAFF • REBUTTAL FROM THE APPLICANT • CLOSE OF THE HEARING • MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OR APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS OR DENIAL OF THE REQUEST BASED ON STAFF REPORT AND ORAL/WRITTEN TESTIMONY. MOTION: REPORT OF COUNCIL ACTION Commissioner Landen submitted a brief of his interaction. REPORT FROM DEVELOPMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR Greg Mott introduced Tom Boyatt as the AIC Director as interim while the search for a new director is on its way. Tom Boyatt ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Minutes Recorder – Brenda Jones ______________________ Greg James Planning Commission Chair Attest: ____________________ Brenda Jones City of Springfield and Lane County Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 6, 2018 Page 28 Planning Secretary