Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotice ODOT 6/3/2008 r ----,.._._._.'.~ ~-'!g Matt nmunity Planning and RevitalizatIon P"",;", ..,"'~ j {Full Packet} ,A9ENDA =-.- EUGENE, SPRINGFIELD AND LANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIO McClane Conference Room, ODOT Springfield Office, 644 A Street, Springfield, OR 97477 Phone: (541) 682-5481 Web site: www.eugene-orgov The Eugene, Springfield, and Lane Planning Commission welcome your interest in these agenda items. Feel free to com'e and go as you please at any of the meetings. This meeting location is wheelchair-accessible. For the hearing impaired, FM assistive-listening deyices are available or an interpreter can be provided with 48 hours notice prior. to the meeting. Spanish-language interpretation will also be provided with 48 hours notice. To arrange for these , services, contact the receptionist at 682-5481. Telecommunications devices for deaf assistance are available at 682- 5119. JOINT PUBLIC MEETING OF EUGENE, SPRINGFIELD, AND LANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONS DATE: TUESDAY, June 3, 2008 LOCATION: McClane Conference Room, ODOT Springfield Office, 644 A Street TIME: 6:00 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION: 1-5 WILLAMETTE BRIDGE PROJECT Staff: Heather O'Donnell, 682-5488 Citv of Eu!!ene Plannin!! Commission Members: Heidi Beierle, Phillip Carroll, Vice President, Rick Duncan, Randy Hledik, President, Ann Kneeland, John Lawless, Anthony McCown Lane Countv Plannin!! Commission Members: Lisa Arkin, Vice Chair, Ed Becker, Steve Dignam, Todd Jolmston, Nancy Nichols, Howard Shapiro, Jozef Siekiel-Zdzienicki, John Sullivan, Chair Snrin!!field Plannin!! Commission Members: Lee Beyer, Bill Carpenter, Frank Cross, Chair, Johnny Kirschenmann, Vice Chair, Terri Leezer, Sheri Moore, Eric Smith " Date Received JUN 0 3 2008 Planner: BJ ! .' AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY June 3, 2908 TO: Eugene, Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissions FROM: Heather O'DonneJl, Associate Planner, Eugene Planning Division ITEM TITLE: Joint Deliberations for the Joint Public Hearing on the 1-5 Willamette Bridge , Project Metro Plan Amendment and Refinement Plan Amendment (Eugene files MA 07-3, RA 08-]; Springfield file LRP2007,000]0; Lane County file PA08- 5230) ACTION REQUESTED: Deliberate and take action on the proposed Metro Plan amendment and (City of Eugene decision only) refinement plan amendment. BRIEFING STATEMENT: On April 29, 2008, the Eugene, Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissions held a joint public hearing on a proposal to amend the Metro Plan and a City of Eugene refinement plan, the Willakenzie Area Plan (W AP), for the 1-5 Willamette Bridge Replacement Project. To suminarize, the applicant requests approval of the following for the 1-5 WiJlamette Bridge Replacement Project: to amend the text of Policy D.ll ofthe'Metro Plan to allow for the placement of fill in the Willamette River Greenway and to allow for a goal exception to Statewide Planning Goal 15 (Willamette River Greenway) to authorize a nonwater-dependent, nohwater-related use within the Willamette River Greenway setback; and to amend the text of the WAP to allow for the placement of fill within 35 feet from the top of bank of the Willamette River. At the public hearing, aside from the applicant's party there were two other people that spoke; one spoke as neutral to the proposal and one spoke against it. To summarize, comments were made requesting the record to be left open, regarding the effects of peak oil and the need for the bridge, and regarding the lack of maintenance of existing bridges. In response to requests for the record to be left open, the Planning Commissions closed the public hearing but left the record open for new evidence until May 13,2008 at 5 p.m, The Planning Commissions also decided, that the applicant's final rebuttal deadline would be May 20, 2008 at 5.p.m. (The applicant waived the ability to submit new evidence, thus eliminating the need for a rebuttal of new evidence,) New evidence. submitted by the May] 3,,2008 deadline was made available to all Planning Commissioners electronically given the cumulative size of the documents. Based on the evidence to date, staff still finds that the' proposal is consistent with the approval criteria, including that an exception to Statewide Planning Goal 15 is warranted'as required under Metro Plan Policy D.I ], and staff recommends that the Planning Commissioners'recommend approval of the proposed amendments to the elected officials, BACKGROUND: Please refer to the materials' provided with the Planning Commission packet for the April 29, 2008 joint public hearing, (It was not feasible to reprint all of the written materials, attachments, and other items ;ill:f.!1.;1.c!e~,irJti~ fite;r5~ord for this application as part of the attachments to the staff report. The other 'inaierialsli~ted lJelo'-w are only available for review at the Planning Division, Copies of tl)O\lll.<~teri<rWi . found:i,'j~h~:file..~ycordfor this application can be provided upon request for a fee. The p!aMtle t1ecelved :~ ,~~'> ., .~ '~f:,}1O ~("~';"::)prt-_.:', . '- . ~ '." . -." JUN 0 3 2008 " , 1 -Planner: 8.1 Commissions are provided a full set of the applicant's materials and all public testimony for review.) ATTACHMENTS: A, Public testimony received after the April 29, 2008 public hearing through dose of record for new evidence on May 13,2008* B. Exhibits submitted at April 29, 2008 joint Public Hearing: Exhibit I: Applicant's agenda and.graphics Exhibit 2: Applicant's memorandum regarding noise dated April 28, 2008 . *Due to the cumulative size of the documents submitted, these items were made available electronically to all the Planning Commissioners consistent with code requirements. FOR MORE INFORMATION: ,Please contact Heather O'Donnell; Associate Planner, City of Eugene Planning Division, 99 W. ] oth Avenue, Eugene, OR 9740], by telephone at 54]-682-5488 or via emai\ at heather .m.odonnell@ci.eugene.or.us. I' ~t~1\i~r"'~}~~~1 r~\i::;~.l "-. Date Received JUN 0 3 2008 flouS f. 0 \11\11, PI 0 r"J anner, ~j 2 . ~. },~eJj ~'1r,,~r '~1r~~I~:~1 \ ..,~\'-,;.., ".......~. II 4 l . , ""':<.<, -, " ~ JUCEIY[I!] H~ rm.'3Ur; K~ESH~i~~Gl : ON: 4. ;2.."'\.05 \' /3(,^-:IoH-- I FILE NOrv1....()l-~.(2A.oj-Z L"'-? .2-o61-0tolo f'1t 00 - '3~~c . oregon bridge delivery partners" 1-5 Willamette River Bridge Project Plan Amendment Joint Planning Commission Hearing Presentation Agenda ~ 6:00 PM April 29. 2008 City of Eugene Library, Bascom-Tykeson Room, 100 W. 10th Ave., E0gene, OR Introduction - Jane Lee (ODOT) . Introductions . Prei?entation agenda . Why we are here . Future requests Project Background - Tim Dodson (ODOT) . Project need . Project process . Local involvement . Process for selecting bridge design type . Parks coordination and planning efforts Project Description - Tim Dodson . Project components Legal Criteria - Mark Greenfield (ODOT Consultant) . Metro Plan Amendment for Policy 0,11 . Goal 15 Exception . Willakenzie Area Plan Amendment . Other policies 'of interest . Statewide Planning Goals'- . Metro Plan, TransPlan, Willakenzie Area Plan '. , Questions - Lead by Tim Dodson . . ? ~-"1. - ." "'-'1...- ' 'f...., ,;,. ,_ (....~jl 1~-,\hJ..-;J ,[:..,I.o~;~ t ~~~'\\I <l .~ '.. ~',~k 'fJ.~ " '~~'_ .!\.,',P' L ifjO~ t {I !~j Ii Date Received JUN 0 3 2008 Planner: BJ' " ... . .... '. '''- . '1r" ';:;';'_t!" >-r\~'~:~"~-~: 11rJtl6mdfe ~i1 . . Bridge . ref' Eugene & Springfield ""C 'r .:::: Q) u Q) a: Q) <<1 .-- F:!gu~e 1: L",nd Use A:ppr~)Vals - .. , . . .' :," ~" ~'. ",,:, . " . " ": . ~.' .,.,... . . . Eugene, .Springfield, and Lane County .,..:,,:APProvaIS. A. Willamette River Greenway Exceptions I 1. Metro Plan Amendments I a. Amendment to Metro Plan Chapter Ill. Section D, Policy 11 b. Exception to Statewide Goal 15 I Eugene 2. VVil1akenzie Area Plan Amendment To allow for placement of fill in the greenway needed in conjunction with removal of the -. ~ecommissioned and detour bridges, construction of temporary work bridges, and construction of the new 1-5 reolacement bridaes. To authorize the bridge approach, a ncinw81er.dependent and nonwater-related use within the established greenway setback. I To permit structures an~ fill associated with the ~ew '-5 replacement bridges, within the first 35 feet from the top o(lhe nverbank within the greenway in the VVillakenzie area. Eugene A. Type III VVillamette Greenway Permit under Eugene Code 9.8800 through 9.8825 lB. Type II "WR Standards Review. approval pursuant to Eugene Code 9,4930(3)(b), 9,4980, and 9.8460 through 9.8474 Ie. Site Development Permit (or similar building permit), and a FEMA "no-rise" certification '., I D. Tree Felling Permit I A. Type III Discretionary Use Approval under Springfield Development Code 25.050 and 10.030(1) I B. Admini~trative"Determination" from the Springfield Planning Director pursuant to Springfield Development Code 31.240(2). I C. Type I Permit I D. Tree Felling Permit Springfield The new 1-5 replacement bridges constitute a."development" Within the greenway boundary. I For any fill, grading, vegetation removal, or new structures within the WR conservation area. For any construction or structures within the tloodway/special flood hazard area. For removal at existing trees. To address visual impacts. T~ determine that the n~w 1-5 replacement bridges and pos~ibly the removal of the original 1-5 bndge, Canoe Canal bndge and detour b~dge, and ,construction of a temporary work-platform for the detour bridge, will not ~,d.iminish riparian function" of affected riparian areas. ' ,.; , I To allow construction in the floodplain or f1oodway. " . #';~ I For removal of existing trees. </;;:' :1': ,.', 4- " .. t;-_ ~ I.,,' =')'. H\~ Il.&!! ' ex> = = '" M <::> :z: => -, .,1,.'.' . " - Q) c: c as - a.. t- ~ = ~.:. r: c , ~, ",. c:' <-;. , ."t;,1 <l' , 11rJtif'Jt7(jffe ~i'fJt, Bridge Eugene & Springfield Figure 2: Process Flow Chart -.'. . . , It~QateReceived ":l)v~:o 3,2008 ;~nhgr:'BJ %~rv'f);~~~:':';i0";~ . -:~?~,~~: :,:;:'<" i~;~~,~::'~::: "'"t~:. . . I- . ~, ~J J/~m8ffe rt:J ~. . 'f'UZ11t , VVef' Bridge Eugene & Springfield r . , Figure 3 : Public Outreach & Involvement' :iji:' Web5it~---'~ ..:12006'- 20'1 3 'l!.~'" ~ . __.r -":J'iJewsletter .,2006:- 2013J 'J" . ~,..." ~ ::":\"'. .-:-~-. ::J.:~i :"-'-~'~ ::-""._'i'" - .' '.. " -" . ~:J:?j!:f~::: ii'~ '.- ,d \ l-GIRoER BRloG' Box GIRDER BRIDGE .' ':"/"'~f-~);'.t: .;":'-':"~~"~~~ ~''I ~ .~./- ...."./:1 ", ; _'fr:~);:;;'~J':>">_ ~.~~. ." DfCKAR.CH BRIDGE ....;!..;~.;"~' ~~,. .'..~i/>'.I;.~-. t. ...."0?~}, )~~, f~; - ,> . , ",,-. '.',ll':.!#. '~Ii . TRRoUGHARCH BRloG,TVp, C eived Fiqure 4: Conceptual Bridule/fi1,tP;~ ADD8 " Planner: R.I Rebuilt roadvvays Replacement bridges Potential wall locations ,"^-/ Toe to slope o 225 450 Mrt.iJ1d,$~,. ~..... ''''' ",::~""': :.T' 0if1A ..."'~ -~---~~ iQI--..----- --- ..~ ,,~ : ~~'.-.'~<>.it~~;.t,,~.~ 'i\f""I"''''Y 1-' ,,,",' ,y" .;;1': .' _' ....."'!' t -. t'..~I,rI " ,I'. ~ \': . ../.. r ('11'0 t~. tJilJ:~ ,it, :'4U: "S'j.: ;,~ , 1'~\"_ _ .r~,f"'. ,~'1 .'''-;(< ';,:4, "I ~'."'~lb ., / Figure 5: Proposed Project 1-5 WilIamette River Bridge PrQiect uate Heceived ''''\. ...,-, Pia ( ,~' ,~~\. r~ l!' .'~, ~ " nnEl. ,c,i,,! JUN 0 3 2008 oreqon bridqe deliverv partners. I To:" Tim Dodso~,ODOT- From: James Gregory and Craig Milliken, OBDP "!C,~rj',:I\':'i1\ ;f,l ,,>>~~~i H" !,II!:'!",'1UllU'!!,,, 1"'31bvr-12 '.'1h,...!,)" ~il';j e..~I1<.~r,;u,. tf11E:."'..t':1HtdQ', ON:> 4. 2-"1 DB " ',__~, &,^lio~ !,'4 fJ~rV;\e~~31 A ~ L \t-l' 2coI-='0 ?i\- 0'6-'::>2.30 j Project: 1-5 WilIamette River Bridge Project J I Copy: Lou Krug, OBDP I Date: April 28, 2008 IRe: Job No: 53350 Noise Information for Metro Plan Amendment Applicaticln Public comments were submitted on the Metro Plan Amendment application regarding noise analysis and noise abatement. Generally, the comments related to a desire to have noise walls considered beyond project limits. The following information explains the rationale behind the scope of the analysis and proposed noise mitigation measures, , \ Project noise was evaluated within the estimated limits of construction. i.e. the limits of the physical modification of the roadway network. This is because ODOT's noise policy follows the Federal - Highway Administration's regulations (United States Code of Fe&ral Regulations, Title 23, Part 772 (23 CFR 772), Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise andConstruction Noise), which says that noise studies must be prepared for all federal-"and state-funded highway projects that. construct new highways; or that reconstruct existing highways by significantly changing either the horizontal or vertical alignment, ()r by increasing the number of through travel lanes. Locations outside of the limits 'within which the highway. is being significantly altered are gener'ally not included in the noise study, and are not usually' considered for noise abatement since overall noise levels or changes in noise levels in these areas are not influenced by the project being considered, . ' " I . " Based on the analy;is completed by ODOT, the noise levels at properties beyond the limits of the project would be the same with or without the project, ]n some cases, this can result in noise walls being proposed for properties within the limits of construction! but generallY'!1otat neighboring properties that are beyond the project limits. For the Willametle River Bridge project, this is why the noise wall proposed for the east side on Int"rstate 5 (1-5) on the north end of the project does not, , extend all the way up to Centennial Boulevard. , F The ODOT noise policy also contains criteria for noise reduction and cost effectiveness criteria to be used in analyzing noise !l1itigation, For a residence to be considered benefited by a proposed noise wall, the proposed noise wall must achieve at least a 5-dBA noise reduction at that property. The number of residences benefited, and the degree by which they are benefited determines cost- effectiveness. The ODOT Noise Manual states' that a reasonable cost for noise abatement is a , maximum of $25,000 per residence, Noise wall costs are calculated using the ODOT standard cost " n~:hrlt~9:)'Er~;:c~_~tJ]J9st;and yanelwa1,ls of $20 per square foot. 1Cf:?rf:h~ Jil~i WiIlamette Ri~er Br!dge project, the total cost ?f.t~e noise wall th~t \yas evaluated to reduce nOIse Impacts-predIcted. III the Anderson Lane subdIvISIOn on the east SIde on 1-5 at the :lJ;i n?~f1eTI~~~~01~heproject area was calculated to be approximately $]87,200. This BatetReceived Oregon Bridge Deliv", Partnersl 1'00' SW 5' Avenue ' I Phone (503) 423-3700 J U Nh~e WD8 HOR Eflgineeririg, Inc. ' , Suile 1800 . Fax (503) 423-3737 PO"landOR97204-1.13: WWWhddnccomplan er: BJ , ( approximately $17,000 per benefited resider/ceo A wall in this location meets the ODOT . . effectiveness and cost-effectiveness criteria. ., Siniilarly, the total cost of the noise wall that was evaluated to reduce noise impacts predicted in the Laurel Hill residential neighborhood on the west side ofI-5, south ofihe southbound on-ramp to 1-5 from Franklin Boulevard, was calculated to beapproximateIy $542,500, This equates to approximately $18,000 per benefited residence. A wall in this location meets the ODOT effectiveness and cost-effectiveness criteria. . . " \. L ;-i!~~";:. _ Date Received' / JUN 0 3 2008 . , ,.,,', ," ,'-. .........;::.. "~l' '~':-"'j~~-.'.)' ~~.-:" ",j ".~" .,~ , I. >l, .'. ...~. ~ ":-' ~ ... Planner: BJ pne; .\ ~~ ,"ll! . .-: Oregon Bridge Deliver Partners/ HDREngineering, Inc. ' 'If' . . tl '~'.~ "" , J 11001 SW51l1Avenue Suite 1800 Portland,OR97204-1134 I Phone (503) 423-3700 . Fax (5031 423-3737 www.hdrinc.com I pag.'20f2 10 J!(- f,;