HomeMy WebLinkAboutComments APPLICANT 12/21/2006
Page 1 of 1
" "
REESOR David .
From: Bret Fox [bret@thomasfoxpioperties.com]
Sent: Thursday, Deceinber 21, 20062:32 PM
To: REESOR David
Cc: bgrile@cLspringfield.olrus; Brian Genovese
Subject: Comments
Hi David, .
Thank you for sending me a draft of the Review and Decision, although I am very disappointed in the
'Conditions of Approval as they now stand, and I have several comments.' . '
. The biggest problem is Condition #8 requiring the access to Pioneer Parkway be a right-in/right-out only
access.. there is not'sufficient evidence to support such a drastic restriction on our development. (Not to mention
that right-in/right o~taccess Is unacceptable to both First Tech Credit Union and Walgreen's.) And ,it is down right
unfair to me. .' '
First there is nO,evidence showing that.a right-in/right'out access will have significantly or even
measurabie lower 'impact on existing or future traffic conditions. ' . ' ,
Second, finding number #37, notes that long traffic queues exist, but there is no evidence to support that my
develop'ment impaCts, or contributes to, or affects that existing and future condition, even with a full access onto
Pioneer Parkway, So, if the requested fuli access does not lower the performance of existing conditions, it
should be aliowed, It does not lower the performance of existing conditions, or affect future performance, so it .
should be allowed., '
Third, Finding #38 claims that the two new signal phases wouid be for the sole benefit of ihe proposed
development. Well those same ,two signaL phases ,exist for the Safeway and the other Pioneer Plaza tenants to
,their sole benefit. To allow them to have that access/signal phases and not me is discriminatory.
Finding #33 and #39 both a'cknowledge sev!"raltraffic problems in the area, gut do not show any link between
, the access proposed in my site plan and these problems.. '
Finding 11:35 in fact states that there' is no consistent pattern of crashes or a significantly high crash rate. .
Finding #37 summarizes a list of significant queuing conditions under 2018. But again, does not show any
connection between these future conditions and our requested site plan, There is'no link between these.
future estimated conditions and our request for a full access onto Pioneer, Parkway! There is no evidence
that our site plan, our requested access, our requested driveways, have any impact on existing orfuture
traffic conditions in the area!!! So it is absolutely unfair to restrict our access, without any evidence that
we cause or add'to any of the conditions which the city is concerned about! Especially, when allowing '.
the'very same access to. the development thatis across the street! ,
Our studies actually, show that our proposed access would work better and perform better than the
same access right across the street!' .,'.' " '
To say the least, Lbelievethat my project is being restricted and treated unfairly. My trafflc engineers have
more than adequately shown that the access requested is safe and maintains the level of traffic performancefor
, , now and future conditions. 'To do anything other than approve our requested access is just.plain wrong.
Bret Fox . '
)
,0;"
.".><f
.~
,t
12/21/2006
REESOR David
,.
From:
Sent:
To:
, REESOR David
Thursday, December 21,200611 :21 AM'
'Bret Fox'
Cc: SUMMERS Sarah; MCKENNEY Gary
SUbject: . DRAFT DECISION - DRC2006-00085
Attachments: Parkway Center SITE PLAN REVIEW & DECISION_draft_email version.DOC'
Bret:
Page] of 1
I have finished my DRAFT version of the written decision for Parkway Center. I've attached a copy of this draft
version as a courtesy to'you to review before we issue the decision. I have passed my draft onto our Planning
SuperVisor to review before issuing the final decision. Please lel'me know if you have any questions, comments.
or concerns prior to me issuing the decision. Again, keep in mind that this is not the final version and is still
subject to modification. '
Thanks,
DR,
David Reesor
Planner II
City of Springfield
541.726.3783
.",
1.
~..~,
,.
,.
..
:1
. ~ '
.' '
"
'c.
.....
12/26/2006
,
.,'
,.
- ;,