HomeMy WebLinkAboutComments PLANNER 12/21/2006
Page I of2 ,
REESOR Da'vid
From: REESOR David
Sent: Thursday, December 21,20063:11 PM
To: 'Bret Fox'
Cc: 'bgrile@ci.springfield:olr.us; Brian Genovese; MCKENNEY Gary; SUMMERS' Sarah
Subject: RE: Comments
Bret:
Just a heads-up... if you re-read the findings and conditions you'll nolice that the draft decision allows full access
as vou DroDosed onto Pioneer Parkwav (in concept), Please refer to condition #6 for more explanation
regarding that. The right-in / right-out condition (#8) refers to 'Q' Street, not Pioneer Parkway.'
Let me know your thoughts after re-reading the decision,,,
Thanks,
David Reesor
Planner II
City of Springfield '.
541.726.3783
From: Bret Fox [mailto:bret@thomasfoxproperties,com]
Sent: Thursday, December 21,2006 2:32 PM
, To: REESOR David . .'
Cc: bgrile@ci.springfield,olr,us; Bdan 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 out access is unacceptable to both FirstTech 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 wiil have significantly or even
measurable lower impact on'existing or future traffic conditions, ' , "
Second, Finding number #37, noles that long traffic queues exist, but there is no evidence 10 support that my
development impacts, or contributes to, or affects that existing and future condition, even ,with a full access onto
Pioneer Parkway, 'So, if the requesled full access does not lower the performance of existing conditions, it .
. should be allowed. .It does not lower the perf9rmance of existing conditions, or affect future performance, so it,
should be allowed. , . ' . ' .: ' ,
Third, Finding #38 claims thaI the two new signal phases would De for the sole benefit of the 'propos'ed
'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 discrimin'atory. .' . "
Finding #33 and #39 both acknowledge several traffic problems in the area, but do not show,any link between
the. access proposed in my site plan and these problems. "
. Finding #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 re.quested 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 or future
traffic conditions in the area!!! So it is absolutely unfair to restrict our access, without any evidence that
we cause or add to any ofthe conditions which the city is concerned about! Especially, when allowing
the very same access to the development that is across the street! ..
),.'
12/26/2006
"
Page 2 of2
Our studies ac'tually show that our proposed access would work better and perform better than the
same access right across the street!
To say the least, I believe that my project is being restricted and treated unfairly, My traffic engineers have
more than adequately shown that the access requested is safe and maintains the level of traffic performance for
now and future conditions. To do anything other than approve our requested access is just plain wrong.
Bret Fox '
...,....
12/26/2006
'-
_I'
'.'-,
,.
"
~:
'il