HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 21 Correspondence from Greg Wagenblast Regarding the Villages at Marcola Meadows
RECEIVED
To: Springfield City Council
MAY 1 4 2007
1~:t.f8,.......
CITY OF SPRINGFiELD
CITY ~lECORDER
From: Greg Wagenblast
Homeowner& resident
2457 Otto St, Spfld Oregon 97477
RE: The Villages at Marcola Meadows .
City Councils, Mayor, & City Manger,
As a landowner who directly abuts to this proposed land use change, I have some
concerns for our area. I am not opposed to landowner~ having the ability to manage their
lands nor do I want to prevent activities that are appropriate for the situation. I believe
that the land use changes and zone that are being proposed for this 100 acre parcel are not
appropriate for the current conditions in our BriggsN olanda/Marcola Rd/Mohawk Blvd
area. I am concerned about council maintaining an open mind and considering this entire
projects impact to our local area which is a portion of the city of Springfield. It did not
appear that the council and city staffs were looking at the project objectively from the
local area, but more from the bigger picture of the city in general for revenue potential.
Additional tax revenue should not be driving what is permitted in our city, it should be
balanced with quality oflife and personal enjoyments. At your public hearing last week,
it appeared that during your closed session the developer's consultant and city staffhave
become very close and the council was presented with their side of the project. As you
were informed by several local residents and companies in the immediate area, we have
concerns on impacts to our local "community" with the city of Springfield which have
major implications to our families and businesses.
Listed below are some of my concerns:
· Re-classifying lands to allow additional home sites will cause increased numbers
of vehicle traffic and students in our schools. There is already an area designated
for homes sites. The Developer's consultant has proposed that they would like to
increase the upper limit of homes that could be placed on 1 acre ofland, resulting
in even a higher number of vehicles and potential students. When you build a
home that fills the lot resulting in no front yard and very little back yard, why
don't you call them apartments? Home site development under our current
permitting process is to pack as many people into as small an area as possible,
which does not allow anyone privacy and the ability to sneeze without their
neighbors hearing and saying "god bless you" - if they are still friendly!
· It appears that there are a number of homes for sale on the market and a very large
development going in on Mountain Gate (Potato Hill). How many new homes are
proposed for this area? With these homes, is there a need for so many homes in
the Village at Marcola Meadows (VMM)? Seems that folks refer to some study
for the need of## of homes over the next several years, What study is this, who
developed this, what projections are they using for influx of people, etc.... ??
· I believe that allowing high density stocking levels of homes per acre, you are
increasing the risk of children becoming involved in unacceptable activities or
exposed to additional risks (playing in the road, running the streets, hanging out in
areas of questionable activities - ie behind buildings smoking, tagging, etc..). I
believe this is one of the reasons that kids are getting into more trouble than we
did during the 60's, 70's, and 80's. When lot sizes were larger and homes had
actual yards that children could play ball, yard games, have a swing set, etc... the
kids stayed home and neighborhood friends would all gather at home and rotate
from home to home where the parents could keep an eye and be engaged with the
kids.
· The residents who have been involved with the meetings :trom the "Community
Mtg @ Briggs Middle School" that the consultant held this winter and the
Planning Commission meeting, have been told different "Plans" from the
consultant. I believe that this is indicative of the consultant telling people what
they want to hear rather than a definitive truth. This is not the way to embrace the
community and obtain local support for your project. The consultant has
repetitively implied that moving the development to nodal development to allow
for more homes per acre is a blessing. He has also mentioned many times that the
upper limit for nodal development is 20 homes per acre thus implying that the
plan they are submitting could be changed to include even more apartment style
living.
· Vehicle traffic concerns:
o I believe that the city staff may have forgotten about the new Federal
Building for the USFS and BLM that is going to be built on the National
Guard armory property. These two agencies employ a large number of
staff who will be arriving and exiting before and after business hours as
the home owner will be leaving and returning also. These agencies will
also have folks leaving and returning during the business day as they go to
and return from the woods. When you add the retail spaces traffic with
these, our roads could be pushed to capacity or beyond.
o Large retail space (potentially Lowes or any other large vendor as such)
who would bring in a high volume of vehicle traffic, would overload the
existing roadways in this area. Folks living directly on the roadways or on
side roads that feed into the main roads (32nd, Marcola, Mohawk blvd,
etc..) are currently at a high volume that make it challenging and at times
placing folks at risk to enter or exit. The volumes from the high number of
homes and retail spaces for the major store ~d all the secondary retail
spaces would make this even more difficult for the local residents.
o Access onto 1-105 from Mohawk Blvd appears to already be at capacity
and adding the volurrie from retail and 400+ homes will definitely cause
back-up issues on the on and off ramps, similar to Beltline in Eugene
(which is why a number of us did not choose to live in Eugene). Once you
add the new federal building for USFS and BLM on the National Guard
facility, you will add another large volume of traffic to this entire area
also.
o I have trouble believing or understanding the consultant's statement that
there would be no major difference in vehicle traffic between the original
Master Plan and his proposed "trip reducing" neighborhood. Vehicles and
people are going to travel to the retail stores (people will not ride bikes or
walk to Lowes and pack building materials home using these modes of
transportation). Homes will have people making multiple trips. With
400+ homes (228 of which were not in the original Springfield Master
. Plan) and some having children with activities, that could mean corning
and going 3 or 4 times extra during a day/evening.
o I do not believe that ODOT has been presented the full picture of
development in the area and the implication of this on the exit/entrances to
1-105. I would request that the City of Springfield city manager discuss
with ODOT about the current roadway load and determine if a recent
(within the past year) traffic count has been completed on the ramps, 1-105
itself, along with the City and County traffic studies for Mohawk Blvd and
Marcola Rd. I would request that you take those studies and determine
what USFS and BLM anticipate for their projected staffing at their new
building starting construction at the National Guard facility across from
the Kingsford plant. I would like to know what the total traffic count is
projected for these roadways with out the new VMM and then what it
would be with the VMM and how the roadway widths, traffic volume and
intersection controls will be able to handle such increases.
o I would also like to remind the Council that there is also a new housing
development being built in the Arnbleside area.
· Campus Industrial land would be beneficial for future development by companies
moving into the city, bringing family wage jobs. Campus Industrial would employ
small companies with small groups of employees with less traffic impacts to the
local area.
· Schools are another major concern of mine from this development. Under
campus industrial, no homes would be built that would increase the potential
number of students in the existing schools in the area. Our schools at Yolanda
and Briggs are at capacity. Yolanda has large numbers of students per teacher
and the rooms are crowded as it is. I would encourage the City Councilors to visit
the school and sit in some ofthe classrooms during school day to see school
conditions. Briggs Middle school is the same way, with kids doubled up sharing
lockers and having large classes (students per teacher). We wonder why our
educational system is having problems, we need to work at reducing our teacher
to student ratio. I understand that the Springfield School District provided a letter
indicating that they would not have problems accepting a volume of new students
to the schools. I would request that the City Council invite the school district
administration to the next meeting to have them make a presentation on how they
are going to accept all of the potential new students from the various housing .
developments around town (Potato hill/Mountain Gate, the new site south of
Mountain Gate, the area south of Douglas Grade School, and now the VMM
area). Where are all of these potential students going to go, are there other
schools besides Yolanda and Briggs that have lots of room and teacher/student
,
ratio that is low?? Even if that is the case, remember that that would result in
boundary changes. The bond that was voted on recently was to assist with the
current schools and keep our kids safe with existing systems. Where are they
going to build a new school? Are all of these developments going to all be
charged a development fee that would pay for a new grade, middle, and high
school ??? As you overload schools with increased student population and low
adult supervision (teachers), you increase the potential for conflicts, smoking,
drugs, gangs, students left behind, and other problems as have occurred in the
past. It is in the interest of the school district to accept new students from all of
these developments because of the additional funding to the school district. When
looking at the bottom line, extra $$ would result in most any organization
supplying a positive acceptance letter for a developer. I would request that the
city council have a open public discussion and forum for the citizens of
Springfield, School District, and City Council on how our schools and
development within our city can work together in a coordinated effort to provide
the safest and best services to our students.
. Parks or open space, which I have two concerns about:
o Willamalane Park - This is currently an open space grass field with a
couple trees. I believe that the developer has discussed developing this
open space with Willamalane (who I will also voice my concerns with). It
should remain an open space. There is great value in leaving some areas
as "open space" and not developing everything as parks with playground
equipment. Open space is of great value to wildlife, water quality,
aesthetic, and human use. There are a number of people who use this area
as open space to walk/run their dogs, which is a necessity for those with
postage size lots and no yard. I don't believe that a developer should be
able to design a new development and assume that they will utilize open
space as part of the relief for the .lack of yard space in the development. If
the city approves the new zoning and lot sizes, the developer should
include their own park space on the 100acre property with the homes. I do
not want an influx of higher traffic volume on our dead-end road system at
the open space/park. Our current parking situation with the existing use of
the area at times is limiting. Our road system is already forgotten about by
the city for cleaning and maintenance, and with increased volume, will it
be remembered then?? As volume of users to the area increase, the risk
for property crimes and safety is also a concern. There have been several
times police services have been called where local residents have had to
argue that YES we are within the City of Springfield, even though you
have to travel thru County service areas to get back into our small city
development. Are we going to have to argue more if the property crime or
safety issues increase??
o My other concern with parks - I have listened to the developers consultant
at 2 different meetings indicate that the Briggs and Yolanda school
grounds are open space/play grounds/fields/lawns that the new residents
will be able to utilize. I believe that this is false, and the increased number
of homes in the city may require schools to build additional buildings if
they can get the $$ for students which may then result in some of these
open space around the existing school being removed from fields and have
foundations and walls standing on them. If you allow the re-zone for more
homes and increased stocking levels, I would request that zoning
conditions would require a higher level of open space and parks
(playgrounds, etc...) within the housing development area.
· I am concerned also about the storm drainage - with campus industrial, there
would be areas that potentially could remain open and allow natural filtration of
rainfall. With this type of development, there will be a large volume of asphalt,
roofs, and very little yards resulting in high volume of storm water runoff. My
concern would be on how the zoning will allow the majority of the area to be
impermeable surfaces increasing the volume to drains currently running at full
capacity in various portions of the city (at a minimum along Main Street). With
more open space and ability to filter, you might reduce some of your loading to
the system. This 100 acre parcel is a great wetland area for water and wildlife
during the winter. We currently have a portion of this water make it onto our
property during the winter season with the high water levels and flooding that
occurs. During large storm events our storm drainage system for our street in the
Willamalane park backs up and floods the area for periods. With the asphalt,
buildings, and roofs collecting water and running it off immediately, the storm
drainage system will have to have a higher capacity of flow that is capable of
reacting quickly to this influx of water from 100acres.
I appreciate your time and consideration on these and all of the concerns of you existing
City of Springfield residents that have submitted our concerns verbally and written. I
would encourage you to spend some time in our local area with in the city, along with the
2 local schools here in the "backyard" of the VMM. I would be happy to discuss any
concerns or additional information they you might have or want. I hope that you will
consider my requests and explore and make happen the public meeting with the
Springfield School District on impacts with this VMM development and all the
current/future development coordination as to how it impacts our local school system. I
am very concerned about our local area and am beginning to evaluate what the future
holds for me residing in or out of the City limits of Springfield.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Cjreg wagenbLast
Greg Wagenblast
Homeowner & Resident
2457 Otto Street Springfield, Oregon 97477