Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 10 Vacation of One Block Segment of B Street Public Right-of-Way Between 4th Street and Pioneer Parkway East, Case No. LRP2007-00019 Meeting Date: Meeting Type: Department: Staff Contact: Staff Phone No: Estimated Time: July 2, 2007 Regular Meeting Development i;erv 'ces Andy Limbird x3784 20 minutes AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL ITEM TITLE: VACATION OF ONE BLOCK SEGMENT OF B STREET PUBLIC RIGHT- OF-WAY BETWEEN 4TH STREET AND PIONEER PARKWAY EAST, CASE NO. LRP2007-00019 ACTION REQUESTED: Conduct a Public Hearing and First Reading for the following: AN ORDINANCE VACATING A 66 FOOT WIDE BY 264 FOOT LONG PORTION OF PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY SHOWN IN BOOK 1, PAGE 1 OF PLAT RECORDS OF LANE COUNTY, OREGON, DATED APRIL 5, 1872. ISSUE STATEMENT: On May 7, 2007, City Council initiated an action to vacate public right-of-way for the segment ofB Street between 4th Street and Pioneer Parkway East to facilitate development of a secure police parking lot and ancillary building serving the Springfield Justice Center. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1: Staff Report, Findings and Summary of Public Testimony Attachment 2: Maps showing the proposed vacation and B Street overview Attachment 3: Memo from Police Chief Jerry Smith Attachment 4: Testimony from Bob Foster (various dates) Attachment 5: Testimony from Scott Olson dated March 28,2006 Attachment 6: Testimony from Scott Olson dated June 12,2007 Attachment 7: List of Public Meetings held for Justice Center 2005-2007 Attachment 8: Planning Commission Recommendation Attachment 9: Ordinance DISCUSSION: On February 28,2006, the Springfield City Council considered four site options for the Justice Center project. The site option selected by the City Council utilizes City- owned property which is located between 4th Street and Pioneer Parkway East, arid which extends from A Street to the mid-block alley north ofB Street. The sele'?ted site option incorporates a one-block segment ofB Street right-of-way into the development area for use as a secure police parking lot, and a building pad for an ancillary building serving the Justice Center. The subject right-of-way is a 66-foot wide by 264-foot long segment of public street running east-west along the northern edge of the existing police and courts parking lot. The City owns all abutting tax lots that have frontage on the public right-of-way proposed for vacation. The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on June 5 and 19, 2007, and adopted a recommendation in support of the proposed vacation .at the Public Hearing meeting on June 19,2007. ~ ATTACHMENT 1 VACATION REQUEST STAFF REPORT AND FINDINGS Case No. LRP2007-00019 APPLICANT The City of Springfield and Springfield Police Department REQUEST The vacation of a 66-foot wide by 264-foot long segment ofpublic street right-of-way. LOCATION OF PROPERTY The public right-of-way (ROW) proposed to be vacated is a segment ofB Street located between 4th Street arid Pioneer Parkway East. The right-of-way lies on the boundary between Tax Maps 17-03-35-24 and 17-03-35-31. . BACKGROUND ' The public right-of-way proposed for vacation is part of the downtown grid street system, and was created with platting of the Map of Springfield (later referred to as the "Extended Survey of Springfield") in 1872.' There are eight City-owned properties (Map 17-03-35-24, Tax Lots 13900-14100 & 14300; and Map 17-03-35-31, Tax Lots 1500-1800) that are directly adjacent to the subject right-of-way. All of the parcels with frontage on the subject right-of-way are presently used as parking lots for the public, City employees and the Springfield Police Department. Site Plan approval for the Springfield Justice Center was issued July 25, 2006 and official groundbreaking for construction is to be initiated on June 28, 2007. The approved plan for the Justice Center building is not dependent upon the subject right-of-way area. Within the downtown area, B Street extends from Mill Street east to 16th Street, a distance of about 16 city blocks or 6120 feet (1.16 miles). The one-block segment of right-of-way proposed for vacation is 264 feet long and comprises approximately 4% of the length ofB Street (Attaclnnent 2). On June 19, 2007, the Planning Commission concluded a Public Hearing for the proposed right-of-way vacation, and subsequently passed a recommendation of approval of the vacation to the City Council. SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE APPLICABLE CRITERIA . Springfield Development Code (SDC) 9.060(3) establishes criteria for vacation of right-of-way that must be met in order to approve this request. The following fmdings address each of the criteria. (a) The Vacation was initiated by the City Council pursuant to ORS 271.130(1); Finding 1: Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Section 271.130(1) reads as follows: "The city governing body may initiate vacation proceedings authorized by ORS 271.080 and make such vacation without a petition or consent of property owners. Notice shall be given as provided by ORS 271.110, but such vacation shall not be made before the date set for hearing, nor if the owners of a majority of the area affected, computed on the basis provided in ORS 271.080, object in writing thereto, nor shall any'street area be vacated without the consent of the owners of the abutting property if the vacation will substantially affect the market value of such property, unless the city governing body provides for paying damages. Provision for paying such damages may be made by a local assessment, or in such other manner as the city cha~ter may provide." Finding 2: ORS 271.080(1) provides for vacation of"...all or part of any street; avenue, boulevard, alley, plat, public square or other public place..." In accordance with ORS 271.080(1), the vacation action ATTACHMENT 1-1 requires "a description of the ground proposed to be vacated, the purpose for which the ground is proposed to be used and the reason for such vacation." Finding 3: The Springfield City Council initiated the vacation action at the regular meeting on May 7, 2007. The right-of-way proposed for vacation is generally depicted and more specifically described in Exhibit A to this staffreport. The purpose of the vacation is to retain the segmentofvacated public right-of-way in public ownership, and to use the area for construction of a secure police parking lot and ancillary building serving the Justice Center. . Finding 4: In accordance with ORS 271.130(1), the decision on the vacation action will be made at a City Council meeting, and after Public Hearings before the Planning Commission and Council. Finding 5: All properties that directly abut the segment of public right-of-way proposed for vacation are owned by the City of Springfield. Conclusion: The proposed right-of-way vacation complies with Criterion (a). (b) Notice has been given pursuant to ORS 271.110(1); Finding 6: In accordance with ORS 271.110(1), public hearing notices were placed in the newspaper of general circulation (The Register Guard) on June 15 and 22,2007. Additionally, a public hearing for the Planning Commission recommendation to City Council was held on June 5 and 19,2007. Finding 7: In accordance with 271.110(2), public notice of the proposed right-of-way vacation action was posted at two conspicuous locations immediately adjacent to right-of-way proposed for vacation (at the northeastern comer adjacent to 4th Street, and at the southwestern corner adjacent to Pioneer Parkway East). Finding 8: In accordance with SDC 271.080, adjacent landowners and residents/tenants within a 400-foot radius of the 66-foot by 264-foot linear right-of-way proposed for vacation were notified by mail. Public hearing notification was sent out for both the Planning Commission and City Council meetings. People that provided testimony at the Planning Commission public hearing also were notified by mail of the City Council public hearing. Conclusion: The notification provided for the proposed right-of-way vacation complies with Criterion (b). (c) Approval of the vacation would be consistent with provision of safe, convenient and reasonably direct routes for cyclists, pedestrians and vehicles as provided in OAR 660-0012-0045(3); Finding 9: As stated in Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 660-012-0045(3)(d), "safe and convenient" means bicycle and pedestrian routes, facilities and improvements which: (A) Are reasonably free from hazards, particularly types or levels of automobile traffic which would interfere with or discourage pedestrian or cycle travel for short trips; , (B) Provide a reasonably direct route of travel between destinations such as a transit stop and a store; and ' (C) Meet travel needs of cyclists and pedestrians considering destination and length of trip; and considering that the optimum trip length of pedestrians is generally % to 12 mile. Finding 10: In accordance with OAR 660-0l2-0045(3)(d), vacation of the subject right-of-way and closure to public travel would not interfere with or discourage pedestrian, cycle or vehicle travel on the adjacent public street system due to excessive traffic or other unusual hazards. East-west traffic 1-2 circulation can be accommodated on adjacent local and collector streets - particularly A Street, which is located less than 300 feet to the south. Finding 11: In accordance with OAR 660-0 12-0045(3)(d), vacation of the subject right-of-way would not result in pedestrian, cyclist or vehicle trips that are more than l;.l mile from being a direct route of travel between destination points. Figure I illustrates approximate travel distances for all potential modes of travel from one side of the vacated right-of-way to the other. Should the segment ofB Street be vacated and closed to public travel, the maximum out-of-direction distance for passage from the eastern end of the subject right-of-way (at 4th Street) to the western end ofthe right-of-way (at Pioneer Parkway East) would be about 600 feet (<1/8 mile) for bicycles and vehicles using surface streets. Vehicles and bicycles have the option of using either A Street or C Street for the east-west segment of the trip. The out-of-direction distance would be even less for pedestrians using the public sidewalk system, or bicycles and vehicles passing through the mid-block alley north ofB Street. The use of the mid-block alley for east-west passage is not a preferred route for vehicles, but is depicted on Figure 1 for illustrative purposes. Finding 12: Pedestrian passage through the east-west mid-block alley north ofB Street can be accommodated within the existing 14-foot wide paved surface. However, if it is determined that additional pedestrian facilities are required for maintaining safe passage thr<?ugh this alley, this requirement could be implemented at the time of Site Plan Modification for the Justice Center. A Type II Major Site Plan Modification will be required upon vacation of the public right-of-way in order to incorporate the former public right-of-way into the site plan area. Finding 13: Provision of travel routes for cyclists, pedestrians and vehicles would be via the existing public street, alley and sidewalk system. The approximate travel distances shown on Figure I assume travel around the perimeter of each route, and short-cutting through parking lots or similar open areas is not considered. Finding 14: There are existing situations in downtown Springfield and elsewhere throughout the City where portions of the grid street system are not connected and out-of~direction travel is required for cyclists, pedestrians and vehicles. Nearby examples include portions of A Street east of lth Street; A, C, D and F Street east of 14th Street; 8th and 9th Streets north of G Street; and G Street west of 4th Street. Finding 15: A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was prepared by an independent traffic engineering consultant to evaluate the impacts of the proposed right-of-way vacation (Springfield Justice Center Revised Task 2 Report - Traffic Impact Study, Access Engineering, July, 2006). The TIA examined the existing and post-vacation street system in the vicinity of the Justice Center and evaluated the possible impacts of the proposed right-of-way vacation to vehicle movements and the performance of nearby intersections. The TIA concluded there would be minirnal impact on the downtown transportation system with the proposed vacation of public right-of-way. Finding 16: The TIA prepared for the proposed right-of-way vacation also concluded that no traffic mitigation actions would be required to ensure safe and efficient flow of traffic in the vicinity of the Justice Center. Among the simplest and most effective measures to structure traffic movements in the area will be strategic placement of directional signage for the Justice Center. The TIA suggests possible measures to discourage traffic from traveling to and from the downtown core using nearby residential streets, including placement of STOP signs at key intersections and installing curb extensions to prevent undesirable turning movements. Finding 17: Special vehicles, such as transit buses, can be accommodated on adjacent public streets (primarily A Street). There is one transit stop for west-bound buses that is located within the segment of B Street proposed for vacation. Relocation of the bus stop can be done in consultation with Lane Transit District. 1-3 Figure 1 - Approximate Travel Distances .... . '-'.1:.-' :...;. - I. '.:G) . )! ... .... ~ .. .. :.... 'i' i .' ... .. . . .... .'..../' . , ~ .......... . i.... ..... . .. .. G) . ...... . G) .:1 >., ..<i .....~. ...., .......; :.1.!! 'dl ;'l ". ......... in "1 .....1 ~~ Iii.. ..... ..c ..--}_~ I. I .. .. ...... . 1 li< .. ,........ :. "'i. . ... ,...;.: I.; ,......... .. .... ..... I. I:: ..........,. ....... r, .... .... ........ . ..... . .. ... .:.: ..... ... .... .'.' : ....'......; .. ......... ....... ...:.... 'lii':.'</ """'<:... . ..... .' ..G)/" ....... ..... ,'. : G) ..... " ... .... . .:G) 'i I.:.. .... ... g ....... '.' . ....., I :.. :;; .i< ...1.. ,.........,.. ,'..... .,....... 7 I" .........\ .t~:ii..i.: - , . :." ...,... .... ..' ..:: '.' .... :': . .'."./ .. ... >i :-....<. ... ..... ... i / . .....,. i: ....:.. ,i ......: .:':.. :...... ':..1'::; r. .'i.:;.: \/:.:.:-;,;:; I ...,.. i'. .. .........:..:.:-../~. .. ..... . <.. ..../..... ........ .... -300 feet .... :......... ...,.... ...:.....- >= ..,:.... I ,. .... . . .... ........;. . ... .... ,. ....F' '-' LI 'i,.:::, :; ;.:'.i.d': .... i'<.;. .......:. ,.,......'...:..../: . .. ....... I. . ....... ..... :.,';"' ........ .... .'.:;::< d." .,.,.;" ...... ';':":.,. ...... .. .... ... .. .. .'.':" ..... ..... en '.. ... ........... .... .... ......... ... . . ...... ..... ",' . .... .... ..:. . ....... ... .:-. ro..:' . .......... ... . ...... ... .. "':" ... . ...... ....: .'.:. ......... ... .,.. ... ..' ......';;..,. .... ..../I~. ...,' ... ......:,'.....J .~ .'. ..::,........ ......'. <'. ;(.>. .... :......:...... i 1.1 I.' .:- ro I /..1 .:: ... - ,.r'i<I;' ......... ~... 1< ./1.1) I. ~ 1..1 .... J I.r <'.. r I' J.', .." . ... ...'...... '",,'i .........8:. I ........ i.. ~: 1./ ....,...... .... ..... !:.. ,. .' ...... ..,.... ...<:~. I.... ........ ,..':':; . ..... .' ",.. ........... .. .....1; ......... I . .:' .. ~." .... ......... .... '.' t.1 ......... .........1 . ""1 :'.;.' ..........Ii'(... liiii if I. ..~. ~~~;II · I I · .,~, ~,)C Main ,,,,..... ....... .",i.~ i ... I ....... I.... J . ..... c Street.....::....;.:..:. .....' I ...:....: ".:.::'. .......... ...:.., ...:...........:.:.::..., < ':I/il .... . .ii: '.,.'./..::' . ""'.i .ii' I. .....: ...;.... . ........ /. ..."'." ...... .....:.BStreet . ...:~., ..... ...... ./.....< .. ,......:............ '. .' ..............,. .... :- "'; :-.';/ / :' . </.i:. .... ::.. . " ..../ .' . '.... .... :i'../, ............ .c-. ........ ..... .. .. .......;\; .......:.... .,':'i" WJ H :1 . ~"" .. . ..'d . ", '. .... ....,. c J , rc '- I. _ .'! ~d ~: ~.~ , ~. . .... ... ./..:..) -~uu reel.... . ..... .... ., i... .. :- .... ....... I. .. ...... .... ... .. ..... ...300 feet ... ., --- . Right-ot-way proposed tor vacation . ~ Travel directions and approximate distances ........ Out-of-direction travel directions and distances 1-4 Conclusion: Staff have concluded that the proposed right-of-way vacation will have no adverse effect on safety, connectivity or maintaining reasonably direct travel routes for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles. As proposed, the public right-of-way vacation complies with Criterion (c). (d) Whether a greater public benefit would be obtained from the vacation than from retaining the right-of-way in its present status; and Finding 18: The right-of-way presently contains a two-lane collector street with sidewalks on both sides. Upon vacation of the right-of-way, the subject area would be incorporated into the project area and used for secure police parking and Justice Center ancillary facilities. The right-of-way would be closed to all public travel. The Springfield Police Department advises that a secure parking lot - close to the Justice Center building - protects public property (including police vehicles and case evidence stored in the ancillary building) and enhances emergency response times as responding officers do not have to cross public streets to reach their vehicles. Finding 19: Jerry Smith, Springfield Chief of Police, submitted a memo in support of the proposed right- of-way vacation (Attachment 3) which reads as follows: Importance of B Street Closinf! to the Justice Facility Proiect "The purpose of this memo is to summarize for the Planning Commission the importance of closing B Street as part of the Justice Center project. As designed, the area currently occupied by B Street would become part of a fenced and secured parking area. . Closing B Street is necessary for the security of portions of the facility: The planned Justice facility includes an ancillary building that will be a repository for evidence in criminal cases; storage for police and court records; and storage for specialized police equipment and weaponry. Closing B Street will allow the entire ancillary building and parking lot to be fenced in, significantly improving the security of these records and evidentiary items. Without the security fencing in place, the ancillary building as designed does not provide sufficient security for these items. . Closing B Street will provide secure fleet and employee parking: To date, Department vehicles and employee parking has not been secured by fencing. While this does not cause significant issues during normal working hours, the Department has experienced damage to fleet vehicles, and employees have suffered damage to their personal vehicles, during late evening and early morning hours. Damage has rangedfrom paint scratches to slashed tires and broken windows. . Closing B Street will improve the safety of police officers and citizens: The street closure will allow officers responding to emergency calls from in~ide the building to access their vehicles without crossing a public right of way, thereby reducing the risk of an accident during an emergency response. . Closing B Street will provide a secure area for evacuation of municipal jail prisoners: The fenced area will sr;rve as an outdoor holding areafor municipal jail prisoners in the event that the jail must be evacuated. Without the street closure and fencing, there will not be an area outside the municipal jail adequate and accessible for holding prisoners. Instead., an evacuation event would necessitate the uncontrolled release of all municipal jail prisoners. " Finding 20: As described in the statement from the Police Chief, the vacated right-of-way will be used for secure police parking and is also designed to provide a fenced-in area that is large enough for evacuation of jail prisoners in the event of an emergency. Provision of a secure muster area for evacuated 1-5 prisoners provides a direct benefit to the jail staff, police personnel, and the public. Finding 21: As noted in the Police Chiefs statement, ensuring responding police officers do not have to cross a public street in order to reach their vehicles enhances safety for both Police Department personnel and public users of the street system. Finding 22: Passage of the Public Safety ballot measure in 2005 that secured public funding for the Justice Center project demonstrates Springfield residents' commitment to the project. Comparatively few people within the City regularly use the segment ofB Street proposed for vacation. However, all Springfield residents (and visitors) benefit from a strong police presence within the community. Conclusion: Staff have concluded that the proposed right-of-way vacation serves a greater benefit to the public than retaining the one-block segment of right-of-way in its present status. The proposed vacation also provides direct benefits to the City's Police Department, which ultimately benefits Springfield residents. As proposed, the right-of-way vacation complies with Criterion (d). (e) Whether provisions have been made to ensure that the vacated property will remain in public ownership. Finding 23: The vacated right-of-way is to be incorporated into the Justice Center development, which is a publicly-funded project. Ownership of the Justice Center building and the land on which it is to reside (which includes the portion of right-of-way proposed for vacation), is to remain with the City of Springfield. . Finding 24: Upon vacation of the right-of-way, the land ownership automatically reverts to the City as it owns the abutting property. Because the ownership ofthe vacated right-of-way does not pass through a third party (which could occur if there were privately-owned parcels fronting onto the right-of-way), remaining in public ownership is. assured. Finding 25: A clause has been added to the enacting ordinance (Attachment 9) providing that in the event the vacated right-of-way ceases to be used for Justice Center purposes it shall revert to public right-of- way. Conclusion: The proposed right-of-way vacation complies with Criterion (e). CONCLUSION In summary, the proposed right-of-way vacation: (a) allows construction of a publicly funded project approved by a vote of the public; (b) increases law enforcement's public presence in the downtown core through construction of a Police, Courts and Jail facility; and (c) provides construction features that increase the security and safety to the City's Police Department and the general public during operations. The loss of public good in terms of vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle connectivity has been demonstrated to be minimal and within State statutes for connectivity under Criterion 9.060(3)(c) of this report and can be reasonably mitigated. Based upon the above findings and testimony contained herein, Staff concludes that the proposed right- of-way vacation for a Justice Center facility (including jail, courts and police station) serves a greater benefit to the general public than retaining the one-block segment of right-of-way in its present status. As proposed, the right-of-way vacation complies with Criterion 9.060(3)(a-e). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed vacation. 1-6 ACTION REQUESTED Approval of the requested right-of-way vacation by adoption of the attached Vacation Ordinance at the Second Reading on July 16,2007. 1-7 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC TESTIMONY AND STAFF RESPONSES Nine people provided testimony at the Planning Commission public hearing for the proposed right-of-way vacation, seven in favor and two opposed. Written testimony opposing the vacation was received from Bob Foster (Attachment 4) and Scott Olson (Attachments 5 and 6). Mr. Olson has provided statements in his testimony dat~d June 12, 2007 that staff wish to address here. Statement I: "I am disappointed that the city has steadfastly refused to consider any alternatives during the project development process which considered tradeofft in the functional and space program with the associated site constraints." Staff Response: The site planning for the Justice Center project examined a wide variety of design options including underground parking, orientation of the jail and police/courts building onto different streets, expansion to adjacent (not city-owned) properties, and possible alternate sites in the downtown area (again, not city-owned). About 15 possible site pIan options were initially developed in consultation with public, stakeholders, staff and the Justice Center project team. The options were critically evaluated and four alternatives were developed for City Council to select for a preferred design option. Mr. Olson acknowledges that tradeoffs were made, but staff contend that the functional and space program was only one factor examined during the preliminary site planning phase. ' Statement 2: "Twelve years ago the city improved B Street at a cost of$875, 000. The improvements to the collector street were paid for with federal funds. If B Street is severed from the arterial at Pioneer Parkway, immediately adjacent to the proposed street closure, B Street will no longer function as a collector. As a local street, the improvements would not have been eligible for the federal investment in the street improvements. The value of B Street both in terms of improvements and function has not been considered in city decisions to pursue the street closure. The value of the investment the public made in improving B Street in 2007 construction costs is over $1.2 million. It has been suggested that the city could be obligated to repay the federal government if the street is indeed closed." . Staff Response: A portion ofB Street from 14th Street to Pioneer Parkway East (approximately 4,400 lineal feet) was rehabilitated in 1997 at a total cost of$759,676.11 (Project #1-882). The apportioned project cost for the subject one-block area (approximately 300 feet or 7% of the 4,400-foot long project area) would be about $52,000.00. A funding transfer was arranged with Oregon Department- of . Transportation (ODOT) that involved substitution of eligible federal funds with state funds. The city used a $400,000 federal allocation to obtain more timely state funding ($376,000) for the entire project. Based on the lineal footage, the state-funded portion of the one-block segment proposed for vacation is less than $26,000. As a result of the funding transfer with ODOT (and because the funds were provided to the city without "strings attached"), there is no direct federal involvement with the B Street upgrade project and the city would not be required to repay any government agency - state or federal- if the one- block segment of the street is closed to public traffic. Additionally, the remaining 13 blocks ofB Street from the intersection of 4th Street to 14th Street are not affected by the proposed vacation and will remain open to public travel. Statement 3: "The city approved a zone change from Mixed Use Commercial/Nodal Developmen( to Public Land and Open Space/Nodal Development because a Justice Center is not listed in the MUC/NDO District. None of the staff reports reviewing the project['sJ history have mentioned the fact that several months prior to making the zone change application the city added Justice Centers as an allowed use in the PLO/NDO zone. The project was not an allowed use at the site at the time the city asked voters to fund the project." Staff Response: This statement is not entirely true or false. The specific use of "Justice Center" was not listed in the Public Land and Open Space (PLO) District at the time voters approved the concept of having a large-scale facility combining police, law courts and municipal jail constructed in Springfield. 1-8 However, key components of the Justice Center, including courts, administrative offices and public offices (including detention facilities) are individually listed in the PLO and Mixed Use Commercial (MUC) Districts, and were already present on the site. It is notable that public offices are listed as a Permitted Use in the MUC District. Although there is provision in the Springfield Development Code (SDC) for interpreting new or undefined uses that are similar to already-defmed uses (or that could be reasonably grouped into a familiar category) the City logically deemed it desirable to have the Justice Center specifically defined and listed in the applicable Development Code district. To this end, the City facilitated review and approval of the Justice Center development by adopting necessary Development Code amendments once the project funding was secured, and prior to selecting a preferred site option. The Code amendments were adopted through standard, state-mandated public procedures that involve public notification, public hearings and acceptance by the state Department of Land Conservation and Development (Case LRP2005-00031). It also should be noted that a Justice Center is not an "allowed" use, but is listed as a Discretionary Use which requires an additional public review and land use approval step. Approval of the Discretionary Use - allowing for further consideration of a Justice Center at the selected location - was granted by the Planning Commission on Aprill8, 2006 (Case DRC2006-00013) after a public hearing. When the Justice Center site option was selected by City Council, the 14 City-owned tax lots within the footprint ofthe Justice Center were zoned a combination of Mixed Use Commercial (eight lots) and Public Land and Open Space (six lots). A rezoning of the eight MUC lots to PLO was completed to create a uniform zoning for the entire project site (Case ZON2006-00007). The rezoning was approved by the Planning Commission on Aprill8, 2006 after a public hearing. Statement 4: "The city has failed to appropriately provide for public involvement in a meaningful way throughout the planning process. A citizen advisory committee (CA C) was formed 'to provide input throughout the design process in regard to outward design of the facility and its relationship to downtown Springfield'. I volunteered for the CAC and during mY interview for the position I informed the city council of my opinion with respect to the street closure and indicated a desire to work on appropriate alternatives. " Staff Response: Mr. Olson is critical of the City's "failure to appropriately provide for public involvement". Mr. Olson has served as a member of the Citizen Advisory Committee for the Justice Center. The CAC has met over a dozen times since the project inception to discuss the various site planning issues affecting the Justice Center. This does not necessarily mean, however, that all recommendations ofthe CAC or its individual members have been adopted by the Justice Center Project Team, the Planning Commission or City Council. In his testimony, Mr. Olson acknowledges that the majority ofCAC members voted in favor of the site design option eventually selected by City Council. In addition to the regular CAC meetings, there have been numerous public open house meetings, information sessions, newspaper advertisements, media announcements, City website postings, and neighborhood mail-outs over the 18+ month period since the Justice Center project was formally initiated. A list of public meetings for the Justice Center project (from preliminary discussions through to final site selection and building design) is attached to this staff report as information (Attachment 6). The public meetings discussed above do not include at least seven formal land use actions undertaken to facilitate the Justice Center project, all of which required public notification (see Table I below). Additionally, at his request, Mr. Olson has been personally notified of public hearings pertaining to the Justice Center, particularly the B Street vacation. Despite the numerous mailouts, advertised public hearings and multiple land use actions that have occurred up to this point - all of which have made overtures for public and stakeholder involvement - Mr. Olson is among the few individuals that have submitted any testimony in opposition to the Justice Center project. None of the land use actions approved to this point have been appealed. 1-9 Table J Public Involvement for Justice Center (PlanninQ and Land Use Actions) Planninq' Action Case Number . Public Involvement Opportunities Development Code Amendment to LRP2005-00031 Public Hearings November 1,2005; November 28, add "Justice Center" to Article 2:3 2005; January 4,2006 & January 17,2006 Zone Change ZON2006-000 12 Public Hearings March 21 & April 18, 2006 300-foot mailout notification to neighborhood Discretionary Use DRC2006-000l3 Public Hearings March 21 & April18, 2006 300-foot mailout notification to neighborhood Vacation of mid-block alley LRP2006-000 19 Public Hearings June 20, 2006; July 5, 2006; July 17, 2006 & September 18, 2006 400-foot mailout notification to neighborhood Site Plan Review DRC2006-00033 300-foot mailout notification to neighborhood Development Code Amendment to LRP2007 -00002 Public Hearings March 13 & 19,2007 modify Article 9 Vacation criteria Vacation of onecblock segment of LRP2007 -00019 Public Hearings June 5 & 19,2007 B Street Public Hearing July 2, 2007 400-foot mailout notification to neighborhood Statement 5: "The city cannot ensure continue! d] public ownership! of the vacated portion of public right-olway] because it does not own the property until it is vacated. Once vacated there is no way of preventingfitture city councils from selling the property to a private party." Staff Response: Again, this statement is not entirely true or false. The City has latitude in its use of public right-of-way and could close the street to public travel temporarily or permanently without vacating the right-of-way. The Justice Center project is intended to be a long-term (50+ year) occupant of the selected site. However, to address this issue, a clause has been inserted in the enabling ordinance that causes the vacated area to revert to public right-of-way in the event the vacated right-of-way ceases to be used for Justice Center purposes (Attachment 9). Statement 6: "The street vacation cannot meet any of the three criteria previously established in the code. " Staff Response: The "previous" criteria referred to by Mr. Olson have been superseded by Development Code amendments to Article 9 (Vacations) criteria adopted April 2, 2007. The subject vacation request was submitted after the criteria came into effect. Therefore, this statement is irrelevant to the subject vacation request. .1-10 PROPOSED STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION PORTION OF B STREET BETWEEN 4TH STREET AND PIONEER PARKWAY EAST CASE LRP2007-00019 )> -I -I ~)> 1(') .......:::I: 3: m 2: -I ~~!!s.,~~:ff~ifik:ti~%t SUBJ ECT AREA PROPOSED STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION PORTION OF B STREET BETWEEN 4TH STREET AND PIONEER PARKWAY EAST CASE LRP2007-00019 IL--.J ,.--- II \ \ ~-A \ I i IH T iY p,\ i !IJi \\\b RiA"-; ,\\ _.---1 Il, "'." , L ; 1 > i 1 \ \ \ i i l I I !;~ \ \ U-1 I '''-__-...:-..0 ~\ \,1 ------.J i.--.-i " or""-" I \ \ I j....... ! \ \ i i'~-~ \ i-r L_ 1 \ i-I rr-Tli \ i : I . I ; ~-:-.~ 1 I Ii' I c. -'-_~ j /-TTJ-1/ ,Till '''- I I LL..t_d" I . . I r"r-/-rl il r-!~'i I J . L-..L..L-_-I L-L..1__ I i i IT II 1 r'''-~'-,...J ! -, CST \1 ! I I I I i1lm;-ii"1 LLJ i I ;' I ! I ' ! bd_JtLt~j Ii I \_-11 1 ,-......:r......, I.L....._..... . "- ....:::.L ' . 1 .1 Ii,' .r I ,..-.....,. "1-'1 __..7:::::;=:= j! i iI 1 i J II! 1 \81 I BSTU ii!~ I__~~j I...... L-L--1 . >-1 j Ii f i ! j r-r--~-- :~]]:[J ~i I ,f-j Iii __ I l !~ 11 ' ! 1€ ~..--=---:-.:.=--:! in I J--Lf--r.'. 1-_1 in ---- . in;--.l-Htj l I t i I ! Ul iI I ;1 I' '~I I ~~.- ,..--------; I a: I i 1>- ; i I I I. !....I .,." Iii ---" w=----J.-,--.~< !~. ; 1 I ! ~ . 1 I ___..~~ w I~ . --~- L --LL...--l \ ... I I ' '-1 ~;--- -:,i~ 'itmfEJ rin~--' r'4 \ i i I I a., I '0.1' I II I I ~-==-' L-1-~a:' I ',UJI i I ~ ~ I r-y-"'- W 'r--- .,.~-.~ '^ \ Iii I' 1 ; i '~ !: I I 1r-r-'nTTT'! I r:r J._.J \ i I I I ,,10'1 iii II Illi' I i f- r L........ ---1--_._: -.-\-..L...LLJ.K.J LJLl Ll..J.LLill J co .~:;7- ".---1 ..------., ~'_, MAIN ST . ;?::'/ i~ ~~L,_.1 I r T 1 '[1m lll-rrlTTl i~1 '"//-::~~:'L-~ ~.~~2- .ell "~~-.L... I I ,~/<:// i i i ~.I ~---~.' '-=-=':::'------.' --...l, I ~ (i i ; '\; '\ l 1 ;! i ----"'""-...-__.. -~-'--"""--J r-._..:L........j ! '-, !! ill ---.--- l~J;:::r:::( I I H "" Iii I I -..-------- -_., -. I II '<..-.f------l i ! T-,_. .........."--.........., / 1 -........--..........,-. i [ ! . 1-- ;, ....."'__...! I _'Wi I . '--.......... 1_____ I '"'''>.. -../ ---~~-- ~--- ----. i .i----.. r----.,,---------.. -.-- '-, r-l I I 1 ....--r----;:;r-----_______ l. "--~ i LJ ilL I v/ /------....-'~ . -"--.. --J.__~ -_,.~ /- ------_____-..............-__... I ! '/ !: -----, ' -- '- '~f)]+:j>"i' ... . are;'" wa,.;.ande1that '<>-;- :c, ',:::;:/f.k~,!'os;'_ume.,49,reJPfl~ii]ai,l)~.(or.a~v: ~:;:rf.[.~~10're;~fi0~fr.g Cjif -- :::-,-- SUBJ ECT SITE \ \ l~\\ II ~= :=j \ I~ i t__ I EI'--r- = I, I L.. I ! i f-- l I i L_ ~'-'n I I I' ! n (--I '-_L,_L_..1 r-"rTlTi I I i I I i L---L.J..lu EST p=rp !--__Lu !"m--I I I I U' L..l-l._ I DST iT"!~ f--. I I I H 1 l' i ! I will L.J..J-L11 I 1-.-- \ \ \ _\;'1..-'1.'. --T-I.r-y-TTl _, ,! i.! I I I \=-' i i I II! i I --r\ ~ w_.....L~.____. 'I 1 ~L I-j-" j -i) \ I I 1 L_-L-l__J_....J 2-2 Springfield, OR 1[1 +ir-r I ! ~ Ii rf '-..1-- .--..,.- l-J ~ ! ; I I I i L' . ....!.....-l HifF F= F1' ,.-----,.-., Ii: I ! ; f- ='T" I I L._L... T- ,....---,-- -.- =~TT'-1 [IT '-'1! i-j L I i -_J I r I 1'- I : , ~.L,-L... ~-=i i PROPOSED STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION PORTION OF B STREET BETWEEN 4TH STREET AND PIONEER PARKWAY EAST CASE LRP2007 -00019 SUBJ ECT SITE Springfield, OR 13900 r----.-;----,-----.-l 17-03-35-24 I ' I i I 14000 I I ! ! 141 00 14300 I I- CI) ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ 0::: ~ Cl. 0::: w w Z o Cl. 0> IX:! :g B STREET 264100' . I '1'-.--1 1700 I I I! i I 1900 ! 17-03+35-31 I , I I I ~------1____. I j ! ! '---7-..-,-----1 . I I" ! j , I I I I I ' i , i ! I I I ii, I ! i I I I l___-L .1 Ii! -.----L_--L- j ; -----___1 1600 1500 I i I I i t 1800 , I . I i I- CI) J: l- v A STREET r--.._,,-. Ii.... -;'" ii' I ' i .j 1 I I 2-3 PROPOSED STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION PORTION OF B STREET BETWEEN 4TH STREET AND PIONEER PARKWAY EAST CASE LRP2007-00019 SUBJ Eel SITE Springfield. OR i 1 i - I L___-L r-----...-T.--.--.-T.-----I~.-.'-.-, I .' . i i 17-03b5-24 I i , I I I .! 13900 14000 14100 14300 ! 'I I I , 264.00 ~ ---- ---00---- - --- - 'u-----rn;;;;;;;;;9 ---000000_ 00____ ___n__:___u__u u___ __u ;:... . 0 .." ~. J. 0.40 acre ~ ____u_n___ __u__ ____u___ --~?~_uu__n __00_____ -____u__u___uu_ ____ _. co B STRE ET I- en <( w >- <( s: ~ a::: <( c.. a::: w w z Q c.. 1800 264100' .1 , 1700 1600 I I I i i i i . j ( r~~-.-----i 1500 I ! I I , I 17 -o3L35-31 i I i i i i I I r.------t-.----+---r---+--.--~ , i 'I' I I' I ' 'I . II i I I ! I I i i i I . I I Ii, j . I i I' . L.__I i i ,..~---.--J...-_~_,~""_~~...........J:__ j 1900 _ i I- en I I- 'V i i i I __..--1 A STREET ---'. I r .. .,-----r- . i . i . i ! ! ; i "I . ;' r 2-4 en ::r: f- f- U) o z ~ f- U) f- f- f- ::r: f- U) U) f- f- f- U) ~ U) U) :r: E :r f- :r: ~ f- ~ :N t. 1 \ j ! ; i i- Total Length of B Street . ) From Mill Street to 16th Street: 6117.83 Feet (1.16 miles o 250 500 Feet I I ME M 0 RAN DUM_CITY OF SPRINGFIELD COMMITTED TO EXCELLENCE May 16, 2007 TO: Andy Limbird FROM: Jerry Smith, Police Chief SUBJECT: Importance ofB Street Closing to the Justice Facility Project The purpose of this memo is to summarize for the Planning Commis~ion the importance closing B Street as part of the Justice Center project. As designed, the area currently occupied by B Street would become part of a fenced and secured parking area. . Closing B Street is necessary for the security of portions of the facility: The planned Justice facility includes an ancillary building that will be a repository for evidence in criminal cases; storage for police and court records; and storage for specialized police equipment and weaponry. Closing B Street will allow the entire ancillary building and parking lot to be fenced in, significantly improving the security of these records and evidentiary items. Without the security fencing in place, the ancillary building as designed does not provide sufficient security for these items. . Closing B Street will provide secure fleet and employee parking: To date, Department vehicles and employee parking has not been secured by fencing. While this does not cause significant issues during normal working hours, the Department has experienced damage to fleet vehicles, and employees have suffered damage to their personal vehicles, during late evening and early morning hours. Damage has ranged from paint scratches to slashed tires and broken windows. . Closing B Street will improve the safety of police officers and citizens: The street closure will allow officers responding to emergency calls from inside the building to access their vehicles without crossing a public right of way, thereby reducing the risk of an accident during an emergency response. . Closing B 'Street will provide a secure area for evacuation of municipal jail prisoners: The fenced area will serve as an outdoor holding area for municipal jail prisoners in the event that the jail must be evacuated. Without the street closure and fencing, there will not be an area outside the municipal jail adequate and accessible for holding prisoners. Instead, an evacuation event would necessitate the uncontrolled release of all municipal jail prisoners. ATTACHMENT 3-1 $Jt2 C{r SfJrt'''l-Be-kl ('(~ f7k-, ;iW~!~:;:'9G /. l/ /-IC!/1I1PrJ I ....----...--. --.. r 'p..il1l<. ~ A~{;-e a prc6{PflL1 - - 610 C!2)117o. o-f-f- B s+ a--s.I.k.~.' Q':7 c<rf-€{/'/~'q:/' , ,,' ~<<7 /;t{/~.." / -fo ~u;(d '~ f1r)stTr'j5;oG)I!c:e~ s)cn-r /s' not a JDCJ4 ;~ C'(f cf// po~ S'<<r ~ a /61 /-v1W<<( €? t ~ S~ I\-fr~ -p Cr~~ ~c?l! oIaWI1 ;f sfl &7~k C S-f. cq res//,tl/? ..L -'"' -L ~_,~) J'. -L .~~... // ~ s{~/ c< oc<s-/-er 0'{r-~_ c/~d~.)/~~Jncfled~~ ~ ~ ~~. t:J/.</(~, 'ur jJNSC-Z"'i/ ~ /"/1<?tft~ fU/t er{? Sp,JI1 /~6(_. /7DT- .6kk q MC(jr,., '7 sfN?d' lode? -f!1l5" A4~ ~ ~ ?u.-R 1 to ~ ~--(V;zd;Pf.. .T~/S ~~;v, ~~'t4j~ , Ud- hi fU ~/-:I(I/~ ;I- ~ ~ . 6 tL//f; ~ wfEP5' 1/ ~ 'Ju-e" 0/ II U~ ~ iT ~ r &uti! -6tdi2 qnr8 -f~ fi07&2J r!1;-R~, 'k {;Ot j/ .r c(~~ sh;:~ w I '~~ ut:7fr~ 11~-C:ir ~/S f7h<-R'P-<.e .;r s/r41JIJ .5~ ?h5c>1vJ" .tr- More: ~~-~ " ;r~ ~ //1 ~uor o-f' -t~ CV(rr?h-r, C{)t1s-fl/ud/~ I~ ..h~~6'7 c:cC'ces5" 10_ (' ~ 1ftZJ!il1 ped of{iCR-i1<-< c:O}/M,Q;; Gd~ :f y~ . -T lU&;c&/f In-t(.M 1Ayj,~/...e ~ ~ ' 4houI' Y/i15~r~rIr/mzI h1€eII/~ ~- ::TT4-lf7~ ~..7 d4~ ;<4u-<<J 63~vr- '~'1' ~ -tf~ -to? c7 I?(cu~~ d'r:f/ k or COnJ/dr4 ~ ~ Ilk.!/U--R ~ OJpsR (tvU'l;~ 0 ... . /~ .:;::--f -fuue UJdL4 C< ~ ~/ :1 lj) ov-d {)fie ~ 0 . 1 . ". ff ../'/'-I./7.tr!- re;G'f!:2LLe -ft/"ot~ -r ~ { It:-k"- r ...:. ~ ji-e4~ 4~&rt~~oCHl // " CU!-q. ~ . /)1'/ -r." ..erfr4 ~... p50 1 ~ --{J(rv! .. .A~ -f-~ ti)CVJ 0 CJ r'= '1; wol~ " (, " dJ c/l &xI ~~ ... ..... ~I ~.o ". f-,tl& eo- pt5 . (7Lh-3~o1J I RECEIVED J JUN 0 5 2006 BY: ac;z 4-2 if JZcvt S) rf) (J lea~ 0( ()l1of [/a cede B ~~ W 7'4 Jj?/ \ J::i ' ({ , v ,~ RE(;FTI/ED -r / -II /:' d' J--; . FEB Z 200- j tJcJff!vr -r/f1 /' 'k /'3 B:' I I ,r' ( /1II1:/cr ;ACC)/l/Jet1/eflcp- dfiulltl -ftJ ~ ell; Irq//.-- elkJ1 . tda(/1~J ~ (At J;b riff- " P!~45! recc;tJ7~ parfJfll r C/fr5 d 5~ 1()~;/1 C/&r~ /flsfd-lfr W~ -eSf- ~ ...OJ ~ d- 32MI-.IA:v,""', ~- '~tJ" j},J) :.-,.t2/ 1M sure . ',' ',' ~ ~ (Us# ~J (j:)e ~ ~jJ ---, &J-- W.fV1e KI1[JUJ rW < .,- ~~ ~ ~ ~c6s/Kf. If:s;f '. . ~ per;:! t:!11~ J. t.-jiJHg~ef7l~ _...~ : -r~~'dIO/R ;11 ~: :.c:f1~~ ~,~ ' f'ltv,flC!tJ5tfre. 5~ . . ,~ 4-3 ?1 b a ({)eff' ])5-/,# I ~ %- /J y)~ Ci -f/,~!'It;/)f>)~ 97.1/77 4-4 g-p .,~ . '::,,-~l; "UN/I::_ G ,,,, " Z - . '....., \ ~ ~ '10",:,. \I\~.'_ a -< U . , 'tn ~ ~<~.~ . ~ "'""\ \)" ~ UJ '-- ~ ~ :H '1t ~ r~t l~ it~'!\.b... ~ ~ 7 \:;;0 ~. . ~~ "". )~~.' 1m. .. ~ ) I~ ~ GJ ~.' \. . t;Y8';. b ~ \ ~g~,~, ~~. ':~.f~.. ' ~:~l ~.' ~ ~~~. .. :~l ~_ ' ~ ....1 .,.. -.,.~ -+ ~ ::, ~~~; 1: ':\ ~ \... .", ~}[1~ - \:y ~.~~ ~ L/,\ ~.~ 1\ ~: ,Gs1 ~ "v, ~\ ~ :i. ~ ~ ". ~ ~ . ""-j ""~ M <.J. [..i. ~T) rtl m tt c: iJ C'J ~~f ~ ~~. rn , . ~t ....,~ ,;). .,.~ ,.....':; 4~ .. ~~,,:;: , .~ 'S\ ~ ........,~.:.~ :.~.~':;~ ~~\~ ~~] ~ ( . """."-? ~~: l\'J . c,\ ~: . -:t.:. ~\ f.A.: ~i i.~ -\'R.~ . :.. ~ ~ 'f ~~; ~ i i ~ . .j. . "c;' ~ ~ . i ~ ~ ~i~~.. .~ 1 ~ ~ i. 1 '. , j ....... ~'i,; ~~ ~ 1:1 ~ '., ! . ~~. ~ "1 ~ 0\, ~ ~. ~.~. ~'~~, ~ 11. J ''-'\' ~ ~ ; ~.l~.r~ H\ J ., ~~ 'r" z: ~ . ~~i . . i...,..,.,.. k ~ u::.~ , ,,~.~~. ~~, ~ if rJ."',' ".t ( · I 1 .i :f \. . :\: \ \\\ '\ ,j)..A:M. ;4~ar ~e/*el1 J dttcX C/(Y ~cil N~~ . .cJ ,~ ~ ~ cc ~ : ~sd Yo..JJ/od: 1ffP ~ . ~ rr- 4iA- f)ti J>I .e'fTM<?I1€Pl/'fj- ,-~~ 7tJ -{!rw If C?CM?? ~~ ) q dlI1tJm/euce 10 6.e.. 10 ~.. ~ k!J7 C yf :+0 yr (t; ...~ Hd!; tllrU</j I az ~ II ~ ,~ . IL~~/~ 51 ~ lu~/. ~ c(e5d. _ . ._..... ......Ip-",,,, // ..-pt ~-f ~/S ... ~ L; TM- ~ ..tff ft--e ~ /A _ .jIJ~/. ~ ~ ...u-zKi; ~ -/1d- iJ~~;CftU3w~ . . /~,. ~ -:T ?J- ~~ fi4o/ fCJ2 4d)L :T CljM vePy ~. 'h ~13S1-6~ 006 ~. .. , ~ ;p u~ ~ 5)7fu:rGefiI !/~~ '.J- ~/1A. dh/A~ ~~,-.J1~ J-~ 4-6 fA,~- {AJ~ be~ -fir a:r ~teJ)"-71 v~(o~'~~ ~ tr:J cMd {{Sf? a..rqrt~. . ~ 1_r/;,< ~ .5Or7Irl;;~ n p j;Jr1.~. ..:17. ~ ~ . ~ ' AI J ~ r; ~~'~.Jh ..,. - I ~~~~~~/l1 ~. ' .. eO; C hS'~. fjf, {3~ 2/? ,;16 ~ iv~' "'~ -- ~ ~ ~ , , "'" / ~'Io~~' ',," ~ ~ vZ? ( !Iffi~ ~,~A---c !5J' ~ /t!:e ~ ~ ,~ 1M- ;0 1$/ ~ ()~ ))::;-f%o) wefJ~ ~ ~tJ7~~ ~ ~4; ',I-/j9-~- &( C; n -'a..., -:. /J. t? /JI'/(~p.a / ~ /:;;..::1 $~u1 ~1W~~ ~ ~ .J/f1~l/EJ'Cf ~ f~ ,fd/ ' ~~u(;v~- ~ ' !MgV! O~j)fi.ff-;ta.~ , ~ 6Yt'ff~ ~ ~~ 11il~tiJe (b ~e~ ~-' -,~ 6i11t5.~ l:f:;t;' No.'~ rg Co~ iq.. ~C:ltb//ze ~ ~~ ~ 1<ffI!7r-n" '7' ,I'. :/ 5t~'r(;;Jf{:^ - R~WdtI. ~ ,,' ,/._ ~n'-jV {.L{y-ztv'~ .... A _.. JA. ..1 };W1n1J ~~ ~Jd))~:"U.. -X-t.?Lfb---38cYt) ~!J'rt~ &J?~s;f-=#( C()LpJ ;jJ~ AV1J~ L;~+ fIQ~~~tl:;siClt( J req[;& -rh- do5.tUQ -tfr7 Jj SIted- a:1 %cJ7~ is 11f4<t -hA~jle/l ~ -r ~ ~ /VlO/onsls woqld~ s~ ~4rrqt/l/~11d2Id~~ ,~__ . dec1c!:-ed. . 7;.JrtR~ ~ <:/iM f, _ -01 I~ vtA ~~tt~ I '>'>1~ C<.~-!~~~/-(~0~ r/nlY-< HJ~~~ 71<-A ~. . l--fl~~' ~(}.,<A ~~'~~ ~ ~ -<2A~.~ ~ ~ a-_(J~ . lJ l^-t"^~ B S'ireZ:I h ~ ~ -;-~ --:;e- (( . des) .(.Sf 0) JJ3~ , . ~/+~ t:s ofc:r710'~ -~~:-:~~~ ~:ft;:;13~~z . I ~ //. /'A'O~ Vyv; Jr~ ~ -r- ~ ~;::;;z;, ~--G ~ ' ~ ~.~6z5.~~ -/6..~ . fv7&~~'. . - . ~J#! fWc p6SfOff,C:Z . B ~ ~ . b ~ ~ -fen Y<<5'1 ~ I ( P<. lA..U2 ~ (;W.e(f-11 ~e:J-r psi. - . :]: u.rzrz.A. 0.<:J ex.. vCJ/~ o:::rSyJn'rt';(}e4, tihVd./V.JJ 50 ~ ~/~i Sd ,:;-~ ~ ~ ~ SS1_ {I'~ kg ~.~ . 11~ ;;}!J~fa~~'131- '~. .. I ~ ' ~~Jv.-X)ot-~ cd? jJ5f.~~ sf--rei;foff~q 4-8 . 5~ '3'- ~ A~ fJqy~~~y- et(V1A/v~.cW- S~-p~ Sf- f~ fE:.rC?Zl;Jtj.~ :r;[/~$ ~.C<Sl[)~ -J '~~-eC;~ ~~ ~~. i1JLfl!a/'vl1/~ ~ r~ V&t.N-Q ~~ JIM..- 7~~~ia ~I v-SVA fLo ;J: dc7;;t~ !BS1. ~~~~qjd~~ 0] ~ tv-&P.IJ~ ft-Z ~ GV{ BJ$-- -Gn~ -fo~~. '. :;PI I S.~ ~~ a 'C0/{U~hc:z .~) .//kR- .G~ ~~ ~ . CC( ~~)c.~ - ~ !Tt:~ w~ 1J01~r--Ah. J., V(/,;..p.~.C?L.. -' I / .0-= v - -/~ } ceJ . '1' c:;~ ~ (~ tt:~ ...; /T-~ Q - ffa.Qf ~-)JO'W IT .lso;ao'- -fc:, ~ Q . . ::u .:FT ~ 3ec>,..r) (d-: }-t1o--;c,n'S6 ~ ~ hlo~/~-ft--o-~~~~ ~ ~ I -. ~ ~-/~c-~?4a to c:lo ~ s . ~ 0 7U2j-' . ::r r<e][d, ~ -rJ//S '/':5' .' a:r- ~fT!3 %~llkti.s?cP~4-A · QO, . . DI1Cf2 ~'- ~ cy; ~eaJ) to ~," /<t~...c:& . ~ ~ f3 S:f. .!40~ J~,-~ s~yr/I ~ [JL~ ~Di~XJV1 ~~.. -jp~~~ (2./....'.... .'~~J _ . (}:rW' <?; A-! Ze.J:4 :, Il - G(;:tr 'j~. ~._?fl: A ~.PM. . ~ ;fY< Ic~ ~~ I/~( I~ :'-fle! ';F~-8os J 'Sit- rit:;E5J b- ~ ~ -tt--sz ;L(~J . . ~. r .fcJvD~ 6->~ ~ ~ sf+- ~ k..e 3- -<I ~c:-tfdo-c.t.n1...5eg;.i5' (Ik CZ. -{-err;. (/J~.LV~~ 6e~ h>J~5. · ;k> ~ :?ot3 ~ rb gs;:f- f6 . I ~f-fe fk:?!fn -H-OJf')~~'- Submittal to the record of the city of Springfield Planning Commission Discretionary Use and Zone Change Request (Justice Center) Case Numbers DRC2006-00013 (Discretionary Use Application) ZON2006-00007 (Zo~e Change Request) March 28, 2006 Submitted by: Scott E. Olson, P.E. 1127 B Street Springfield, OR 97477 Comments and assertions of error in the staff report finding.s and' conclusion are presented below. Portions of the staff report are replicated with my comments in arial font following. The staff report identifies the criteria for approval with summary conclusionary findings with little or no discussion of how the application supports the findings. No indication that the applicant has addressed any of the approval criteria in the application is presented in the staff report; The staff report includes; Proposed Findings In Support of Discretionary Use Approval Criterion (I): The proposed use conforms with the applicable: (a) Provisions of the Metro Plan; Finding: The Metro Plan speaks in broad terms about development in the greater Eugene/Springfield urban area, and there are no policies specifically related to Justice Center or correction facility projects. However, the proposal is consistent with the Metro Plan objectives for siting public/government buildings and services in nodal development areas such that population and employment are concentrated in well-defined areas with good transit service and a mixture of compatible land uses (Metro Plan Chapter II-E(4)). Finding: The Metro Plan's Public and Semi Public plan designation provides for the accommodation of major government facilities and office complexes. Springfield's Public Land and Open Space zoning district implements this plan designation in the City. The Justice Center, a large public facility, is proposed to be located within this plan designation and, therefore, is consistent with the Metro Plan Chapter II. Comments: The staff r~port fails to identify that the TransPlan Goals, Objectives, and Policies have been adopted into the Metro Plan. The following is extracted from TransPlan: Under state law, TransPlan is a functional plan of the Metro Plan. The Metro Plan is the official long-range general plan (public policy document) for the region comprised of the 1 Of 16 ATTACHMENT 5-l cities of Eugene and Springfield imd metropolitan Lane County. The Metro Plan establishes the broad framework upon which Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County make coordinated land use decisions. As a functional plan, TransPlan must be consistent with the Metro Plan. Metro Plan amendments required for consistency will be adopted by the elected officials concurrent with the adoption of TransPlan. TransPlan strategies include nodal development and transit-supportive land use patterns, new and expanded TDM programs, and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), in addition to roadway projects that benefit pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists. All of these strategies can increase the attractiveness of transportation modes other than the single-occupant vehicle (SOV). The integration of transportation and land use planning is especially important to support compact urban growth, which provides for more pedestrian-, bicycle-, and transit- friendly environments, rather than urban sprawl that .supports auto dependency. The TransPlan policy framework (Chapter Two) and implementation actions (Chapter Three) are structured around three fundamental components of transportation planning: 1. Land use, 2. Transportation demand management, and 3. Transportation system improvements. The land use component of transportation planning is addressed by TransPlanpolicies and implementation actions that encourage meeting the need for transportation-efficient development patterns, such as nodal development and transit-supportive land use pa~erns. These development patterns reduce trip lengths and auto dependency and support transit, bicycling, and walking. Clearly I The first criteria of "The proposed use conforms with the applicable: (a) Provisions of the Metro Plan;" includes consistency with the applicable elements of TransPlan. Again from TransPlan: Goal #1: Integrated Transportation and Land Use System, Provide an integrated transportation and land use system that supports choices in modes of travel and development patterns that will reduce reliance on the auto and enhance livability, economic opportunity, and the quality of life. Definition/Intent: This goal recognizes the need to .integrate transportation and land use planning to enhance livability, economic opportunity, and quality of life. Integration supports transportation-efficient development patterns and choices in transportation modes that reduce reliance on the auto. Closing off a collector street at it's intersection with an arterial street, diverting collector street traffic to adjacent local street, shutting off pedestrian and bicylce public ways, seeking variances to street connectivity and block length standards in a nodal development overlay zone is not consistent with this goal. 2 Of 16 5-2 Goal #2: Transportation System Characteristics Enhance the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area's quality of life and economic opportunity by providing a transportation system that is: a} Balanced, b) Accessible, c) Efficient, d) Safe, e) Interconnected, f) Environmentally responsible, g) Supportive of responsible and sustainable development, h) Responsive to communitY needs and neighborhood impacts, and i) Economically viable and financially stable. Definition/Intent: The goal is to provide an overall transportation system that provides for all of these needs. Transportation decisions on specific facilities and services will require balancing some characteristics with others. . . a) A balanced transportation system is one that provides a range of transportation options and takes advantage of the inherent efficiencies of each mode. b) An accessible transportation system is one that serves all areas of the community and offers both residents and visitors convenient and reliable transportation options. c) An efficient transportation system is one that is fast and economic for the user, maximizes the mobility available through existing facilities, and leverages as much benefit as possible from new transportation facilities. d) A safe transportation system is one that is designed, built, and operated to minimize risk of harm to people and property and allows people to feel confident and secure in and around all modes of travel. e) An interconnected transportation system is one that provides for ease of transfer between different modes of travel, such as auto to bus or bicycle to rail. . f) An environmentally responsible transportation system is one that reduces transportation-related environmental impact and energy consumption. g) A transportation system that is supportive of responsible and sustainable development integrates transportation and land use planning in support of transportation-efficient development. . h) A transportation system that is responsive to community needs and neighborhood impacts is flexible and adaptable, and addresses transportation-related impacts in residential areas. i) An economically viable and financially stable transportation system is one that is cost efficient; financially feasible; and has sufficient, ongoing financial support to ensure transportation system investments can be operated and maintained as desired. Closing off a collector street at it's intersection with an arterial street, diverting collector street traffic to adjacent local street, shutting off pedestrian and bicylce public ways, seeking variances to street connectivity and block length standards in a nodal development overlay zone is not consistent with this goal. 3 Of 16 5-3 TransPlan Objectives Consistent with the Metro Plan, the following definition is used for TransPlan objectives: An objective is an attainable target that the community attempts to reach in striving to meet a goal. An objective may also be considered as an intermediate point that will help fulfill the overall goal. Objective #1: Accessibility and Mobility Provide adequate levels of accessibility and mobility for the efficient movement of people, goods, and services within the region. Definition/Intent: Accessibility refers to physical proximity and ease of reaching destinations throughout the urban metropolitan area. This objective supports the need for multimodal accessibility to employment, shopping, other commerce, medical care, housing, and leisure, including adequate public transit access for people who are transportation disadvantaged. This objective also supports the need for improved access for tourists to destinations. Mobilityis the ease with which a person is able to travel from place to place. It can be measured in terms of travel time. Access and mobility are provided at different levels on different classes of transportation facilities. For example, a local street has a high level of accessibility for adjacent residences and businesses, with a low level of mobility for non-local traffic. An arterial street has a lower level of accessibility, with a higher level of mobility for through movement of travelers. Local jurisdictions will determine what constitutes adequate levels of accessibility and mobility . and what is efficient movement of people, goods, and services within the region. Provide adequate levels of accessibility and mobility for the efficient movement of people, goods, and services within the region. Closing off streets, rerouting a collector street at it's intersection with an arterial street, diverting collector street traffic to adjacent local street, shutting off pedestrian and bicylce public ways, seeking variances to street connectivity and block length standards in a nodal development overlay zone is not consistent with this objective. Objective #2:'-'Safety Improve transportation system safety through design, operations and maintenance, system improvements, support facilities, public information, and law enforcement efforts. Definition/Intent: TransPlan Goal 2 sets forth safety as a key characteristic of the desired transportation system. This objective supports the need for taking a comprehensive approach to building, operating, and regulating the transportation system so that travelers feel safe and secure. This objective did not intend to result in street closure because it is unsafe for the police. to need to cross a public street to get to the secured vehicle parking area. The objective is aimed at making the street a safe place for all of us. Objective #3: Environment 4 Of 16 5-4 Provide transportation systems that are environmentally responsible. Definition/Intent: This objective places a priority on fulfilling the need to protect the region's natural environment and conserving energy in all aspects of transportation planning processes. The primary intent of this objective can be met through compliance with all federal and state regulations relevant to environmental impact and consideration of applicable environmental impact analyses and practicable mitigation measures in transportation decision-making processes. Significant benefits can be achieved from coordinating the environmental process with the transportation planning process, such as early identification of issues and resources, development of alternatives that avoid or minimize impacts early in the pmject development process, and more rapid project delivery. The region's need to reduce transportation-related energy consumption can be met through increased use of transit, telecommuting, zero-emissions vehicles, ridesharing, bicycles and walking, and through incre~sed efficiency of the transportation network to diminish delay and corresponding fuel consumption. This proposals street closures do not support this objective because it limits access to the transit station, inhibits walking, bicycling, and created out of direction auto travel. Objective #5: Public Involvement Provide citizens with information to increase their awareness of transportation issues, encourage their involvement in resolving the issues, and assist them in making informed transportation choices. The applicant created a citizen advisory committee to assist with siting issues but has refused to consider project alternatives that are within the financial limitations of the project and keep the streets open. The advisory committee recommendation to the City Council was to consider alternatives to the closure of B Street but the Council voted to proceed with street closures. The applicants testimony at hearing was inaccurate with repect to the consitency with the committee's recommendation and the subsequent City Council action and direction to staff. This application also inappropriately ties the street vacation to the discretionary use approval through the proposed conditions of approval yet has not addressed the vacation approval criteria or done the necessary public notice for a street vacation. Objective #7: Policy Implementation Implement a range of actions as determined by local governments, including lan~ use, demand management, and system improvement strategies, to carry out transportation policies. The land use policies in, this area were derived from this objective of TransPlan and it's dependance upon Nodal Development and creation of attractive modal choices. The proposed use is inconsistent with the following policies of TransPlan. Land Use Policy #1: Nodal Development Apply the nodal development strategy in areas selected by each jurisdiction that have identified potential for this type of transportation-efficient land use pattern. 5 Of 16 5-5 The nodes will be pedestrian-friendly environments with a mix of land uses, including public open spaces that are pedestrian-, transit-, and bicycle-oriented. Land Use Policy #2: Support for Nodal Development Support application of the nodal development strategy in designated areas through information, technical assistance, or incentives. Policy Definition/Intent: The intent of this policy is to encourage nodal development through public support and incentives, recognizing that there is public benefit to the transportation and land use efficiencies of nodal development. Land Use Policy #3: Transit-Supportive Land Use Patterns Provide for transit-supportive land' use patterns and development, including higher intensity, transit-oriented development along major transit corridors and near transit stations; medium- and high-density residential development within V4 mile of transit stations, major transit corridors, employment centers; and downtown areas; and development and redevelopment in designated areas that are or could be well served by existing or planned transit. Policy Definition/Intent: The intent of this policy is to encourage more concentrated development and higher density housing in locations that are or could be served by high levels of transit service. By doing so, transit will be more convenient for a greater number of businesses and people and, in turn, the higher levels of transit will be supported by more riders. Land Use Policy #4: Multi-Modal Improvements in New Development Require improvements that encourage transit, bicycles, and pedestrians in new commercial, public, mixed-use, and multi-unit residential development. Policy Definition/Intent: This policy supports efforts to improve the convenience of using transit, biking, or walking to travel to, from, and within newly developed and redeveloped areas. This policy recognizes the importance of providing pedestrian and bikeway connections within the confines of individual developments to provide direct, safe, and convenient internal pedestrian and bicycle circulation. Land Use Policy #5: Implementation of Nodal Development Within three years of TransPlan adoption, apply the ND, Nodal Development designation to areas selected by each jurisdiction, adopt and apply measures to protect designated nodes from incompatible development and adopt a schedule for completion of nodal plans and implementing ordinances. Policy Definition/Intent: This policy was added at the request of the Department of Land Conservation and Development. The nodal development strategy anticipates a significant change in development patterns within proposed nodes. Development of theseareas under existing plan designations and zoning provisions could result in development patterns inconsistent with nodal development. This policy documents a commitment by the elected officials to apply the newlND nodal development Metro Plan designation and new zoning regulations to priority nodal development areas within three years of TransPlan adoption, subject to available funding. 6 Of 16 5-6 TDM Policy #2: Parking Management Increase the use of motor vehicle parking management strategies in selected areas throughout the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area. Policy Definition/Intent: Parking management strategies address both the supply and demand for vehicle parking. They contribute to balancing travel demand within the region among the various modes of transportation available. To promote parking equity in the region, consideration should be given to applying parking management strategies at a region-wide leve"t, in addition to downtown centers. The proposed use will sprawl surface parking thoughout a significant portiqn of the property within the Nodal Development zone, eliminating potential for development more consistent with the objectives of the zone. TSI System-Wide Policy #1: Transportation Infrastructure Protection and Management ' Protect and manage existing and future transportation infrastructure. Policy DefinitionlIntent: This. policy calls for the protection and management of transportation facilities for all modes, within the limits of available funding, in a way that sustains their long-term capacity and function. Given the limited funding for future transportation projects and operations, maintenance and preservation activities, the need to protect and manage existing and future transportation investments and facilities is crucial. Strategies related to access management, TDM, and land use can be implemented to reduce trips and impacts to major transportation facilities, such as freeway interchanges, thereby postponing the need for investments in capacity-increasing projects. Closing B Street, a collector street of recent reconstruction with federal funding assistance, and diNerting traffic to local streets not constructed to the same standard is inconsitent with this policy. TSI System- Wide Policy #2: Intermodal Connectivity Develop or promote intermodallinkages for connectivity and ease of transfer among all transportation modes. Policy Definition/Intent: An intermodal transportation system is one that includes all forms of transportation in a unified, connected manner. An intermodal trip is one that involves two or more modes between the trip origin and destination. Intermodallinkages are the transfer points along the way, such as Park-and-Ride lots. In transit, intermodal transfers allow providers to serve a greater segment of the population. For freight, intermodal transfers allow shippers to take advantage of the economies of each mode, such as truck and rail, to achieve the most cost-effective and timely deliveries of goods.' TSI System-Wide Policy #3: Corridor Preservation Preserve corridors, such as rail rights-of-way, private roads, and easements of regional significance, that are i~entified for future transportation-related uses. 7 Of 16 5-7 Elimination of existing improved public corridors to avoid walking across the street is not consistent with this policy. TSI System-Wide Policy #4: Neighborhood Livability Support transportation strategies that enhance neighborhood livability. . Definition/Intent: Transportation-related impacts on neighborhood livability include excessive intrusion of regional vehicle movement on local residential streets, excessive vehicle speeds, and excessive traffic noise. Strategies aimed at improving flow on arterials, such as access management measures, may draw traffic from neighborhood streets that, based on travel characteristics, should be properly using the arterial. The proposed use is not constent with this policy. TSI Roadway Policy #1: Mobility and Safety for all Modes Address the mobility and safety needs of motorists, transit users, bicyclists, pedestrians, and the needs of emergency vehicles when planning and constructing roadway system improvements. Policy Definition/Intent: This policy supports the design and construction of systems and facilities that accommodate multiple modes. It also supports consideration of the needs of emergency vehicles in the design and construction of system improvements. The proposed use is not constent with this policy. TSI Roadway Policy #3: Coordinated Roadway Network In conjunction with the overall transportation system,. recognizing the needs of other transportation modes, promote or develop a regional roadway system that meets combined needs for travel through, within, and outside the region. Policy Definition/Intent: The regional roadway system must meet the travel needs of motorists, transit users, bicyclists, pedestrians, and commercial vehicles. Characteristics of such a roadway system include adequate capacity and conriections to roads entering the region. TransPlan roadways will be coordinated with the Lane County Transportation System Plan (TSP) roadways and ODOT corridor studies. All roadway system improvements will also be consistent with other adopted policies in TransPlan. The proposed use is not constent with this policy. - TSI Transit Policy #1: Transit Improvements Improve transit service and facilities to increase the system's accessibility; attractiveness, and convenience for all users, including the transportation disadvantaged population. Policy Definition/Intent: Continued improvements to the transit system, including enhancements to the existing transit service, exploration of transit fare alternatives that increase ridership and new and improved transit facilities for passengers, will make transit a more attractive transportation alternative and encourage increased use of transit. 8 Of 16 5-8 This policy also supports maintaining existing facilities in good condition. By restricting pedestrian accessibility the proposed use is not constent with this policy. TSI Transit Policy #2: Bus Rapid Transit . Establish a BRT system composed of frequent, fast transit service along major corridors and neighborhood feeder service that connects with the corridor service and with activity centers, if the system is shown to increase transit mode split along BRT corridors, if local governments demonstrate support, and if financing for the system is feasible. BRT, when combined with other system improvement, land use, and demand management strategies, is expected to increase the share.ofriders who use public transportation. BRTis also expected to help the region maintain conformity with federal air quality standards. BRT, combined with nodal development, is a key strategy in the region's compliance with alternative performance measures for th~ TPR. Closure of streets within the neighborhood of the transit station is not constent with this policy or the very signifcant investment the public is making the BRT system. TSI Bicycle Policy #2: Bikeways on Arterials and Collectors Require bikeways along new and reconstructed arterial and major collector streets. Closing collector streets is not consist with this policy. TSI Bicycle Policy #3: Bikeway Connections to New Development Require bikeways to connect new development with nearby neighborhood activity centers and major destinations. Policy Definition/Intent: This policy recognizes the importance of providing bicycle connectivity between new development, neighborhood activity centers, and major destinations. When new development occurs, connectivity to the regional bikeway system must be provided. In cases where the existing or planned street network does not adequately provide bicycle connectivity, paved bikeways should be provided within residential developments and should extend to neighborhood activity centers or to an existing bikeway system within one-half mile of residential developments. Major destinations may include, but are not limited to, nodal development centers, schools, shopping centers, employment centers, transit stations, and parks. This policy does not imply that a developer would be required to provide bikeways through undeveloped adjoining properties. The proposed use is not constent with this policy. TSI Pedestrian Polky #1: Pedestrian Environment Provide for a pedestrian environment that is well integrated with adjacent land uses and is designed to enhance the safety, comfort, and convenience of walking. 9 Of 16 5-9 Policy DefinitionlIntent: This policy supports the provision of pedestrian connections between adjacent land uses, improved pedestrian access to transit stops and stations, safe and convenient pedestrian street crossings, and pedestrian amenities, including lighting. In more developed areas, such as downtowns, pedestrian design features improve the accessibility of destinations. The proposed use is not constent with this policy. TSI Pedestrian Policy #2: Continuous and Direct Routes Provide for a continuous pedestrian network with reasonably direct travel routes between destination points. Policy DefinitionlIntent: This policy supports an active program to develop pedestrian pathways (e.g., sidewalks), especially in proximity t() major activity centers. A continuous pedestrian network is free of gaps and deadends and overcomes physical barriers that inhibit walking. Direct routes between destination points are important because out-of-direction travel discourages walking. "Reasonably 'direct" means either a route that does not deviate unnecessarily from a straight line or a route that does not involve a significant amount of out-of-direction travel for likely users. The proposed use is not constent with this policy. Finance Policy #2: Operations, Maintenance, and Preservation Operate and maintain transportation facilities in a way that reduces the need for more expensive future repair. Removal of a streetin excellent condition is not consistent with this policy. Finance Policy #5: Short-Term Project Priorities Consider and include among short-term project priorities, those facilities and improvements that support mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly nodal development and increased use of alternative modes. . Policy Definition/Intent: This policy supports consideration and programming of facilities and improvements that support nodal development and the increased use of alternative modes. Examples of such investments include funding incentives for implementation of nodal development, funding ofTDM programs, and improvements made to the transit and bike systems. The proposed use is not constent with this policy. The city's approval criteria and staff report continue below. (b) Refinement plans; Finding: The proposal is consistent with provisions of the Downtown Refinement Plan, including recent amendments made to allow consideration of Justice Center proposals within the Plan area. The Downtown Refinement Plan - Land Use Element, General Policy #2 contains the following enabling policy in support of the proposed Justice Center development: "Civic and governmental uses serving the 10 Of 16 5-10 Springfield community shall be encouraged to locate in the downtown area. Within the downtown, governmental uses, including City Hall, the Justice Center and jail, the library, WilIamalane and SUB offices, shall be encouraged to locate and expand along A Street." '"l Along the street not in it. (c) Plan District standards; Finding: The proposal is consistent with provisions of the Public Land and Open Space District (PLO), as Justice Centers are listed as a Discretionary Use in the d istri ct. What are the standards? How can it be determined if it is consitent without discussion about what they are? What does the NOD designation mean? This criteria has not been addressed by the applicant or staff. (d) Conceptual Development Plans; or Finding: There are no conceptual development plans for the subject development area. (e)Special use standards in this Code; Finding: In accordance with SDC 23.100(a-b), the applicant would be required to address special use standards applicable to this proposal at the time of Site Plan Review application. This criteria applies to this application of discretionary use approval. There need to be findings that this application is consistent with the Special use standards in this Code. The staff report continues; Criterion (2): The site under consideration is suitable for the proposed use, considering: (a) The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the use (operating characteristics include but are not limited to parking, traffic, noise, vibration, emissions, light, glare, odor, dust, visibility, safety, and aesthetic considerations, where applicable); Finding: The proposed Justice Center will be oriented to streets that already serve the downtown commercial area, and will occupy City-owned land already used for municipal police and court functions within Springfield. Conceptual site design has provided for separation from residential uses to the north, and the operational characteristics of the Justice Center will be compatible with existing office, commercial and institutional uses in the immediate vicinity. The public street is not suitable for the proposed use as a secured police compound and is not compatable with the neighborhood or the existing public use of the street. The applicant nor staff have addressed the location size or operating characteristics of a jail in addressing this criterja. The relationship of the jail and the church entrances should be addressed. A jail is not an office. 11 Of 16 5-11 (b) Adequate and safe circulation exists for vehicular access to and from the proposed site, and on-site circulation and emergency response as well as pedestrian, bicycle and transit circulation; Finding: The proposed Justice Center will be served by the existing grid street system of downtown Springfield, including Pioneer Parkway East which is classified as a minor arterial. Sidewalks and on-street bicycle routes already exist to provide non-motorized access to the site. The site will be designed such that access points and on-site circulation patterns are safe, effective, and recognize the operational characteristics of the surrounding street system. Finding: The secure parking lot located on the north side of the facility will provide a secure area for jail inmates in the event that the facility is evacuated providing for public safety in the event of an emergency response. Bicycle, pedestrian, and trasit circualtion will be impeded by the proposed use. A traffic impact analysis typically required by the city for this type of application was not submitted with the application. The project architects have stated that the secure parking area is not required for emergency evacuation and is not likey the primary evacuation route. (c) The natural and physical features of the site, including but not limited to, riparian areas, regulated wetlands, natural stormwater management/drainage areas and wooded areas shall be adequately considered in the project design; Finding: There are no existing natural and/or physical features that will be affected by the proposed Justice Center. (d) Adequate public facilities and services are available, including but not limited to, utilities, streets, storm drainage facilities, sanitary sewer and other public infrastructure. Finding: The Development Review Committee 1 held a meeting to review the proposed conceptual site plan, Discretionary Use, and Zone Change requests. Staff and Springfield Utility Board representatives have determined that sufficient capacity exists in the adjacent street and utility system to allow consideration of Discretionary Use and Zone Change requests. Specific details on utility servicing and other potential effects on public facilities would be finalized with a Site Plan Review application. The traffic analysis had not yet been reviewed by city staff at the time this finding was prepared. The testimony at the hearing which indicated that the reported increased traffic volumes on C Street would not require mitigation is not consistent with city imposed requirements on other recent developments in the city with over 1,000 vehicles per day on a local street. ' Criterion (3): Any adverse effects of the proposed use on adjacent properties and on the public can be mitigated through the: (a) Application of other Code standards, for example bufferingfrom less intensive uses, 12 Of 16 5-12 increased setbacks, etc.; Finding: The proposed Justice Center has been intentionally sited on the block between A Street and B Street to increase separation from existing residential uses on C Street. Site design strategies also will include building entrance orientation, landscaping, screening and other mechanisms to minimize the impact to nearby residen~ial and. institutional uses. Other than avoiding any improved use at all of the property abutting the residential neighbors, the application does not address how entrances, (which the architect discribed as akward) landscaping, (which there may not be any room for) screening or other mechanisms are being proposed to address this criteria. (b) Site Plan Review conditions of approval, where applicable; Finding: Conditions of approval may be applied to the Site Plan Review for the proposed Justice Center to address specific site development issues if the Discretionary Use and Zone Change requests are approved. . What does where applicable mean? If it means during site plan review then that is where this criteria would be located not under discretionary use approval criteria. There should be evidence and findings that is seems likely or at least possible that this proposal can comply with the code requirements. (c) Other conditions of approval that may be required by the Approval Authority; Finding: The use of public right-of-way is necessary to implement the site design, as proposed, and additional conditions may be part of the decision if deemed appropriate by the Approval Authority. (d) A proposal by the applicant that meets or exceeds the cited Code standards and/or conditions of approval. Finding: The Justice Center proposal will meet or exceed all relevant Code standards required for approval of the Discretionary Use.and Zone Change. How can the adverse affects be mitigated through future conditions or code standards? The staff finding fails to address how the proposed street vaction can meet the standards for a street vacation or any of the PLO/NDO zone standards. Conclusion: The staff has reviewed the application and supporting evidence submitted for the Justice Center Discretionary Use approval. The staff recommends support for the request as the proposal meets the stated criteria for Discretionary Use approval as listed above. In the event that new or contradictory representation that could lead to a different conclusion is introduced at the public hearing for the Discretionary Use request, staffwill undertake additional analysis and prepare findings to address this testimony. ' As proposed, the Discretionary Use application will require the vacation ofB Street so that the right-of-way can be developed with a secure parking lot. A secure parking area is integral to the normal functions of the jail and police station, and also serves an important 13 Of 16 5-13 role as emergency evacuation space for jail detainees in accordance with standards of the National Pire Protection Association (NPPA) 101 Life Safety Code. The segment of 4 th Street between A Street and B Street also will require vacation as it is part of the dedicated parking area for the complex. To allow this to occur, staff recommends that the following conditions of approval are endorsed by the Commission: Staff Recommended Conditions of Approval: I. Prior to Final Site Plan Review approval for development of the Justice Center, the B Street right-of-way between 4 th Street and Pioneer Parkway East shall be vacated. 2. Prior to Pinal Site Plan Review approval for development of the Justice Center, the 4 th Street right-of-way between A Street and B Street shall be vacated. The Planning Commission may choose to apply additional conditions of approval as necessary to comply with the Discretionary Use and/or Zone Change criteria. Additional Approvals The subject applications are the first steps in a series of development applications for Planning Commission and Council consideration in order to allow development of a Justice Center at the proposed location. If the Planning Commission approves the Discretionary Use and Zoning Change requests, an application would be taken to Council for a Type II TransPlan amendment to remove the affected portion of B Street from the collector street network. Application also would be required to have the affected portions of B Street, 4 th Street, and the alley between A and B Streets vacated. If a TransPlan amendment application is submitted, the Planning Commission would be required to provide a recommendation to City Council on that matter and proposed street and alley vacations. A variance to the block length requirement also would be required upon vacation of B Street between Pioneer Parkway East and 4 th Street, as the perimeter travel distance would exceed the parameters established by the SDC. The following is taken from the city's Site Plan Review Package Submittal Requirements and the Springfield Development Code. 4. Copy of the deed and a preliminary title report issued within the past 60 days documenting ownership and listing all encumbrances. Ifthe applicant is not the property owner, written permission from the property owner is required. 5. Right-of-Way Approach Permit application must be provided where the property has frontage on an Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) facility. 6. Traffic Impact Study must provide four (4) copies of the study prepared by a Traffic Engineer where the proposed development will produce more than 250 vehicle trips per day in accordance with the current version of the Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Information Report. Before the Planning Commission or Hearings Official can approve a Discretionary Use request,' there must be information submitted by the applicant which adequately supports the request. In reviewing a request, the City must consider both the positive and negative elements of a Discretionary Use request. All of the Discretionary Use Criteria must be addressed by the applicant. If insufficient or unclear data is submitted by the applicant, there is a good chance the 14 Of 16 5-14 request will be denied or delayed. It is recommended you hire a professional planner or land use attomey to prepare your findings: Discretionary Use Criteria Checklist (SDC 10.030) 1. Except for private/public elementary and middle schools and certain wireless telecommunications systems facilities, a Discretionary Use may only be allowed if the Planning Commission finds that the proposal conforms with the following criteria: a. The proposed use shall conform with existing uses in terms of scale, lot coverage, design, intensity of use and operating characteristics. b. The proposed use shall not generate more traffic on local streets or more demand for public facilities than would permitted uses in the same zoning district. c. The proposed use conforms with applicable Metro Plan policies and applicable descriptions of Land Use Designations shown on the Metro Plan Diagram. Expansion of an existing Discretionary Use shall be exempt from conformance with Metro Plan land use designations. 3.050 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL. (3) An application shall consist of items required by this Code and the following: (a) An explanation stating the nature of the proposal and information that may have a bearing in determining the action to be taken, including findings demonstrating compliance with applicable approval criteria. (b) Evidence that the property affected by the application is in the exclusive ownership or control of the applicant, or that the applicant has the consent of all owners of the affected property to act on their behalf. The city proposal depends upon the use of considerable property for which they do not yet have control. The proposed use depends upon the use of parking facilities north of Fourth Street which are not city owned. The city also need to complete street vacations prior to having a building right to the street. This proposal can not comply with the street vacation criteria which include no loss of any benefical use. Until the city can demonstrate their ability to effect the street vacation they do not have control of the street for their facility. (c) The legal description and assessor map and tax lot number of the property affected by the application. (d) Additional information including maps, site plans, sketches and calculations as . required by applicable Sections ofthis'Codeor in information' packets provided by the Development Services Department. (e) The required number of copies of the application. (t) Payment of the applicable application fee at. the time of application submittal. No application will be accepted without payment of the appropriate fee in full, unless the applicant qualifies for a fee waiver. 10.020 REVIEW. (3)A complete application together with all required materials shall be submitted to the 15 Of 16 5-15 Director prior to the review of the request as specified in Section 3.050, Application Submittal. ARTICLE 9, VACATIONS 9.060 CRITERIA OF APPROVAL. (2) Where the proposed Vacation of public rights-of-way, other City property, or Partition or Subdivision Plats is reviewed under Type IV procedure, the City Council shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the Vacation application. The application shall be approved if the Vacation is found to be consistent with the following approval criteria. (a) The Vacation shall be in conformance with the Metro Plan, TransPlan, the Conceptual Local Street Map and adopted Functional Plans, and applicable Refinement Plan diagram, Plan District map, or Conceptual Development Plan; (b) The Vacation shall not conflict with the provisiops of Springfield Municipal Code 1997; and this Code, including but not limited to, street connectivity standards and block lengths; and (c) There shall be no negative effects on access, traffic circulation; emergency service protection or any other benefit derived from the public right-of-way, publicly owned land or Partition or Subdivision Plat. ARTICLE 11, VARIANCES 11.013 APPLICABILITY. The Variance provisions apply: (I)To buildings, structures and lots/parcels; The variance provisions of the city code do not apply to the vacation of streets. The vacation criteria refer specifically to the street conectivity and block length standards. Respectfully submitted to the city, Scott E. Olson, P.E. 1127 B Street 16 Of 16 5-16 Submittal to the Record City of Springfield Street Vacation Request . Case No. LRP 2007-00019 Testimony in opposition June 12, 2007 \f7.~:-'('" --.'" \.7 .~'C-;~.'_: \ . \ illlo..i 1 2 2007 JI I .,' , ri I j'Bv, 8e-K. ~-_._,..:~~ Submitted by: Scott E. Olson, P .E. 1127 B Street . Springfield Oregon I have been involved with the planning and development of the urban fonn for more than 30 years. I feel privileged to live and work within six blocks of Springfield's City Hall. I am attracted here in part by the potential we have to make Springfield even better thsin it already is. The fact that our street grid is still largely intact is essential to my feelings about this area and its future. We are considering development of a Justice Center in a highly sensitive location at the interface between our prized historical neighborhood, the town's commercial center and the Willamette River. We can not create new historical town centers. The ones we have are special places and deserve careful consideration of any plans to significantly change their character. The street grid and open public ways are the underlying fabric from which we create the sense of place and vitality we seek: Achieving the kind of place we desire requires that we carefully consider both what activities we place there and how those activities are located and interrelated with each other. Success demands both the right mix of functions and the right facilities. In fact it is our insistence upon developing a compatible mix of activities and their interrelationships that must guide the decision making process. We must not compromise the larger area for the functionality of any single element. If a function can not be made to fit within the larger context of the area, then it belongs in a different place. Our land use planning process requires that we work our way down from macro broad state wide goals, down to comprehensive plan policies, to development codes, refinement plans, and finally site specific developments. This is the context in which we must proceed with all new development proposals. I believe this is particularly true when we are working on the development of a public facility. It seems to me that the Justice Center planning has somehow become reversed and is asking us how we need to modify our planning framework to accommodate the project instead of how can the project be developed to fit the area's plans. . I am disappointed that the city has steadfastly refused to consider any alternatives during the project development process which considered tradeoffs in the functional and space program with the associated site constraints. Placement of a lower cost ancillary building within a street right of way is an ~xample. I do not see how this project can be made feasible at the selected site unless the elements that have been lumped into the building program can be open to discussion and reconsideration. ATTACHMENT 6-1 \Nhen considering the siting of a justice center in downtown Springfield' we should ask two questions; 1) How does including this activity contribute to the desired vitality of the area? And 2) How does the facility contribute to our overall sense of place? If this project requires a three blOck area without intervening streets then we are looking in the wrong place. I am totally convinced that we are far better off doing nothing in this situation then we are to proceed with the wrong project. . If the functional demands of a justice center can not fit harmoniously within the requirements for' a healthy town center and preserve the integrity of our public ways and spaces, then it simply needs to be located elsewhere. If concessions need to be made they should to be in the functional requirements of the new facility, not the function of the neighborhood and greater community. This area is evolving and the right things will happen if we are patient and respOnsive when opportunity presents its self. We may have -an opportunity before us now. We must not be short sited and sacrifice the integrity of the greater community to accommodate the inflexible requirements of city staff. The public has very narrowly supported the project in bOth bond and jail operations elections. The projects approval can hardly be considered a mandate to ignore our I;:md use policy and give the police anything they ask for including a collector street so they can park next to the door and store paper records and stolen bicycles in what is now the city street I along with many others worry that our local efforts to solve what has become a crisis in the Lane County criminal justice system may be confounding the problems and aggravating a more holistic regional solution. I wonder how many others of the 53% of voters that supported the bond measure were unaware as I was that the new jail would not do anything with the felony offenders accounting for 85% of Springfield's 2004 charges. The felony criminals will continue through the Lane County revolving door while Springfield locks up the misdemeanor offenders. How many of my neighbors understood that the closed 3m floor of the Lane County Jail is empty and available for 100 additional jail beds if we can only find a way to staff it. I believe it is past time for the city to provide its police and court with decent facilities. I also believe that those activities could contribute to the vitality of the downtown if sited with sensitivity to the 'requirements of the larger community and neighborhood. If the Justice Center is to be built in the downtown area, we need to find a way to have it fit in and to contribute to the greater function of the area while respecting the historical framework of its public ways. If that can not be achieved, then we must locate a site better suited to the security and space requirements which were imposed upon all of the alternatives considered in the project development process. The city inappropriately presumed in the development of the preliminary planning and cost estimating that the street right of ways were available for incorporating into the new Justice Center Facility. The fact that the possibility of street closures was mentioned in the ballot measure does not have any meaning in the context of the land use approval for this project, or exempt the city from adhering to their own land use policies and code requirements. The ' police chief has testified that plan to build across B Street was based upon the lower cost to build into the street. Twelve years ago the city improved B Street at a cost of $875,000. The improvements to the collector street were paid for with federal funds. If B Street is severed from the arterial at B Street Vacation, Testimony Oppci;ing Scott E. Olson, P.E. 2 6-2 Pioneer Parkway, immediately adjacent to the proposed street closure, B Street will no longer function as a collector. As a local street, the improvements would not have been eligible for the federal investment in the street improvements. The value of B Street both in terms of improvements and function has not been considered in city decisions to pursue the street closure. The value of the investment the public made in improving B Street in 2007 construction costs is over $1.2 million. It has been suggested that the city could be obligated to repay the federal government if the street is indeed closed. The city contracted for a traffic study of the impacts of the proposed closure of B Street. The study is appropriately focused on the capacity of the adjacent streets to absorb the diverted traffic. Street capacity has never been the issue related to the closure of B Street. A local street and a collector can and often do look the same. Two travel lanes with parking on both sides of the street. The ability of A and or C Streets to handle the increased traffic should never have been questioned. The issue-is about the function of the streets, and maintaining the effectiveness of the collector and arterial street system which has been designed to accommodate through travel as opposed to access to abutting property as local streets do. Further, the street grid is almost entirely intact in this area of Springfield. No other neighborhood has developed the degree of street connectivity as exists in this historical core of the Springfield community. The traditional street system has become increasingly valued by urban planners as we struggle with how to reduce our impacts on greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. Closure of B Street in a Nodal Oevelopment Overlay Zone which emphasizes pedestrian and bicycle mobility is clearly moving in the wrong direction and is inconsistent with all of the adopted land use policy in the City of Springfield. The city approved a zone change from Mixed Use Commercial/Nodal Development to Public Land and Open Space/Nodal Development because a Justice Center is not listed in the MUC/NDO District. None of the staff reports reviewing the projects history have mentioned the fact that several months prior to making the zone change application the city added Justice Centers as an allowed use in the PLO/NDO zone. The project was not an allowed use at the site at the time the city asked voters to fund the project. The city has failed to appropriately provide for public involvement in a meaningful way throughout the planning process. A citizen advisory committee, (CAC) was formed "to provide input throughout the design process in regard to outward design of the facility and its relationship to downtown Springfield". I volunteered for the CAC and during my interview for the position I informed the city council of my opinion with respect to the street closure and indicated a desire to work on appropriate alternatives. City staff and their consultant developed a Functional and Space Program prior to formation of the CAC. The draft document was presented to the CAe. However the committee was told it was for their information only and they would have no input on the contents of the space program. The Functional and Space Program was adopted by the city council without public hearing or any changes to the consultant's recommendations. The public was not provided any opportunity to participate in what was being included in the project. Later in the process every alternative considered incorporated all of the elements of the space program. Ultimately all of the alternatives exceeded the project available funds but the closure of B Street was the lowest cost alternative considered. That alternative was supported by a majority of the CAC and ultimately adopted by the city council. B Street Vacation, Testimony Opposing Scott E. Olson, P.E. 3 6-3 No attempt was ever made to develop an alternative that was within the available funds and respected the land use requirement for new development in this zone including the closure of streets. City staff has orchestrated a planning process from the very beginnings of this project in which no meaningful consideration has been given to alternatives to closing B Street. This effort has resulted in a failure to comply with Goal 1 requirements for the entire Justice Center Planning process. Staff has consistently refused to even discuss alternatives to closing B Street and steadfastly argues, often in absurd ways why the street should be closed. In last weeks hearing the police chi~f stated more than once that if officers responding to an emergency must cross the street to reach their vehicles, ultimately one is going to be so distracted with responding that they will run in front of a car and be hit. One must question the wisdom of such statements when we are trusting that same individual to get in a police cruiser and drive 50 miles per hour down my residential street and appropriately handle deadly weapons. Such arguments demonstrate the desperation with which supporting arguments for the street closure have been constructed. Other absurd arguments have been constructed throughout the planning process. On at least two separate occasions suggestions to construct a pedestrian over-crossing of B Street have been rebuffed by police statements that such a facility would be vulnerable to driving under it with a bomb. We also need secure parking for the police to prevent keying of their personal vehicles or slashing tires which hardly seem to justify sacrificing the functionality of a million . dollar collector street. Arguments about police response times seem equally absurd from my perspective. Statements about the need to evacuate inmates to the secure parking area in B Street are inconsistent with what the CAC was told about jail evacuations. The secure parking area is adjacent to the Police Courts building not the jail on the opposite side of the block from B Street. The need for this function in B Street is not part of the Functional and Space Program and is not the primary evacuation plan. The city has modified the code criteria for a street vacation in an attempt to avoid the inconsistency with this project and the adopted land use policy. The criteria tailored specifically to get this project around the land use policy impediments to desired street closure are not grounded in any adopted land use policy and are vague and misleading in the intent. Ensuring that the vacated property will remain in public ownership inappropriately assumes that the public interest is better served by maximizing public property ownership of opposed to protecting the publiCS legitimate interests the function of the right of way. Technically the public does not own the right of way, but has an interest in the use for street purposes. The city can not ensure continues public ownership because it does not own the property until it is vacated. Once vacated there is no way of preventing future city councils from selling the property to a private party. Substituting pedestrian and bicycle connection criteria from the states OAR, the minimum required anywhere in the entire state for the specifics of the local Comprehensive Plan, Transportation System Plan, Refinement Plans, Zoning Requirements and other local code' requirements is an obvious attempt to avoid compiling with the local adopted policy and code requirements. Additionally staffs findings that adding 46% to the length of the desirable 'XI mile pedestrian trip length is not consistent with accepted pedestrian planning principles. . B Street Vacation, Testimony Opposing Scott E. Olson, P.E. 4 6-4 Further "Whether a greater public benefit would be obtained from the vacation than from retaining the right-of-way in its present status" lacks any criteria or measures grounded in any adopted public policy and are purposefully vague and amorphous. It is clearly a relatively crude attempt to avoid complying with the land use policies of the city. . The street vacation can not meet any of the three criteria previously established in the code. The city's process has attempted to skirt or bypass addressing the street closure inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan, the Transportation System Plan; the Zoning District, the Nodal Development Overlay, and the Code Criteria. The criteria related to the street closure have not been addressed during the zone change, the discretionary use approval, the site review, and now the street vacation. Somewhere in the approval process the city must confront these issues. There is no variance that makes these policies go away. The city staff has the hierarchy of the project planning criteria reversed. The community has planned for the development desired in the downtown area. Those plans are embodied in the adopted public policy documents. The approach to this' project has been how we can change the code to accommodate everything the police are asking for instead of how we can build consistent with our community plan and vision. We can have both a jail and a livable community. This project must conform to block and connectivity standards. Particularly since this is a Nodal Development Overlay zone which relies on enhanced connectivity and pedestrian and bicycle mobility. B Street Vacation, Testimony Opposing Scott E. Olson, P.E. 5 6-5 City of Springfield Justice Center Project Public Meetings Date Public Input Opportunities Including Land Use Actions 2005-01-18 City Council- JC Facility Planning 2005-04-18 City Council- JC Construction Contract Options 2005-06-13 City Council- JC Programming Consultant Contract 2005-06-20 City Council - Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate JC Programming Consultant Contract 2005-08-01 City Council - Requests for Proposal for JC Architect 2005-09-26 City Council - JC Citizen Advisory Committee Application Interviews 2005-10-03' City Council- JC Recommended Architect 2005-10-24 Advertise Public Hearing for CM/GC Exemption Request 2005-10-25 City Wide Inforum: Update on Project 2005-10-25 Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) Meeting 2005-11,..01 Planning Commission - Citizen Involvement Program 2005-11-01 Planning Commission - Public Hearing for Public Land and Open Space District Amendments 2005-11-07 City Council Regular Session: Public Hearing for CM/GC Exemption 2005-11-14 Report from Jail Operations Funding Task Force 2005-11-21 City Council Regular Session: Review & Approval of Contract with, Architect 2005-11-28 City Council Public Hearing for PLO District Amendments 2005-11-28 Justice Center Functional and Space Program City Council Regular Session Council Authorizes Contract negotiations wI CM/GC Firm & Request 2005-11-28 to approve JC Functional & Space Program 2005-11-29 CAC Meeting 2005-11-30 CAC Meeting 2005-12-05 Springfield Justice Center - Recommended Construction Manager/General Contractor 2005-12-20 CAC Meeting 2006-01-04 Planning Commission Public Hearing for PLO District Amendments 2006-01-17 City Council Public Hearing for PLO District Amendments 2006-01-17 Justice Center Consultant Contract 2006-01-18 CAC Meeting 2006-01-23 Property Tax Levyfor Municipal Jail Operations 2006-01-26 Justice Center Site Design Options 2006-02-09 CAC Meeting 2006-02-09 Justice Center Public Forum Invitation 2006-02-13 CAC Meeting 2006-02-21 City Council Regular Session: Selects Schematic Design Program 2006-03-21 Planning Commission Public Hearing for Zone Change. 2006-03.:.21 Planning Commission Public Hearing for Discretionary Use 2006-03-22 CAC Meeting 2006-04-18 Planning Commission Public Hearing for Zone Change 2006-04-18 Planning Commission Public Hearing for Discretionary Use 2006-04-26 CAC Meeting 2006-05-24 CAC Meeting 2006-06-14 CAC Meeting 2006-06-14 JusticeCenter Open House Invitation 2006-06-20 Planning Commission Public Hearing for Vacation Request (Public Alley) 2006-06-20 Planning Commission - Review of Justice Center Site Plans . 2006-07 -05 CAC Meeting 2006-07-05 Planning Commission' Public Hearing for Vacation Request (Public Alley) 2006-07-17 City Council Public Hearing for Vacation Request (Public Alley) 2006-07 -17 City Council Regular Session: Approve/Not Approve Schematic Design & Cost Estimate 2006-08-23 CAC Meeting 2006-09-18 City Council Public Hearing for Vacation Request (Public Alley) ATTACHMENT 7-1 2006-09-20 CAC Meeting 2006-10-18 Justice Center Open House Invitation 2006-11-15 CAC Meeting 2006-11-27 City Council Work Session: Design Development Phase & Cost Estimate 2007-01-10 CAC Meeting 2007-01-16 City Council Regular Session: Approval of Design Development Phase & Cost Estimate 2007-01-22 City Council Regular Session: Approval of Design Development Phase & Cost Estimate 2007 -02-12 Discuss Options for Naming of the Springfield Ju'stice Center 2007-03-13 Planning Commission Public Hearing for Article 9 (Vacations) Code Amendments 2007-03-19 City Council Public Hearing for Article 9 (Vacations) Code Amendments 2007-04-16 City Council Regular Session: Accept/Not Accept Memeorandum of Understanding 2007 -06-05 Planning Commission Public Hearing for Vacation Request - Public Right-of-Way 2007 -06-19 Planning C,ommission Public Hearing for Vacation Request - Public Right-of-Way 2007-07-02 City Council Public Hearing for Vacation Request - Public Right-of-Way 7-2 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, OREGON RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL CASE NO. LRP2007-00019 NATURE OF THE APPLICATION Vacation of a one-block segment of B Street located between 4th Street and Pioneer Parkway East. 1. On May 7, 2007, the Springfield City Council initiated the vacation action in accordance with Springfield Development Code 9.060(3)(a), Planning Case No. LRP2007-000l9 - City of Springfield Police Department, applicant. 2. The application was initiated in accordance with Section 3.050 of the Springfield Development Code. Tim~ly and sufficient notice of public hearing, pursuant to Sections 14.030 and 9.050 of the Springfield Development Code, has been provided. . 3. On June 5, 2007, a public hearing on the vacation request was held and the written record for submittal of public testimony was held open to June 12, 2007. The Development Services Department staff notes and recommendation together with the testimony and submittals of the persons testifying at that hearing have been considered and are part of the record of this proceeding. CONCLUSION Based on this record, the requested vacation application is consistent with the criteria of SDC 9.030. This general finding is supported by the specific findings of fact and conclusion in Attachment A, Vacation Staff Report. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission hereby recommends the City Council approve the vacation request at a public hearing. ATTEST AYES: tf- NOES: j" ABSENT: I ABSTAIN: 0 A TT ACHMENT .8-1 VACATION ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE VACATING A 66 FOOT WIDE, 264 FOOT LONG PORTION OF B STREET IN BLOCK 1 OF THE MAP OF SPRINGFIELD, BOOK 1, PAGE 1 OF PLAT RECORDS OF LANE COUNTY, OREGON, DATED APRIL 5, 1872 WHEREAS, the Springfield City Council has declared its intention to vacate public right-of- . way in the City of Springfield; and . WHEREAS, the request for vacation was submitted in conformance with the provisions of ORS 271.080 et. seq., and with the provisions of Article 9 V ACA tIONS ofthe Springfield Development Code; and WHEREAS, the findings and testimony submitted by the applicant and those in support of . this vacation satisfy the criteria of approval for vacations found in Section 9.060 of the Springfield Development Code; and WHEREAS, such vacation is in the best interest of the City in carrying out its plans and programs for the general development of the City; and WHEREAS, lawful notice of the proposed vacation was published and posted; and WHEREAS, the Springfield Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on June 5, 2007 and June 19,2007 in the Council Chambers of Springfield City Hall, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield OR and recommended unconditional approval of this public right-of-way vacation (LRP2007-00019); and WHEREAS, the Springfield City Council met in Council Chambers, at 225 Fifth Street, on Monday, the 2nd day of July, 2007, (First Reading) and on , the _ day of , 2007, (Second Reading) at the hour of7:00 p.m., to hear any objections to the proposed vacation and _ persons appeared to object; (Bar Code Sticker) Return to: City of Springfield - City Recorder, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, OR 97477 Ordinance -ATTACHMENT 9-1 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DOES ORDAIN, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The Council finds that the legal notice of the hearing was lawfully published and posted; that _ objections were made at the vacation hearing held; that the public interest will not be impaired by the vacation of the alley right-of-way, and that vacation of said alley will be in the best interest of the public and increase the benefit of the property involved. Section 2: The public right-of-way in the City of Springfield, as generally depicted on the site map and more particularly described in the property legal description which are together attached as Exhibit A of this Ordinance, is declared to be vacated. Section 3: The findings adopted by the City Council in support of the alley right-of-way vacation are hereby made part of this Ordinance by .reference. Section 4: This right-of-way vacation is subject to the special provision that in the event the vacated right-of-way ceases to be used for Justice Center purposes it shall revert to public right-of- way. Section 5: This right-of-way vacation is subject to the establishment oftemporary easements or licenses for existing utilities located within the right-of-way to be maintained, continued, repaired, reconstructed, renewed, replaced, rebuilt or enlarged subject to the provisions of said temporary easements or licenses. . Section 6: The City Recorder is directed to file certified copies of this ordinance with the Lane County Clerk, Lane County Assessor, and Lane ComIty Surveyor. ADOPTED by the Common Council of the City of Springfield this _ day of 2007, by a vote of _ for and _ against. APPROVED by the Mayor ofthe City of Springfield this day of ,2007. Mayor , ,,:!.: '''1 I'j '1111"q-. 'i'1 ~,{ :.::. ~_I. ~t IJ V ti.Y I',:\.;U ru;:;:';: ' . __.~~~~~.d__\.~~ D AT F:: ._"'-2.._~_.L~::J._._ Or-Fief UF hiI' 1\i TOiii\JEY Ordinance - 2 - 9-2 ATTEST: City Recorder State of Oregon ) ) ss. County of Lane ) Ordinance This instrument was acknowledged before me on as by (Name) of the City of Springfield. (Position) NOTARY PUBLIC FOR OREGON My commission expires: - 3 - 9-3 EXHIBIT A t- 13800 ,S tn <C- w 4 ~ ~ . t 17-03-35-24 .... ~ W 0:: 14100 1-4200 w <C ~ a.. <I ~ 1/1 .... 0:: 13900 14000 ~ 4300 en w . 0 w ~ J: Z 5 6 I- 0 0 ~ <# - a.. '-6 .n 7 &f: '8 "0' 33' I 33' \ 66' 4 , 1800 o -D 66' 66' 66' , 1700 o ~ 1500 . Cl ~ 1600 1900 3 2 1 <:, ..r> 4 ~ 17-03-35- 1 :! 2' 34' , 2000 o (\) 2100 o 0 o 0 C"I t"1 NA@ o ~ 2400 LEGAL DESCRIPTION 13 14 5 1 ,n ...... in t .... . 4 ::; ~ <::) ~ Beginning at the Southwest Corner of Lot 5 of Block 28 of the Map of Springfield, filed and recorded i,n Book I Page 1, Plat Records of Lane County, Oregon, said point beirig the Northeast corner of Pioneer Parkway and B Street in Springfield, Oregon; thence Easterly along the Northerly right of way of B Street, 264 feet, more or less, to the Southeast corner of Lot 8, Block 28 of the Map of Springfield, which is the Northwest corner of B street and Fourth Street; thence leaving the B Street right of way and along the Southerly projection of the Fourth street right of way, crossing B Street 66 feet, more or less, to the Northeast corner of Lot 1 , Block 1 of the Map of Springfield, said point being the Northeast corner of B Street and Fourth Street; thence along the Southerly right of way of B Street, 264 feet more or less, to the Northwest corner of Lot.4, Block 1 of the Map of Springfield, said point being the So~theast corner of Pioneer Parkway and B Street; thence leaving the B Street right of way and along the . Northerly projection of the easterly right of way of Pioneer Parkway, crossing B Street 66 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning, all in the City of Springfield, Lane County, Oregon. . Ordinance - 4- 9-4