HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence PLANNER 2/2/2010
!
.
.
L1MBIRD Andrew
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
L1MBIRD Andrew
Tuesday, February 02,20102:13 PM
VOGENEY Ken
RE: 19th Street Annexation - Follow up
Ken, I think I'll place this series of emails into the Council packet for February 16th and staff can answer any questions
that might arise. I don't think Mr. McLaughlin would appeal or protest the annexation, he just wants his concerns to be
on the record.
From: VOGENEY Ken
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 1:33 PM
To: LlMBIRD Andrew
Cc: DRISCOLL Jon; MCEACHERN Clayton; BARNETT Brian; BOYATT Tom; STOUDER Matt; DONOVAN James
Subject: RE: 19th Street Annexation - Follow up
Andy,
The essence of the discussion, and the requirements in Jackson's Annexation Agreement for the street improvements,
stems from the TransPlan designation of 19th from Yolanda to Hayden Bridge Rd. as a future collector street. Hayden
Bridge Rd. is also designated as a collector, with the plan for future improvement to urban standards from 19th to
Marcola Rd. The requirements on the Jackson property, as well as the prior partition of the Helfrich property to the
east, are consistent with improving 19th as a collector street.
The County staffs position, in my meetings with them on this specific topic, has been that they consider this segment of
19th to be local access road today and are treating it as such for their purposes. Their position is that if the City wants
this segment of 19th to be a collector street, then it is our problem to do the planning, improvements and long term
maintenance of the urban standards street.
Ultimately, all of the land within the UGB will be annexed and developed. While this segment of 19th St. may be
discontinuous with the fully improved portion to the south, we do have a responsibility to ensure that the future
planned improvements can be provided. .
Let me know if you would like to discuss the details of this topic further.
Thanks,
Ken
From: LlMBIRD Andrew
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 9:26 AM
To: DRISCOLL Jon; MCEACHERN Clayton; VOGENEY Ken
Subject: FW: 19th Street Annexation - Follow up
FYI
Follow-up on testimony submitted at the January 19 public hearing meeting.
From: J Mclaughlin [mailto:61blur@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 9:50 PM
To: LlMBIRD Andrew
Subject: Re: 19th Street Annexation - Follow up
1
DatE' RGceived:_1hl),'o
Planner: AL / /
,I
.
.
~
,
.
Andy -
My primary concern is that the current transportation plan suggested that a major roadway ( 3 lane with bike
lanes and sidewalks) should be constructed with in the right-of-way of 19th North of Yolanda. The proposed
connection between Yolanda and Hayden Br, Stub would be building a road to no where. Re-directing traffic
away from the existing improvement of Yolanda for traffic to the East would not be an efficient use of the
existing capitol improvement investment. The annexationof any portion of 19th street r/w should be limited to
a minimal right-of-way width, not one that is at the extreme width that is currently proposed If /when the
Jackson development becomes a reality, 19th street should be managed only as a secondary access which
would require a smaller footprint to be annexed. During this era of smaller more "green" design
considerations, a large pavement footprint should not be planned for or considered. Just because the right-of-
way has been dedicated, doesn't mean you need to annex the entire portion, you could consider reducing the
annexation and vacating any portion not required back to the adjoining owners. Please keep me informed of
any future planning actions which would allow me to continue to share and expand my interest in the details of
the overall planning of the 19th street project. Thank you for the support .... jim
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 3:03 PM, LIMBIRD Andrew <alimbird@ci.soringfield.or.us>wrote:
Jim: Further to your comments at the public hearing on Tuesday evening, staff advise that upon annexation, no
improvements to 19th Street would be undertaken until such time as the adjoining Jackson property develops.
Similarly, it is not expected that traffic volumes on 19th Street would increase appreciably until houses are built
and occupied on the Jackson residential development. Staff feels that it may be premature to talk about possible
traffic flow patterns and connectivity to the nearby street network at the annexation phase. Instead, these details
could be evaluated in the context of an actual development scheme when subdivision plans are prepared for the
Jackson property. As an adjacent property owner, you would be notified of the land use application and
afforded the opportunity to comment.
It seems clear from the Lane County Transportation responses that because 19th Street is considered a Local
Access Road, no street improvements can be expected unless benefiting landowners pay the bill (regardless of
whether the portion ad~oining the Jackson property is annexed). The City may be amendable to restricting the
southern portion of 19 Street to 'local traffic' or 'emergency vehicles only', but not necessarily barricading the
right-of-way to all forms of travel. Your comments and the comments received from Lane County
Transportation are already on record for this issue, and for the time being it remains unresolved. Please let me
know if you are comfortable awaiting more detailed subdivision plans (including a traffic control plan) or wish
to resolve the issue before the annexation of 19th Street is concluded.
Thanks
Andy Limbird
City of Springfield
2
Date Received: Z./~/drJ/D
Planner: AL