HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence APPLICANT 8/25/2009
.
.
L1MBIRD Andrew
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Ron Rice - Geomax, Inc. [ronrice@geomax.us]
Tuesday, August 25, 2009 3:49 PM .
L1MBIRD Andrew
PRE 2009-00008
limbird-access-issues-825. pdt
Hi Andy,
Attached is our letter setting out our issues with off-street connectivity for this project and our request that this
be evaluated as a minor variance.
I would appreciate it if you would distribute the courtesy copies for. me as you offered.
Please let me know what we need to do to expedite this project approval without this onerous connectivity
requirement.
This could put several people to work for a few months and we all know we need that NOW!!!.
Geomax, Inc.
Ronald D. Rice, PE, PLS
541-942-0126
1
Date Received:
. Planner: AL
Ffr/~1
/
~,
.
.
Deo",a~
~
August 24, 2009
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS
LAND SURVEYORS
BUILDING DESIGNERS
B06 N. NINTH STREET COTTAGE GROVE, OREGON 97424
TELEPHONE, (541) 942""'26 FAX' (541)942.7935
Mr. Andy Limbird, Planner
Comml!nity Services Department
City of Springfield
225 Fifth St.
Springfield, OR 97477
Re: Chan Project, 1775 Main Street, Case # PRE2009-00008.
Dear Andy:
As you know we have some issues with the conditions of approval of the above referenced
project.
After re-design of the site we believe we have resolved most of the is~ues, however a few rather
thorny ones remain.
The major issue remaining is the requirement of Springfield Development Code (SDC) Section
4.6-120(F) that we provide driving connectivity to adjacent parking lots in the same zone.
Fulfilling the letter of this condition will require that we provide a driving connection to the Dari-
Mart to the east, the Collision Repair shop to the west and the topless bar to the south.
We have several issues with this requirement as follows:
1. Stonn Water Treatment; providing two-way access to the Dari-Man on the east and the
Collision Repair shop 011 the west will jeopardize the bia-treatment swale we have designed
for treatment of storm water in accordance with the SDC. Due to tbe placement of the
adjacent improvements, we will either lose the bio-swales or will lose several parking spaces
on the west side, adversely impacting both stonn water treatment or parking capacity. The
result will be either loss ofbio-treatment or loss of building area due to parking limitations
or both.
2. Aesthetic Issues; the existing parking lot to the south serves a nude bar which is sited,
literally, a few feet trom our south property line. One of the site development conditions
(which we support) requires a fence between our client's development and the nude bar
property and further requires that fence be slatted or solid plank to provide a visual screen.
If we must provide connectivity to the adjacent south parking lot in the same zone we will
have to cut a 30 foot bole in that fence to allow two-way traffic through, negating the whole
idea of screening of the nude bar from our customers and tenants. The nude bar is
obviously not a desirable neighbor and generally has a less than polite clientele with
questionable personal hygiene habits. Providing our site with a sight and pedestrian access
barrier from the activities on this lot is important to the successful commercial development
Page I of 3
Date F<eCeived:~~'
Planner: AL
il
"
.
.
Mr. Andy Limbird, Planner, City of Springfield
Site Review, 1775 Main St, PRE 2009-00008
August 25, 2009
of this property. We recognize that this business has a right to exist here but that doesn't
mean we want their clientele in our laps (no pun intended). '
3. Security of the Proposed Development; this project is intended to provide rental spaces
suitable for small tradesman/artisan shops and it is expected that each unit will contain
several tens of thousands of dollars in merchandise and tools. The owner has requested that
we provide reasonable security measures and we have proposed a 6' tall chain link fence
around the site to discourage break-ins and "tagging" as a part of those security measures.
The owner intends to decide on whether or not to totally enclose the site by gating it after
he has some experience with the initial security measures proposed, Without a continuous
fence, the at risk portions of the site are wide open and cannot be secured. The
commercially efficient layout of the building and the city easement across the back of the
property make it difficult for law enforcement to monitor the activities in the rear portions
of the building as the units face parallel to the street and a "hidden" area exists behind the
building. Thus the requirement to connect these very dissimilar businesses through the
parking areas of our project represents an unfair security and property risk burden on our
client and adversely impacts his ability to have a commercially successful rental property.
4. Random Pedestrian Access; access by persons not having legitimate business on the
property is of concern as the liability of the owner and tenants is significantly increased
when pedestrian traffic increases, especially at night Any slip and fall, vehicle accident or
personal assault, especially at night and regardless of the sobriety of the victim, driver or
perpetrator, is sure to generate a personal injury suit that our client must defend against
even though the site meets all safety code requirements. This requirement for connectivity
between such differing uses thus amounts to the City requiring a de facto easement that
represents an unjustifiable taking of property rights and creates an unfair burden on our
client that cannot be justified by access needs, as all adjoining lots have existing direct access
to a public street. Based on this Dolan issue alone, connectivity should not be a condition of
approval.
5. Effectiveness of the Code Provision; strict adherence to this code provision will not provide
any significant decrease of traffic load or movement on Main Street because the businesses
are so dissimilar that it is rare that a person would patronize the Dari-Mart and the collision
shop on the same trip. We do not claim this event will not occur, only that it will be so rare
as to be insignificant in the traffic flows on Main Street. It is also unlikely that a person
patronizing one of the crafts/tradesmen tenants in the building would want to visit the
collision repair facility or the Dari-Mal1 on the same trip. Off street connectivity is more
efficient where a shopping center is connected off-street with a grocery or service station
where there is relatively high volume traffic at each business and thus more persons who
would utilize adjacent retail businesses and more traffic that could be off loaded from the
public street.
6. Traffic Short-cutting; providing a direct path from A Street to Main Street via the nude bar
to the south through the subject property is not, in my opinion, good traffic planning. We
Page 2 of 3
Date ~eceived:
Planner: AL
f4.;),d!
/ I
.
.
Mr. Andy Limbird, Planner, City of Springfield
Site Review, 1775 Main St., PRE 2009-0000&
August 25, 2009
will be actually increasing the number of entry/exits on A Street and on Main Street by
permitting drivers to short-circuit the existing one-way couplet connections in public rights
of way. Traffic on private lots is essentially unregulated and law enforcement agencies will
not enforce traffic laws on private property in my experience. Therefore there is a high
probability that if off-street connectivity is provided, there will be more traffic accidents in
this area and certainly additional traffic entering Main and A (not generated by our clients
<;Ievelopment) by reason of the off-street connectivity.
We co'uld better understand the desire for off-street connectivity between adjacent lots if the uses
were similar. In this case east is a convenience store, west is an auto repair shop and south is a
nude bar. None of these uses is similar in character to the planned occupancies on this lot which
will be small contractor's shops, artisan's shops or trade-craft shops. None of the uses on the
subject property are high traffic volume uses and providing off-street connectivity will only
increase the traffic load on Main Street. Therefore the requirement for off-street connectivity is
both supertluous and extremely damaging to our client in this case.
We wish to request a minor variance under SDC 5.21-125A5 and C to allow development of this
site without providing for off-street connectivity to the dissimilar businesses east, west and south
of the subject property even though the adjoining properties are in the same land use zone.
As we read the pertinent section. the Director may, at his or her discretion. make an interpretation
allowing this request to be judged as a minor variance as the issue concerns primarily parking
spaces and the need to maintain a minimum number of spaces, which providing the requested off-
street connectivity would adversely impact (along with storm water treatment). The Director may
also make the determination under paragraph 5.21- ) 25.C as an additional minor variance category
concerning site safety, security and a finding that adequate connectivity currently exists for all lots
concerned.
'Please let me know as soon as possible if you feel a request for minor variance is appropriate to
this situation.
Sincerely
~,
. -
Ronald D. Rice, PE, PLS
Sr. Principal
cc: Susan Smith, Director Public Works
Bill Grile, Director Community Development
Ken Vogeny. City Engineer
Tom Boyat!, Manager, Transportation Section
V :WnljrX:1S'\2008\1182\\\'ptk)\'.'~\..;lllith-IIl;":~,,!,.js."tl~.,,. R24
Page 3 of 3
Date Fleceived: fH"/~1
Planner: AL