The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCorrespondence APPLICANT 9/1/2009 ,) . -- DeolJJa~ August 24, 2009 PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS LAND SURVEYORS BUILDING DESIGNERS 806 N. NINTH STREET COTTAGE GROVE, OREGON 97424 TELEPHONE: (541) 942-0126 FAX: (541) 942-7935 Mr. Andy Limbird, Planner Community Services Department City of Springfield 225 Fifth SI. 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 issues. however a few rather thorny ones remain. The major issue remaining is the req'uirement of Springfield Development Code (SDC) Section 4.6-120(F) that vvc pr,6yide driying cOl'\ne~tivity t.9adjac~nt iJ',!,~ki'rig ,lots~it1the same zone. .d';", "_." -,;J._.'....~.-ir"-'......~I,;.';......-:f; t'." .,.~.. :... "':..,,' ~:: ...... . :~, ~ , _,'..' '.':," ','. I :",',"1.' .......l..(..-'~. ,.,...~~,.".'..,. :' l' "'" . Fultillin,!( the letter Of this 'cO'n'ditiori'<vifl'hijliire' ili,ir\v'e'Rtovide tl-driving'ccirihection 'to the Dari- Mart to ~tlie e~st: i he Collisi~ri'Repai~ ;shii~'ioili~.\v6sJ :~;;a;H{t t(j~l~i~;~ar:I~;: th'~ 's'o~th'. .'.. . : '," '.' "'C' ...,. ."j.._. l' We have several issues with tl;i~ requirement as' foll~;vs:' I. Storm Water Treatment; providing two-way access to the Dari-Mart on the east and the Collision Repair shop on the west will jeopardize the bio-treatment s\~ale we have designed for treatment of storm water in accordance with the SDC. Due to the placement of the adjacent improvements, we will either lose the bio-swales (jr will lose several parking spaces o,i the west side, adversely impacting both storm water treatment or parking capacity. The result will be either loss of bi6-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 ti'om our south property line. One of the sit'e development conditions (which we suppon) requires a fence between our c1icnt 's development and the nude bar property and tilrther 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 havet6"c'ut a 30 foot!loie'in'illat f~i~ce io allo~ iw~~\~ayty.~ffi'6<tfji'~I;lgl;;n'egating the whole .:' ..' "_ _, .' ",' "\";:,.,'.. , ,.' "''':d;;~!'-:' '_ " " :'." ":" ~f (oltltl.,iJl '_'-:':'.. .. '. ..~.. . Idea'ofscreenmg oftne 'lude bar from olir customers anel tcnants. The nude bar rs obviously not a desirable neighbor and generally has a less than polite clientele with question;tble personal hygi~ne habits Providing ci~r ;iie;';'iiil\t~igl;t; ~;id.iJ'tid'e'strian access barrier from the activities on this lot is ill1pOl1ilnt to the successful co'll1ll1ercial development Page I of -' Date Received:_ 4//1-4 Planner: AL 'I..J1=I- ) . Mr. Andy Limb! Planner, City of Springfield Site Review, 1775 Main Sr., 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). 1 ,. 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 successti.i1 rental property. -'.;'J.; 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 signilicantly 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 diftering uses thus amounts to the City requiring a de facto easement that represents an unjustiliable 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. Eftectiveness of the Code Provision; strict adherence to this code provision will not provide any signilicant 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 insignilicant 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-Mart on the same trip. Ofr street connectivity is more eflicient where a shopping center is connected ofr-strect with a grocery or service station where there is relatively high volume trallic at each business and thus more persons who would utilize adjacent retail businesses and more traffic that could be offloaded fi'om the public street. 6. Trallic 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 traflic planning. We Page 2 of 3 Date Received: Planner: AL '1/'/rivo'l I I . . .,.,. Mr. Andy Limbird, Planner, City of Springfield Site Review, 1775 Main St., PRE 2009-00008 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-Ivily couplet connections in public rights of way. Traflic on private lots is essentially unregulated and law enforcement agencies will not enforce tratTIc laws on private propel1y ill my e."perience. Therefore there is a high probability that if off-street connectivity is provided, there will be more tratTIc accidents in this area and certainly additional tratTIc entering Main and A (not generated by our clients development) by reason of the off-street connectivity. We could 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-cratt shops. None of the uses on the subject property are high traflic volume uses and providing lln~street connectivity will only increase the tratTIc load on Main Street. Therefore the requirement for on~street connectivity is both supertluous and extremely damaging to our client in this case. We wish to request a minor variance under SDC 5.21-125.A.5 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 issuc concerns primarily parking spaces and the nced to maintain a minimum numbcr 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 5.21-125.C as an additional minor variance category concerning site safety, security and a finding that adequate connectivity currently exists for all lots concerned. Plcase 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 Boyatt, Manager, Transportation Section V :\Pfllj~':ls\200R\1 t R2\ \\' pd\)cs\\lllilh-acccss-issIlI.'S. 1<:24 Page 3 of J Date Received:. Planner: AL '!/t/~'! ,