Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence CMO 9/20/2013 0 An • LIMBIRD Andrew From: GOODWIN Len Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 9:54 AM To: GRIMALDI Gino Ca: LIMBIRD Andrew; MARKARIAN Molly; KARP Gary Subject: RE: Developer and Property Owner Conversations Gino: I checked with the planners and, as I suspected,Jeff has apparently received some misinformation. While Areas A, B, and C in Glenwood have a 10 foot maximum setback, we have consistently been telling everyone, including SUB at the time we negotiated the IGA, that we are advocating zero setbacks. This would mean utilizes would be placed in the right of way or in alleys where they exist. It may be that when the Patel proposal was reviewed some SUB staff were unhappy that we ended up with a five foot setback, but that is completely consistent with what we have told SUB all along. On the Trinitas development, again as I suspected, we haven't given a "green light" to anything. All that has happened is an annexation DIM. We don't have a site plan to review, so it's hard for us to give the green light to anything. Will we be looking for a zero setback when they do submit? Yes. Their development site is constrained by the new footprint for Franklin and the Glenwood Boulevard roundabout on the south side and the riverfront path on the north. To require a substantial street front setback would probably compromise their ability to fit their proposal in. Has the street grid changed? No. Although some informal conversations have suggested that developers are looking at different alternatives that make minor variations in our conceptual grid, no one has actually [proposed anything. Since I do not expect SUB to plan non designing or constructing utility infrastructure until there is a real development proposal, there is no reason for them to be concerned. We routinely ask them to be involved in site plan DIMs and site plan review, so they will certainly be in the loop if any changes, no matter how modest, are proposed. I'm not sure where communications is breaking down, but I really do believe it is not on the City side. I have asked our planners to check with SUB and find out who they want us to keep in the loop, because, as an example, we have gotten inquiries about Franklin planning from Tamara Johnson, who now works for Sanjeev King. We notify Sanjeev, and I'm wondering if we should notify Tamara'directly. I'd be happy to set down with Jeff if you think that's the best course of action. • Len From: NELSON Jeff [mailto:jeffn @subutil.com] Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 2:36 PM To: NELSON Jeff(SUB); GRIMALDI Gino; GOODWIN Len Subject: RE: Developer and Property Owner Conversations In some cases we will need larger easements for switchgear as we move to a more underground system...but 10' usually is sufficient. Jeff From: NELSON Jeff Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 10:41 AM To: GRIMALDI Gino; GOODWIN Len Cc: MEDUNA Ray; MCKEE Bart; KING Sanjeev Subject: Developer and Property Owner Conversations Thanks for following up on the concerns I had yesterday. I got some clarification from staff this morning. 1 ph' ; cl?ceived: q, O ��Oi t:._. mss: AL • We are trying to work through workplans for general development and specific development proposals—with their own timelines and recognizing that they are independent. Unfortunately, the Patel hotel process resulted in the City approving 5' setbacks when we need 10' easements and my understanding is that the City recently gave the green light to 0' setbacks for the student housing project in Glenwood. I would like to see if we can have a more interactive conversation between SUB and the City about a collective approach to development because it seems that what happened at the St Vincent development is recurring. Further, we are running into instances where we can't appropriately design how we are going to serve properties because there are larger projects (Franklin/Street grid)that impact where we can put infrastructure to extend to a development. Also,the street grid appears to have changed from the exhibit in the IGA between SUB and the City. That is ok for now, but those types of changes may have implications down the road and we may want to revisit a path forward. I am committed to having SUB be involved and want to make sure that we can be involved in the most appropriate way to address the City's and SUB's interests—as well as the developer. So, the city can't at this time definitively state "This is where the road infrastructure is going to be including roundabouts • etc..." so SUB is limited in how it can approach redesigning infrastructure to extend to specific development. Otherwise we are stuck with a scenario to install something, rip it out, and install it again. I would like to avoid a situation where the developer is told something by the City or SUB and then the City or SUB has to figure out how to deal with the unilateral decision. SUB has stumbled in the past. I have told staff I want to prevent that. I appreciate the feedback that the City has given SUB when SUB has not met the City's expectations in terms of participation and communication. Do you have any thoughts about how we can collaborate on this? I have been at a few Glenwood Development Team meetings and those have been good, but the setback issue popped up again afterward (Student housing) so SUB may have not communicated its needs in a way that resonated with the City. Please let me know what I can do. Current Motto: "Trust,Tradition, Service" • New Motto? "SUB needs 10' Easements" Jeff Data Received: Planner: AL 2 LIMBIRD Andrew From: GOODWIN Len . Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 11:17 AM To: LIMBIRD Andrew Subject: FW: Developer and Property Owner Conversations Andy: Can we chat about this, as it relates to Trinitas and Patel, when you have a moment? I think Jeff is inaccurate in his facts in several cases, but want to make sure I understand fully before we get back to him. Len From: NELSON Jeff jmailto:ieffn@subutil.coml Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 10:41 AM To: GRIMALDI Gino; GOODWIN Len Cc: MEDUNA Ray (SUB); MCKEE Bart (SUB); KING Sanjeev Subject: Developer and Property Owner Conversations Thanks for following up on the concerns I had yesterday. I got some clarification from staff this morning. We are trying to work through workplans for general development and specific development proposals—with their own timelines and recognizing that they are independent. Unfortunately, the Patel hotel process resulted in the City approving 5' setbacks when we need 10' easements and my understanding is that the City recently gave the green light to 0' setbacks for the student housing project in Glenwood. I would like to see if we can have a more interactive conversation between SUB and the City about a collective approach to development because it seems that what happened at the St Vincent development is recurring. Further, we are running into instances where we can't appropriately design how we are going to serve properties because there are larger projects (Franklin/Street grid) that impact where we can put infrastructure to extend to a development. Also, the street grid appears to have changed from the exhibit in the IGA between SUB and the City. That is ok for now, but those types of changes may have implications down the road and we may want to revisit a path forward. I am committed to having SUB be involved and want to make sure that we can be involved in the most appropriate way to address the City's and SUB's interests—as well as the developer. So, the city can't at this time definitively state "This is where the road infrastructure is going to be including roundabouts etc..." so SUB is limited in how it can approach redesigning infrastructure to extend to specific development. Otherwise we are stuck with a scenario to install something, rip it out, and install it again. I would like to avoid a situation where the developer is told something by the City or SUB and then the City or SUB has to figure out how to deal with the unilateral decision. SUB has stumbled in the past. I have told staff I want to prevent that. I appreciate the feedback that the City has given SUB when SUB has not met the City's expectations in terms of participation and communication. Do you have any thoughts about how we can collaborate on this? I have been at a few Glenwood Development Team meetings and those have been good, but the setback issue popped up again afterward (Student housing) so SUB may have not communicated its needs in a way that resonated with the City. Please let me know what I can do. Current Motto: "Trust;Tradition, Service" New Motto? "SUB needs 10' Easements" 1 Date Received: r/9/2P/3 Planner: AL