HomeMy WebLinkAboutComments PWE 4/11/2008
MEMORANDUM
City of Springfield
DATE: April II, 2008
TO: Ken Vogeney, City Engineer
Matt Stouder, Supervising Civil Engineer
FROM: Eric Walter, Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Development Issues Meeting (DIM): ZON2008-000I8
Annexation Agreement Clarification - Fire and Life Safety Code
DIM Development: Jackson Property - 30 lot subdlvision
DIM Date: May 1, 2008
DIM Applicant: Future Homes
Staffhas a DIM on the above referenced application coming up soon; however, it was brought to
my attention there is an error in the Annexation Agreement that will have a significant impact to
the City (fue & life safety and long term maintenance) and to the owner (misdirected obligation).
The Annexation Agreement contains code language that is not interpretmg Springfield Fire Code
Section DI07 correctly. Gilbert Gordon, Deputy Fire Marshall has brought this error to my
attention in that the Fire Code is not being interpreted correctly as written in the Annexation
Agreement; however, he strongly recommends the City make every effort to complete the
Hayden Bridge connection for reasons of fire and life safety. Since the AnnexatiOn Agreement is
a legal and binding contract, we need to be sure the City is aware of this contractual error. This
misunderstanding will need to be clarified for the benefit of the City and fairness to the public.
Annexation Agreement Item "H", last bullet:
"Notwithstandmg any other requzrements of this Agreement, if a subsequent subdlvlsion
applicatlOnfor the subject property wlll create lots which will allow development of 30 or more
homes, the APPLICANT shall be requzred to provide a secondary fire and life safety apparatus
access route to the subdlvision in accordance with Springfield Flre Code Appendix DI07 "
2007 Oregon Fire Code, Section D107:
"Developments of one or two famlly dwellmgs where the number of dwelling unzts exceeds 30
shall be provided with separate and approved fire apparatus access roads and shall meet the
reqUlrements of SectlOn D I 04 3 "
The above clarification will be needed for meeting with the Future Homes applicant coming up
in three (3) weeks. It appears the Annexation Agreement is requiring the owner(s) to be
responsible for building a 2/3 street but this obhgation appears to be based on a contractual error.
Date Received:~hQQf
Planner: AL ..'
Just some thoughts for City consideration: If the City maintains the present direction of
requiring Hayden Bridge Road to be constructed by others based on a misunderstanding (esp.
without City participation), the extensiOn of Hayden Bridge may not be constructed since this
obligation does not appear mandatory. Presently, the applicant and current plans are showing
this Hayden Bridge connection but is clearly being based on the annexation agreement in error.
It is important to note this connection is 332'. If the applicant and City together are willing to
share in this cost, may make this a win-win situation for all. The City will see long term benefits
with regards to maintenance, accident prevention, improved storm water system, reduced
erosion, and most importantly, fire and life safety if Hayden Bridge is successfully completed.
Presently, there are no improvements at this break that is on the edge of development and will
result in unwanted traffic in the future and potential erosion due to surrounding development and
exposed soil. TJ;1ere does appear to be a great benefit to Future Homes and clearly will have
several long term benefits to the City if Hayden Bridge is constructed.
,
,
- ,