Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutComments PWE 4/24/2008 MEMORANDUM City of Springfield DATE: April 24, 2008 TO: Ken Vogeney, City Engineer Matt Stouder, Supervising Civil Engineer Les Benoy, Civil Engineer J Eric Walter, Civil Engineer ~ CC: FROM: SUBJECT: Development Issues Meeting (DIM): ZON2008-000i8 Follow-up to memo dated April II, 2008 All applicants (public) have a right to receive accurate and clear rationale from City staff regarding City requirements and the public is trusting that the City is always fairly and consistently applying our codes and standards and including obligations for street improvements. At the present time, staff has knowledge of an Annexation Agreement that is in error where a secondary access road is being demanded by the City based on a misunderstanding and a contractual error. I can not, in good faith, face this applicant and hide this truth from them. All we have to do is put ourselves in their shoes and it should be very clear what we need to do here. It should be clear why we need to be honest and reveal this contract/code error (and include the fact that staff has determined this road is actually not required to proceed with developing this 30 lot subdivision). Otherwise, we should clearly demonstrate to the applicant why we are still demanding that this secondary access road be at his or her responsibility to build even though City staff is clearly indicating that this road is not required by code for this development to occur. We are public servants; all information is public; and always truthful to the public. Flre Department / 2007 Oregon Fire Code The Annexation Agreement contains code language that is not interpreting Springfield Fire Code Section D I 07 correctly and is presenting an invalid basis for requiring the obligation of a secondary road to be built by others; therefore this is a contractual error that needs to be corrected and brought to the developer's attention. Please review memo dated April II, 2008 for the specific details as to why this is not required by the Fire and Life Safety Code and should only be a recommendation at the developer's option. Transportation Dlvision / Engmeering Design Standards Gary McKinney reviewed the Transportation Division codes, standards, and policies and concluded there is no Transportation basis for requiring a secondary access road for this 30 lot subdivision. The subdivision will not generate enough traffic count increase to require any modifications to the existing road system serving this development. The Transportation Division is not requiring this secondary access road. Planning Department / Development Code The secondary access road is not required under the development code for this subdivision. ~"'- ~_, :.......'-w~~vll;;a. If h. './j.~~ 9- f I Planner: Al Staff is in the process of preparing for the Development Issues Meeting (DIM) being held on Thursday, May I, 2008 where several questions pertain to the present street layout as shown on their submitted plans for this application. Below is the first question to City staff: 1. Is the City in general agreement with the proposed street layout? Are there any changes that you would suggest? Proposed City staff response: Yes, there could possibly be changes to the proposed street layout that may result from misunderstanding(s) in the Annexation Agreement found to be in error. Durmg the review of this application, City staff has determined the Annexation Agreement is in error with regards to the Hayden Bridge Road (secondary access road requirement) and present developer obligatlOn It has been determined that this secondary access road is actually not reqUlred by code in order that this subdivlsion be developed, Therefore, the proposed Hayden Bridge Road, as shown on plans, may be deleted unless the developer, at thelr option, be willing to proceed with constructing this road anyway, with this new knowledge, and at their own cost Why is it important that this be cleared up? It is imperative the developer be aware of the City's rationale and basis for the City requiring such an obligation to any developer. Not only is this a Dolan issue but it is a matter of fairness and honesty and it is important that we have a clear rationale and be consistent in our application of City codes and standards to all the public. If this secondary access road is required in order that this subdivision comply with City adopted codes, then it would be reasonable to expect that this road be a required obligation under an Annexation Agreement; however, if this subdivision can be approved and developed without this secondary access road (this is the case here), then the developer should not be obligated to pay for this road unless this rationale was clearly relayed to this and any developer. This developer may still choose to build this road at their own cost, but this understanding should be clear to everyone. At the present moment, the language and terms in the existing Annexation Agreement is misleading the developer (not necessarily intentional) into believing that this secondary access road is actually required in order that their subdivision comply with City code. This should be resolved as a matter of misunderstanding and not intentional deception by the City. In order for this matter to be resolved without the perception of deceiving the public, it is imperative this misunderstanding be cleared-up immediately with the developer and clearly reviewing all terms, obligation rationale, and to ensure there is a clear and concise understanding between all parties. On Friday, April 11, 2008, I distributed a written staff memo (with same date) requesting clarification to Ken Vogeney and Matt Stouder. I had a meeting with Ken and Matt on Monday, April 14, 2008. Following from this meeting, and at Ken's request, he asked that I forward this memo to Les Benoy as he is the one responsible for preparing the Annexation Agreement. I then immediately forwarded a copy of this memo to Les Benoy on Monday, April 14, 2008. To date (date of this memo), there has been no written response directing staff. Prior to our DIM meeting on Thursday, May I, 2008, I am requesting that this matter be reviewed, including a review of City staff's proposed response to applicant. I am also requesting that this matter be reviewed by the City Manager's Office and City Attorney. Thank you for your understanding.