Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence PLANNER 4/28/2008 Page I of3 LlMBIRD Andrew From: L1MBIRD Andrew Sent: Monday, Apn128, 2008 7 57 AM To: STOUDER Matt Cc: DONOVAN James Subject: RE ZON2008-00018 Development Issues Meeting - Memo 4-11-08 Follow-up Thanks Matt Regarding the street layout, Planning's comments will be directed pnmanly to the applicant's proposal which shows a secondary access onto Hayden Bndge Road There may be other diScussions about the proposed pavement Interface between portions of paved vs unpaved 19th Street (Maintenance may weigh In on this) In my View, there IS no pOint In re-openlng diScussions about a recorded An~exatlon Agreement unless the proposal departs from provIsions of the Agreement, In fact, It IS counterproductive Andy From: STOUDER Matt Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 2:28 PM To: LIMBIRD Andrew Cc: DONOVAN James Subject: FW: ZON2008-00018 Development Issues Meeting - Memo 4-11-08 Follow-up FYI From: WALTER Eric Sent: Fri 4/25/2008 3:00 PM To: VOGENEY Ken Cc: STOUDER Matt; BENOY Leslie; GOODWIN Len Subject: RE: ZON2008-00018 Development Issues Meeting - Memo 4-11-08 Follow-up Ken, My main focus IS wanting to ensure that we are being consistent and clear with our City code application, City . standards, and all obligations that we are Imposing onto the public since we are all In this together We all need to stand behind and live with the City requirements as we are all held accountable (at least the employees who are aware of any code error(s), contractual error(s), and/or inconsistent obligations that we may be Imposing onto the public) As you aware, there are often future reassessments that occur (probably more often then we would want to admit .) where we need to retrace our reasoning and have sound rationale for our obligating the public In this case, It IS good that we caught this before the development started where the developer has not Incurred any costs related to this misdirected obligation Ken, the truth IS, the present Annexation Agreement as wntten, appears to offer more code error, inconsistency, and even apparent deception (not necessanly intentional) rather than sound reasoning and rationale with regards to this secondary access road requirement I am not pOinting thIs out to be Judgmental or wanting to cause unnecessary gnef for any of us (I am actually trying to save us from future gnef) It IS Important to pOint out that we are only fOCUSing on the Hayden Bndge Road connection Issue as It relates to the Fire / Life Safety code misinterpretation (contractual error), and the City'S rationale for requlnng a secondary road on a proposed and City (application) approved subdiVISion layout that does not need a secondary road by code At the present moment, the Annexation Agreement as wntten, IS referenCing a clearly defined subdIVISIon layout whIch also complies WIth CIty code and standards Without the need for this secondary road to be constructed at the developer's expense I am sure we can all agree that for a given proposed Intenor road layout for a given subdiVISion does need to be reviewed for the extenor roads and fixed exterior parameters and that thiS review does need to be defined up front, mainly so the developer Will clearly understand w~at)helr U,:n~! l-~dct:ived: 1/J.tjz-otJK Planner: AL i I 4/28/2008 Page 2 of3 obligations are and why Different subdivIsion layouts will have different code requirements with respect to road locations, traffic demands, and fire-life safety considerations Simply, If we are requlrmg new roads to be at a developer's or public's expense, then the rationale needs to be clearly defined and qualified The AnnexatIon Agreement and rationale behmd requiring new roads to be bUilt by the public Just need to be clearly defined so everybody understands the rationale now and m the future, especially If a new subdivIsion layout IS proposed later or If development changes hands In this particular annexation request, It would not be fair to ask this developer to be responsible to pay for a road that they do not need to bUild the subdivIsion layout that they submitted under this application Presently, the developer IS bemg led to believe that they can bUild this proposed lower density subdivIsion layout that does not reqUire the secondary road It IS Imperative that all developers be aware of the City'S rationale and basIs for requlnng such an obligations Ken, all we need to do IS put ourselves m public or applicant's shoes Not only IS this a Dolan Issue but It IS a matter of fairness and honesty All that I am askmg IS that we submit clear rationale for this Annexation Agreement and clear-up any possIble mlsunderstandmg that can anse We have an opportUnity to clear this up at our Development Issues Meetmg that will be occurring on May 1 st where we only need to pomt out the error and misdirection and hopefully this developer will stili choose to bUild this road at their own cost, but this understandmg will be clear to everyone for the record Thank you'for your understandmg, Enc Enc A Walter, P E CIvil Engmeer City of Spnngfleld Public Works Department 225 Fifth Street Spnngfield, OR 97477 Telephone (541) 736-1034 Facsimile (541) 736-1021 Emall ewalter@CI sonnafield or us Web www CI sonnafield or us From: VOGENEY Ken Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 12:00 PM To: WALTER Eric Cc: STOUDER Matt; BENOY Leslie; GOODWIN Len Subject: RE: ZON2008-00018 Development Issues Meeting - Memo 4-11-08 Follow-up Enc, Thanks for the memo I'll review this With Matt and Les next week when they return to the office I understand that the focus of your concern IS whether the Fire Code provIsion for secondary access IS correctly stated m the Agreement, namely the dlstmctlon between "30 or more" homes (as stated m the Agreement) and "more than 30" homes (as stated m the Fire Code) Thanks for pomtmg out the difference, particularly smce the proposed development IS for 30 homes However, from my perspective, this difference IS probably not matenal from the perspective of the signed Agreement As you know, the maximum density for Low Density Residential zoned land IS 10 Units per acre Also, the average density that we see bemg constructed IS m the range of 4 5 to 5 units per acre We prepare Annexation Agreements based on the range of pOssibilities for the way a property could be developed The annexation request for this project was for more than 9 acres, and the annexation request did not mclude a formal subdivIsion tentatrve applicatIon In thIs cIrcumstance, the maxImum number of Units could have been about 90 based on maximum density, and the number of Units based upon the average density' would have been about 40 The developer has the option to propose as many or as few units as they want, wlthm the limits of the zOning, and this developer happened to select a number of units that comcldentally matched a specific number m the Agreement 4/28/2008 Date ReceiVed:~~~, Planner: Al , , Page 3 of3 Anyway, I'll discuss this next week with Matt and Les and we'll give you further mstructlons about how to proceed at that time Thanks, Ken From: WALTER Eric Sent: Thursday, Apnl 24, 2008 3:04 PM To: VOGENEY Ken; STOUDER Matt Cc: BENOY Leslie Subject: ZON2008-00018 Development Issues Meeting - Memo 4-11-08 Follow-up Ken and Matt, Please review attached memo for staff direction from the City Manager's Office pnor to Development Issues Meetmg to be held on May 1, 2008 Thank you, Enc Enc A Walter, P E CIvil Engmeer City of Spnngfleld Public Works Department 225 Fifth Street Spnngfleld, OR 97477 Telephone (541) 736-1034 Facsimile (541) 736-1021 Emall ewalter@cl sonnafield or us Web www CI sonnafield or us Date. keG~i\fed; r;pp(J!,--..,..- Planner: AI.. 4/2,8/2008