The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCorrespondence PLANNER 4/29/2008 Page I of 4 LlMBIRD Andrew From: DONOVAN James Sent: Tuesday, Apn129, 2008 11 48 AM To: L1MBIRD Andrew Subject: RE ZON2008-00018 Development Issues Meeting - Memo 4-11-08 Follow-up I Matt, I concur with Andy This IS turning Into an insubordination that I don't want aired at the meeting with the applicant What do you suggest? JD From: UMBIRD Andrew Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 9:23 AM To: DONOVAN James Cc: STOUDER Matt Subject: FW: ZON2008-00018 Development Issues Meeting - Memo 4-11-08 Follow-up This Issue seems to be dragging on a lot longer than It should and IS now taking on a life of ItS own Perhaps a different engineer should be assigned to this project From: WALTER Eric Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 9: 19 AM To: VOGENEY Ken Cc: STOUDER Matt; LIMBIRD Andrew Subject: RE: ZON2008-00018 Development Issues Meeting - Memo 4-11-08 Follow-up ~ Ken, This IS a follow-up response to Andy's emall Again, all we have to do IS put ourselves In the applicant's shoes with regards to this misdirected obligation and this should make It very clear why we need to be honest with the applicant and do the nght thing This IS a very substantial obligation the City IS requesting ReqUlnng an additional road to be bUilt by a developer can actually make or break a development This IS especially true dunng the economic times ahead of us A matter such as this can also make or break future City employment for those who are aware of the facts but choose to do nothing Of course diSCUSSing all of the details does not need to occur dunng the actual DIM meeting where this tOpiC could clearly Interrupt the flow of the meeting and the questions they want answered I am asking for permission to set-up another meeting at the end of the DIM meeting to diSCUSS this Item of clanficatlon with the applicant and bnng them up to speed with this misdirected obligation. This IS not an Issue of whether we are being counterproductive, this IS simply a matter of faIrness and honesty and the fact that staff has knowledge of this error and misunderstanding The truth can never be hidden from City or the public I am very confident the City Manager's Office and City Attorney Will want to weigh-in on thiS deCISion as well In response to Andy's concern regarding the Development Issues Meeting being spent re- openrng the recorded Annexation Agreement, we can set-up a separate meeting With the applicants but I am requesting the applicant be given thiS opportunrty to understand the updated Information and the truth surrounding thiS obligation I am asking for a formal response to my memos to prOVide the applicant With the facts and truth and allow the applicant the opportunity to review and decide which direction they Wish to go that may Include constructing thiS connection on their own at their cost and With thiS knowledge I am asking for a wntten response by 5 OOpm Wednesday, Apnl 30, 2008 4/29/2008 .........._. , ~..,~..,. "':;;I..d:.-.:i,/11,~of)! Planner: Al Page 2 of 4 Eric Eric A Walter, P E CIvil Engineer City of Springfield Public Works Department 225 Fifth Street Springfield, OR 97477 Telephone (541) 736-1034 Facsimile (541) 736-1021 Emall ewalter@cl sPrlnqfield or us Web www CI sPrlnqfield or us From: STOUDER Matt Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 9:43 AM To: WALTER Eric Cc: VOGENEY Ken Subject: FW: ZON2008-00018 Development Issues Meeting - Memo 4-11-08 Follow-up FYI From: LIMBIRD Andrew Sent: Monday, Apnl 28, 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 Regardmg the street layout, Planning's comments will be directed primarily to the applicant's proposal which shows a secondary access onto Hayden Bridge Road There may be other diScussions about the proposed pavement Interface between portions of paved vs unpaved 19th Street (Mamtenance may weigh m on thiS) In my View, there IS no pomt m re-openmg diSCUSSions about a recorded Annexation Agreement unless the proposal departs from provISions of the Agreement, m 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: Fn 4/25/2008 3:00 PM To: VOGENEY Ken Cc: STOUDER Matt; BENOY Leslie; GOODWIN Len Subject: RE: ZON2008-00018 Development Issues Meetmg - Memo 4-11-08 Follow-up 4/29/2008 bata Received:._ rt!f/J{I{} f Planner: AL Page 3 of 4 Ken, My main focus IS wanting to ensure that we are being consistent and clear Wltl:1 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 pqbllc) 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 I 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 requiring 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 extenor parameters , and that this review does need to be defined up front, mainly so the developer will clearly understand what their 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 requiring 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 behind reqUlnng new roads to be bUilt by the public Just need to be clearly defined so everybody understands the rationale now and In 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 being 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 requiring such an obligations Ken, all we need to do IS put ourselves In 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 asking IS that we submit clear rationale for this Annexation Agreement and clear-up any possible misunderstanding that can anse We have an opportunity to clear this up at our Development Issues Meeting that will be occurring on May 1 st where we only need to pOint out the error and misdirection and hopefully this developer will stili choose to bUild this road at their own cost, but this understanding will be clear to everyone for the record Thank you for your understanding, Enc Enc A Walter, P E CIvil Engineer City of Spnngfleld Public Works Department 225 Fifth Street Spnngfield, OR 97477 Telephone (541) 736-1034 Facsimile (541) 736-1021 Emall ewalter@cl sonnafield or us Web www CI sonnafield or us From: VOGENEY Ken Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 12:00 PM To: WALTER Enc Cc: STOUDER Matt; BENOY Leslie; GOODWIN Len 4/29/2008 Date Received" Planner: Al '/;0 'I/20fJ! .., . -i. Page 4 of 4 Ii! Subject: RE: ZON2008-00018 Development Issues Meeting - Memo 4-~1-08 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 In the Agreement, namely the distinction between "30 or more" homes (as stated In the Agreement) and "more than 30" homes (as stated In the Fire Code) Thanks for pOinting out the difference, particularly since 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 being constructed IS In 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 Include a formal subdiVIsion tentative 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, within the limits of the zoning, and thiS developer happened to select a number of Units that COinCidentally matched a speCific number In the Agreement Anyway, I'll diSCUSS thiS next week With Matt and Les and we'll give you further instructions about how to proceed at that time Thanks, Ken From: WALTER Eric Sent: Thursday, April 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 Meeting to be held on May 1, 2008 Thank you; Enc Enc A Walter, P E CIVil Engineer City of Spnngfleld Public Works Department 225 Fifth Street Spnngfield, OR 97477 Telephone (541) 736-1034 FaCSimile (541) 736-1021 Emall ewalter@cl spnnafield or us Web www CI spnnafield or us 4/29/2008 Date tC(sceived: Planner: AL KP?htJo{ /