HomeMy WebLinkAboutComments PLANNER 2/1/2009
.1
L1MBIRD Andrew
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
GRILE Bill
Sunday, February 01, 2009 8:38 AM
MOTT Gregory
GRIMALDI Gino; L1MBIRD Andrew
Re: gateway mdr site.pdf - Adobe Reader
In addition to the fact that including these additional properties makes' logical planning
sense, starting them out in the proposal doesn't mean they can't later be dropped by the PC
,
or Council if they deem this the thing to do. Thanks.
Bill
** Sent from my iPhone **
On Jan 30, 2009, at 4:12 PM, "MOTT Gregory"
<gmott@ci.sorinefield.or.us> wrote:
> Gino,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Our office is about to send DLCD a notice of proposed amendment to
apply the Nodal Development Overlay District on the Gateway MDR site
(first map). This action was directed by Council in the initial plan
amendment for the site (2001-2003) and the subsequent Master
Plan approval in 2005. We've included a second map that includes a
tier of LDR lots along Deadmond Ferry that would be a logical addit
ion to this action; however, because these lots are LDR and not MDR
they weren't included in the direction from Council so if you think
our reach is exceeding our grasp we won't do it.
I'm bringing this up not because I think it's good practice to act
contrary to Council instruction, but because I think it's inevit able
that either the PC, CC, the property owners or some mix of all three
will ask why these properties were not included in this propo sal.
This is the only t.DR in Gateway east of Game Farm and north of
8eltline other than the Patrician MHP so it is an anomaly in terms of
future development.
The benefit to the property owners is that we'd also rezone their pr
operty from LDR to MDR and they would then be entitled to significan'
tly more development potential than is available to them in LDR mode:
Also, if any of these property owners decided they wanted this z"
oning and plan designation after we take this action on the other pr:
operties, they'd have to pay about $20,000 each to have the city pro'
cess an individual application. There also is no certainty that ra:
ndom requests would occur in a sequentially logical pattern. It is ,
our intention to meet with all the affected property owners prior to
the initial hearing in April so we can just as easily include these"
folks. . . . d.:;, I,Op"
Date Recelvea:--,...'t' "7
1 Planner: AL
>
>
>
> We need to send our notice up no later than February 13th.
> let me know your preference.
>
>
>
> gmott
>
>
>
>
>
> gmott
>
> <gateway mdr site>
.2
Please
p'ate. Received:~IozI,)o09
Planner: AL