HomeMy WebLinkAboutComments PLANNER 2/9/2009
L1MBIRD Andrew
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
DONOVAN James
Monday, February 09, 2009 9:27 AM
L1MBIRD Andrew; MOTT Gregory
GRILE Bill
RE: AIS"GW-MDR
Just one comment to keep in mind whether it requires clarification in writing or noL.when discussing the annexation
option we may want to clearly say that we would offer a city sponsored annexation tothe strip and doughnut owners
rather than require annexation River Road style??
JD
From: UMBIRD Andrew
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 4:52 PM
To: GRILE Bill; DONOVAN James
Subject: FW: AIS-GW-MDR
From: UMBIRD Andrew
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 3:07 PM
To: MoTT Gregory
Subject: RE: AIS-GW-MDR
I have made suggested edits here:
S:\AIS\2009-CounciI\2009-02-17\RS DSD Nodal Develooment overlav Imolementation - Gatewav Riverbend
'Please review and we can finalize the AIS. Thanks
Andy
From: MOTT Gregory
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 2:47 PM
To: UMBIRD Andrew
Subject: AIS-GW-MDR
1
. ed' . 2~~"1 ~
Oat~ R6CelV .-=r'l"-
Planner: AL
.
,
\
4
L1MBIRD Andrew
.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
BOYATT Tom
Monday, February 09,20099'15 AM
MOTT Gregory; GRILE Bill; L1MBIRD Andrew
. RE: AIS-GATEWAY-MCKENZIE MDR
I'm available till 11:30 - just let me know
From: MOTT Gregory
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 8:51 AM
To: GRILE Bill; UMBIRD Andrew
Cc: BOYATT Tom
Subject: RE: AIS-GATEWAY-MCKENZIE MDR
Works for me; I'm clear until then.
gmott
From: GRILE Bill
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 8:49 AM
To: MOTT Gregory; UMBIRD Andrew
Subject: RE: AIS-GATEWAY-MCKENZIE MDR
Ok, I'm thinking this is tied in with the eminent domain issue and hence, important to check Tom Boyatt's comfort level
as we proceed, Should we all try to huddle before our 10:30 today?
...BG
From: MOTT Gregory
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 8:47 AM
To: GRILE Bill; UMBIRD Andrew
Subject: RE: AIS-GATEWAY-MCKENZIE MDR
Importance: High
Not before I saw your e-mail just now; let's talk about this some more. I sent Gino an emaillast week that
highlighted these issues and asked if he wanted to put this off for a while ratherthan go on the 17th; I didn't hear
back from him so we sent this forward in case he wanted this to go as instructed.
gmott
From: GRILE Bill
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 8:41 AM
To: UMBIRD Andrew
Cc: MOTT Gregory
Subject: RE: AIS-GATEWAY-MCKENZIE MDR
Did you take a look at my suggested changes before shooting this on to Gino? Please let me know. Thanks.
",BG
1
Date f'teceived: Z/f/.;uoP7
Planner; AL
\
From: UMBIRD Andrew
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 8:32 AM "
To: MoTT Gregory; GRILE Bill; DONOVAN James; GRIMALDI Gino; SoWA Amy
Subject: RE: AIS-GATEWAY"MCKENZIE MDR
Importance: High
Gino: Please provide final review for the AIS -the link is below. Thanks
Andy
From: MoTT Gregory
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 7:55 AM
To: UMBIRD Andrew
Subject: RE: AIS-GW-MDR
'il
"
Looks good, Andy. I made a few minor changes (who's presenting; how long, etc). I didn't make the
changes suggested by Bill, so if you'd do that I think this can go to Gino?
gmott
From: UMBIRD Andrew
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 3:07 PM
To: MOTT Gregory
Subject: RE: AIS,GW-MDR
I have made suggested edits here:
I!.
S:\AIS\2009-CounciI\2009-02-17\RS DSD Nodal Develooment Overlav Imolementation - Gatewav
Riverbend
Please review and we can finalize the AIS. Thanks
Andy
From: MOTT Gregory
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 2:47 PM
To: UMBIRD Andrew
Subject: AIS-GW-MDR
2
Date f'{eceived:
Planner: Al
.2./fIJptJ!
I I
I'.
L1MBIRD Andrew
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
GRILE Bill
Sunday, February 08, 2009 3:24 PM
L1MBIRD Andrew; MOTT Gregory
DONOVAN James; PAULY Linda; BOYATT Tom; SMITH Susan; MARX Sandra
RE: AIS-GW-MDR
I see why Gino wanted this brought forward. I've added comments on the AIS and have a couple additional ones here.
1. What is "SLI" on the old Sony site, per ATT 1? This isn't clear... at least to me.
2. The AIS leaves the Council hanging. Shouldn't this have a clearer recommendation re what we ask they do? If
the options are only to be considered without our recommendation, then I suspect'Gino will want to see more
analysis of the options. Suggesting forced annexation, as the AIS seems to suggest, 'may unnecessary spark
flames.
Let's huddle rather than go back and forth re this. I'd like Tom Boyatt's comfort level with this to be high.
Thanks.
... Bill
From: UMBIRD Andrew
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 4:52 PM
To: GRILE Bill; DONOVAN James
Subject: FW: AIS-GW-MDR
Importance: High
From: UMBIRD Andrew
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 3:07 PM
To: MoTT Gregory
Subject: RE: AIS-GW-MDR
I have made suggested edits here:
S:\AIS\2009-CounciI\2009-02-17\RS DSD Nodal Develooment Overlav Imolementation - Gatewav Riverbend
Please review and we can finalize the AIS. Thanks
Andy
From: MOTT Gregory
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 2:47 PM
To: UMBIRD Andrew
Subject: AIS-GW-MDR
1
Dat~ Received:
Planner: AL..
2/f/ ')-lJtJ'j
J I
L1MBIRD Andrew
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
MOTT Gregory
Friday, February 06,20098:12 AM
L1MBIRD Andrew
FW: Gateway MDR
From: MOTT Gregory
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 8:29 AM
To: GRIMALDI Gino
Cc: GRILE Bill
Subject: Gateway MDR
Gino,
A little update on the Gateway MDR project; all but one of the LDR properties in Gateway are outside the city limits;
even some of the MDR property along Deadmond Ferry and Baldy View are outside of the city limits. The implication of
this is that the Board of Commissioners must co-adopt this action for any property outside the city limits (Pam Bascilius
(sp?)).
We could approach this a couple of ways:
1. Include only MDR property within city limits; only City Council adopts; state that the remaining MDR lots will be
designated ND when they annex;
2. Include all MDR property and co-adopt with Lane County
3. Include LDR along Deadmond Ferry and all MDR and co-adopt with Lane County
4. Ask folks outside the city limits if they want to annex on our dime and include any takers in this action; only City
Council adopts; remaining MDR lots will be designated when they annex.
Option 1 is the quickest but obviously leaves some gaps; it may occur to folks that this is a political rather than land use
decision. Option 2 does exactly what the condition of approval directs, but does require co-~doption. Option 3
probably reflects the best land use decision but might place the EOs in an awkward position if any of the unincorporated
folks object. Option 4, if there are takers, will add 2-3 months to the front end and we couldistill end up with a patch-
work pattern of city limits. Do you want to put this off until March? Or stay with the 17th?
gmott
\
,
1
Date Received:41~
Planner: AL