HomeMy WebLinkAboutComments PWT 10/10/2008
"
->
Page I of2
L1MBIRD Andrew
From: L1MBIRD Andrew
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 8:01 AM
To: JOHNDUFF Judith
Subject: RE: Possible Appeal.- Helfrich Partition
Hi Judy, I agree with the requirement for paving of the cul~e-sac bulb, and I don't think the City should back off
on its requirements just because the applicant thinks it will cost too much. As I told Mr.Helfrich in the meeting, it's
considered a cost of doing business and the developer typically recovers the front-end cost when the newly
created parcels are sold. In this case, however, both parcels are being kept in the family so there is no immediate
. "recovery" of the partition costs. If the appeal is submitted we can discuss the issue in more detail when a report
is prepared for the Hearings Official.
Andy
From: JOHNDUFF Judith
sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 4:11 PM
To: UMBIRD Andrew
Cc: DONOVAN James; JONES Terry (Tara); MILLER Liz; DRISCOLL Jon
Subject: RE: Possible Appeal - Helfrich Partition
Andy,
.. .
As I recall this cul-de-sac bulb abuts a paved roadway with curb, gutter and stormdrains (no-sidewalks).> I also
recall that this cul-de-sac bulb is currently un-paved and is in relatively poor condition and woul.d need to be
repairedlupgraded to meet minimum,un-paved standards for fire safety-if the applicant were somehow to be
relieved of the code requirements specified in 4.2-1 05(G) (2)(a). We did not require sidewalk improvements at
this time (improvement agreement was required), since the remainder of the street does not have sidewalks. As I
recall, the applicant is only responsible for curb and gutter along the property frontage.
The code is straight forward and makes sense for straight sections of roadway, but it would be inappropriate to
require paving 2/3rds of a c'ul"de-sac bulb and upgrading the remaining 1/3 to meet minimum standards for un-
paved roadway. It does not seem to make too much sense. Although it can be done, Therefore, we required
paving the entire width based upon 4.2-105(G)(2)(c).
Did he say that the cost of paving was $15,000 to $20,000 more than what he would have to pay to bring the cul-
de-sac upto the minimum un-paved standards? And how would Planning justify a decision to require an
improvement agreement instead of the improvements clearly required by code? Would the appeal be asking for
some type of variance?
Is there any fiexibility in the code (maybe I am not iooking in the right place) that provides a mechanism for
relieving the applicant of the improvement agreement for future side;""alk in exchange for paving the.extra 113m
width of the cul-de-sac bulb now? .
Judy'
From: UMBIRD Andrew
sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 2:22 PM
To: JOHN DUFF Judith; GORDON Gilbert
Cc: DONOVAN James; JONES Terry (Tara); MILLER Liz
Subject: Possible Appeal - Helfrich Partition
''';':.(~.I :'.:,;;.~:.S:ived.
Planner: AL .
/fJ//O/.bt7f"
/
10/10/2008
Page 2 of2
FYI
Dean Helfrich requested a meeting with me today about his tentative partition approval at 2833 20th Street (Case
SUB2008-00039). In the meeting, he expressed concerns about the conditions requiring him to pave the cul-de-
sac bulb and install a new fire hydrant. I discussed the issue of "developer pay" and other aspects of the land use
decision and gave him an Appeal application form in case he pursues it further. I think he may have over-
estimated the cost of paving the cul-de-sac bulb (he says $15,000 - $20,000), but it's still an added cost for his
development proposal. Mr. Helfrich may solicit some paving bids to determine a more accurate cost for the work,
so we'll see where it goes from here. He stated that installing a new fire hydrant was in the range of $9,000 -
$9,500. .
Andy.
':.. ...,,' :'N_;',<:u:~/.2&Jl!7f
Planner: AL
10/10/2008
Page 1 of 1
L1MBIRD Andrew
From: JOHNDUFF Judith
Sent: Thursday, October 09, .2008 4: 11 PM
To: L1MBIRD Andrew
Cc: DONOVAN James; JONES Terry (Tara); MILLER Liz; DRISCOLL Jon
Subject: RE: Possible Appeal -Helfrich Partition
Andy,
As l-recallthis cul-de-sac bulb abuts a paved roadway with curb, gutter and stormdrains (no-sidewalks). I also
recall that this cul-de-sac bulb is currently un-paved and is in relatively poor condition and would need to be
repairedlupgraded to meet minimum un-paved standards for fire safety-if the applicant were somehow to be
relieved of the code requirements specified in 4.2-105(G) (2)(a). We did not require sidewalk improvements at
this time (improvement agreement was required), since the remainder of the street does not have sidewalks. As I
recall, the applicant is only responsible for curb and gutter along the property frontage. '
The code is straight forward and makes sense for straight sections of roadway, but it wou'ld be inappropriate to
require paving 2/3rds of a cul-de-sac bulb and upgrading the remaining 1/3 to meet minimum standards for un-
paved roadway. It does not seem to make too much sense. Although it can be done. Therefore, we required
paving the entire width based upon 4.2-105(G)(2)(c).
Did he say that the cost of paving was $15,000 to $20,000 more than what he would have to pay to bring the cul-
de-sac up to the minimum un-paved standards? And how would Planning justify a decision to require an,
improvement agreement instead of the improvements clearly required by code? Would the appeal be asking for
some type of variance? . .
Is there any flexibility in the code (maybe I am not looking in the right place) that provides'a mechanism for
relieving the applicant of the' improvement agreement for future sidewalk in exchange for paving the extra 1/3rd
width of the cul,de-sac bulb now? '
Judy
From: UMBIRD Andrew
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 2:22 PM
To: JOHN DUFF Judith; GORDON Gilbert
Cc: DONOVAN James; JONES Terry (Tara); MILLER Liz
Subject: Possible Appeal - Helfrich Partition
FYI
Dean Helfrich requested a meeting with me today about his tentative partition approval at 2833 20th Street (Case
SUB2008-00039). In the meeting, he expressed concerns about the conditions niquiring,him to pave the cul~e-
sac bulb and install a new fire hydrant. I discussed the issue of "developer pay" and other aspects of the land use
decision and gave him an Appeal application form in case he pursues it further. I think he may have over-
estimated the cost of paving the cul-de-sac bulb (he says $15,000 - $20,000), but it's still an added cost for his"
development proposal. Mr. Helfrich may solicit some paving bids to determine a more accurate cost for the work,
so we'll see where it goes from here. He stated that installing a new'fire hydrant was in t~e range of $9,000 -
$9,500. .
Andy
t:
Datt} ~eceived: /o/rp()()f"
Planner: AL
10/9/2008
Page 1 of 1 :
L1MBIRD Andrew.
From: JOHN DUFF Judith
Sent: Thursday, October 09,20082:24 PM
To: L1MBIRD Andrew
Cc: DRISCOLL Jon
Subject: RE: Possible Appeal - Helfrich Partition
Hi Andy,
Thanks for the update. Please keep.us posted.
Thanks,
Judy
From: UMBIRD Andrew
Sent: Thursday,October 09,20082:22 PM
To: JOHNDUFF Judith; GORDON Gilbert
Cc: DONOVAN James; JONES Terry (Tara); MILLER Liz
Subject: Possible Appeal - Helfrich Partition
FYI
Dean Helfrich requested a meeting with me today about his tentative partition approval at 2833 20th Street (Case
SUB2008-00039). In the meeting, he expressed concern~ about the conditions requiring him to pave the cul-de-
sac bulb and install a new fire hydrant. I discussed the issue of "developer pay" and other aspects of the land use
decision and gave him an Appeal application form in case he pursues it further. I think he may have over-
estimated the cost of paving the cul-de-sac bulb (he says $15,000 - $20,000), but it's still an added cost for his
development proposal. Mr. Helfrich may solicit some paving bids to determine a more accurate cost for the work,
so we'll see where it goes from here. He stated that installing a new fire hydrant was in the range of $9,000 -
.~ . .
Andy
10/9/2008.
Date. ~6ceived:4/ Jpt> r
Planner: AL