HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous Correspondence 1991-11-5
~
/
,
.
.
November 5, 1991.
Mrs. M.J. Higgins
5660 Daisy, #8
Springfield, OR. 97478
RE: Mountain View Mobile Home Estates
. .
Dear Mrs. H1gg1ns:
At your request as a property owner in the Subdivision in question,
I have researched some questions which were raised as we discussed
the conditions of approval, and have concluded the ,following:
1. The subdivision is served by private streets taking access
from Daisy Street which bisect~ the subdivision east to west.
Our policy was and is that private streets be provided with
lighting sufficient to illuminate the streets in a manner
equivalent to that of pUblic streets. As a condidi tion of the
original subdivision approval, we required that a street
lighting proposal be developed, and submitted to the City for
review and approval. The lighting, which was subsequently
'installed, was required as as a condition of approval of the
subdivision, and was to be maintained in good operating
condition thereafter.
To allow for the required lighting to be removed, we would
first require that an alternate lighting proposal be submitted
and approved. We can see no justification for approving
individually owned and operated lighting as satisfying this
requirement.
Our conclusion is that if the street lighting was removed, it
was done without approval of the City, and shall be replaced
as originally approved; or and alternate proposal providing
equivalent lighting shall be submitted to us for approval as
a modification to the original provisions and conditions of
the subdivision.
If you wish to contact the. Springfield utility Board
Electrical Division regarding reactivating the street lights,
call Ray at 746-8451, ext. 408, and he will dispatch a crew to
verify the condition of the existing electrical service to the
lights. The lights were provided with a separate electric
meter, but that meter is locked-out at this time.
f
II'
.
.
Prior to energizing the lights, you would need to extablish an
account with the SUB billing office for purposes of electrical
billing.
2. The private streets were designed as being only 24' in width,
and as such are not allowed to have parking on them. A
condition of approval of the 24' wide streets was that they be
posted NO PARKING. Removal of the NO PARKING signage, and
allowing parking on the private streets is prohibited.
3. The storm and sanitary sewers serving the properties North and
South of Daisy Street are also privately owned and maintained
from the point of connection to the City mains in Daisy
Street. The City does not maintain privately owned sewers,
and has no desire to accept these private sewers as part of
the public system.
4. Chuck Davis, Springfield Utility Board Water Department
Engineer, has informed me that the water system in the
subdivision is installed in private easements, but is a public
system maintained to the water meters by the Utility Board.
Maintenance of the water laterals from the meters to each home
is the responsibility of the property owners.
5. Electrical service to each lot is similar to the water service
above, and is provided by the Springfield Utility Board.
6. The common areas were to be developed with a ball field,
tennis court, garden plots, and RV storage areas as per the
approved site plan. I have given you a copy of the approved
site plans showing landscaping, irrigation, and other
improvements which were to be installed. As you know, a
large portion of the public areas were never developed as per
the approved plans, and the portions that were developed were
not maintained. As a result of this lack of maintenance, much
of the public area became an eyesore rather than an
enhancement of the development, and some of the improvements
were subsequently removed.
The Development Agreement with the original developers
obligated that the common open spaces be maintained once they
were developed. We would like to see the Homeowners
Association improve the common areas so they benefit the
occupants of the subdivision, however you may wish to submit
a modified proposal for our review and approval, showing what
improvements you wish to provide.
7. The subdivision was allowed to be divided into smaller lots
than would normally have been required, because all property
owners were to benef it from the use of the common areas.
Setback and lot coverage allowances were allowed to be similar
to those allowed for Mobile Home Parks rather than for
subdivisions.
~
~f'
.
.
This is the only Mobile Home Subdivision PUD (Planned unit
Development) which has been reviewed and approved by the City
of Springfield.
At this point, it appears that many of the property owners may not
be totally aware of the obligations which have been shifted to them
as members of the Home Owners Association. Please see that this
letter is distributed to the members at your next meeting.
Questions regarding items in this letter may be directed to me at
726-3669.
Pleg~r, Plans Examiner