HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence ODOT 6/29/2010
< -.
.
.
MILLER Liz
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hazell LEFLER [hazel.i.lefler@state.or.us]
Tuesday, June 29, 2010 1 :23 PM
MILLER Liz
Re: FW: 275 South 70th SI.
Good afternoon, Liz.
I sure would like to know who Tim has been talking to at the state. I agreed to 2
weeks because he said he could meet your requirements in that time. I did not'
understand that he was referring to a residential care facility. His use of
licensing/code terms confuses me. I did not agree to a couple of months for anything.
Perhaps I should resend my long email to him.
My understanding is that we are looking at July 31 (or August 15) to have everything
completed for the 5-bed room and board. If she enters into a plan with you for
completion ofihe conditions by that time, we will extend her current registration.
However, we will not allow her to drag out the time frame and continue to operate an
improper room and board for an extended period of time.
To the best of my knowledge, Grace has not even submitted an application to become
an RCF. The state has up to 60 days from the date the final complete application is
submitted to decide if the license should be granted. There is no guarantee that she
will be approved and no action at all will occur regarding the RCF within two weeks.
If he is going to continue to be involved in the discussions, I would like to have a
meeting in-person between all of us. I think we could then clarify our positions and
reach a agreement between all the parties. I will be on vacation from 7/2 through
7/1.1. Otherwise we might do a conference call tomorrow or Wednesday morning.
Please keep me posted and let me know how you want to proceed.
Thanks. Hazel
>>> "MILLER Liz" <Imiller@ci.springfield.or.us> 06/29/201012:32 PM >>>
Grace,
I wanted to ask you, before responding to the e-mails below, if you as the owner and applicant have input and are in
agreement with Tim's e-mails. I've found quite a few of his statements to be incorrect. Has the application for the
Residential Care Facility been submitted to the State yet? Is it going to be issued in a week?
I think we set up a reasonable timeline for completion of the MDS requirements and I had been corresponding with
you recently and these questions had not come up.
Sincerely,
Liz Miller
Urban Planning Division
Date Received:~ f 'J-q 10_
Planner: LM +
1
City of Springfield
(541) 726-2301
.
.
~
from: Great House Design [mailto:l1m@GreatHouseDesignNW.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 12:12 PM
To: MILLER Liz
Subject: 275 South 70th 5t.
however...
We'd still like an honest response to our questions:
1. Why is Grace being forced to comply with the very expensive "temporary" & "retroactive" MDS
I R&B rqmts. when she is about to be approved for permits to operate an ARCF VERY soon - like in
a week? Especially since Hazel @ the State is NOT requiring short term R&B compliance and has
agreed to simply postpone Grace:s license renewal in a pending mode until she completes the'
ARCF? No one should be considering at R&B anymore!
2. So why can Grace not also get a "short term time extension" from the city to avoid these virtually
"moot" rqmts.?
I believe it is clearly reasonable, common sense and FAIR. The city should be helping small
business, her efforts with the homeless, and the affordable improvement of unique community
services. Grace has proven to be an asset to Springfield. She I we are not asking for any special
favors, but she is not not deserving unreasonable bureaucratic inflexiblity, either. Simply a little
cooperation on a small internal Planning I Land Use technicality.
Or are we missing something you haven't yet explained?
I respectfully request a response based on Jim's / your decision/reasoning to clear it all up would be
greatly appreciated. I believe we have a right to know.
Thanks very much.
Tim Belleville
Great Ho"use Design
688-3492
ok, thanks - will do. Sorry 'bout the rambling e-mail and kidding around - I know you're busy.
TimB.
----- Original Message -----
From: MILLER Liz
To: Timothv Belleville
Sent: Wednesday, June 23,20104:56 PM
Subject: RE: 275 South 70th St.
Tim,
Date ReceiVed:U! 2--q 110
Planner: LM
2
... .
I'll need four sets of just the site pi'!l"page. The additional trees need to be shown on the plan along the South 70'h
Place frontage, the screened trash enclosure, the bicycle parking, parking lot striping and wheel bumpers along with
any other items referred to in the conditions as it relates to the original MDS plan submitted. The MDS submittal is a
separate file from the building permit submittal.
Liz Miller
Urban Planning Division
City of Springfield
(541) 726-2301
From: Great House Design [mailto:Tim@GreatHouseDesignNW.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 4:26 PM
To: MILLER Liz
Subject: 275 South 70th St.
hey, Liz:
Just between you and me...
Evidentally, I see we are to have this entire project now subjected to the very strictest interpretation of all the codes and regulations
- despite the R&B rqmts. being a temporary / soon to be replaced condition. I thought our goal was to help Grace save money and
simplity it as much as possible, and move beyond the R&B use.
Typ. government, I guess. We will not discuss it further, just try and do all you are requiring - and apparently generate yet another
4th version of the dwg. set and proposal for your use? Wow.
Another and now additional 2005 - 2009 original R&B condition was recently reqd. by Eric (based on John Pearson's previously
approved remodel process) - ADDED to the 2009/ recently submitted then revised 20 I 0 orooosed ARCF condition for Kip (to
clarity the erroneous construction of a few interior walls and show all proposed work).
At the beginning, I was instructed to organize and simplity all these existing / proposed / etc. conditions, which I did, but then told it
was too complicated. 1t was NOT. We've had five different categories labeling this facility by the city, then the additional
schedule/terminology state - city confusion kicked in and frankly, I am disappointed in the process. It didn't have to be this
complicated.
Now I have to charge Grace a lot more for all this time, more dwgs. and confusion.
The MDS report and related conditions / rqmts. was created based on the standard R&B in late 2009 - FOUR years AFTER the
2005 remodel was approved. But then, of course, it wasn't processed properly, and Grace gets to be punished for it.
We then ALL decided to pursue the ARCF category - FlNALL Y discovered in Feb 2010 at our counter meeting. You announced
the MDS would no longer be reud. But now we're back to fully implementing it - JUST for a few weeks "applicable" and
"required" time to satisty the R&B condition. Really?! And all we simply needed a small time extension to comolete the ARCF
orocess - AND avoid these MDS rqmts.
All this expense - which will soon be unnecessary for the new ARCF category - is clearly just red tape / CY A, in my opinion.
(Am 1 wrong? 1 mean really. Did Jim actually even consider my minor request? Has no one any authority to.be a bit flexible or
"think outside the box - JUST a little?)
We do apprecitate the timeline you propose, and we'll beat that!
Date Received:~
Planner: LM
R&B Compliance Site I Floor Plan Revisions:
3
I- have s~bmitted the 2005-09 "Origina.ndition" Site & Floor plans related to the R&~ND now this additional new 2009/
2010 "rev. ARCF version" to KiplEric. I think if you looked at both these versions, with the very clear wall legend showing
exist/removed/new it should answer ANY questions you may have regarding closets, number of rooms, etc. What WAS there, what
was then done, and what we will revise and build new to comolv with the ARCF. It's all there. Maybe we can avoid this 4th
version... ?
If you insist, I will re-create the MDS version of the Site Plan AGAIN for you.
This will all "needlessly" cost Grace thousands of dollars. But it will make you-all look good, I suppose. Oh, sorry - I'm picking at
you again. :-) Don't mean to 'vent' on you, and do appreciate your help and patience. Just having a little fun.
(Once she is approved for the ARCF, I assume that legally, she could actually remove all these MDS/R&B items, as they would no
longer be required under an ARCF...ha - I'm just a smart aleck sometimes, but this all appears ridiculous.) Some of the stuff I've
seen imposed on builders and home & business owners over 30+ years by cities and counties...it's frustrating. I'm just saying...
Now this will be title as an "INTERMEDIATE June/Julv 2010 R&B SITE (PLOT) PLAN". It is only to satisfy the temporary
condition that will later be replaced by the ARCF (when none of it is reqired any longer). But 1 will show all the things you have
listed in the MDS conditions.
Condition 8 was corrected long ago on both the recent dwg. submittals. I found clearer city records and plat data after that
preliminary review dwg. we were working on
The closets have all been changed and will be totally removed/revised to meet the ARCF condsitons and stateN A/ADA rqmts. as
you will see on the recently revised/submitted 2010 dwg. set.
Thanks again, and please just keep this e-mail between you and me. Respond only if you feel like it. I just wanted to let you know
my intentions to give you this MDS/R&B version you want.
Tim 8., the much more involved than I want to be designer! Just kidding.
0) 688-3492
c) 912-5875
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by A VG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.829/ Virus Database: 271.1.1/2959 - Release Date: 06/23/1 0 11:35:00
Date Received:
Planner: LM
4