HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence PLANNER 6/23/2010 (2)
..0::.
~ ."
MILLER Liz
.
.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
MILLER Liz
Wednesday, June 23,20104:56 PM
'Great House Design'
RE: 275 South 70th SI.
Tim,
,'II need four sets of just the site plan page. The additional trees need to be shown on the plan along the South 70th
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
(S41) 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: J p 6th I[~ 'U.Pird
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. ] th?ught our goal was to I)elll Grace s"'/: motwCl.5k'-
simplifY it as much as possible, and move beyond the R&B use. - '8la/{ f\a.S, I\. (J Of P /I a. r-{ h-- /J ~ .' '
Typ. government, I guess. We will not discuss it further, just try and do all you are requiring - and ,')j'parentlx generate J.eI"l!-not~~..J'
4th version of the dwg. set and proposal for your use? Wow. - Have. Vlevti rli.lIfe! r1t'Jtn '0,/v).A';ff'1 In tift{ .
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 2010 proposed ARCF condition for Kip (to
clarifY the erroneous construction of a few interior walls and show all proposed work). /?, Q.I YJ..I flr
At the beginning, I was instructed to organize and simplit); all these existing / proposed / etc. conditions, which I did, but then told it
was too complicated. It was NOT. We've had five different categories labe]ing this facility by the city, then the additional t7 . U 'f
schedule/terminology state - city confusion kicked in and frankly, I am disappointed in the process. It didn't have to be this 10 t(1 ('LIII
complicated.
Now I have to charge Grace a lot more for all this time, more dwgs. and confusionL~
The MDS report and related conditions I rqmts. was created based on the standard R&B in late 2009 - FOUR years AFTER the 2005
r,mod el was ~RfJovFl But the},?f courseJ( wa~v't process,lld pro}'er~ and prace gets.to be punished f')',it. Ora f L -IJJOO~
1(\ QS vtQ(dtIMVIJ,((L +-a(1/1 r rohrl.f 17I{.liHJ/:~Jet Ck!/'(Jfj( Ilaft~tti- z{)~srl((.'t{ (V
We then ALL decided to pursue the ARCF category - FINAL(Y disco;~rld in Feb 2010 at~ur counter meeting. You announced ~1J
the MDS would no longer be reud. But now we're back to fully implementing it - JUST for a few weeks "app ic b]e" an "require9h IfIflJ,
lXd. NJt-~~ thuJ WOUif( fu ()yIt-lnM~, e,~ ~ APt6bte~ved: 2--3 f
0Ju'\~~~ tyVlleg bf Ll.f~'br{YY\ P.etl1 rf)r1bc@/oY') .. Planner: LM Arta~r~((
,lime to'1;atisfY the R&B condition. Real' And jlIl we simp,!}' ,nseded a small time exten. to co'mplete the ARCF process - AND
avoid these MDS rqmts. \'\ 0 a.p r. tv(/'l ~ u..J:JM I II Cl\
All this expense - which will soon be unnecessary for the new ARCF category - is clearly just red t'j!'e / CY -?o., in..J11YflmiJ1lo~.. L/I.,/;fltL
no OvpP 't- tollC "Q <J{J.D /fV1-FfIJ.
(Am I wrong? I 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 time line you propose, and we'll beat that!
R&B eomoliance Site I Floor Plan Revisions:
I have submitted the 2005-09 "original condition" Site & Floor plans related to the R&B - AND now this additional new 2009 / 2010
"rev. ARCF version" to KipfEric. 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 complv with the ARCF. It's all there. Maybe we can avoid this 4th
version...?
If you insist, I will re-create the MDS version ofthe 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 citi and counties...it's rru,st;a~~'n . I'm,just s,ay~g.Lh
A.../State.; a f)\/NyYlILIA ~t(i ra0 (}JJ I (j 011 . fA
Now this will be title as an "INTERMEDIATE June/Jul 2010 R&B SITE LOT PLAN". It is only satisfY the temporary rec.V\ 1-
condition that will later be replaced by the ARCF (when none of it is reqired any longer). But I will show all the things you have u.h,',
listed in the MDS conditions. (}
Condition 8 was corrected long ago on both the recent dwg. submittals. I found-;;iearer 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 statelY AI 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 B., the much more involved than I want to be designer! Just kidding.
0) 688-3492
c) 912-5875
/
Date ReceiVed:~
Planner: LM
2