HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence PLANNER 3/1/2006
'..
.
.
Page 1 of2 .
".~'
DONOVAN James
From: DONOVAN James
Sent: Wednesday, March 01,200610:17 AM
To: 'Scott Lawson'
Cc: PAPPAS Cynthia; LAUDATI Niel; SUMMERS Sarah; GRILE Bill; TAYLOR Paula L'
Subject: RE: legacy Estates
;)8(3 ReCiiliVed:
Planl1er~
3~1-()(P
aD
IlJf2~
Dear Mr. Lawson,
Thank you for your inquiry regarding the status of the Legacy Estates land use process and your stated concerns.
As discussed in our email of December 23rd, the applicant has submitted additional information in response to
some of the concerns raised and, rather than having too little notice to affected parties, I decided to send out a
second notice allowing for comments on the new information submitted. The list of materials submitted is attached
to the notice and I am available to meet and discuss your concerns before the comment period deadline on March
9, 2006. . .
As discussed in our October correspondence, subdivisions are a staff de'cision requiring notice and allowing for
your written comments. I will address all concerns related to the criteria of approvai and you will receive a copy of
the decision. No public hearing is required by the land use code unless an appeal of that decision is received. The
land use decision will contain instructions on how and when to do that or I can answer those questions for you.
However, your concerns can be stated to my supervisor at any time and you always have the right to have your
concerns heard by your elected officials by attending a regular City Council meeting and speaking under
"Business From the Audience" .
In response to your concern regarding the differences between Annexation plans, and Subdivision plans, please
understand that any subdivision design used during Annexation hearings is conceptual unless and until tentatively
approved by the City of Springfield. The question being addressed at annexation is limited to whether a property
can be served with a full range of urban services (sanitary and storm sewer, electric and water, streets and .
schools) in a timely and efficient manner. The purpose of a conceptual residential development plan in an
annexation hearing is to establish whether or not the range of density allowed by the current zoning (1-9 units in
the Low Density Residential District) can be served with main lines and facilities with adequate capacity. The
density discussed at the annexation hearing and the density proposed on the subdivision plan are both within the
. density range allowed by the City.
I hope this is helpful and thank you again for your input. I am available to~ discuss this further.at your
convenience. Please call me anytime at 726-3660.
Respectfully,
Jim Dono~an
From: Scott Lawson [mailto:scott4684@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 3:08 PM
To: DONOVAN James
SUbject: Legacy Estates
Mr. Donavan
I have received several notices in the mail regarding Mr. Corey's project.
Willi be able to review my stated concerns at city hall?
Most disturbing of all is that when the annexation hearing was held, Mr. Corey sold the deal
with less than 20 homes proposed now. Does that matter to the process or do developers get
free rein?
3/1/2006
l.
.
.
Page 2 of2
;.~---
I was in attendance as well as other neighbors I can provide names if you are unable to locate
the meeting minutes. -
It is interesting how this plan and its process including a very involved study on the McKenzie
River (Cedar Creek) flood plain has evolved
Regaurds,
Saat lww~
~~ N. fit/.
5rlrU,O~
scott4684@comcast.net
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by A VG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375/ Virus Database: 268.0.0/268 - Release Date: 2/23/2006
3/1 /2006