HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence PLANNER 11/15/2005
~:.,.
...;
-
.
DONOVAN James
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
DONOVAN James
Tuesday, November 15, 2005 8:58 AM
'David Corey'
STEPHENS Colin; VOGENEY Ken; WALTER Eric; STOUDER Matt; OBERST Mel
RE: Legacy Estates #SUB2005-0047
S UB2005-0004 7CoreyStouder .doc
Attachments:
@l~].
1=
,'""",,
SUB200S-00047Cor
eyStouder.doc ...
Mr. Corey,
I apologize for the delay on this status report. I have been researching the storm and
ground water issues- and have been swamped with other workload. Your application is
important to us, hence my concerns and suggested resolution.
Those concerns regard the adjacent well and the lack of a detailed design for off site
storm water facilities. It is my preliminary opinion that the proposal does not meet
subdivision criteria of approval for public facilities and ground water protection without
additional information. I appreciate the offer of digital pictures but-I think we are
go.ing to need detailed designs and engineering information including but not limited to:
1) Off site storm water facilities. There is no design information on the tentative plans
or a PIP submittal as required by annexation agreement. We cannot approve the proposed'
system on site without a minimum of a PIP submittal to demonstrate that the connection of
the two systems is feasible. (See Matt Stouder's attached comments referencing the pre-
submittal requirements.)
2) Well Water. I have done enough statutory research on this subject to know that we do
not have enough information in the record to address the concerns of the neighbors
regarding the well next to the proposed street construction. (See the public involvement
letters that I forwarded.) I can help with the legal research of the well issue but the
way to address this concern is with information submitted by the applicant. I apologize
for the delay here but the well was not shown on the site surveyor previously disclosed
so it .interrupts the normal review process.
Current status: I do not feel that I can reasonably condition the submittal and address
the neighbor's concerns .onthe bas~s of the information included at re-submittal.
Suggestion: We will have to sit down and discuss the time frames for additional
information and a sound, defensible decision. I feel like we still have a reasonable
development proposal but it will take some additional work and' an extension of the 120 day
time frame to allow for that work.
Let's talk about engineer availability (yours and ours) then we can get together for a
meeting to discuss this in more detail.
Respectfully,
Jim Donovan
Date Received:
Planner: \3'0
\\-15-05
.-
-----Original Message-----
From: David Corey [mailto:david@teamcorey.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 7:51 AM
To: DONOVAN James
Cc: STEPHENS Colin; VOGENEY Ken
Subject: Legacy Estates #SUB2005-0047
lol~
Good Morning Jim,
1
if ,\ ~ .
I have tried several times to call you regarding my project and left you messages but
never received a phone call back. I have also e-mailed you 2 or 3 times and never heard
back that way either. I don't know why you won't respond to my questions. After all, I
am the applicant on the above application and I have paid a substantial fee to the City of
Springfield only to be ignored and have my questions go unanswered.
I am not sure what I need to do from this point on to complete the project and get my
questions answered. Maybe you or your supervisors could tell me what I am doing wrong. I
have never been ignored so much on any of the many other projects that I have done with
the City of Springfield.
David Corey
541-338-3)16
2