HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence PLANNER 11/17/2005
.
.
DONOVAN James
'4'
From:
Sent:
To:
'Cc:
Subject:
STOUDER Matt.
Thursday, November 17, 2005 9:22 AM
'David Corey'
STEPHENS Colin; 'Michael Shippey'; 'Pam Goebel'; DONOVAN James; VOGENEY Ken;
STOUDER Matt; WALTER Eric
RE: Legacy EstatesProjecl #SUB2005-00047
Attachments:
LeQacy Estates Subdivision.doc
~.
Legacy Estates
Subdivision.doc...
Mr. Corey,
I'm sorry you've misunderstood the City's review process. Let me start by saying my job
is to review your subdivision" proposal and ensure it meet applicable code requirements,
not to spend your money. Hopefully some of the information contained in this ernail will
clear up your concerns.
First, I think it's important you know that the plan drawing~ and hydrology study the City
received for tentative re~iew (DRe) contained no changes from what was submitted for pre-.
submittal. The drainage study is the same (May 2005) with no changes. It still contains
the same incorrect overall drainage basin of 110 acres (with tributary areas that can't
physically drain to your site). I'm sure you don't want" to be responsible for
constructing a drainage facility.which could be twice as large as it needs to be.
Additionally, your plans as submitted do not show the offsite drainage system (which
you've agreed to construct per the annexation agreement). If there is no drainage system
shown on the plans, where does the water go? The City cannot reasonably condition a
subdivision that does not have a functioning drainage system. Simply relying on a kickoff
meeting with the Corp and DSL, and verbal agreement from you to construct the system is
not acceptable. The City needs detailed information shown on the plan set to make
positive findings that the drainage system will meet applicable standards and function
properly. If these items are not included as part of the tentative submittal, then the
City will recommend denial of your application. "With the amount of public comment on this
application (especially regarding drainage and flooding), I think it would be in your best
interest to submit the items asked for" on the "ORe Review"_letter you received from Jim
dated 10.18/05. I have attached the letter for your convenience.
The City will be rescheduling a meeting
clarify any remaining questions you may
be available for any questions as well.
(due to yesterday's cancellation)
have. I will make sure to attend
Thank you,
to discuss and
this meeting and
Matt Stouder, EIT
City of Springfield
Public Works Dept.
Phone: 736-1035
Fax: 736-1021
Ernail: mstouder@ci.springfield.or.us
Date~eceived:_ll"" \ 1-0 5
Planner. .:::J0
I ().gL....f~
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Shippey'[mailto:MINISHIP@peop1epc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 8:35 AM
To: 'David Corey'; STOUDER Matt ,~.
Cc: STEPHENS Colin; 'Michael Shippey'; 'Pam Goebel';
Subject: RE: Legacy Estates Project #SU82005-00047
DONOVAN James; VOGENEY Ken
Good Morning David and others,
At that meeting, we received some good input from the Oregon Department of State lands and
1
. .
the US Atmy Corps of Engineers as to the processes we will likely.face. I have since
conducted delineation of jurisdictional areas at the subdivision and stormwater faci}ity
pOftions, and the delineation report is underway. I have coordinated with the Oregon
D~partment of Fish and Wildlife, and have not received any indication fr~m them that our
project will. face significant issues.
I hope this helps.
Mike Shippey
-----Original Message-----
From: David Corey [rnailto:david@tearncorey.com)
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 10:07 PM
To: STOUDER Matt
Cc: STEPHENS Colin; Michael Shippey; Pam Goebel; DONOVAN James; Ken Vogeney
Subject:. Legacy Estates Project ISUB2005-00047
Hello "again,
I received a copy of the DRC Review dated 10/18/05 from Jim Donovan yesterday.
In that you comment about how how section 1.4 of the annexation.agreement requires that I
construct a public storrnwater management systems and that I-show proof that I have started
that process. It was my understanding per my conversation with Ken Vogney and others that
setting up that meeting. that you attended along with all the other State agencies that you
mentioned in your comments would be proof enough for you that I had started that process.
I have hired Mike Shippey to head up the process of working with all the Agencies to
accomplish what was needed to allow us to install .this stormwater management system. But
now per you letter, you make it sound like non of this was ever discussed and agreed upon
because you say that I have not supplied you with alot of information.
I would sure like some clarification as. to what we agreed upon was necessary to allow us
to submit this project for tentative subdivision approval because it sound like you have
changed your mind and are looking for more information now than what was previously agreed
to.
Also, you say that you want a updated hydrology study. I know that a updated study was
provided to you with our submittal that was different than the original and the updated
one was completed as your wishes in our pre-submittal meeting. Are you changing your mind
on that now too and want something different than you originally requested in the~pre- .
submittal meeting. All this stuff cost money and I know its not your money, but it is
mine and I don't mind getting you what you need as long as I am only paying for it once.
We are having a meeting at the City at 2:00 p.m. on Wed. with Jim Donovan and I would hope
that you would be there to clarify all this stuff for us.
Thanks, David Corey
2