Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotes, Work PLANNER 11/15/2005 .::. , . . Memo to File . Date: November 15, 2005 To: .SUB2005-00047/Applicant ~. Jim Donovan, DSD Planner ... , From: Subject: Request for Revised Submittal/ORS 120 Meeting The attached e-mail documents staffs notification to the applicant regarding insufficient information in the record to address subdivision criteria of approval for public facilities and ground water. The applicant may submit additional information to record and request an extension of the ORS 120 day time frame for review of the infonnation or have a decision rendered on the basis of the current submittal. To date, staff has addressed the concerns with the public to the extent possible and done preliminary research on the statutory requirements for well protection. The ORS 120 day time frame is at the SSm day as of this date, a decision on the subdivision and flood plain development applications will be rendered within 75 days of the date of submittaL Date Received: \ \- \ 5-06 Planner. .' ~ "9.. ".-' l'Z)f3~ 1 t .:. . . . \,' 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 U B2005-0004 7CoreyStouder .doc Attachments: @r~4 EJ SUB200S-00047Cor eyS\ouder.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 gojng to need ~etailed designs ~nd 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 on the bas~s of the information included at re-submittal. Suggestion: w~ will have to sit down and discuss the time frames for additional information and a sound, defensible deci~ion. 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 meeti~g to discuss this in more detail. Respectfully, Jim Donovan -----Original Message----- From: David Corey [mailto:david@teamcorey.com] Sent: Tuesday, November lS, 2005 7:51 AM To: DONOVAN James Cc: STEPHENS Colin; VOGENEY Ken Subject: Legacy Estates #SUB200S-0047 Good Morning Jim, 1 ~ . . // . . I have tried several times to call you regarding my project and left you rnessages but never received a phone call back. I hav~ also e-rnailed you 2 or 3 times arid never heard back that.way"either. I don't. know why you won't respond to my quest~ons. After all, I am the applicant on the above application and I have paid a substantial fee to the City of Springfi~ld 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 541-338-3316 2