Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEMERSON ACRES SUBDIVISION - MINOR SUB - 22-88 - CORRESPONDENCE - MEETING COMMUNICATION (2)MEMORANDUM TO: Matt Baker Paul Eckman Glenn Schlueter FROM: Ted Shepard 1 ' RE: June 10, 1988 Meeting on the Metcalf letter on Emerson Acres DATE: June 16, 1988 Given the history of accusations that have plagued this request for a minor subdivision, I thought it best to document our meeting of June 10, 1988 in which we discussed the letter from Tom Metcalf dated May 23, 1988. It was agreed by all present that not having Glenn at the May 19, 1988 meet- ing with Metcalf, Einarsen, and Dickinson probably caused the applicants to have false expectations regarding the 50 foot width for the "Provincetown Channel" (for lack of a better term) and the 65 foot width for the Stanton Creek. These widths are estimations based on the calculations of Todd Shi- moda of Parsons and Associates. As Glenn pointed out, any channelization of these drainages would not be accepted by the City unless "as built" plans demonstrated that there would be safe conveyance of the 100-year storm flows. Glenn also stated that as part of a minor subdivision request, the City will still need a Drainage Report and a Grading Plan. Much of the expensive work related to these two documents has already been paid for by Matt through the S.I.D. It was the concensus of the group that points #4 and #5 of the Metcalf letter dated May 23, 1988 are unacceptable to the City. Point #4: We cannot arbitrarily agree at this time that the widths of 50 feet and 65 feet for the two drainages are valid. It could very well be that these widths would be insufficient to convey the 100-year flows. Point #5: The City feels that doing the channelization work to the two drainages would be very expensive and far outweighs whatever damage may have been done to the Dickinson property during excavation for the culverts. Doing this work would convey far too much benefit upon the owner at tax payer's expense. In addition, the City questions the aesthetic and environmental impact of such a major channelization project. Despite disagreeing with the major thrust of the Metcalf letter, the group felt that options remain for helping out Mr. Dickinson with his request. The waiver of the street improvements for single family development remains valid. Removal of Lot 6 (under different ownership) from the subdivision remains valid. It was also suggested that a counter offer be proposed to Mr. Metcalf. Matt is willing to construct a riprap channel beginning at the culverts to a point in the middle of the field where the old clay tile pipe released flows. This point is well short of the confluence with Stanton Creek. This riprap would diffuse the velocity of the storm flows as they exit the culverts and allay Mr. Dickinson's fears of a "wipe-out". Of course, an easement would be required to do the work on the property. One other very important suggestion was made concerning the various street frontages of each lot. When improvements are done on Lemay, each lot will be assessed a fee based upon linear street frontage. Therefore, wide lots will be assessed a higher fee than narrow lots. Mr. Dickinson is encouraged to even out these lot frontages so street improvement fees will be more equitably distributed. Also, Lot 3 would be less impacted by the width of the "Province- towne Channel" if Lots 1 and 2 were reduced accordingly. This would give more ground to Lots 3 and 4 which are substantially smaller than Lots I and 2. It was agreed that Paul would call Mr. Metcalf to set up the next meeting to discuss our offer. Mr. Metcalf has agreed to meet sometime in late June or early July. Please feel free to "redline" this memo if there are any errors or a need for further clarification. It is important that Staff be consistent. Since this request appears to be dragging on longer than most of our projects, it becomes critical to keep accurate written documentation.