HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence PLANNER 2/1/2007
Page 1 of3
L1MBIRD Andrew
From: L1MBIRD Andrew
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 3 04 PM
To: ENOS Gene
Subject: RE McElhany status
Thanks Gene, please keep me apPrised of the outcome of this discussion The Final Plat will not be approved
until this condition of approval has been resolved satisfactorily
Andy
From: ENOS Gene
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 12:33 PM
To: Renee Clough
Cc: WRIGHT Denny; LIMBIRD Andrew
Subject: RE: McElhany status
Can I make a suggestion that you call me 726-6026 and we discuss this
Gene Enos
Const Insp
CIty Of Springfield
P W Dept / Eng DIV
Office 726-6026
Fax 736-1021
From: Renee Clough [mallto:Renee@branchengineerlng.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 1009
To: ENOS Gene
Subject: RE: McElhany status
Gene,
Thanks for taking the time to provide a detailed response, however, I was wondering If you could clarify a few
Issues for me
My understanding from looking at Standard Drawing Nos 3-12 and 3-21 IS that the Sidewalk only area IS a
mInimum of 4" thIck and the Sidewalk/driveway area IS a minimum of 6" thick My interpretation of your e-mail IS
that you are requesting the Sidewalk only area to be constructed to a 6" depth as well Am I misunderstanding or
IS thiS the case? If It IS the case, can you please explain to me why?
Also, the driveways to serve Parcels 1 and 2 eXisted before the partition process was started. My understanding
IS that they were constructed by the city as part of the 32nd Street project that was done a few years ago To my
knowledge, the driveway for Parcel 1 (the northern one) has not been altered In anyway and the driveway for
Parcel 2 was modified to be narrower, but not completely removed and reconstructed If thiS IS the case, why IS
the developer being asked to replace something that the cIty dId not bUIld to standard? Mr McElhany, the
developer, understands the reason for the driveway concrete being thicker than the Sidewalk only concrete
Being under the Impression that the concrete was laid Incorrectly by the city he has proposed that thiS Issue be
addressed at the time of bUIlding permit for the lots since that IS when the thicker concrete Will be necessary
Also, hiS understanding IS that hiS contractor discussed thiS proposal With the Inspector on site and was told that It
would be acceptable for the driveway thickness to be addressed at the time homes are constructed on the new
parcels
Thanks for your time,
Renee
21112007
Page 2 of3
From: ENOS Gene [mailto:genos@C1.spnngfieJd.or.us]
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 8:24 AM
To: UMBIRD Andrew
Cc: WRIGHT Denny; Renee@branchengmeerlng.com
Subject: RE: McElhany status
As I stated In the 1/8/2007 e-mail to Andrew, the sidewalks on 32nd Street (as explained to the contractor several
times) are required to be "removed and replC!~~(j" as part of the R-O-W Inspection required for that address The
current constructIon on the eXIstIng set-back sidewalks are 4 Inches In depth As per standard drawing #3-21, the
required depth IS "6 Inches of 3,000 pSI field strength (3,450 pSI lab strength), 60 sack mix concrete on 2 Inches
of compacted 3/4 " minus crushed rock
The work was set-up as "one inspection site or address" All Inspections remains under the original address, even
though the address at the corner appears completed The current site Improvements have not been completed,
and the status for the R-O-W inspection status remains "pending" until the corrective reqUirements are satisfied
Presently, the Sidewalk work does require an additional inspection (which needs to be scheduled), and thiS too
was discussed with the contractor I was fully prepared to conduct the inspectIon for the Sidewalks when the
approaches off 32nd street and the adjOining work were Inspected, but the contractor was not prepared at that
time
Please adVise me when the Sidewalk Improvement work has been completed and I WIll conduct a site VISit to
verify and Inspect at that time If there are any more questions, please feel free to contact me
Thank you
Gene Enos
Const Insp
City Of Springfield
P W Dept / Eng Dlv
Office 726-6026
Fax 736-1021
From: WRIGHT Denny
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 12 06
To: ENOS Gene
Subject: FW: McElhany status
Gene -
Did you inspect thiS?
Denny
From: UMBIRD Andrew
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 11:45 AM
To: Renee Clough
Cc: WRIGHT Denny
Subject: RE: McElhany status
HI Renee, I have received confirmation from the Electrical Inspector that Condition 12 has been satisfied
However, when I inqUIred about the curb and Sidewalk work (8 32nd Street frontage) a few weeks ago the
Engineering Inspector adVised that It had not been completed satlsfactonly In my estImatIon CondItIons 3 and 4
are outstanding Items that still have to be satisfied before plat If there have been any recent changes, please let
me know and I can arrange for a site VISit Thanks
2/1/2007
Page 3 of3
Andy
From: Renee Clough [mallto:Renee@branchenglneerlng.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 20079:35 AM
To: LIMBIRD Andrew
Subject: McElhany status
Andy,
I am preparing to submit a revised plan set to the survey department for the McElhany partition at S 32nd St and
Virginia Ave In the pre-submittal meeting on January 5, you said that you would check with the bUilding
department on the status of Conditions 3, 4, and 12 Does any additional work need to occur to comply with
those conditions?
Thanks,
Renee
2/1/2007