Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence PWE 2/1/2007 Page 1 of3 L1MBIRD Andrew From: ENOS Gene Sent: Thursday, February 01,2007 1233 PM To: Renee Clough Cc: WRIGHT Denny, L1MBIRD Andrew Subject: RE McElhany status Attachments: ENOS Gene vcf 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 From: ENOS Gene [mallto:genos@ci.springfield.or.us] Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 8:24 AM To: UMBIRD Andrew Cc: WRIGHT Denny; Renee@branchengineenng.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 2/1/2007 Page 2 of3 times) are required to be "removed and reDlaced" 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), 6 0 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 onglnal 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 venfy 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 Electncallnspector that Condition 12 has been satisfied However, when I Inquired about the curb and Sidewalk work (S 32nd Street frontage) a few weeks ago the Englneenng 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 Andy -~ ~ - - ~- ~ ~ ---~-- ~- p--- --~~- - ~----- ~- ~- - -~~~---~~--------- ~- -- ~- --- - - From: Renee Clough [mailto:Renee@branchengineering.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 9:35 AM To: UMBIRD Andrew Subject: McElhany status 2/1/2007 Page 3 of3 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 bUlldrng 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