HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous Correspondence 2005-08-30CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, OREGON
_lac-ovvo 4'z-05
SPR ,FIELD
D EV ELO PM E NT S ERV IC ES D EPA RTM E NT
August 30, 2005
Mr. Renc' Fabricant PE, CSI
Branch Engineering
310 5th Street
Springfield, Oregon 97 477
RE: 1325 5ft Street, Springfield, Oregon
Dear Rene',
On July 20,2005,I conducted an inspection with you at the above referenced location
which is also known as Lane County Assessor's Map #17032634, Tax Lot 05900. The
inspection was to be done on a lean-to structure on the west side of an existing garage.
Upon looking at the structure in question, we agreed the removal of lean-to would not
compromise the structural integrity of the existing garage.
Also, while performing the above mentioned inspection, I was asked to look at an
apartment above the garage for compliance to the Springfield Building Safety Code
Administrative Code. The unit appears to meet the minimum housing standards at the
time of my inspection.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 726-4652
Sincerely,ts0
Bob Barnhart
Building Inspector
Dave Puent, Community Services Manager
225 FIFTH STREET
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
(541 ) 726-3753
FAX (541) 726-s689
www. ci. sp ri n gfi eld. or. us
q{i.r
Jl,tl
cc:
Bnanch Engineening, lnc. sEP 0 e 2005
PFIINCIPALS
James A. Bnanch, P.E.
Ren6 Fabnicant, S.E, P,E.
Michael Lane Bnanch, P.E
BY:
310 srh Srneer
Spningfield, Onegon 97477
t541) 746-0637
Fax (541) 746-03A9
September 2, 2005
Dave Puent
Building Official, Community Services Manager
Development Services Department
City of Springfield
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, Oregon 97477
Project lnformation
Applicant: Branch Engineering, Irtc.For Scott Leatham
Site address: 1326 5'h Street, Springfield
Tax Map: 17-03-26'34,Tax Lot 5900
Subject: Demolition of a portion of an existing dwelling
Attachments:
Summary of inspection, by Bob Barnhart,
City of Springfield Building Inspector, dated August 30, 2005 1/1
Tentative Partition plan by Branch Engineering, Inc.
for a property owned by Scott Leatham
Dear Dave:
Our client, Scott Leatham, is partitioning a property, as illustrated in the attached tentative
partition plan. As a result of the partition, a portion of an existing dwelling shallbe encroaching
in a setback. The client proposes to demolish a portion of the dwelling so as to eliminate this
encroachment. In June of this year, I had discussions with Jim Donovan, City of Springfield
Planner, and with you, about this project. It became apparent that there was not any known
building permit history for the subject dwelling. Upon your direction, and as a possible remedy
to the lack of a burilding permit record, I arranged for a site inspection by a City of Springfield
Building Inspector, to establish conformance to the City Housing Code (Article 7). I have
attached a copy of a letter by a City Inspector, indicating conformance to the Housing Code.
CIVIL STFIUCTUHAL TRANSPOFITATION SUFIVEYING
The owner proposes to demolish a portion of the existing structure. That portion shall be
the shed roofed area at the west side of the structure. On the attached plan, I have shaded in red
that proposed portion of the structure which shall be demolished. I accompanied the inspector at
the time of his field visit to the dwelling. It was apparent to me that the structure does not have a
lateral force resisting system which would be capable of withstanding the design lateral force
specified in the 2005 O.R.S.C. Nevertheless, the demolition of the shed roofed area will be a
betterment, with respect to the response of the building to a wind or seismic design event. The
shed roof area is a separate diaphragm. That diaphragm does not contribute to the resistance of
the remaining structure to a lateral event. The shed roofed area has a common wall line with main
diaphragm of the eastern portion of the structure. The removal of the western shed roofed area
will reduce the windage and the seismic mass collected into the common wall line. Thus, if the
shed roofed area is removed, the force driven into the common wall line will be reduced.
We recognize that this is a somewhat unusual situation with respect to the permit history
of this structure. Our request is that you approve the demolition of this shed roof area, without
any other structural improvements required for the remainder of the structure, if the shed roofed
area is removed. Thank you for your generous assistance on this project to date. Please call me if
you have any questions, or if you require any clarification on this project.
8,4
Rend Fabricant, P.E., S.E
Principal
Brarrch Engineerirtg, Itrc.
(s4t) 746 0637