HomeMy WebLinkAboutComments PWE 9/25/2008
Page I of!
DAVIS Lissa
From: WALTER Eric
Sent: ... "'.' _ __._ . !T.251'l1
To: DAVIS Lissa
Cc: FERSCHWEILER Greg
Subject: River Bend Manor
.
Lissa,
I did addiional investigation on this and it looks like there was further modification to Greg's email. Gret made a
site visit and has allowed them to reduce it further to 10' as long as no roof over hangs encroach. Just wanted to
clarify. Since the buildings scale to 10' to the building walls, we may need to ensure the plans clearly indicate no
roof over-hangs. It is unusual to see no over-hangs on buildings such as this so just one final heads-up.
Eric
Eric A. Walter, P.E.
Civil Engineer
City of Springfield
Public Works Department
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Telephone: (541) 736-1034
Facsimile: (541) 736-1021
Email: ewalterl1ilcLspIiDgfield~oL.u~
Web: WW'N~cLsl1ringfield,Qr.us
Date Received: '1\ z.. sl as
Planner. LD Pt0 n Dm
I "'t- :,
R6 v::oB -OCO(",(p
9/26/2008
DAVIS Lissa
From: WALTER Eric
/
Sent: ([hursda~P-tember'25~2..9p26':Pr>\
To: DAVIS Lissa
Cc: FERSCHWEILER Greg
Subject: FW: berry partition
Lissa,
Page I of3
Please review the email correspondence below. In our Public Works findings and conditions, we required 14'.
The applicant put in a request for 10' (which is what plans show). Greg has allowed 12' minimum per
requirements below. Note that the building overhangs may not encroach into the 12' easement. I just wanted to
inform you as soon as possible where a condition does not appear to be met. I will include in my report that I will
be sending you in the morning. Just an FYI.
Thanks,
Eric
Eric A. Walter, P.E.
Civil Engineer
City of Springfield
Public Works Department
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Telephone: (541) 736-1034
Facsimile: (541) 736.1021
Email: ewalterili)cLsDrinofield~or.uJ>
Web: www.ci.springfield.oLuS
From: FERSCHWEILER Greg
Sent: Friday, February 29,2008 10:57 AM
To: HOPKINS Steve
Cc: WALTER Eric
Subject: RE: berry partition
Looks like 12 feet would be suitable for me.
4.07 CONSTRUCTED CHANNELS
~
A. Vegetation-lined channels shall be used whenever possible.
Section I - DESIGN STANDARDS 4 - 10 EDSP April, 2006
9/26/2008
Date Received: q b~loB
Planner: 1O Pw noM
29:;'3
PeBvx>B ~OCO~
Page 2 of3
B. Rock-lined channels shall be used where a vegetative lining will not provide adequate protection from
erosive velocities,
C. Channel Design
I. Constructed open channels shall be sized to pass the required flows and have side slopes no
steeper than 2: I. Any proposed constructed channel improvement that does not meet these
requirements may be required to be piped by the City Engineer,
2. Channels designed to handle the runoff from a development shall be constructed from the
development to an existing public drainage conveyance system with an established outfall to a
receiving water.
3. Channels shall not contain protruding pipes, culverts or other structures that reduce or hinder the
flow characteristics ofthe channel, except for structures which are required and designed to
dissipate velocities. Channels shall be designed to prevent scouring and erosion,
4. Channel protection shall be as shown in Table 4-2,
D, Access - Maintenance
I. Access roads or other suitable access ways for maintenance purposes shall be provided when channels do
not abut public right-of-way. Access shall be provided along one side of the channel as necessary for
vehicular maintenance access.
2, Access roads shall have a maximum grade of 15 percent; and a maximum cross slope of3 percent.
3, A 40 foot minimum outside turning radius shall be provided on the access road,
4. Access roads shal1 be a minimum of 15 feet wide OD curved sections and 12 feet OD straight sections.
5. Access roads in excess of 50 feet in
From: HOPKINS Steve
Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 9:4S AM
To: FERSCHWEILER Greg
Cc: WALTER Eric
Subject: berry partition
Greg,
A maintenance issue has come up regarding the Berry partition (SUB2008-00005) on Deadmond Ferry Road. It's
a two lot partition that includes a drainage and maintenance easement. The initial comments from Public Works
(via Eric Walter) is that the proposed easement is not wide enough for the city to access the drainage area for
maintenance. The plans were distributed for comment on Feb 4. I can get you another set if you need one.
What I need to know is, how wide do you need the easement to be? The applicant would like to keep the
easement as small as possible and has proposed an easement that is 5 feet wide. SDC 4.3-140 says a public
utility easement should be 7 feet wide but can be increased "to allow maintenance vehicles to set up and perform
the required maintenance".
Due to the shape of the property, this project may require an easement wider than 7 feet. What do you think?
Steve Hopkins, AICP
Planner II
Development Services Dept.
City a/Springfield
726-3649
9/26/2008
Date ReceiVed:-1);;ls:1 Df>
Planner: W (P1.0 ~ b
3~'3
pv;: ZtXiJ ---OOO(.,(P