Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutComments APPLICANT 1/9/2009 L1MBIRD Andrew From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Michael Kaiser [mkaiser@poage.net] Friday, January 09, 2009 11 :20 AM L1MBIRD Andrew ERAC - DRC 2007-00083 3873SIT2.pdf; ERAC L 1 Gerot-2.pdf Andrew, We finally got what I would call the planning approval from ODOT for the Main Street access on this project. Now I just need to submit construction plans to ODOT with a gate and signs as mentioned in the attached letter from them, I also want to incorporate a couple other changes with the final design for the access. I want to put the curbs in the southwest corner of the property (upper left of drawing as North is to the right on the plan) at the setback line which is 10 feet along Main Street to match the other side of the proposed Main Street access point. I attached the landscape plan (ERAC L 1...) with the proposed change shown in red on it. When we were trying to convince ODOTlhat a right in and right out was okay, I had the raised concrete island located so close to the west property boundary that putting a curb 10 feet from Main Street would not have made any useful parking area west of the access (see 3873SIT2 attached). Since ODOT is only allowing a locked gate at this access, to be open and used only by trucks, I have moved it further to the east and now we could have some useable parking for storing the rental cars there. I also made the approach a bit wider (not the throat) so trucks could get onto Main Street in front of this site and not have the driveway approach overlap onto the frontage of the neighbor (as we aren't allowed to do that anyway). I am not sure what I need to do to incorporate these changes to the permit plans other than giving you a drawing. I would rather not have to change the landscape plan but I would have Mike Gerot do that if necessary. The plantings there' would need pushed closer to the right of way, maybe eiiminating some shrubs and some iawn but I am not sure we need a plan to do that. Please let me know what you think. Thanks. Mike 1 Date Received:-74/Jo&9 Planner; AL . ~ i ,,~ ~ ,,'~~-'- i/ ' !!+o= ..-....- ....,,--..t" -~ t- <fl > Z " <i ~ 1: ij ! I I > ~ ~ " ~ -1 -, ; . ~l"'''''- MINIMUM LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTIi - PARKINR AR~ '"UN. SETBACK" ~_ll' "".UI'.2.490SF 2,41lO1'100.24,' 1 x24.'" 26 TREES 4x24.'.100SHRUBS BUIDllNG AREA MIN.5ETSACK-lo.o' 1~'.10.O'.',24(lSF 1,2<1011.000"1.24 1.24x2_3TREES 1,2<lX100""SliRueS ., It T1U. CONT1tfJOUS FENCE 0 N & W RKlPERTY L.IE8 ElETv.EEN STQt.\GS AREA AND AO.W:ENT PROPERTE8 . EllAQ( wm~TEDaiAI'LN( FENCEWTH ll.ACI( wm SlATS. NETAl POSTS TO BE PCfo'LlEROOATED El.ACK. 1'3'-&' n, , . i ! . . '...: . ~ ~ , 'IlIa; /L ...",....... I I _I I = , I ,=1 I i ! . ~ . {,.,f'#._ ~T~~~f.,~.llAGE ANP)ORtoElU~ALT ~~:(:. ~=~ . - ---L.:eQ.-EXi6T;b-~T- -~ I I 1 , \ \ \ , "- "'- --------- --'~~~~Ml.T ___l.o~1U- (",Il'kb.. Jo.r,:vv i . ! . . ~ . . -4<0- .....,. "r'~&f'Aal.&AT~'E4 QdbM' :TON'" 1 , , ~i': '. . ~: ., i " ..............-~ ~(\;- " ~ ~ "" .~..S.t'MIa.........) ....,. ""Nt< """""'" ". &l'~4ii''''__ '"' (.'1.0'_""--) 7/44T1-I5T ~LAND5CAFE FL~ Date Received: Planner: AL ~'~""'.. (~ .....~6*=-- ~.T~II~PT">t... ~,' "''''~i~r''~' ,~, ~ .'-""<4 ~, I ~,~t; ""'1Q,.'it..fi'::0l''-:t.:~_ ~ .11 JI~ · !I f I . . rJI_JLLL1L--JL~ r i(~: 'Ill r (I III l (1~)U i 1(~~!nliUJUi"j~U..uL~ III . ! [f.lIU ~. /) ~ II_JU I 1C.!IU : J I ~( U ([, JU I li]U '.s-1 . ; il ~ I L- Ilj I (C IllJ ~ ~ l 'Mr>R 70NF 1\ q IL_lll n(~11J .~~. -n",-"",""""", ( ~I ',":)' ~{ =~= I _ . _ ~ . AAEAHVAO.W:::eIT 1 . _ ,...-' ~.El..lriCKVIN'r'L I - '.'. oo.o.TEOQoWN.J.lKFENCE l (W-JJ I I l_ JU ~ F =:;:~' \ lJ. . . . ;>--'1Fl'~ tf '\'~~= ~ &:r ~--'L"'- ~,. ~r ~ , -1 ~f? t. ~ "1.f.lLt::<h.- FXTFRlpR AT()R~ ......"tQ4Jl1<OI<l:PAlFl Al-l'JCf;:NEW~T ~ ~ ~ ""," '-l'IN..-m:wx .~ ............ "T. . t TIIlOlLIAYO~ ,. g, (.!.O'MiIona-) exJflT.OJIl5CUT 24'.'" I ~4 .1/)"W1DeNl:PPRM:\lLollYF'/OSCML I/IeI' . ~..". 19~D1 . / ~!~ .....""... 10187 UGIJlOl ~~ wee:titUFF LANDSCAPES DESlGN BUIlD COI'ITR.ACrGRS I'HON'E 5<l1-688-10'l0 fAX S41-688-8(J71 - r....'.. :.':'-: . .:. ~ : ~; I: ;, il 0::: <( 0 <( f- Z W 0::: W (f) 0::: 0... 0::: Iii~ W f- ~~ Z "'~ W ~irj ~ill j '- "' G '" " I j :;] ~ ~ ~.. 3783 1 DRA" amcm: "" i DAlE 16-30-08 ~ RElllSIClNS / ...... LI ER.AL L I b~-.2, 1'< t L1MBIRD Andrew From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Michael Kaiser [mkaiser@poage.net] Friday, January 09, 2009 5:46 PM L1MSIRD Andrew Re: ERAC - DRC 2007-00083 Approach permit app #8988 approval letter. pdf Hi Andy, , ., I just got back to the office but here is the letter in pdf form. Do you need a hard copy? I will call you on Monday when I get in - usually around 9:00. Have a nice weekend. Mike To: Kaiser Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 3:27 PM Subject: RE: ERAC - DRC 2007-00083 Hi Mike, the letter fromODOT wasn't attached to this email, but I did review the revised plans you sent and.1 have a few comments, I would appreciate a copy of the ODOT response for the project file, Please contact me when you get back to the office so we can discuss the requested changes, Thanks Andy Limbird City of Springfield 726-3784 From:. Michael Kaiser [mailto:mkaiser@poage,net] Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 11:20 AM To: UMBIRD Andrew', Subject: ERAC - DRC 2007-00083 Andrew, We finally got what I would call the planning approval from ODOT for the Main Street access on this project. Now I just need to submit construction plans to ODOT with a gate and signs as mentioned in the attached letter from them. I also want to inc:orporate a couple other changes with the final design for the access. I want to put the curbs in the southwest corner of the property (upper left of drawing as North is to the right on the plan) at the setback line which is 10 feet along Main Street to match the other side of the proposed Main Street access point. I attached the landscape plan (ERAC L 1...) with the proposed change shown in red on it. When we were trying to convince ODOT that a right in and right out was okay, I had the raised concrete island located so close to the west property boundary that putting a curb 10 feet from Main Street would not have made any useful parking area west of the access (see 3873SIT2 attached). Since ODOT is only allowing a locked gate at this access, to be open and used only by trucks, I have moved it further to the east and now we could have some useable parking for storing the rental cars there. I also made the approach a bit wider (not the throat) so trucks could get onto Main Street in front of this site and not have the driveway approach overlap onto the frontage of the neighbor (as we aren't allowed to do that anyway). I am not sure what I need to do to incorporate these changes to the permit plans other than giving you a drawing. I would rather not have to change the landscape plan but I would have Mike Gerot do that if necessary. The plimtings there would need pushed closer to the right of way, maybe eliminating some shrubs and some lawn but I am not sure we need a plan to do that. Please let me know what you think. Thanks. Mike 1 Date Received:~0o"? Planner: AL ;;. '" ',-:' Theodore R. Kulongoski, GoveJ1lor Department of Transportation ODOT District 5 644 'A' Street Springfield, OR 97477 (541 ) 744-8080 Fax: (541) 726,2509 L ynn.Detering@odot.state.or.us .'..., " . ."'"" ~'. '.' ' . ,':::;'" ' -::4:'1:..'- " 'I ... '...., ~ . December 29, 2008 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL File Code: PMT 4-]6 - .-. . -- n- ~!,--,., ..r-.r.... ',~ \1 r,t:.v'~;. ,~~:j ~)I'..ja '" I Michael Kaiser Poage Engin'eering PO Box 2527 Eugene, OR 97402-0152 Subject: . Mitigation Required for Issuance of State Highway Approach Permit Highway Number 015, (McKenzie), . at Mile Point 4,82 .. Application Number 8988 Dear Michael Kaiser: , I am pleased to inform you that the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) has approved the location and a development concept for your requested State Highway Approach, 80wever, the Department's approval requires mitigation measures that are described below, Several administrative steps remain before ODOT can issue the Permit to Operate, Maintain and Use a State Highway Approach, which is the final step in the permitting process. . Before you begin any work in the highway right of way, the Departmenl must approve your construction drawings and plans and issue a construction permit. This letter provides instructions for submittal of your construction drawings and plans and your appeal rights regarding the mitigation measures, The followir;lg mitigation measures will become terms and conditions of your constructionpermil: 1.This approach is approved as a restricted right-out only approach. The approach shall be gated and locked at all times except for allowing exit of transport trucks. Non-compliance with the terms of this permit shall result in teri'nination of this permit and require approach to be removed in its entirety and curb/gutter/sidewalk restored. 2. Applicant shall close and remove in its entirety the existing approach located approximately 50 feet to the east of this new right-out only appr~ach. In its place curb, gutter, and sidewalk shall be constructed to match that of surrounding.'. . Date Received: 11)I..:wf' Planner: AL / (. Approval of Application with Mitigation for State Highway Approach Highway Number 015, (McKenzie), at Mile Point 4.82 Application Number 8988. Wednesday, December 24,2008 Page 2 3. Applicant"shall provide construction drawings and plans stamped by'a registered Professional Engineer. All mitigation shall be designed and constructed in compliance with ODOT and City of Springfield standards and specifications for this highway s~grnenL The construction plans and drawings shall include the following elements: . Approach design shall be directional for right-out only with sufficient width to accommodate the exiting design vehicle. . The approach can be of a lowered sidewalk design and must meet all ADA standards. . "Do Not Enter" signs facing Main Street traffic are required. . "Truck Exit Only" & "Right Turn Only" signs for exiting trucks are required. . I;'stall a lockable gate on the private property that will remain closed ekcept to allow transport trucks to exit. The design must incorporate a lockable gate, a chain or bollards will not be sufficient. " . Removal of the existing approach and replacement with curb, gutter and sidewalk. 4. A Permit to Construct an Approach (construction permit) will not be issued to th~ applicant until a final set of construction drawings and plans have been 'submitted, reviewed and accepted by ODOT. 5. Applicant shall provide ODOT with proof of City Land Use Approval prior to issuance of a Permit to Construct an Approach (construction permit). 6. Applicant shall comply with all State and Local Agency requirements prior to issuance of a "Permit to Operate, Maintain and Use Approach", If you accept these mitigation measures, please submit your construction drawings and plans by 5:Q() p,m, on February 22, 2009 to the address below, I have attached a detailed expl,anation of what the construction drawings must include, Lynn Detering, Permit Specialist. ODOT District 5 644 'A' Street Springfield, OR 97477 Under Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 734-051-0070, you are required to submit your construction drawings and plans by the date specified above or the approval of your application is void, If necessary, the Department may extend the time for your submittal of drawings and plans if both you and the Department agree in writing before the deadline listed above, Please contact me at (541) 744-8080 if you would like to request an extension of time. DatEI i'<eceived: 1,!;?Cf Planner: AL / ,', Approval of Application with Mitigation for State Highway Approach Highway Number 015, (McKenzie),.at Mile Point 4.82 Application Number 8988. Wednesday, December 24, 2008 Page 3 After you submit construction drawings and plans, the Department will contact you if any additional information is needed for approval, We will notify you when your drawings and plans are approved and provide instructions for you to obtain a Permit to Construct. You mav notbeoin arill work in the hiahwav riaht of wall until vou receive a Permit to Construct sianed bv the Deoartment. Options to Appeal Mitigation Measures If the mitigation measures are not acceptable to you, then you may appeal them by submitting a request in writina for either a Region Review or a Contested Case Hearing, A Region Review is conducted under OAR 734-051-0345. It is an informal process that allows you to explain your objections and to present additional information in writing or in person to a panel of ODOT staff who were not involved in approving your Application for State Highway Approach. The provisions of OAR 734-051-0345 require that you include in your request for a Region Review the documentation that you will rely upon during the Region Review, The Region Review panel will consider all of the information presented and may recommend either upholding the original .decision or considering alternative decisions to resolve the disagreement. The Region Manager reviews the panel's recommendations and makes the final decision to approve, modify, or reverse the original decision. A Contested Case Hearing is a formal hearing conducted by a Hearing Officer of the Office of Administrative Hearings under OAR 137-003-0501 through 137-003-0700, The Office of Administrative Hearings is not a part of the Department of Transportation, The Hearing Officer will consider all information presented and decide whether the Department's original decisions are consistent with the requirements of OAR 734-051, The Hearing, Officer usually decides in favor of, or against, the Department's original decision and:does not offer alternative solutions to resolve any disagreements, If you request a Region Review and are not satisfied with the outcome, you may request a Contested Case Hearing at that time, You may also choose to skip the Region Review altogether and proceed directly to a Contested Case Hearing, The Department must receive your request for either a Region Review or a Contested , Case Heari'lg within twenty-one (21) calendar days of the date. of this letter. If your request is not received within this time period, your right toa Region Review or a Contested C~se Hearing is considered waived, If you withdraw a request for a hearing, if you notify .the Hearing Officer that you will not appear, or if you fail to appear at a scheduled hearing, then ODOT's Executive Deputy Director may issue a final order by default. In that case,ODOT designates its files on this matter as the record, If you wish to request either a Contested Case Hearing or a Region Review, please send your request to: Date f<eceived: f.z ~~tJf Planner: Al "I~' ~. Approval of Application with Mitigation for State Highway Approach Highway Number 015, (McKenzie), at Mile Point 4.82 Application Number 8968. Wednesday, December 24, 2008 Rage 4 Jane S, LEE ODOT Region 2 Manager 455 Airport Rd Bldg #B Salem, OR 97310 ODOT's Appeals Coordinator will contact you after the request is received, If you would like to discuss the required mitigation measures further without requesting a Contested "Case Hearing or a Region Review, or even after making a request, please feel free to contact Lynn Detering,. Permit Specialist at (541) 744-8080. Sincerely, ~h' District Manager . ODOT District 5, Maintenance Office c: Duane Liner, Regional Access Management Engineer Lynn Detering, Permit Specialist Ann Zeltmann, Access Management Appeals Coordinator Hearing Officer Panel, Transportation Section <LGON> Dat€< r",ceived" J~(J(7" Planner: AL 'Ii' .~ L1MBIRD Andrew From: Sent: To: Subject: DRISCOLL Jon Tuesday, January 13, 2009 5:24 PM L1MSIRD Andrew FW: ERAC - DRC 2007-00083 FYI Here are some screen'shots 1 Date Received: },:/#07 Planner: AL JIonr Jon. Driscoll PLS, EfT, WRE Transportation Engineer in Training City of Springfield, Public Works 225 Fifth Street ' Springfield, OR 97478 Phone: (541) 726-3679 ' Fax: (541) 726-3781 . id ri~c,()lI@~l~'prinqfiElld ,()L u.s From: Michael Kaiser [rriailto:mkaiser@poage,net] Sent: Tuesday, January '13, 2009 S:07 PM To: DRISCOLL Jon ' Cc: LIMBIRD Andrew Subject: Fw: ERAC - DRC 2007-00083 Jon and Andy, I tried to change the north curb on the 44th Street entrance to make the 18' throat depth as measured from the existing curb line and am having a bit of a difficulty. I can do it but I would need to widen the driveway more to accommodate the WB67 truck. The driveway is now at35 feet with 9 ft wings both sides for a total of 53 ft which I think is the maximum 2 Date Received: / {/ ~f Planner: AL --"77" width allowed. If we are,atthe maximum driveway width, can we just keep it as is considering all of our planters are 2 feet wider than needed (we didn't use wheel bumpers)? I have attached a dwg file to show how close we are and what it would look like if we pullhe little bumpoutto make the throat depth 18 ft. It just doesn't seem worth it. Let me know if you can't view the dwg file and I will plot and send as pdf instead tomorrow. Thanks Mike Andrew Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 10:39 AM Subject: Re: ERAC - DRC 2007-00083 Andy, I attached the architects plan that was submitted in December of 2007 with the the Site Review plans and the plan that was reviewed in DRC2007-00083. The original approved plan does not have an 18 foot deep throat on either side of the driveway and nothing in ihe approval conditions asked for it. I don't think my present request is any different than the original plan approval. In fact, as we discussed on the phone, it seems even less likely to warrant the throat requirement because in the original proposal we 'had a full movement driveway approach on Main Street. With this proposal we in essence don't have a driveway on Main Street as the gate is required by ODOT to be closed and locked and to be used only by trucks exiting the site.. If a future application wanted to change the driveway use on Main then they would have to go to ODOT for a new permit and I would assume that there would be some review of a.site plan by the City to get a . permit to do the changes as well. Thanks for your help to work this out. Mike Kaiser Sent: Friday, January Q9, 2009 3:27 PM Subject: RE: ERAC - DRC 2007-00083 Hi Mike, the letter from ODOT wasn't attached to this email, but I did review the revised plans you sent and I have a few comments, I would appreciate a copy of the ODOT response for the project file. Please contact me when you get back to the office so w~ can discuss the requested changes. Thanks Andy Limbird City of Springfield 726-3784 From: Michael Kaiser [inailto:mkaiser@poage.net] Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 11:20 AM To: UMSIRD Andrew Subject: ERAC - DRC 2007-00083 , . Andrew, We finally got what I would call the planning approval from ODOT for the Main Street access on this project. Now I just need to submit construction plans to ODOT with a gate and signs as mentioned in the attached letter from them. I also want to incorporate a co.uple other changes with the final design for the access. I want to put the curbs in the southwest corner of the property (~pper left of drawing as North is to the right on the plan) at the setback line which is 10 feet along Main Street to match the other side of the proposed Main Street access point. I attached the landscape plan (ERAC L 1...) with the proposed 'change shown in red on it. When we were trying to convince ODOT that a right in and right out was okay, I had the raised concrete island located so close to the west property boundary that putting a curb 10 feet from Main Street would not h~ve made any useful parking area west of the access (see 3873SIT2 attached). Since ODOT is only allowing a locked gate at this access, to be open and used only by trucks, I have moved it further to the east and 3 bate i'{imelved:~/).bV? . Planfl~; AL . now we could have some useable parking for storing the rental cars there. I also made the approach a bit wider (not the throat) so trucks could gefontoMain Street in front of this site and not have the driveway approach overlap onto the frontage of the neighbor (as we aren't allowed to do that anyway). I am not sure what I need to do to incorporate these changes to the permit plans other than giving you a drawing. I would rather not have to change the landscape plan but I would have Mike Gerot do that if necessary. The plantings there would need pushed closer to the right of way, maybe eliminating some shrubs and some lawn but I am not sure we need a plan to do that. Please let me know what you think. Thanks. Mike r 4 Date Received: ,I~"f Planner: AL / > L1MBIRD Andrew From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Michael Kaiser [mkaiser@poage.net] Wednesday, January 14, 2009 12:02 PM DONOVAN James; DRISCOLL Jon . L1MSIRD Andrew Re: ERAC - DRC 2007-00083 2004 aerial photo. pdf Maybe I didn't state that perfectly. The idea is that in light of how often it will be used (relatively small number of trips per week) and that the entra'nce is on a low volume street (44th) where the risk of impeding any traffic is very, very low, it is . not a high priority to make the access so wide that a beginning truck driver could make the turn every time without bumping over a curb. I just need to show that it can be done - and I did show that with the turning templates and latest design. ' As to it being on the front page of the RG -I don't think it is any secret to ODOT how '.feeL I have made it very clear to ODOT over the last few days (and months) that I am not happy with how the rules were applied to this proposal. I tried not to make it personal because I do recognize that the rules they are trying to administer are not easily applied in an urban situation, However, given how hard we worked, including efforts from the City all the way to the mayor, I find it appalling at what we ended up with. Nobody got what they wanted, including ODOT This is not a safer highway by eliminating the access we had so what purpose did the rules serve, If we had not tried so hard I would not be so upset and could say it was an oversight on their part. . But that is not the case, We submitted alot of evidence as to why it should be left open and this is what we got. I don't have anything in writing from ODOT as to how this makes it better. I have to stamp the plan and I am not safisfied with the end product. Now every vehicle coming to Enterprise from the west will have a direct confliciiwith vehicles making a left turn onto S, 44th street. I have yet to see any compelling evidence . from ODOT to show how eliminating the access to our site makes the highway safer. Restricting a left turn out of our site is about the only movem'entthat can be shown, if eliminated, will make the highway safer. For all other movements to/from this site we have:submitted compelling evidence that it is either better or at least no significant negative impact to keep the existing access to Main as is. Thousands of dollars wasted and that is just not a good way to treat the people they are supposed to serve. Again I don't hold it against any of them personally because for one I am not really sure who was the final say in denying our original application. If I did know, I would not hold it personally against them either, 1 would just be clear about my frustration with the process and the rules and how they interpret them, I have not named anyone or tried to accuse anyone of wrong doing. I am just trying to show what happened and point out that it doesn't seem that these rules' are helping everything, even if they were applied correctly. I find it hard to believe that we couldn't have got something bett~r and in less time with less effort, " My biggest concern is that the ODOT forced closure of our access to Main will result in more accidents, not less, and I had hoped that we could' change that butl.don't see ODOT changing now so I have been directed to just get it approved as ODOT required, Tharks for the caution though. I can see how it could be misinterpreted. Sincerely Mike Kaiser; Jon Cc: L1MSIRD Andrew Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 11 :26 AM Subject: RE: ERAC - DRC 2007-00083 Mike, I want to remind you th~t this is a public email string, Whatever we write here can be RG front page news, I know you are frustrated with having to deal with multiple jurisdictions but that does not allow any of us to bad mouth any of the partners or forgo any of our responsibilities, If you see competing goals or regulations just state your case, please don't let your frustration lead you to a "are not really that concerned about how well the access functions" statement. I know you well enough to know that you do care about meeting all the competing goals! 1 Date ~eceived: Planner: AL I~, : JD From: Michael Kaiser [mailto:mkaiser@poage,net] Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 11:14 AM To: DRISCOLL Jon Cc: UMSIRD Andrew; DONOVAN James Subject: Re: ERAC ' DRC 2007-00083 Jon and Andy, To change the curb to make 18' throat results in a 1.5' by 7' wide bump out (island - lines shaded on attached plan 38730DT4) which seems insignificant. To do so will make it harder to show ODOT that we can get the WB-67 into the site. Moving the north curb more to the north will make the driveway wider than 35 feet, the maximum allowed by code (see Table 4.2-2 of SDC attached). I did notice footnote (1) for Table 4.2-2 says we can vary the widths and throat depths if no reasonable, alternative exists and it is safe. I think keeping the design as is (maybe making curb radius larger) is safer than trying to keep the 18 foot throat depth. I don't think having the small bumpoutto make the 18' throat will help.in identifying the driveway for vehicles approaching on. 44th Street. However, keeping the driveway as is with the modifications as shown on the 38730DT4.pdf allows the WB-67 vehicle enter the site easier. With this design the . truck can veer to the right while entering the site to keep the rear wheels from tracking over the curb on the south side of the driveway. I did modify the south side of the entrance a bit to allow easier access by angling the curb southwesterly over the last 2 feet or so adjacent to the right of way. The 1.5' x 7' island on the north side to make the 18' throat depth is shown with light lines so you can see that it limits the ability of a truck to veer to the right while entering the site. We spent so much time;.and effort up to this point we just want to get it finished and are not really that concerned about how well the access functions for a WS-67 truck. It has taken over a year to deal with ODOT and we are still not finished so all this scrutiny is not: helping. I also know that turning templates are somewhat conservative to leave room for error. In this case the trucks will enter from a dead end, fairly wide street and there should be room to adjust depending on what is parked on the east side of 44th Street. It will also help that it will probably be the same driver who regularly visits the site so they can adjust and learn to do it better as time goes on. I think the transport truck will deliver/take cars to/from the site once or twice a week so it is not a huge priority to make the entrance and exit perfect. Please keep in mind that we are trying to keep both the property owner and Enterprise satisfied. The property owner wants to keep whatever.hecan for driveways while Enterprise is just trying to get the development constructed. Enterprise would love to have access to Main but they are so far committed to this site at this point that they have decided to just live withqut it. So that is why it is not so important to Enterprise that the driveway functions well for the WS-67 vehicle, even though we are working so hard to try to keep it. If we can't show ODOT that the truck can get into the site then they won't let us keep the exit. I am at a loss for why ODOT dug in their heels and was so difficult but that is where we are at. .. Please let me know what you think asap so we can submit the final design. Mike To: Kaiser Cc: L1MSIRD Andrew Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 5:40 PM Subject: RE: ERAC - DRC 2007-00083 Mike, My first reaction is to think that the curbs are going to get hit quite often by a WB-67, even in the original drawing. If you shift the curb on the north side of the 44'h St driveway due north a foot or two, it would fare better than the 2 Date Received: II JftJ#? Planner: AL ~ , L1MBIRD Andrew From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: DRISCOLL Jon Thursday, January 15, 2009 8:12 AM 'Michael Kaiser' L1MSIRD Andrew; DONOVAN James; MARKARIAN Molly RE: ERAC - DRC 2007-00083 Mike, . I have helped all that I can, I believe, and stated the options I see available, I spoke with Andy last night and will let him respond to you, Andy,. let me know if I can help further. (FYI: Today I will have meetings all day-actually lpm on Tues 20th, is the 1" time available outside of emergency.) Sincerely, jloH/ Jon Driscoll PLS, EfT, WRE Transportation Engineer in Training City of Springfield, Public Works 225 Fifth Street Springfield, OR 97478 -, Phone: (541) 726-3679 , Fax: (541) 726-3781 jdriscollra>cij1Drinofield .or. u s From: Michael Kaiser [maillo:mkaiser@poage,net] Sent: Wednesday, Janubry 14, 2009 10:53 PM To: DRISCOLL Jon Cc: llMSIRD Andrew; DONOVAN James; MARKARIAN Molly Subject: Re: ERAC - DRC 2007-00083 Jon, I do not think you should add this driveway throat requirement and possibly think that you can't do it legally. I may be off with my assessment and how it applies here but this is how I see it. This development application was a Limited Land Use Decision as defined in ORS Chap. 197. The City of Springfield process for such is described in Chapter 5 of .the SDC as a Type II application, a Director decision with public notice (without public hearing unless appealed). Per SDC 5,1-130(E) the "Director's Decision is the City's final decision..." Although it may be appealed to the Hearing's Official, lhe City does not have the right to modify the decision in the Final Site Plan application process or in a building permit process. I realize'that because of the ODOT access issue we are not dealing with a normal situation. However, I think that any changes to the plan should, if not must, be related to the requirements from ODOT regarding access. It should not be left open f?r the City or the applicant to change other items approved or conditionally approved in the original application. The changes I am proposing are directly related to what ODOT required where as the 18 foot deep throat requirement is not. The original condition ofDRC2007-00083 (No. 14) only states that "Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall provide a copy of an approved ODOT access permit for the Main Street access." It was not foreseen by me, the applicant, or the City that it would be such a difficult process to get that from ODOT and that ODOT would require changes to our 44th Street access. When I first sent the proposed changes to the City last week I did not anticipate that you would want changes as well. I also did not anticipate that you would put up such a strong battle to get a 1.5 foot by 7 foot planter bump out. Especially in light of the fact that the code specifically allows you to vary the throat depth if "traffic safety is not impaired" Up to this point you have not provided compelling evidence that the absence of this 1.5 foot bump out will impair traffic safety. The absence of the bump out will not present a safety hazard for a rental car parked as shown on the plans (car 1 Date ~eceived: l;'ls.~OL-. Planner: AL 7 I'" (;.- " tl-v L1MBIRD Andrew From: Sent: To: Subject: DONOVAN James Thursday, January 15, 2009 9:32 AM L1MBIRD Andrew FW: ERAC - DRC 2007-00083 Andy, I appreciate your patience to date and your professional boundary on this stuff, I am trying to get this back on track with Mr. Poage. When Mike comes back to the table with an attitude adjustment we will go back into problem solving mode and finish this thing with some consideration for all ofthe standards involved. JD From: DONOVAN James' Sent: Thursday, JanuarY' lS, 2009 9:24 AM To: POAGE Tom (SMTI'): Subject: FW: ERAC - DRC 2007-00083 Tom, Here is one of the strings, including Mike's legal a'nd concrete finishing expertise, JD From: Michael Kaiser [niailto:mkaiser@poage,net] Sent; Wednesday, January 14, 2009 10:S3 PM To: DRISCOLL Jon Cc: LIMBIRD Andrew; DONOVAN James; MARKARIAN Molly Subject: Re: ERAC - DRC 2007c00083 , Jon, I do not think you should add this driveway throat requirement and possibly think that you can't do it legally. I may be off with my assessment and how it applies here but this is how I see it. This development application was a Limited I . . Land Use Decision as defined in ORS Chap. .197. The City of Springfield process for such is:described in Chapter 5 of the SDC as a Type II application, a Director decision with public notice (without public hearing unless appealed). Per SDC 5.1-130(E) the "Director's Decision is the City's final decision..." Although it may be appealed to the Hearing's Official, the City does noi have the right to modify the decision in the Final Site Plan application process or in a building permit process, I realize that because of the ODOT access issue we are not dealing with a normal situation. However, I think that any changes tc? the plan should, if not must, be related to the requirements from ODOT regarding access. It should not be left open for the City or the applicant to change other items approved or conditionally approved in the original application. The changes I am proposing are directly related to what ODOT required where as the 18 foot deep throat requirement is not. The original condition of DRC2007~00083 (No. 14) onlY states that "Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall provide a copy of an approved ODOT access permit for the Main Street access." It was not foreseen by me, the applicant, or the City that it would be such a difficult process to get that from ODOT and that ODOT would require changes to our 44th Street access. When I first sent the proposed changes to the City last week I did not anticipate that you would want changes -as well. I also did not anticipate that you would put up such a strong battle to get a 1.5 foot by 7 foot planter bump out. Especially in light of the fact that the code specifically allows you to vary the throat depth if "traffic safety is not impaired." Up to this point you have not provided compelling evidence that the absence of this 1:5 foot bump out will impair traffic safety. The absence of the bump out will not present a safety hazard for a rental car parked as shown on the plans (car facing south) as a driver in the rental car would be facing the entrance, able to see approaching vehicles. Being 1.5 feet 1 DatE'1 Received: ;)r;l,J.w? Planner: AL , closer to the street does not have any significant impact to their safety. If cars were parked with the front against the east curb'(facing.east), a 1.5 foot bump out would not provide' a deterentto backing out southwesterly into the driveway, nor does it protect the parked vehicle from entering traffic. So what does the bump out do excepl,meetthe letter of lhe law? It is not reasonable to require just because you have required elsewhere when the Code gives you the ability to make a reasonable decision based on the situation. I don't understand this mentality that seems to say we (the City) must always restrict and not allow design flexibility. That reminds me of a phrase I see often in City codes that says "where a conflict exists, the most restrictive shall apply." Why not say, "the least restrictive shall apply." What is so sacred about being more restrictive? It says something about our society - at least on the planning side. It also makes our job so much more difficult and always strain~ our relationships. Why? What are you accomplishing by having this rigid rule that in this case only results in a funny looking design (in addition to frustrating me and you). If this isn't a case when you should be able to exercise some flexibility in the throat depth then when? Bill Grille was critical of ODOT staff not allowing a reasonable alternative to the state rules for access when one was presented for this site and seemed to think the City was different. This is a very similar situation but now the shoe is on the Cities fool. 1 am the engineer stamping the plan and I don't see a safety issue - why do you? I agree it would have been simpler for me to just make the change but the end product would not have looked right and that would last for years. It would.have also been simpler for us both had you decided to just review the ODOT part and not look for other Code issues that should have been done in the Site Review. I hope I have not said or presented anything in a disrepectful manner. I do appreciate your willingness to listen and to talk with me respectfully on the phone. I know it is not easy because I am frustrated so I can imagine that you may be to. I will continue to do my best to honor and respect your opinions and try to understand them as best I can. I included Jim and Molly because they know the extenuating circumstances of this development and can hopefully provide guidance on what the City can legally 'do in light of the land use process, and how to wrap this project up. ;1 Sincerely, Mike --"-- Original Message --"-- Kaiser .Cc: L1MBIRD Andrew Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 3:34 PM Subject: RE: ERAC - DRC 2007-00083 Mike, My objective is to sustain the 18 foot throat requirement in Table 4.2-2 of our code. This must be done in order to maintain safety and keep traffic from backing on to 44th Street. There is 3S foot driveway width maximum in the same table, and with it there is a note which allows for it to be varied. On your last sketch (attachment 38730DT4), you showed a one foot overlap ofthe semi's path, You are the designer, so I do not want to be offensive and try and do your job. If you need to widen the driveway 2 feet to a 37 foot driveway in order meet the standards, you have my blessing on it, but I do need to see a minimum of 18 feet on the throat ofthe driveway. If, however, that doesn't work for you, I have included an AutoCAD drawing (shown in Word for those who can't open it) with two other options that would be acceptable to me. (The others were done in the new 2007 Word sketch-so I apologize at their crudeness.) I believe that is alii can do to help from here, I look forward to seeing your final design which will meet these requirements, Thank you for your submittal. 2 Date Received: /;/IJI,;oof Planner: AL . Sincerely, jlo~ Jon Driscoll PLS, EIT, WRE Transportation Engineer in Training . City of Springfield, Public Works 225 Fifth Street Springfield,OR97478 Phone: (541) 726-3679' Fax: (541) 726-3781 id riscoll@ci.sprinqfield.or.us , From: Michael Kaiser [mailto:mkaiser@poage,net] Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 1:41 PM To: DRISCOLL Jon ' Cc: UMBIRD Andrew; DONOVAN James Subject: Re: ERAC - DRC 2007-00083 Jon, I don't see how either option you sketched were reasonable alternatives because both options you drew would be relatively difficult to construct. My proposed configuration, matching what was approved in the site review, is a reasonable and safe alternative that is much more easily constructed and just looks better. I don't see any need to go back and add to the conditions of approval, and I am not sure why you want to do that What practical purpose would this little planter island serve in light of the difficulties it would present to construct? Sure you can draw the lines easily on paper, but can it be built that way? I seriously doubt that either option you sketched would look very good after construction. They would have to be hand formed and, with the tight radii shown, I don't think they would turn out good. Sincerely, Mike To: Kaiser Cc: L1MSIRD Andrew; DONOVAN James Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 12:55 PM Subject: RE: ERAC - ORe 2007-00083 Mike, . I can see in your attachment how the WB-50 would have problems with the extension as you showed it, and I do want to see your application;come to a quick resolve, I spent a few minutes showing how you could both meet the minimum throat requirement and stay within the maximum driveway width, I do want to hold to the 18' driveway width, as this would take minimal alteration and it is a requirement we have held very tightly to for other applications, The red lines below demonstrate possible solutions, Hopefully implementation of something like one of these will be a quick solution to the dilemma, 3 Date Received: 1/;"1~? Planner: AL / , ~ ~.. ,.."4. ~. ~~~::r: ;. : t.~1 ..:,,'T .;( .w. '. <~~d:; It; :.J,;" ;'u':. ~A-', ,'"U~' .,.:~r'..~... ,"~l~: ~?U"~; I' ~"~" ~,' ''';'' ~:c~:,:r::,:'~;, ',:...:.....;.-."-'~....;,. I ~,..,'~.:.. ,>..~n,:"r<. ,':', .~. ~tn.,:. 5~ ......, .".."~. ,.~.t~ .\~...t ,;--, ~::.:,-[ifO:; "\C.l~: ','}k "-":f:~~: :lSs::: ~:~ ,!,.) ~"..~~::._i ,_,;;' ..~O:..,"~ '.' ,...'....."'.'. (fl.., ,-COo>. "..,r. :.;..! -.;:- ;.;"'.~U,:...,../<t..,;.:" '-"'~ ""'.. .....~. ";Il,'';T:i'.O~'; ,..... I'-....i~... '~"'-\i,~r:n'UJ" . ui~: -,~: .<., I\J :: :}ji}~~''? . ;, ~~:!\ ," ,'.~l ;:..:~,~;t~.~ oJ \ ,I \':-' ;~~: .. ~'I.. . . , .' <.," ~,~ ." ".' . :::i.t. ..-.....-'-....; '-:';" \\ "'i "r} bi Oi~: .'1 i. 110 i,i;;r hi, ..&; " ~\ :H~ Uj;;: ~.~'.. ft" It~ U'! " ..., Iff, ilL; ::ifl i\'l" :::~ Iii, Il'j- :m. ::~ ul~ It"', ::~' "l:ij ..1'~ Ul~ It '"'I u-m: ",-;, !!~, , ~\: I -or- .- -.....;... ~. ;11 ... II ''; If I, I' '11' . .11. . <I, 7' II .. ,& ill ,AU '. \'. . ., I/O' ~'~,..%~,'~. . ...~,'". '~~.~~ .~~tk:;ll. ...... t,-~' '.It. ~-" 1_ '.~, .:ff;'~)t~<,', I" o , '.", (Jl' ..J " t': . . ;.~. ,~ ~ I " Thank you for your patience in working with us in making this as safe and efficient as possible, Sincerely, jlo~ Jon Driscoll pis, EfT, WRE Transportation Engi~eer in Training City of Springfield, Public Works 225 Fifth Street Springfield, OR 97478 4 Date ~eceived:~/;JI.M."L. Planner: AL. Phone: (541) 726-3679, Fax: (541) ,26-3781 id riscoll(a)ci. sprinofield. or. us From: Michael Kaiser [mailto:mkaiser@poage,net] Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 11:14 AM To: DRISCOLL Jon Cc: UMBIRD Andrew; [)ONOVAN James Subject: Re: ERAC - DRC 2007-00083 Jon and Andy, To change the curb to make 18' throat results in a 1.5' by 7' wide bump out (island -lines shaded on attached plan 38730DT4) which seems insignificant. To do so will make it harder to show ODOT that we can get the WB-67 into the site. Moving the north curb more to the north will make the driveway wider than 35 feet, the. maximum allowed by code (see Table 4.2-2 of SDC attached). I did notice footnote.(1) for Table 4.2-2 says we can vary the widths and throat depths if no reasonabl~ alternative exists and it is safe. I think keeping the design as is (maybe making curb radius larger) is safer than trying to keep the 18 foot throat depth. I don't think having the small bumpoutto make the 18' throat will help in identifying the driveway for vehicles approaching on 44th Street. However, keeping the driveway as is with the modifications as shown on the 38730DT4.pdf allows the WB-67 vehicle enter the site easier. With this design the truck can veer to the right while entering the site to keep the rear wheels from tracking over the curb on the south side of the driveway. I did modify the south side of the enlrance a bit to allow easier access by angling the curb southwesterly over the last 2 feet or so adjacent to the right of way. The 1.5' x 7' island on the north side to make the 18' throat depth is shown with light lines so you can see that it limits the ability of a truck to veer to the right while entering the site. We spent so much time and effort up to this point we just want to get it finished and are not really that concerned about how well the access functions for a WB-67 truck. It has taken over a year to deal with ODOT and we are still not finished so all this scrutiny is not helping. I also know that turning templates are somewhat conservative to leave room for error. In this case the trucks will enter from a dead end, fairly wide street and there should be room to adjust depending on what is parked on the east side of 44th Street. It will also help that it.will probably be the same driver who regularly visits the site so they can adjust and learn to do it better as time goes on. I think the transport truck will deliver/take cars to/fro"!1the site once or twice a week so it is not a huge priority to make the entrance and exit perfect. Please keep in mind that we are trying to keep both the property owner and Enterprise satisfied. The property owner vyants to keep whatever he can for driveways while Enterprise is just trying to get the develC!pment constructed. Enterprise would love to have access to Main but they are so far committed to this site at this point that they have decided to jus\ live without it. So that is why it is not so important to Enterprise that the driveway functions well for the WB-67 vehicle, even though we are working so hard to try to keep it. If we can't show ODOT that the truck can get into the site then they won'f let us keep the exit. I am at a loss for why ODOT dug in their heels and was so difficult but that is where we are at. Please let me know what you think asap so we can submit the final design. Mike Kaiser , Cc: L1MBIRD Andrew' Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 5:40 PM Subject: RE: ERAC JDRC 2007-00083 Mike, My first reaction is to'think that the curbs are going to get hit quite often by a WB-67, even in the original drawing, If you shift the curb on ~he north side of the 44th St driveway due north a foot or two, it would fare better than the original drawing, That way it meets code on the throat requirement while leaving the driveway width in compliance as well. 5 Date Received: ~/;?t" Planner: AL Would that work? If space is an issue, I have no issues with the parking lot being stretched westward to make up space-but I do not know of set back issues that may concern Andy, Good night, fo~ 'Jon Driscoll Pfs, EIT, WRE Transportation Engineer in Training City of Springfield, Public Works 225 Fifth Street Springfield, OR 97478 Phone: (541) 726-3679 Fax: (541) 726-3781 id riscollra>ci. spri nqfield: Or. us From: Michael Kaiser '[mailto:mkaiser@poage,net] Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 5:07 PM To: DRISCOLL Jon Cc: UMBIRD Andrew Subject: Fw: ERAC - DRC 2007-00083 Jon and Andy, I tried to change the north curb on the 44th Street entrance to make the 18' throat depth as measured from the existing curb line and am having a bit of a difficulty. I can do it but I would need to widen the driveway more to accommodate the WB67 truck. The ariveway is now at 35 feet with 9 ft wings both sides for a total of 53 ft which I think is the maximum width allowed. If we are at the maximum driveway width, can we just keep it as is considering all of our . planters are 2 feet wid~r than needed (we didn't use wheel bumpers)? I have attached a dwg fiie to show how close we are and what it would look like if we put the little bumpoutto make the throat depth 18 ft. It just doesn't seem worth it. Let me know if you can't view the dwg file and I will plot and send as pdf instead tomorrow. Thanks Mike Andrew Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 10:39 AM Subject: Re: ERAC - DRC 2007-00083 Andy, I attached the architects plan that was submitted in December of 2007 with the the Site Review plans and the plan that was reviewed in DRC2007-00083. The original approved pian does not have an 18 foot deep throat on either side of the driveway and nothing in the approval conditions asked for it. I don't think my present request is any different than the original plan approval. In fact, as we discussed on the phone, it seems even less likely to warrant the throat requirement because in the original proposal we had a full movement driveway approach on Main Street. With this proposal we in essence don't have a driveway on Main Street as the gate is required by ODOT to be closed and locked and to be used only by trucks exiting the site. If a future application wanted to change the driveway use on Main then they would have to goJo ODOT for a new permit and I would assume that there would be some review of a site plan by the City to get a permit to do the changes as well. Thanks for your help to work this out. Mike Kaiser 6 Date Received: ;/"-~9 Planner: AL /1-" , . Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 3::", PM Subject: RE: ERAC - DRC 2007-00083 Hi Mike, the letter from ODOT wasn't attached to this email, but I did review the revised plans you sent and I have a few comments,. I would appreciate a copy of the ODOT response for the project file, Please contact me when you get back to the office 'so we can discuss the requested changes. Thanks Andy Limhird City of Springfield 726-3784 , From: Michael Kaiser. [mailto:mkaiser@poage.net] Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 11:20 AM To: UMBIRD Andrew, Subject: ERAC - DRC 2007-00083 Andrew, We finally got what I y.tould call the planning approval from ODOT for the Main Street access on this project. Now I just need to submit construction plans to ODOT with a gate and signs as mentioned in the attached letter from them. also want to incorpor~te a couple other changes with the final design for the access. I want to put the curbs in the southwest corner of the property (upper left of drawing as North is to the right on the plan)' at the setback line which is 10 feet along Main Sifeetto match the other side of the proposed Main Street access point. I attached the landscape plan (ERAC L 1...) with the proposed change shown in red on it. When we were trying to convince CiDOT that a right in and right out was okay; I had the raised concrete island located so close to the west property boundary that putting a curb 10 feet from Main Street would not have made any useful parking area west of the access (see 3873SIT2 attached). Since ODOT is only allowing a locked gate at this access, to be open and used only by trucks, I have moved it further to the east and now we could have some useable parking for storing the rental cars there. I also made the approach a bit wider (not the throat) so trucks could get onto Main Street in front of this site and not have the driveway ap'proach overlap onto the frontage of the neighbor (as we aren't allowed to do that anyway). " I am not sure what I need to do to incorporate lhese changes to the permit plans other than giving you a drawing. I wouid rather not have to change the landscape plan but I would have Mike Gerot do that if necessary. The plantings there would need pushed closer to the right of way, maybe eliminating some shrubs and some lawn but I am not sure y . - we need a plan to do that. Please let me know what you think, Thanks. Mike 7 Date Received: f7~1 Planner: AL ~ I L~_=-=-=-=--=.l=--=-J-i Ii I H . ~I"I i I. b . Ii Iii ~ I ! liE I I i in ' I I I : t<g I.j I !'..: I "I : o~ ///---j~~: i1 I ' \GG>;~ II 1.1 J1ld~i Ii "J "/~'lv./ ,I ',',! j ~~ ~'" ill I /'\,- "!';~~~;"I' I // II fjld~'i\ i< I // /--~-::;'-7~--"'<{~ ~ I' " ,rJ-:;{~ I ....'" ~/ : I ~ I ~:1l I I ...." I I---L:- - \ I ~:.":~1 ~ I /. I -" ,/ -===.' ~ ! I;.. \ I :: :.....1 I I ,/ ./..-:..-:.-:..:..-:.~~.~+rH< \ I' : ~ ~,.;1:.....::.'.'.::':. ---------------[--- ...2-,.,f I +-1.~ '., '. U .. I /I{ ~, ,{ III I fl.! \! 8i 1........1, P't--' . 'I ~., ---' -7.0' , :. ,(:~:tONc.i : ! >', II r.'.:~ _~ ~f t-i~. r:i / J ."'vN4.(Y . I:"; . 1 V,) ."., ~PE "A" o~ I.': .::. I~?ER ~: _...._~- .'~.~ ! I r: '.!,,!, I :':, rCj CURB 't;-G G<<:- /1 ': : I '! >. I-':II: ~,:...i.'..i, ,,;.,; 10 / ,~; :: ---;'ni II b! ~. 11 1/ , , ~c..', I i"'~1> I """ . J !j) /:: ' _.m--","i':: I r.'::.1 b~~ I ~ / I. : -----H ..' I IJl~~ I : I,:, ;1, ,.. $p, /1/ I' '. _oU'. II riJi I ,: il I..: <.I /:) " / . lSl)ol .: I i<j I:' i1 i~"."."CII ~\ ,/ /1 I .~~~~ II q M\" 1:1 ~..... -":-::, - //~ I Y"""'''' !)J (J) \;::.1'- "'-C'" ----- -- - '1"1- l"""ii1...., k:" "".' ~ 0(1(;"-'\'- - - - . ,---=-~<<>o.'"-' ::::J -- - - t.=~,....- - - .....Jl),f<~.# --1 \:.\..... "'- [">>';;"C,jjjii:-~~~~LL3Y i ~ '<:z ~:~~ I ~'.'.~..":, ~ >. ,~j:c.:'~'~__ ._______ --I___J__~_ , ,[ I-- ' UJI I' 1--1 "" ' ""I , ull s--." :-.: ! e:: ;.. ~< ,- - 20' ~ o 5 10 20 30 40 SCALE IS IN FEET MAIN STREET ::~:-f~~;7~~~~~-~~~~:~';I.' '~~.-:~~~~:[i::~::::2i:Ir~~Z;~0)0, . ..\; '~\</.:'\\ ":f~"'~t~.=~..,.",,;,,,c'cc-~'=~",~: '71 /' ;), . 1/",: :~/ UalU i~eceIVed:4~o? Planner: AL