HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence PWE 8/28/2009
.
.
..
. L1MBIRD Andrew
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
DRISCOLL: Jon
Friday, August 28, 20094:39 PM
Ron Rice (ronrice@geomax.us)
L1MBIRD Andrew
RE: PRE 2009-00008
Ron,
I appreciate the concerns you raised in your recent letter on the Chan Project. I agree that connectivity to the parcel
south of your lot could be a cause of unnecessary hardship-especially if it was not made securable. Given your swale
location, I can see the difficulty in providing vehicular access to the abutting sites on the north portion of the lot.
Nonetheless, this site could have been designed to allow for connectivity to the east and west if the building was
arranged differently. Looking at the overall site from a Transportation view, I believe a better design would be to utilize
the two previously existing driveways, as this would allow for both connectivity to the sites on the east and west, but
also might improve your internal circulation. (One example would be to move the building to the front of the lot and
provide circulation to the south of the building.)
However, given the restraints of your storm drainage issues, I do believe we con cof1)e to some concessions on the off
street connectivity. One suggestion I was given was to connect to Dairy Mart in the SE portion of the lot. Depending on
the arrangement, this would either remove a parking lot stall or two, or require permission from Dairy Mart to build a
ramp onto their lot.
A goal of this condition is to reduce cross movements on Main street, which creates more opportunities for accidents
where the speed differential is much larger and accidents are more severe than those in parking lots. Another goal is
just to make for a more efficient traffic system, which the design of your lot can help or hinder.
The greatest safety concern, however, is has to do with the arrangement of your. internal circulation. At the Pre-
Submittal meeting I deemed the application incomplete without truck turning templates. The plans have arcs drawn,
but these do not emulate the actual wheel paths and offsets from the body of a vehicle. (An example program that
produces these is AutoTurn.) I asked for those again in an email from Wade Stevens, but have not yet seen any.
After running some calculations, I believe the building is likely too large to accommodate safe 'and efficient vehicular
movements on the site. The questions that remained unanswered without those turning templates are as follows.
. How will delivery vehicles and garbage trucks (SU30 minimum) enter the site, unload, and safely exit the site
with its present configuration.
o SDC 4.6-13S(A) requires all necessary loading areas for commercial sites to be located off-street.
o SDC 4.6-135(8) requires all loading areas to be "so that vehicles are not required to back or
maneuver in the public right-of-way or internal travel aisles.") There are no loading zones that can
accommodate an SU30 or SU40 vehicle. (E.g. The only way I presently see for a garbage truck to exit
the site is to back across the congested entrance area, which is worse than backing up the travel
aisles on the side because of vehicles entering the site from the highway speeds.)
. How will two vehicles safely simultaneously traverse the NE and NW corners of the building?
. A smaller issue is the safety of a pedestrian leaving the NE corner of the building? There are presently no
bollards or ways to protect a patron on foot while coming around this blind corner.
Please take the time, as has been requested twice already, to run the turning templates for circulation on this site to
ensure all movements can be made safely and efficiently.
.1
Date Received:
Planner: AL
f /;"~1
I /
'J
.
.
. To put this all in perspective, if connectivity to adjoining sites were created, some of these circulation issues would easily
be solved; however, if you are loo'king to keep the vehicular connectivity nonexistent, there are some changes that need
to be made with the size, shape, and/or location of the buildings, To make sure that the site has safe and efficient
circulation, I will need to see your truck and vehicle turning templates with the appropriate site modifications. (On
technical note, we would prefer two feet of offset off from the vehicle in the templates, but an absolute minimum of
one foot is mandatory.)
I trust you can now see more clearly the reasoning behind the findings and conditions from the Transportation point of
view. If you have any questions, please contact me at your convenience. I believe it would be good to sit down together
to review your turning templates and site adjustments, and then discuss some possible creative ways to meet the
connectivity to adjacent sites condition.
I look forward to working with you to keep this project moving forward.
Sincerely,
/on-
Jon Driscoll EIT, PLS, WRE
Transportation Engineer in Training
City of Springfield, Public Works
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97478
Phone: (541) 726-3679 Fax: (541) 726-3781
jd riscoll(Q)ci. sprinqfield. or. us
From: UMBIRD Andrew
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 4: 10 PM
To: DRISCOLL Jon; MCEACHERN Clayton
Subject: PN: PRE 2009-00008
FYI
I will deliver copies of the letter to the named recipients. This affects Case DRC2009-00017, and the property is at 1815
Main Street (not 1775). Thanks
From: Ron Rice - Geomax, Inc. [mailto:ronrice@geomax.us]
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 3:49 PM ,
To: UMBIRD Andrew
Subject: PRE 2009-00008
Hi Andy,
Attached is our letter setting out our issues with off-street connectivity for this project and our request that this
be evaluated as a minor variance.
I would appreciate it if you would distribute the courtesy copies for me as you offered.
Please let me know what we need to do to expedite this project approval without this onerous connectivity
requirement.
This could put several people to work for a few months and we all know we need that NOW!!!.
2
Date Received:
Planner: AL
~~ ~ /;4179
/
:
Geomax, Inc.
Ronald D. Rice, PE, PLS
541-942-0126
.
.
3
Date, Received:
Planner: AL
r /u !J,-7
/ /