Loading...
20170522163329.pdfRESUB KAY 16 2017 BUILDING DEPARTIVIFINIT CITY OF EDIVIONM, May 12, 2017 SENT VIA Email Ms. Jeanie McConnell Engineer Program Manager City of Edmonds Public Works Department 121 5t" Ave North Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: Magic Toyota; Edmonds, WA Application #: bld20170501 Comment Response Letter pamb Dear Ms. McConnell: Thank you for the review and comment letter you prepared on May 1, 2017. Below please find our response to the issues you raised in your comment letter: GENERAL: This project is being reviewed in several different phases. Comments provided under this plan review are specific to the demo permit and stormwater permit, which includes review of the stormwater detention vault to be used as a sediment/storage tank during demolition. 1. Structural review of the vault has been completed by David Evans and Associates through a Peer Review process. Comments are provided as an attachment to these plan review comments. Communications/correspondence related to these comments should be directed to the City. Response: Noted. 2. Special inspections will be required for the construction of the vault. A special inspection and testing agreement form will follow these plan corrections. Response: Noted. 3. The existing features shown within the plan set are difficult to see (very light print). Please resubmit plans, ensuing this information is legible. Response: Noted. Background printing to be verified during production. 4. Include a City Engineering Division approval block on all plan sheets. Refer to sample on City website. Response: Approval block added to all sheets. Sheet Q-1.0 — TESC AND DEMOLITION PLAN PHASE 1: 1. Include construction sequence. Refer to sample on City website. Response: Construction sequence provided on CV-2. 2. Provide civil plan sheet index. Response: Sheet index provided on CV-1. 3. Provide Utility Purveyor information. Response: Utility Purveyor on CV-1. 4. Is the construction fence shown on the plan set a silt fence or chain link fence? Response: The construction fence is chain link fence unless otherwise noted. a. If it is a chain link fence, please show access gates with gate swing onto private property. Response: Access gates shown at construction entrance. b. Please include a silt fence along the downstream boundaries of the property as appropriate. Response: Silt fence added where applicable. 5. Show job shack location, if any. Response: Final job shack location being coordinated by contractor. 6. Demolition Key Note #1 indicates removal of existing pavements to construct vault, but this note is also referenced where the construction entrance is to be places. Please clarify. See also Sheet D-2.2 Note #2. Response: Pavement to be removed for construction entrance as well. Vault reference removed. 7. Plans indicate demolition of a portion of the sanitary sewer line. While it is difficult to see the extent of the existing sewer, it is assumed there are no other connections on this line from the private property prior to connection to the City main. If this is accurate, please show cut and cap of the sewer at the property line. Response: Note added indicating sanitary sewer line for future connection. 8. Clearly show the domestic water service to the existing structure (to be demolished). The domestic service shall be cut and capped at the meter. If the meter is not going to be reused with the new development then it shall be noted that the service shall be cut and capped at the main line. Work within the ROW, however, should be deferred to full development of the site. Response: No water service to the existing structure will be demolished. The meter will be reused and a new RPBA will be provided. 9. A note on the plans states "Shut water valve prior to demolition." Clearly indicate what this portion of the system provides water to. Fire line/systems serving the parking structure shall remain active at all times. Response: Notes added to indicate which areas will remain active. 10.A hose spigot with AVB or yard hydrant shall be identified on the plan set to remain active through the course of construction. Response: Hydrants to remain active indicated on plan. 11.1-low will access to upper level of parking structure be maintained during construction? Will a chain link fence be provided to allow safe clearance, etc. form open trenches. Will shoring be provided around vault excavation to prevent too much over -excavation? Response: Private access will remain throughout construction with utilization of temporary fence for separation. No shoring will be provided. Sheet Q-2.0 - OVERALL TESC AND DEMOLITION PLAN PHASE 2. 1. Label Phase II limits of disturbance. Response: Limits of disturbance labelled. 2. General Erosion Control Note #16 - The City does not issue permits for rockeries. Please revise to state retaining wall. Response: Callout revised. 3. General Demolition Note #2 states "contractor to protect existing features which are to remain." Clearly indicate which features are to remain. Response: Features to be protected noted on D-2.1 and D-2.2 4. General Demolition Note #3 - Water and sewer utility systems to be abandoned shall be cut and capped at the property line. Please revise note to include this requirement. Response: Note revised to include the requirement. Sheet Q-2.1 - TESC AND DEMOLITION PLAN P1­11ASE 2: 1. A haul road has been shown throughout the site. What surface material is proposed for the haul road? Response: Detail added to sheet D-2.3. 2. Demolition Key: Note #1: Please clarify what "associated appurtenances" refers to. Response: Associated appurtenances refers to everything related to the existing building. 3. Plans state "'remove existing catch basin and plug existing pipe'F in two locations along Hwy 99. When the existing improvements are more legible on the plan set I'm sure it will be clear, but please confirm that the CB to be removed is part of the storm system on private property. Response: The CBs are located on private property. Pipes to be mud off in CB. 4. Please confirm water utility connections and meter locations for the existing structure at the NE corner of the property. Water services shall be cut and capped at the property line. Response: Water services noted on plan to be cut and capped at property line and that if they are not used for the development they will be cut and capped at the main. 5. Will utility poles within City ROW be removed/ relocated during the demolition phase of the project? If so, a separate ROW construction permit will be required at this time. Please following this LINK to the application form in needed. Response: Utility poles to be removed/relocated are noted on the plan. Notes added regarding minimizing the duration of work in the ROW. Sheet D-2.1 - TESC AND DEMOLITION PLAN PHASE 2: 1. Demolition Key Note #2 indicated removal of existing sidewalk, concrete, and asphalt pavements. This note is referenced at the entrance to the site off 212 1h St SW. Sidewalk within City ROW shall be maintained for as long as possible throughout the project. Preserving a section of asphalt at the entrance of 212 th would also be preferred to prevent quarry rock from kicking out into the ROW. Please revise as appropriate. Response: Line added in Sequence of Construction regarding work within the ROW to take place late in the project. Construction entrance moved away from 212th to prevent quarry rock from entering the ROW. STORMWATER REPORT: Background This is classified as a Large Project because it involves I or more acres of land disturbing activity. Large Projects are subject to Small Site Minimum Requirements 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11. This project is to provide the demo of the site and construction of the permanent stormwater vault. This review is for these aspects only. A separate review is prepared for the commercial building submittal.' Minimum Requirement #1 — Preparation of Stormwater Site Plan Comments: 1. Sheet C-2.1: The 110 LF 12" CPEP near the northeast corner of the site is specified at 6.87% slope. Based on the inverts, the slope calculates to 5.82% Response: The pipe slope has been corrected to 5.84%. The difference in calculated slope is due to rounding. 2. Sheet C-2.2: The 20 LF 12: CPEP near the west property line is specified at 0.50%. Both upstream and downstream inverts are 366.82, meaning the pipe is laid flat. Response: The pipe slopes at 0.50% with a downstream invert of 366.72. 3. Sheet C-2.2: Near the C-2.1 match line, overlapping leader notes are unreadable. Response: The callouts have been adjusted to avoid conflict. 4. Sheet C-2.4, Control Structure Details: The notch width is specified as 0.10'. The WWHM modeling specified 0.01'. Please resolve the discrepancy. Response: Control structure detail revised to specify 0.01'notch width. 5. Sheet C-2.4, Control Structure Details: Specify the shear gate and associated pipe diameter. Response: Shear gate specified as 8". 6. Sheet C-2.4, Control Structure Details: The main discharge orifice is missing. The WWHM modeling specified 0.66". Specify if the orifice is to be constructed at this phase or later. Constructability may be an issue. One possible solution is to provide the orifice at this phase and provide a plug that will be removed when the detention vault is commissioned. Response: Orifice to be provided this phase. Callout added specifying discharge orifice size. Minimum Requirement #2 — Construction Stormwater Pollution Plan Comments: 1. Sheet D-1.0: BMP conflict, remove silt fence from construction entrance. Response: Conflict resolved and access provided, 2. Sheet D-1.0: Provide inlet protection for the existing CB immediately adjacent to the construction entrance. Response: Inlet protection added. 3. Sheet D-1.0: Specify Baker tank minimum size requirement. Response: Callout added with size requirements. 4. Sheet D-1.0: Add Baker tank discharge/disposal requirements. Response: Callout added with discharge requirements. 5. Sheet D-2.0: BMP conflict, remove silt fence from construction entrance. Response: Conflict resolved and access provided. 6. Sheet D-2.2: BMP conflict, remove silt fence from construction entrance. Response: Conflict resolved and access provided. 7. Sheet D-2.2: The proposed vault will discharge to the existing stormwater system. Although the #57 stone berm will trap sands and gravels, turbid water may enter the storm drain system. Specify how turbid runoff will be held. Will the outlet of the vault be blocked? Response: The storm berm has been revised with filter fabric to hold back additional fines. In addition to the stone berm, runoff will be conveyed through the StormFilter water quality treatment system prior to discharge to the public system. The ffiters will be replaced after construction per permanent stormwater plan. 8. Sheet D-2.3: Provide detail for inlet protection. Response: Detail provided on sheet D-2.3, 9. SWPPP Section 3.1.4: Specify minimum Baker tank size and discharge requirements and/or disposal method(s). Response: Baker tank requirements added to section 3.1.4 IO.SWPPP Section 4.2.1: Although the requirements are specified for events of 250 NTU and greater, the more likely scenario is turbidity values between 26 and 249 NTU. Please provide the response requirements for this case. Response: Section revised to address lower values. Minimum Requirement #3 — Source Control of Pollution Comments: None Minimum Requirement #4 — Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems Comments: None Minimum Requirement #5 — Onsite Stormwater Management Comments: None Minimum Requirement #6 — Runoff Treatment Comments: None Minimum Requirement #7 — Flow Control Comments: None Minimum Requirement #8 - Wetland Protection Comments: None Minimum Requirement *9 - Operation and Maintenance Comments: None Minimum Requirement #10 - Offsite Analysis and Mitigation Comments: None Minimum Requirement #11 - Financial Liability Comments: None Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you have any questions, please call me at (425) 453-9501 x 1518. Sincerely, Z-�� ,;VL- John Hanson, P.E.