bld20150846-Bldg 10-E2.pdf
CITY OF EDMONDS
CIVIL PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
ENGINEERING DIVISION
(425) 771-0220
City Website: www.edmondswa.gov
DATE:
March 24, 2016
TO:
Aidan Bird, Studio Meng Strazzara
abird@studioms.com
Rick Tomkins, Triad Associates
rtomkins@triadassociates.net
FROM:
Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager
jeanie.mcconnell@edmondswa.gov
RE:
Application #: bld20150846
Project: Edmonds Pine Street –Building 10
Project Address: 50 Pine Street
During review of the above noted application, it was found that the following information,
corrections, or clarifications are needed. Reviews by other divisions, such as Planning, Building, or
Fire may result in additional comments. Please redline plans or submit three (3) sets of revised
plans/documents with a written response to each of the items below to a permit coordinator.
nd
Resubmittals can be made at the Development Services Department on the 2floor of City Hall.
Permit Center hours are M, T, Th & F from 8am-4:30pm. The Permit Center is closed on
Wednesdays.
City of Edmonds handouts, standard details and development code can be referenced on the City
website.
Review 1 –December 18, 2015
Review 2 –March 24, 2016
GENERAL
March 24,2016–Response letter states this will be provided with the next submittal.
1.
12/18/2015 comment -Please provide an itemized engineers cost estimate, including units and
unit prices, for both on-site and off-site (right-of-way) improvements, including all utilitiesand
traffic control. Please use the King County Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet and
utilize the “write-in” sections where appropriate.
A bond is required to be placed for all erosion control measures, right-of-way and
stormwater management improvements. The amount of the bond will be based on 120% of
the City approved estimate. The City will inform you of the appropriate bond amount after
review of the cost estimate. Please obtain the appropriate subdivision improvement bond
forms from the City.
Inspection fees for this project will be calculated at 3.3% of the 120% City approved
estimate for all improvements.
ok
2.
March 24,2016–Response letter states this was added to all sheets, but I only see it on
3.
sheet C1. Please include on all sheets.
12/18/2015 comment -Include a City Engineering Division approval block on all plan sheets.
Refer to sample on City website.
ok
4.
March 24,2016–Response letter indicates replacement in the same location and at same
5.
height as the existing cobra head lights. I had email communications with Bill Popp Jr on
th
March 9, discussing the proposed changes and the replacement will likely be much more
involved than what the current civil plans indicate. This itemwill remain open until a
revised lighting plan is received.
12/18/2015 comment -It is understood that the cobra head street lights along the south side of
Pine Street will be replaced in accordance with the settlement agreement with the Town of
Woodway.Please update civil plans to include light post locations aswell as underground
wiring.
Sheet C1 –COVER SHEET
1.ok
2.ok
Sheet C2 –GENERAL, STORM DRAINAGE, AND UTILITY NOTES
ok
1.
2.Revise Water Notes as follows:
a.ok
b.ok
c.ok
d.ok
e.ok
ok
3.
Sheet C3 –HORIZONTAL CONTROL PLAN
March 24, 2016 –See sheet C12 comments.
1.
12/18/2015 comment -Revise plan sheet to include signage and striping or provide a separate
plan sheet.(C12)
March 24, 2016 –Please reference recording numbers for all existing easements.
2.
12/18/2015 comment -Show all easements encumbering the site as well as any easements on
adjacent properties benefiting the subject property.
March 24, 2016 –Response letter states no right-of-way encroachments on Building 10 site
3.
are proposed; however, the decorative street lights will be privately owned and maintained
and will be located in the City right-of-way. Please update the civil plans to show these
encroachments once the lighting plan has been designed.
Page 2of 9
12/18/2015 comment -Show any existing and proposed encroachments on this plan sheet.
Encroachment agreements need to be finalized prior to final construction approval for this
project. This will be noted as a condition on the permit.
March 24, 2016 –Thank you for referencing requested details. Please also incorporate
4.
and reference details in plan set.
12/18/2015 comment -Monumentation has been shown along Pine Street in several locations.
Please include in plan set and reference City of Edmonds monument standard details E2.33 and
E2.33.1.
Sheet C4 –TESC PLAN
ok
1.
ok
2.
ok
3.
ok
4.
ok
5.
ok
6.
ok
7.
Sheet C5 –TESC NOTES AND DETAILS
No Comments
Sheet C6 –GRADING AND PAVING PLAN
1.ok
3/24/2016 –It is understood that individual curb ramps are no longer proposed, however,
2.
please still reference Sheet C8 for detail related to Pine Street Driveway and Sidewalk
Improvements.
12/18/2015 comment -For each proposed curb ramp, please refer tothe curb ramp detail
number provided on Sheet C8.
3.ok
4.ok
3/24/2016 –See sheet C8 for comments regarding driveway approaches.
5.
12/18/2015 comment -Concrete curband gutter should continue through driveway approaches.
Refer to City of Edmonds standard detail E2.26.
6.ok
3/24/2016 –Reference is made to Sheet C12 for sidewalk improvements … please revise to
7.
state C13.
12/18/2015 comment -Please reference City standard details for curb, gutter and sidewalk as
appropriate and note the location of the details on Sheet C9.
8.ok
Sheet C7 –DRAINAGE AND UTILITY PLAN
3/24/2016 –CB has been revised to a manhole, however the manhole icon is not showing at
1.
the point of pipe connections (drafting error). Please revise.
Page 3of 9
12/18/2015 comment -A new CB is shown to the north of lower driveway. Three pipe
connections are shown on the south side of this structure, which will comprise the structure too
much. Please revise accordingly.
2.ok
3/24/2016 –Response letter seeks verification from city records that stub was actually
3.
installed and explanation of how it is metered.I am aware that conduit was placed in the
ROW for this irrigation line, however, I not certain as to the installation of a stub. I found
an asbuilt of this area and it does not look like a line was placed across the ROW. If there
was one, it looks like it would have been tapped off the backside of the irrigation meter:
12/18/2015 comment -Please confirm that the existing irrigation meter on the west side of Pine
Street will be used with this project. If not, the service line will need to be cut and capped at the
main.
4.ok
5.ok
6.ok
3/24/2016 –Response letter states this is still being worked on.
7.
12/18/2015 -Please confirm that a new 6” domestic water service is required for this project. If
so, the proposed main line location has bends with blocking that appear to be located in areas
that will be disturbed. Please provide specific details related to blocking and how to handle any
areas where blocking cannot be provided against undisturbed earth.
8.ok
3/24/2016 –Thank you for adding the required RPBA. Details are now provided on sheet
9.
C11. Please revise.
Page 4of 9
12/18/2015 -An RPBA is required on the domestic service. Please refer to City standard detail
provided on Sheet C10 and show location of RPBA in plan view.
10.ok
3/24/2016 –Response letter states specifications for yard drains has not yet been
11.
developed. Please include in plan set once spec is known.
12/18/2015 -A yard drain is shown on the plans to the east of the proposed power and phone
vaults. Please confirm the type of yard drain to be installed and show points of connection to
the storm conveyance system.
12.ok
13.ok
3/24/2016 –Please provide details for swaleand beehive grates. It doesn’t appear as
14.
though the landscape plan addresses this either.Pleasealsoprovide spot elevations at
sidewalk to confirm that runoff behind sidewalk will enter into beehive grate prior to
overflowing onto sidewalk.
12/18/2015 comment -Provide construction details related to the permanent swale, mitered
intake and trash rack.
15.ok
16.ok
17.3/24/2016 –Storm catch basin numbering is inconsistent between plan and profile view
and Detention pipe Section on Sheet C10. Revise structure numbering as needed.
18.3/24/2016 -Pipe length is inconsistent between plan and profile (88’ vs. 91’ of 12” PVC).
19.3/24/2016 -Rim elevation on Type 2-60” is inconsistent between plan and profile (164 vs.
163.86)
20.3/24/2016 -Pipe inverts on Type 2-48” are inconsistent between plan and profile
Sheet C8 –CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
3/24/2016 –Sheet C7 hasbeen revised to indicate connection of wall drain to existing CB
1.
in Pine Street, however existing CB is not shown in this plan view. Please revise.
12/18/2015 comment -Proposed wall sections have been provided, both indicating drain pipe
behind the wall. The plans show construction of a retaining wall with weep holes. In any case,
if drain pipe is to be installed where will the storm flows discharge to?
2.ok
3/24/2016 –Thank you for adding reference to City standards. Please also add note that
3.
details are for improvements on private property.
12/18/2015 comment -Asphalt and Concrete sections have been provided on the plans. Please
note these details are to be used for improvements on private property. Refer to City standard
details for construction specifications for improvements within the City right-of-way.
3/24/2016 –please clarify in the Pine Street Driveway Entrance/Sidewalk detail which
4.
areas of the sidewalkare proposed to be depressed. The south side of theupper driveway
shows a 6-foot curb taper, but I thought due to grades this was going to be a 15-foot taper,
including the sidewalk. From that point north I understood the sidewalk would stay
depressed, until the north side of thelower driveway?It seems the curb tapers are called
out wellthroughout, but clarification should be provided along the sidewalk.
12/18/2015 commentfrom Sheet C6-Concrete curb and gutter should continue through
driveway approaches. Refer to City of Edmonds standard detail E2.26.
Page 5of 9
Sheet C9 –STANDARD DETAILS
1.ok
2.ok
Sheet C10 –STANDARD DETAILS
1.ok
2.3/24/2016 -Revise numbering at catchbasins to be consistent withSheet C7.
3.3/24/2016-Typo in the Flow Control Structure detail –“oriface” should be “orifice”
4.3/24/2016 -Why has the downturned elbow been removed from the flowcontrol structure?
Sheet C11 –SITE CROSS SECTIONS
No comments.
Sheet C12(now Sheet C13)–PINE STREET REPAIR AND PARKING IMPROVEMENTS
1.Please update the Pine Street Repair Notes as follows:
a.ok
b.ok
c.ok
d.ok
e.ok
2.ok
ok
3.
4.ok
3/26/2016 –Thank you for revising the title of this section. Please note somewhere on this
5.
plan sheet that spot elevations/slopes are shown on Sheet C6.
12/18/2015 comment -Section A –Typical Parking Extension detail indicates parking areas will
flow towards the street instead of the gutter flow line. This may be accurate along most of the
north side of Pine Street, but I don’t believe this accurate for the south side. Please revise to
indicate flows should bedirected towardsthe curb/gutter where feasibleand shall match road
grades, not to exceed 2%.
March 24, 2016 –Please review the sight distance along the Pine Street curve to determine
6.
whether a double line is needed along a portion of this area.
12/18/2015 comment from sheet C3 -Revise plan sheet to include signage and striping or
provide a separate plan sheet.(C12)
March 24, 2016 –Please show bicycle markings along westbound lane, similar to
7.
eastbound lane.
March 24, 2016 –Remove note that references sheet C9 for Pine Street profile as it is now
8.
provided on this plan sheet.
March 24, 2016 –ShowRPM placement identifying fire hydrant locations.
9.
March 24, 2016 –Astop sign is not requiredat the driveway from the parking garage.
10.
Please remove.
March 24, 2016 –Please review the stop sign location on the west side of the upper Loop
11.
Road and Pine Street intersection(west side of traffic circle). I believe theexisting stop
sign location is too far back from the intersection.
Sheet X of X –TRAFFIC CONTROL
Page 6of 9
3/24/2016 –Response letter notes sheet C4 was updated to include requirement for
1.
contractor to submit TCP & Haul Route Plan prior to construction. Please submit plan
for review and approval prior to building permit issuance.
12/18/2015 comment -Please submit a traffic control and haul route plan for review and
approval. Individual plans shall be provided for all elements of work to be completed along
Pine Street, including intersection work.
3/24/2016 –Response letter acknowledges this requirement.
2.
12/18/2015 comment -Disruption fees will be charged for closure of parking stalls and sidewalk
areas. Clearly specify areas of closure and indicate the timeframe for which you request the
closure.
Sheet AS100 –ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN
3/24/2016 –The plans were not updated in the recent submittal and the responseletter
1.
states this will be provided in a subsequent submittal.
12/18/2015 comment -Update plan to show sidewalk and parking lot improvements consistent
with the civil improvement plans.
3/24/2016 –Anote was added to the plans that states “ROW improvements per civil under
2.
separate permit”. Please revise note to read as follows.
12/18/2015 comment -Please add a general note to the plans that states “See Civil Construction
Plans for Engineering Requirements”.
3.ok
4.ok
Sheet L101 –LANDSCAPE PLAN
3/24/2016 –Please update.
1.
12/18/2015 comment -Update landscape plan to show sidewalk and parking lot improvements
consistent with the civil improvement plans.
2.ok
STORMWATER REPORT
The following comments are provided from Jerry Shuster, Stormwater Engineer. Please
contact Jerry directly at 425-771-0220 or by email at jerry.shuster@edmondswa.govwith any
specific questions you may have regarding these comments.
3/24/2016 –The design has been revised to add a flow control facility (detention tank)
1.
12/18/2015 comment -Page 2-4, of the Point Edwards Building 10 Drainage report (Triad,
10/5/215), describes the exemptions from Minimum Requirement #7 (Flow Control) based
oncriteria in the 2005 Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington.
One of the conditions that has to be met to get the flow control exemption is:
“The conveyance system between the project site and the exempt receiving water
shall have sufficient hydraulic capacity to convey discharges from future build-out
conditions (under current zoning) of the site, and the existing condition from non-
project areas from which runoff is or will be collected.”
In 2003 when the original drainage plan for the Point Edwards site was approved by the
City, a waiver from the flow control requirement was granted (under the previous version of
Page 7of 9
the Stormwater Management Code) that included evidence that the conveyance system was
adequate.The current condition ofthe downstream conveyance system does not have
adequate hydraulic capacity.The pipe immediately downstream of the BNSF tracks, is a 48
inch corrugated metal pipe (CMP) with asphalt coating that was installed in the early 1960s
by the Port of Edmonds.
A recent study by the City found herelooked at the causes of flooding at the intersection of
SR104 and Dayton Street and at the Harbor Square property nearby. Figure 1-5 of this study
shows the pipe between Nodes 33 and 34.The slope of this 600 foot long pipe is 0.007
ft/ft.With a free discharge, the maximum capacity of this pipe is approximately 70 cubic
feet per second (n=0.024 for CMP). The 2003 Point Edwards drainage report estimated a
100-year recurrence peak flow from the Point Edwards development and the offsite flows to
this pipe to be approximately 81 cfs and that the pipe could handle approximately 107 cfs.
Page 2-25 of the2013 City study concluded:
“The Willow Creek 48-inch CMP pipe rehabilitation was added to the recommended
alternative. This 600 foot pipe segment between the tide gate and the intake vault is
reported to be in poor condition. Lining the pipe would improve its hydraulic
performance by reducing the roughness which modeling efforts show help lower
marsh water levels. In addition, the lining would ensure the pipe’s long-term
structural integrity for future use.
A recent video by the City confirmed the pipe is in poor condition. Also note that the
existing CMP pipe is rarely at free discharge since it is tidally influenced from April through
October when the tide gate is locked open and the flow must “push against”the tide gate
from November through March.These factors further restrict its capacity.
For these reasons, based on the current downstream analysis, an exemption from MR#7
cannot be granted.
Per Section 4.10.2 of the Edmonds Stormwater Code Supplement:
“If a capacity problem, streambank erosion problem, or other problem with the
downstream system is encountered in the analysis, the runoff flow from the project
site will be restricted per Minimum Requirement #7 –Flow Control or other
mitigation may be proposed by the applicant subject to review by the Public Works
Director or Designee.”
The City is open to a meeting to discuss “other mitigation” proposed by the applicant.
3/24/2016–The existingdesign configuration for thewater quality treatment pond was
2.
provided; however, as-built information was not provided. The note states the
available treatment volume shall be verified and sediments removed as necessary to
restore design geometry. Please also include in the note that a specific plan shall be
submitted to the City prior to any restoration workandprior to final certificate of
occupancy for Building 10.(The drainage report specifically states that this work shall
Page 8of 9
be performed once Lot 10 construction activity is complete. Erosion & sediment
control will also need to be addressed inanyrestoration plan.
12/18/2015 comment -Provide as-built drawing of the water quality pond, its outlet
structure, and discharge pipe.
3/24/2016 –Not addressed. Applicant noted this in their response and will address
3.
with the next submittal.
12/18/2015 comment -The City refers to the open channel that drains Edmonds Marsh as
“Willow Creek” not Hansen Creek.Please remove references to HansenCreek.
3/24/2016 –Refer to new comments summarized below.
4.
12/18/2015 comment -Additional comments will likely be generated once item 1. Is
resolved.
5.3/24/2016 -Revise cover of drainage report to accurately reflect revision date. Most
recent submittal shows 2/2/14 instead of 2/2/16.
6.3/24/2016 -Include MR #11 –Financial Liability, which applies to multi-family
residential projects.
7.3/24/2016 -Typos in the Drainage Report (2/2/16):
a.Page 2-2 and 5-2–“Edmunds” should be “Edmonds”
b.Section 6 –“Hyrdaulics”should be “Hydraulics”
c.Section 7 –a word or two appears to be missing from the second sentence:
“The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan in the submittal package a part of
this SWPPP.”
d.Section 7 –“principle spillway” should be “principal spillway”
8.3/24/2016 -Section 5 -The WWHM model output report lists the WWHM version as
2015/09/30. There have been several model updates since that time. The current
version of the model is Version 4.2.12 (2016-02-25). At the time that the Drainage
Report was produced, the most current version was Version 4.2.11 (2015/11/13):
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/Programs/wq/stormwater/wwhmtraining/index.html
9.3/24/2016 -Section 10 -Please add maintenance standards for Closed Detention
Systems (Tanks/Vaults) (No. 3) and Control Structure/Flow Restrictor (No. 4) from the
Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington.
10.3/24/2016 -Section 10 -The Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Manual should also
include the name of the party (or parties) who are responsible for maintenance and
operation. A copy of the O&M Manual shall be retained on-site or within reasonable
access to the site, and shall betransferred with the property to the new owner.
Page 9of 9