bld20160553-NWBrewery-1.docx
City of Edmonds
TH
121 5 AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 FAX(425) 771-0221
Website: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Engineering Division
Plan Review Corrections
Plan Check : Date:
# BLD20160553 July 7, 2016
Project Name/Address:
NW Peak Brewery Tenant Imp/Parking Lot 18502 76th Ave W
Contact Person/Address/Fax:
Tony Shapiro tony@adshapiro.com
Reviewer: JoAnne ZulaufDivision:Engineering
During review of the subject submittal, it was found that the following information, corrections, or
clarifications would need to be addressed. All Handouts and Standard Details referred to in these
comments can be accessed at our website: www.edmondswa.gov by choosing the “Services” tab and
“Permits and Development”.
1. Traffic Impact Analysis Worksheet submitted is not complete. As identified in the DRC meeting April 23,
2015, the established previous use for the property is auto gas/service station. The proposed use is restaurant.
Please complete sheet 5 of the Worksheet or submit an independent report for review by our transportation
engineer as outlined in the City Handout E82.
2. Please see comments from Herrera regarding the stormwater system proposal at the end of this letter.
3. Sign location varies between C4 and A002. Sign cannot encroach into the infiltration bed. Revise location.
Please provide consistency between all plans.
4. Dimension parking spaces. Minimum standard parking stall dimensions 8.5 x 16.5. Some reduced width
stalls (8.0 x 16.5) may be allowed if the requirements of Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter
18.95.020 A.1.b can be met. If so, clearly label all full and reduced width spaces.
5. Access aisles for two way traffic shall be 24’ in width from face of extruded curb to face of extruded curb.
Please verify that this width can be maintained through out the full stretch of aisle.
6. For projects where there is an existing access that will no longer be used, a permanent closure of the access
is required. The curb cut shall be removed and landscaping shall be installed, a minimum10ft width along the
back of the sidewalk. The gravel driveway between the paved portion of the parking lot and the landscape strip
may remain gravel if desired. Please revise plans to pave the access for use or show landscaping and curb cut
removal required.
7. Sidewalk, plaza and delivery access are not shown consistently between the three plans. Provide a key for
the different hatchings used on plan.
8. Show public sidewalk, curb and edge of road etc on C4, A002 and L101.
th
9. On sheet C4, the extents of the right of way and utilities shall be shown on OVD and 76. Include existing
sidewalk and walkways.
12. On sheet C4 and L101, please show water and sewer from mains to building. If no changes, label as
existing.
13. On all sheets, show the bypass drainage. Note that it was installed under permit ENG20160089.
DATE FAXED/E-MAILED 7/1/2017 PAGE ___ OF __
13
14. On sheet L101, show limits of paving and concrete. Show dumpster and handicap striping. Surfaces are
inconsistent with the changes in material areas shown on the sheet A002.
15. Show access from property all the way out to Olympic View Drive. Note or add a key defining all surface
materials/landscaping on Sheet C4 and Sheet A002. Access from edge of public road to property line shall be
asphalt.
th
16. If you do not intend to install a new curb ramp at the corner of OVD and 76, please remove it from all
plans. It is not required by the code for a tenant improvement.
17. Add all standard details to the plan that are applicable to this project.
HERRERA Stormwater comments:
After reviewing the storm drainage report and plans for the improvements proposed for the Perrinville Retail
Building Upgrade (NW Peak Brewery), we have the following comments:
1.The Full Drainage Report (10/20/15) and Drainage Plan Sheet C4 (10/30/15) contain different
impervious and pervious areas. Please update for consistency.
Full Drainage Report Full Drainage Report Drainage Plan
(page 5) (page 12) Sheet C4
(10/20/15) (10/20/15) (10/30/15)
Pavement 0.1808 ac 0.194 ac 0.179 ac
Roof 0.0434 ac 0.049 ac 0.0494 ac
Sidewalk/patio 0.0585 ac 0.056 ac 0.0496 ac
Landscape 0.1973 ac 0.181 ac 0.2024 ac
Total 0.48 acres 0.48 acres 0.48 acres
2.The WWHM output report (10/28/15) and the Drainage Notes and Details Sheet C6 (10/30/15)
contain inconsistent information regarding the outlet structure for Gravel Trench Bed 1 (9’ x 13’).
Please update for consistency.
WWHM Output Drainage Notes and Details
Report Sheet C6
(10/28/15) (10/30/15)
2.5 ft (above the bottom of the sand layer)
Riser height 4 ft
0.5 ft (above the bottom of the gravel layer)
Riser diameter 12 in 6 in (underdrain pipe), no riser shown
3.The WWHM output report (10/28/15) and the Drainage Notes and Details Sheet C6 (10/30/15)
contain inconsistent information regarding the outlet structure for Gravel Trench Bed 2 (20’ x 15’).
Please update for consistency.
WWHM Output Drainage Notes and Details
Report Sheet C6
(10/28/15) (10/30/15)
3.75 ft (above the bottom of the sand layer)
Riser height 4 ft
2.75 ft (above the bottom of the gravel layer)
Riser diameter 12 in 6 in
4.The WWHM output report (10/28/15) and the Drainage Notes and Details Sheet C6 (10/30/15)
contain inconsistent information regarding the material thicknesses for Gravel Trench Bed 2 (20’ x
15’). Please update for consistency.
WWHM Output Drainage Notes and Drainage Notes
DATE FAXED/E-MAILED 7/1/2017 PAGE ___ OF __
23
Report Details Sheet C6 and Details Sheet
(10/28/15) Typical Infiltration C6
Trench Detail Typical Infiltration
(10/30/15) Trench Detail
(10/30/15)
Layer 1 (Gravel) thickness 2 ft 3 ft 3 ft
Layer 2 (Native Sand)
3 ft 1 ft 2 ft
thickness
5.The WWHM output report contains inconsistent porosity values for Gravel Trench Bed 1 and 2. Please
review and update for consistency. A typical gravel porosity is 0.30. The porosity for bioretention soil
media is 0.40 which is similar to a typical porosity for loamy sand.
Gravel Trench Bed 1 Gravel Trench Bed 2
(9’ x 13’) (20’ x 15’)
Layer 1 (Gravel) porosity 0.25 0.35
Layer 2 (Native Sand) porosity 0.35 0.40
6.The Edmonds Stormwater Supplement states that sizing must be conducted using the “Puget East 36”
precipitation times series developed by MGS Engineering Consultants; however, the precipitation
time series used in the WWHM output report was the Everett rain gage. The “Puget East 36”
precipitation time series can be accessed in WWHM by selecting the “Use WS-DOT data” checkbox on
the Site Information/Map tab.
7.Professional engineer stamp dates:
a.The date on the stamp on the plan set is 8/5/14; however, the drawings are dated 10/30/15
b.The date is not provided on the engineer’s stamp on the Full Drainage Report
8.Remove Note #2 (It will be the owner’s responsibility to register the infiltration trench as an
underground injection control well with Department of Ecology) on the Drainage Notes and Details
Sheet Sheet C6 (10/30/15). The definition of a UIC is that the depth is greater than the largest
surface dimension. This does not apply to the infiltration trench proposed for this project based on
the dimensions provided.
9.Page 7 of the Full Drainage Report (10/20/15) states that this is a Category 1 Small Site Project;
however, it is a Category 2 Small Site Project as stated on page 8. The minimum requirements
evaluated do apply to Category 2 Small Site Projects.
10.Page 8 of the Full Drainage Report (10/20/15) states that the threshold is “more than 2,000 SF of
new plus replacement impervious area” under Edmonds Requirements #3. This should be corrected
to “more than 5,000 SF of new plus replaced impervious area.”
11.Both infiltration trenches are located near Test Pit #1 (TP-1), so the infiltration test results from that
test pit could be used for design rather than an average of the infiltration results from TP-1 and TP-
3.
Please resubmit 3 copies of the revised plans/documents to a Development Services Coordinator. Please
contact me at 425-771-0220 if you have specific questions regarding these plan corrections.
DATE FAXED/E-MAILED 7/1/2017 PAGE ___ OF __
33