Edmonds Westgate - Building Permit - 1st Review Comment Responses.pdf 1505 WESTLAKE AVE. N. T 206.522.9510
SUITE 305 F 206.522.8344
SEATTLE, WA 98109 WWW.PACLAND.COM
July 14, 2017
City of Renton
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
Subject: Westgate Village – Building Permit – 1st Review Comment Responses
This comment response letter addresses comments made by the City of Edmonds regarding the 1st
Building Permit submittal for the Westgate Village Mixed-Use project. The comments contained in that
letter, sent electronically on June 23, 2017, are addressed below.
GENERAL
1. Provide an itemized engineers cost estimate for both on-site and off-site (right-of-way) improvements,
including traffic control and all utility installations. Use the King County Bond Quantity Worksheet
(available on the county website) and utilize “write-in” sections where appropriate. The amount of the
bond will be based on 120% of the City approved estimate for the off-site improvements.
Response: Itemized cost estimate provided using King County Bond Quantity Worksheet as
directed.
a. A 3.3% inspection fee is calculated for the project based on 120% of the City approved estimate for the
entire project improvements.
Response: The inspection fee will be paid as required prior to construction.
2. Olympic View Water and Sewer District shall have their own approval block on pages specific to their
review and approval. The applicant will be required to obtain OVWSD project approval prior to final
approval of the civil plans by the City.
Response: Approval block for Olympic View Water & Sewer District provided as directed.
3. A Stormwater Covenant is required to be recorded against the property based on the proposed
stormwater facilities for the project. Please complete the covenant, including notarization and any
required exhibits and submit to the city. The document must be complete, but will not be recorded prior
to permit issuance. Prior to construction final location of facilities are to be verified (by field inspection
and as-built) and then the covenant will be recorded.
Response: Stormwater covenant provided for review. Upon preliminary approval of declaration
of covenant documentation by City of Edmonds, final documents will be signed, notarized, and
recorded as needed prior to construction.
4. Provide a Traffic control plan for review and approval.
Response: A traffic control plan will be provided by the contractor prior to construction.
Sheet CV-1.0 - COVER SHEET
1. Revise Note 1 under General Notes to state 2016 WSDOT standard specifications.
Response: Note revised as directed.
2
Sheet CV-1.1 – GENERAL NOTES
1. Revise Erosion Control Note #17 to remove “rockeries”. The City of Edmonds does not issue permits
for rockeries. They can still be installed on a site, but must comply with Edmonds Community
Development Code 18.40.020 Prohibited Rockeries.
Response: The reference to rockeries has been removed.
2. Please revise Site Notes as indicated:
Note #10: This note states light pole bases are to be painting white. Will additional parking lot lighting be
installed with the project? Please show in plan view and confirm that this note is applicable to the project.
Response: Light poles added to site plan.
Note #12: This note doesn’t seem to be consistent with the plan set. Please revise as needed.
Response: Note removed.
3. Confirm Water Notes are consistent with Olympic View water and Sewer District requirements.
Typically, PVC pipe is not approved for water mains.
Response: Note revised to remove reference to PVC.
Sheet D-1.0 – DEMOLITION AND ESC PLAN
1. Revise Demolition Key Notes as follows:
G: The truck route sign on Edmonds way shall be removed when needed during construction and
preserved so that it can be re-installed prior to project final. Please revise note or add a new note to
reflect this. Also, there is a private business sign on private property near Edmonds Way on the old single-
family parcel that is to be removed. Please update plans to reflect this.
Response: Notes added for relocation of truck route sign and removal of private business sign.
H: Confirm with OVWSD that this is acceptable.
Response: Re-use of existing DDCVA will be evaluated by OVWSD during their review/approval
process.
L: It is unclear where this is used within the plan set. Revise plans as needed.
Response: Revised as needed.
M: Update note to reflect a separate permit shall be obtained from PUD for this work.
Response: Note revised as directed.
2. City storm main in Edmonds Way is shown on City utility maps to be 48” concrete. Please revise plans
to reflect this.
Response: 48” storm pipe shown per City of Edmonds GIS information.
3. The sediment tank release to the City storm system shall occur at a structure. A catch basin has been
shown near the NW corner of the property. Please show discharge/connection to this CB.
Response: Discharge shown at CB as directed.
3
4. The rock construction entrance as shown leaves good potential for quarry spall rock to be kicked out
onto Edmonds Way during construction. Please revise to show maintenance of the existing sidewalk or a
5-10’ temp asphalt apron between the rock construction entrance and the travel lane.
Response: City of Edmonds standard construction entrance detail modified as directed.
5. Add note to plans that the existing sidewalk frontage improvements shall be maintain ed as long as
possible during the course of construction.
Response: Note added to construction phasing notes (upper-right corner of plan).
6. Show travel lanes within Edmonds Way … at least those lanes that will have traffic control and/or utility
trenching disruption.
Response: Travel lanes added to plans based on aerial images.
7. Will a chain link fence be installed during construction? If so, please show location of the fence on
private property.
Response: Chain link construction fencing shown as directed.
8. Show job shack location, if any.
Response: Approximate job shack location shown as directed.
Sheet C-1.0 – SITE PLAN
1. Revise Construction Key Notes as follows:
A: Revise “barrier” to read “vertical”
Response: Note revised.
B: Add Note B callout on plans. Specifically, curb and gutter shall be installed along the Edmonds Way
property frontage. As there is existing curb/gutter, please add a note that existing curb and gutter that is
failing or damaged during construction shall be removed and replaced as determined by the Engineering
Inspector.
Response: New curb and gutter in Edmonds Way identified via callout. Note added addressing
potential removal/replacement of existing curb and gutter in Edmonds Way.
C: This note calls out for flush curb and gutter, but it is not clear why this is being proposed, unless there
are permeable surfaces not shown. A curb would help prevent landscaping from falling into the walkway
areas.
Response: Note removed.
I: The fire lane is not encompassed by curbs. Please revise note as needed.
Response: Note revised. Fire lane striping now shown as a 6”-wide yellow stripe rather than curb
painting. This configuration matches the current on-site fire lane striping configuration.
2. Revise Legend as follows:
a. The permeable concrete detail is found on sheet C-6.2. Revise callout.
Response: Detail reference corrected.
4
b. The hatching for concrete sidewalk refers to City standard details, which isn’t applicable to much of the
concrete being installed on the site. Revise as needed.
Response: Separate hatches and details now provided for on-site vs. off-site sidewalks.
3. Please add a note to the plans that states the painted stop bar, centerline, etc. will be restriped prior
to project completion.
Response: Notes added.
4. The required 8-foot wide sidewalk is clearly shown on the plan. Please also label the required 5-foot
wide landscape strip.
Response: 5’-wide landscape strip labeled as directed.
5. The proposed sidewalk will be located in part on private property. Show required easement areas and
label as proposed public and pedestrian easements. This information will be presented to City Council
committees for preliminary approval and recording of the easements will be required prior to final
occupancy approval.
Response: Public sidewalk easement now identified for portions of the 8’-wide sidewalk that are
located on private property.
6. Trees shall be installed at 40-feet o.c. Please revise plans.
Response: Tree spacing revised as directed.
7. Add a note to the plans indicating utility patches shall be combined and full width or half width overlay
will be required depending on the extent of disturbance. Where utility patches fall entirely within one
travel lane, the overlay shall encompass the entire travel lane.
Response: Key note L revised to include specified verbiage.
8. Amenity Area 1 shows an entirely impermeable surface, which is not consistent with the landscape
plan. Instead of referring to Note D for this area, consider revising t he legend to refer to the landscape
plan? Permeable vs. impermeable surfaces should still be shown accurately.
Response: Hatches for all on-site sidewalks modified to clearly differentiate between permeable
and impermeable sidewalks.
9. Truncated domes have been shown throughout the interior of the site. Domes are typically used at
intersections and indicate the crossing from one ramp to another ramp. Domes are not required by the
City in the locations shown within the private property.
Response: Truncated domes removed at on-site ramps as directed.
10. Revise trash enclosure consistent with Planning Division and Recycling Coordinator comments.
Response: Trash enclosure revised as directed.
Sheet C-2.0 – GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN
1. Construction Note B indicates area drains are to be installed in the parking garage and will connect to
the sanitary sewer system. Please clarify that oil/water separators are required. Please provide detail of
oil/water separator.
Response: Oil/water separator(s) will be provided as needed. As these structures and drains are
located within the building footprint, they will be shown on plumbing plans rather than the civil
plan set.
5
2. City storm main in Edmonds Way is shown on City utility maps to be 48” concrete. Please revise plans
to reflect this.
Response: 48” storm drain pipe in Edmonds Way now depicted based on City of Edmonds GIS
information.
3. City utility maps indicate two storm mains along within Edmonds Way. The main line near side is 36 ”
concrete and far side is 48” concrete. Please show both main lines on the plans. Revise plans to reflect
this.
Response: Storm drain pipes now depicted based on City of Edmonds GIS information.
4. Where storm connections are made to a City system, they shall be done with installation of a structure.
Revise plans to reflect this.
Response: Structure added where connecting to City system as needed.
5. At each end of the stormtech system a 12” connecting pipe has been shown. Please revise the Pipe
Table Note 3 (or plan) to reflect this is typical.
Response: Note 2.2 added to storm drain table notes addressing this typical condition.
6. Structure Table 3 indicates a Type I CB, but due to rim to invert elevations exceeding 5 -feet, a Type II
structure shall be installed.
Response: Structure revised to a Type 2 CB.
7. Please label what appears to be a roof drain connection to Detention 2 system along the north side of
the building in that area.
Response: Key note 8 added to denote connection of roof drain to structure (similar to Detention
1).
8. Provide a hard surface breakdown that clearly specifies quantities of pervious and impervious surface
areas for the site.
Response: Hard surface areas provided.
Sheet C-2.1 – ENLARGED GRADING PLANS
1. Revise details to eliminate truncated domes for curb ramps on site.
Response: Truncated domes removed from on-site curb ramps.
2. For curb ramps 1 & 2, WSDOT standards shall be followed. Incorporate standard detail into the plan
set.
Response: Curb ramps in public right-of-way shown per WSDOT standard plan F-40.16-03.
Sheet C-3.0 – UTILITY PLAN
1. A sewer manhole shall be installed with an 8” connection to a City sewer main. The sewer main located
in Edmonds Way is a 24” line and the sewer main along the west property line is an 8” main. Revise plans
to show connection to the 8” main line.
Response: The existing 8” sewer line is located on adjacent private property not controlled by this
project. Therefore, a connection cannot be made to this line. A connection is shown to the main
in Edmonds Way.
6
2. Callout sewer pipe size for lines exiting the building.
Response: Pipe size added to key note.
3. Cleanouts: required at property line and/or edge of easement. Locking CI lamphole covers shall be
installed at property line and when located in hard surfaces.
Response: Cleanout added at property line as directed.
4. Label existing water main pipe size and material.
Response: Ex water main pipe size and materials labeled based on OVWSD utility maps.
5. Show location of dry utilities (phone/cable/gas) and required utility separation (5-feet from City utilities
within the ROW and 3-feet from water/sewer/storm utilities on private property).
Response: Dry utilities shown with proper separations.
6. Include a City Engineering Division approval block on all sewer plan sheets. The water system shall be
approved by the Olympic View Water and Sewer District. Consider two different plan sheets (a
sewer/general utility plan and a separate water plan) or include approval blocks for both Edmonds and
Olympic View on the same plan sheet.
Response: OVWSD approval block added. Per pre-application meeting documentation and City
GIS information, sanitary sewer will be provided by OVWSD.
Sheet C-5.0 – SEWER DETAILS
1. Revise details to reflect City of Edmonds details.
Response: Per pre-application meeting documentation and City GIS information, sanitary sewer
will be provided by OVWSD. District standard plans have been referenced.
Sheet C-6.3 – STORM DRAINAGE DETAILS
1. The title for each detail is not consistent with the title of the detail drawing itself. Please revise.
Response: Detail titles corrected.
2. In plan view it appears as though these drains will be located in landscape areas and therefore solid lids
should be specified.
Response: Due to the finished floor elevations of the building, it is not possible to grade from the
building out to the parking lot in certain areas. In order to provide drainage away from the
building, low points have been created in the landscape areas identified. The open lids are
required in order to capture runoff and convey it to the stormwater system.
Sheet C-8.2 – PAVING AND SITE DETAILS
1. Replace detail 2 with City detail E2.27. I see these details are mis-labeled on the City website as to
which one is applicable to a concrete driveway vs. asphalt driveway. Apologies for any confusion. Also,
please revise detail to reference WSDOT standard details for the curb ramps.
Response: Detail replaced as directed. WSDOT standard plan F-40.16-03 referenced for curb
ramps.
7
STORMWATER REPORT
The following comments are provided from Robert Edwards, Stormwater Engineer. Please contact Robert
directly at 425-771-0220 or by email at Robert.edwards@edmondswa.gov with any specific questions you
may have regarding these comments.
Background
This is classified as a Large Project because it involves 1 or more acres of land disturbing activity. Large
Project are subject to Small Site Minimum Requirements 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11.
Minimum Requirement #1 – Preparation of Stormwater Site Plan
Comments:
1. Storm Drainage Report, Page 108: WWHM modeling is to use the Puget East rain gage, not the Everett
rain gage. This is accessible by selecting the WS-DOT data on the project screen.
Response: The rain gage is automatically selected in WWHM based on the location in the County
of Snohomish. Based on the project location, the Everett gage is the appropriate rain gage, and
no guidance to use another rain gage is identified in City code or stormwater manual addendums.
2. Storm Drainage Report Pages 119 and 123: Several of the selected BMPs rely on infiltration. The
geotechnical report did not perform an infiltration evaluation. An infiltration evaluation needs to be
performed and infiltration rate(s) need to be determined for final design of these BMPs.
Response: An infiltration investigation is scheduled, but has not yet been performed. Preliminary
rates are based upon grain size analysis provided by geotechnical engineer. Upon completion of
report, final geotechnical report will be provided and storm drainage calculations will be updated
as necessary.
3. Storm Drainage Report, Page 116, Provide specification for rock backfill with porosities exceeding 0.30.
The default porosity for WWHM modeling is 0.30.
Response: A technical sheet stating that the calculated weighted average porosity exceeds 40%
for typical StormTech systems is now included in the appendices of the Storm Drainage Report.
4. Geotechnical Report, Page 9: Infiltration investigation was not performed.
Response: An infiltration investigation is scheduled, but has not yet been performed. Upon
completion of report, final geotechnical report will be provided and storm drainage calculations
will be updated as necessary.
5. ALTA Land Title Survey, Sheet 1: The City’s MS4 in Edmonds way is shown as 42” diameter, while the
City’s GIS shows this system as 36” diameter.
Response: Storm drain pipe diameter modified to reflect City of Edmonds GIS information.
6. ALTA Land Tile Survey, Sheet 1: The City’s MS4 in Edmonds Way manholes are descr ibed as “SSMH”.
This should be “SDMH”.
Response: Callouts corrected.
7. Sheet CV-1.0, General Notes, #35, specify which compaction test is required. (e.g., modified proctor,
ASTM D1557)
Response: This is a City of Edmonds standard note. If a specific testing method is required, please
identify the desired method.
8
8. Sheet CS-1.0: The City’s MS4 in Edmonds Way is depicted as 42” diameter, while the GIS lists this pipe
as 36” diameter.
Response: Storm drain pipe diameter modified to reflect City of Edmonds GIS information.
9. Sheet C-2.0, Pipe #1, Connections to the City’s MS4 are allowed at structures only. Should a new
structure be proposed at this location, use caution in that the survey and GIS do not agree on the diameter
of the MS4, IE the crown elevations will be different.
Response: Structure shown at point of connection to City’s MS4 as required. Per other City
comments, existing storm drain pipe has been identified as having a 36” diame ter. The invert of
the proposed 12” pipe has been adjusted accordingly to match crowns.
10. Sheet C-2.0, Pipes #7, #11, and #12 have less than 2.0’ of cover and are subject to vehicle loads. Per
Sheet CV-1.1, Storm Drainage Notes #3, these pipes should be Class IV reinforced pipe (or ductile iron
pipe). The pipe table lists these pipes as “HDPE”. Please update the table to reflect the desired pipe
material.
Response: Pipe materials modified to DIP as needed.
11. Sheet C-2.0, Pipe Table, Pipe #13: The pipe length is listed as 24-feet, however the pipe scales to 33-
feet.
Response: Pipe length corrected. Note that invert elevations were calculated using the correct
length, and do not need to be revised.
12. Sheet C-6.1, Acceptable Fill Materials, A and B: Provide specific guidance to ensure that the fill material
provides the 0.40 porosity specified in the WWHM modeling.
Response: A technical sheet stating that the calculated weighted average porosity exceeds 40%
for typical StormTech systems is now included in the appendices of the Storm Drainage Report.
Minimum Requirement #2 – Construction Stormwater Pollution Plan
Comments:
1. Sheet D-1.0, Note E: Provide sizing methodology for baker tanks.
Response: Sizing methodology provided as directed.
2. Sheet D-1.0, Note F: Connections to the City’s MS4 are allowed at structures only.
Response: Structure added at connection to MS4 as required.
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
9
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
If you have any comments or questions regarding the above responses or the submitted materials, please
feel free to contact us at (206) 522-9510. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Luke Randles, P.E.