Loading...
WV Responses to Eng and Storm.pdf 1505 WESTLAKE AVE. N. T 206.522.9510 SUITE 305 F 206.522.8344 SEATTLE, WA 98109 WWW.PACLAND.COM September 26, 2017 City of Edmonds 121 5th Ave. N Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: BLD20161538 Westgate Village – Building Permit – 2nd Review Comment Responses This comment response letter addresses comments made by the City of Edmonds regarding the 2nd Building Permit submittal for the Westgate Village Mixed-Use project. The comments contained in the City’s review comments are addressed below. ENGINEERING – Jeanie McConnell GENERAL 1. September 6, 2017 – Thank you for providing an engineer’s cost estimate. Please revise as follows: a. Include traffic control for work performed within the City right-of-way b. Revise sidewalk lineal footage to include curb ramps at the driveway c. Include striping for stop bar and arrows d. Include trash enclosure e. Include parking stall striping within the building f. Include oil/water separator g. Update cost estimate as needed based on the following plan review comments. Response: The engineer’s cost estimate has been updated. Traffic control was shown, but has now been moved to the “existing right-of-way” section, as appropriate. Sidewalk area already accounted for curb ramps at the driveway. Field for striping for stop bar and arrows added. Trash enclosure walls now included in estimate. Parking stall striping within the building footprint now included. The sanitary sewer is currently shown connecting to Olympic View Water and Sewer District’s system (see response to comments 1 and 7 on sheet C-3.0, below). Therefore, this has not been included in the cost estimate. 4. September 6, 2017 – Response letter states this will be provided by the contractor. Please note, the traffic control plan will need to be submitted to the City prior to permit issuance. Response: See “Contractor Notes” added to G001A, note added to plans. 5. September 6, 2017 – On 8/6/2017 an email was sent regarding the need to update the traffic impact analysis to be consistent with the current project proposal. An incorrect number of apartments, retail square footage and fee rates have been used. To date, I have not seen a revised analysis. Please submit for review and approval. Response: TIA update is in process and will be forwarded once completed. 6. September 6, 2017 – Thank you for updating the plans with the last submittal to show the public pedestrian easement area required for that portion of the sidewalk that falls within private property. As the easement is to be approved by City Council, please provide a reduced size plan sheet (8 ½ x 11 if possible) that specifically details the easement area. 2 • The easement will be taken to Council Committee as the first step (and prior to permit issuance). The next Council Committee meeting is September 26th. • Final approval before City Council will need to occur prior to project completion and at a point when the sidewalk has been constructed to confirm exact location. Please have the requested documentation to me no later than September 19th, in order to make the 9/26 council committee date. This document can be emailed directly to me – jeanie.mcconnell@edmondswa.gov Response: Owner will forward easement documents once completed. Sheet D-1.0 – DEMOLITION AND ESC PLAN 1. September 6, 2017 – Sheet D-1.0 was updated to reflect relocation of the sign, but references C-1.0 for new location. In reviewing C-1.0 the new location was not found. Please clarify Response: Location of relocated sign now shown on C-1.0. H: September 6, 2017 – Response letter states the re-use of existing DDCVA will be evaluated by OVWSD during their review/approval process. In reviewing the Utility Plan Sheet C-3, it is unclear that the DDCVA is being proposed for relocation. To resolve any potential conflict with OVWSD approvals, please add an approval block to the demolition plan for OVWSD, in addition to the Edmonds approval block. Response: DDCVA has been reconfigured, and no longer has the same layout as the existing vault. Therefore, the existing vault is shown to be removed (rather than re-used), and as such, it is not necessary to add the OVWSD block to this sheet. Sheet C-1.0 – SITE PLAN 3. September 6, 2017 – Response letter states notes were added. The stop bar and turn arrows have been shown on the plans, but I didn’t see reference to repainting the centerline, travel lanes, etc. Please revise. Response: Double yellow line at entry now shown and identified on Note M. Note L (pavement patching) note has been updated to address that all markings, markers, and striping disturbed by trenching/patching operations are to be replaced. Sheet C-3.0 – UTILITY PLAN 1. September 6, 2017 – Response comment states the existing 8” sewer line is located on adjacent private property not controlled by this project and therefore a connection is shown to the main in Edmonds Way. However, the 8” line is a City main line and the City has an easement across the adjacent parcel: AFN 1858336. Please revise the plans to show connection to this existing 8” main line and not in Edmonds Way. Response: Discussions between the City of Edmonds and Olympic View Water and Sewer District regarding jurisdictional responsibility and who will ultimately be the sewer provider are ongoing. Per direction received from Jeanie McConnell on 9/28 via phone, the layout of the sewer is still shown connecting to the OVWSD main, but may need to be modified depending on the results of coordination between the two agencies. 2. September 6, 2017 – Thank you for adding the callout. One of the references to Key Note P is not pointing to the sewer entry. Please revise. Response: Leader location corrected. 3 7. September 6, 2017 – Response letter states the pre-application meeting documentation and City GIS information indicated the sewer will be provided by OVWSD. However, upon further review of the project, it has been realized that the original parcel 10032 Edmonds Way is actually a City of Edmonds customer. Furthermore, connection to the 8” line to the northwest of the property creates the least amount of impact to traffic and street disruption and is the preferred approach. Please revise plans accordingly. Response: Discussions between the City of Edmonds and Olympic View Water and Sewer District regarding jurisdictional responsibility and who will ultimately be the sewer provider are ongoing. Per direction received from Jeanie McConnell on 9/28 via phone, the layout of the sewer is still shown connecting to the OVWSD main, but may need to be modified depending on the results of coordination between the two agencies. Sheet C-5.0 – SEWER DETAILS 1. September 6, 2017 – Please refer to Sheet C-3.0 comments 1 and 7 above. Response: See responses to comments 1 and 7 above. 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. September 5, 2017 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. This comment remains unaddressed. The engineer’s response “no guidance to use another rain gage is identified in City code or stormwater addendums” is incorrect. The use of the Puget East rain gage has been in effect at the City of Edmonds for 7-years. This is cited in the 2010 Stormwater supplement on page 18, table 4-4, or more recently in the 2017 Addendum, page 5, Section 2-6. Please provide updated hydrologic/hydraulic modeling analyses compliant with this requirement. Response: The Puget East rain gage has now been utilized for hydrologic modeling. Those results are reflected in Appendix E of the storm report. 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. This comment remains unaddressed. As this submittal is for permit and construction, final design must be prepared. Please provide infiltration testing for this final design. Response: Infiltration testing has been performed by PanGEO, and design infiltration rates have been provided. The results of those tests have incorporated into the hydrologic modeling and storm report accordingly. 4 3. Geotechnical Report, Page 9: Infiltration investigation was not performed. This comment remains unaddressed. As this submittal is for permit and construction, final design must be prepared. Please provide infiltration testing for this final design. Response: Infiltration testing has been performed by PanGEO, and design infiltration rates have been provided. The results of those tests have incorporated into the hydrologic modeling and storm report accordingly. 4. Sheet CV-1.0, General Notes, #35, specify which compaction test is required. (e.g., modified proctor, ASTM D1557) This comment remains unaddressed. The design engineer, being the engineer of record, must specify the proposed compaction testing. Response: ASTM D1557 testing method specified. 5. Sheet C-2.0, Structure 1A: The plans propose a “Type 2 CB (54”)*” The proposed CB ties into an existing 36-inch diameter concrete pipe. The maximum pipe allowance for a 54-inch CB is 30-inch concrete pipe. For help in designing Type 2 CBs, see WSDOT Standard Plan B-10.20-01. Please clarify the use of an asterisk in this context. Response: This structure has been revised to 60”. The asterisk is meant to denote a solid lid – a note at the bottom of the structure table for clarification. 6. All plan sheets and report are either unstamped, unsigned, or marked “Preliminary Not For Construction” The submittal is for permit and construction and is considered to be a final design. As such, all plans and reports must be stamped and signed per WAC 196-23-20. Please provide stamped and signed plans and reports. Response: Stamped and signed plans and reports provided as required. 7. Response letter dated July 14, 2017: The letter is addressed to the City of Renton at the City of Renton’s address. This project is in the City of Edmonds. Our address is 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020. Response: Response letter corrected. Minimum Requirement #2 – Construction Stormwater Pollution Plan Comments: None 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 5 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.