Loading...
bld20100013-Holy Rosary-E2.pdf DATE: May 26, 2010 TO: Norman Sandler, Sandler Architects, LLC norm@sandler-architects.com FROM: Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager RE: Application #: bld20100013 Project: Holy Rosary – New Parish Hall Project Address: 760 Aloha Street During review of the above noted application, it was found that the following information, corrections, or clarifications are needed. Please redline plans or submit three (3) sets of revised plans/documents with a written response to each of the items below to Marie Harrison. City of Edmonds handouts, standard details and development code can be referenced on the City website. Review 1 – February 24, 2010 Review 2 – May 26, 2010 GENERAL 5/26/10 – Thank you for revising the cost estimate. The bond amount required for the 1. right-of-way improvements is $35,730. A performance bond for this amount shall be obtained and required documentation submitted to the City prior to permit issuance. 2/24/10 comment - Please revise the off-site cost estimate to include the following: a.Additional asphalt pavement sawcut ton include lineal footage for 2’ patch adjacent to new curb/gutter sections. b.1 6” RSGV for fire hydrant c.Painting of road centerline and crosswalk. A bond is required to be placed for all right-of-way improvements. The amount of the bond o will be based on 120% of the City approved estimate for all right-of-way improvements. The City will inform you of the appropriate bond amount after final review of the cost Bond forms can be obtained from Theresa Umbaugh, Permit Coordinator – estimate. 425-771-0220 or umbaugh@ci.edmonds.wa.us 5/26/10 – Please confirm that the unit pricing provided for 72-inch CMP is similar in 2. pricing to that of aluminized steel. Please include pricing for Lock Block retaining wall 2/24/10 comment - Please provide a cost estimate for all civil on-site improvements. bld20100013-Holy Rosary-2 Page 1 of 5 a.Inspection fees for this project will be calculated at 2.2% of the 120% City approved estimate for all improvements (on-site and off-site). 5/26/10 – Response letter states “contractor to provide haul route plan”. Please note, the 3. haul route plan will need to be approved by the City prior to building permit issuance. 2/24/10 comment - Please provide a haul route plan. Trucks should be directed to SR-104 in th the most feasible and direct route. Travel on 196/Puget Drive and Olympic View Drive is prohibited. ok 4. ok 5. 5/26/10 – Notes 2, 4, 5, 8 & 9 from the attached should be included in the general notes 6. section. 2/24/10 comment - Please revise the General Construction Notes to include any additional pertinent notes provided in the attached. ok 7. ok 8. 5/26/10 – Most of the items in the checklist were addressed. A few corrections have been 9. noted below under Sheet C4.2. 2/24/10 - comment - Please refer to the attached Storm Water Management Review Checklist provided by Jerry Shuster in review of the civil construction drawings. Storm Drainage Report, Pace Engineers Inc., May 29, 2009 5/26/10 – The following comments from Jerry Shuster were provided via e-mail on May 18, 2010: Section 1.1 - This section should include a history of when the site was developed. Snohomish Co. records indicate the site was developed between 1948 and 1964. This helps in deciding what is "new impervious surface" for the project. Include the part in Section 3.1 on the church being built in 1979 with a detention system. (keep it in 3.1 as well) Section 3.3, Second paragraph - ECDC 18.30.060.A.1 stated that for sites less than 1 acre, the pre developed runoff is limited to the 2 year ... not 1/2 the 2 yr. Section 3.4 - The time of concentration used for the predevelopment condition (5 min) is not appropriate. The predevelopment condition is assumed to be secondary growth forest with a flow path of approximately 300 feet or so. This must be properly calculated using the SBUH methodology for the given slope. Calculate the appropriate Time of Concentration and modify the design accordingly. 2/24/10 comments – The following comments are provided by Jerry Shuster in review of the above noted storm drainage report. Please contact Jerry directly at 425.771.0220 or by e-mail at shuster@ci.edmonds.wa.us with any questions you may have regarding these comments. Page 3, Section 2.1: The City currently uses the 1992 Ecology Stormwater Manual, not · the 2005 one. bld20100013-Holy Rosary-2 Page 2 of 5 The description under Task 4 should differentiate between the existing detention system · (if any) and the proposed one. a.Page 16, Section 3.3: Per ECDC Chapter 18.30.060.B.1, runoff treatment is only required in developments that create or add 5,000 square feet of new impervious surface. Recheck the amount of "new impervious" that is pollution generating per the comment in the attachment. If it is less than 5,000, no water quality treatment is required. If water quality treatment is not required then you can also disregard the comments in the attachment regarding the dead storage (it is not necessary). At a minimum, regardless of how much PGIS, please outfit all catch basins in the parking area with down turned 90 degree elbows on the outlet pipe, in order to provide some oil control (including regular cleaning). Sheet L2.1 – Landscape Plan ok 1. Sheet C1.0 – Site Plan 1.2/24/10 comment - Please revise Construction Notes as follows: ok All Notes – ok Note 1 - 5/26/10 –Please reference detail 3 on sheet C6.2 instead of sheet C6.1. Note 5 - 2/24/10 comment - Details on the placement of the concrete curb stop are also provided in section detail C on sheet C3.1. Please reference under this note. ok Note 7 - ok Note 10 - ok Note 12 - ok Note 13 - ok 2. ok 3. 5/26/10 – End curb note was added on the east side of the drop-off drive, but the comment 4. below was intended to address the walkway on the west side of the drop-off drive. As the walkway on the west side of the drop-off drive is not wheel chair accessible, my assumption is there will be a step down at the north end of the walk, consistent with Sheets A1.3 and A1.6. However, this plan sheet shows a break in the curb, which seems to imply the sidewalk ramps to the drive aisle. Please clarify/revise accordingly. 2/24/10 comment - Please indicate whether the north end of the walkway between the drop- off drive and the parking lot will ramp to the drive aisle or if the curb is to wrap around. Sheet A1.3 and detail 2 on Sheet A1.6 indicate a curb, while most other plans do not show a curb at the end of the walkway. ok 5. ok 6. Sheet C2.1 – TESC Plan ok 1. bld20100013-Holy Rosary-2 Page 3 of 5 Sheet C2.3, C2.4 – Traffic Control Plan ok 1. ok 2. ok 3. ok 4. ok 5. ok 6. 5/26/10 – Please update plans to include sidewalk closed ahead signage (to be placed at 7. nearest intersection). Sheet C3.0 – Grading Plan ok 1. 5/26/10 – It doesn’t appear as though this comment was addressed. 2. 2/24/10 comment - For the loc-block retaining wall, sheet A1.3 is referenced, but I believe this should be A1.4. Sheet C4.0 – Storm Drainage Plan 5/26/10 – Note was added to existing CB instead of CB-1. Please revise accordingly. 1. 2/24/10 comment - Please note on plans whether CB-1 will be a saddle manhole or if the existing storm pipe will be cut to allow for installation. ok 2. Sheet C4.2 – Storm Drainage Details ok 1. ok 2. ok 3. ok 4. 5/26/10 – Details A & B callout detention pipe material as aluminized steel type 2, however 5. detail C still notes CMP. In addition, 24” CMP reducers are shown at the ends of the detention pipe in details A & B. Please revise accordingly. 2/24/10 comment provided in storm checklist – Uncoated CMP should not be used in this \[detention\] application. The shallow groundwater in this area (evidenced by the extensive underdrain system proposed) necessitates the use of aluminized steel type 2, HDPE, or other material that will last in west environment 5/26/10 – Detail A does not callout invert elevation for outfall pipe. Please revise. 6. 2/24/10 comment provided in storm checklist – Add invert of outlet pipe from control manhole. Sheet C5.0 – Utility Plan ok 1. ok 2. ok 3. bld20100013-Holy Rosary-2 Page 4 of 5 ok 4. ok 5. ok 6. ok 7. 5/26/10 – Cross section of sewer and storm provided, but fire line was not included. Please 8. revise. 2/24/10 comment - Please provide a cross section of the fire line and storm line crossing near the SW corner of the building. ok 9. 5/26/10 – Thank you for labeling the irrigation vault at the NW corner of the property. 10. The vault I was referring to in the comment below, however, is located at the NW corner of the existing Holy Rosary Church building. The vault can fairly easily be seen on sheet C2.0. 2/24/10 comment - There is an existing irrigation vault shown, but not labeled, at the NW corner of the Holy Rosary Church building. Please show how this irrigation line is fed . . . will it create any conflicts for the new utilities to be installed in the area? ok 11. ok 12. Sheet C6.0 – Site & Utility Details ok 1. ok 2. Sheet C6.1 – Site & Utility Details ok 1. Sheet C6.2 – Site & Utility Details ok 1. Please contact me at 425-771-0220 or by e-mail at mcconnell@ci.edmonds.wa.us if you have specific questions regarding these plan corrections. bld20100013-Holy Rosary-2 Page 5 of 5