bld20150294-Salish Pavillion-E3.pdf
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
ENGINEERING DIVISION
(425) 771-0220
City Website: www.edmondswa.gov
DATE:November 23, 2015
TO:Nick Echelbarger
nick@ech-cpm.com
FROM:Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager
jeanie.mcconnell@edmondswa.gov
RE:Application#:bld20150294
Project:Salish Crossing Pavillion
Project Address: 190Sunset Ave S
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 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 and on Wednesdays from 8am-noon.
rd
Please note, starting June 3, the Permit Center will be closed on Wednesdays.
City of Edmonds handouts,standard detailsand development codecan be referenced on the City
website.
Comments 3 –November 23, 2015
Comments 2 –October 16, 2015:
Many of the comments from the May 11, 2015 review were not addressed or were not addressed
entirely. For example, construction details have not been provided for various aspectsof the
project,the demo plan does not include all areas of disturbance, required utility separation has not
been met, striping and signage has not been identified and/or details have not been provided, cross
sections have not been provided where requested, the traffic control plan does not reflect a shift in
traffic flow, etc.In addition, the plans now include replacement of the corner curb ramp at James
St. and Sunset Ave. Please include construction details for this ramp, show any curb/gutter
replacement and asphalt replacement that may be requiredand include and refer to appropriate
standard details.Two rain gardens have also been proposed,and theplans state the infiltration rate
is 0.5” per hour as determined by geotechnical engineer. However, the geotech reports dated July
1980, and July 1991 do not include testing methods consistent with City requirements. Establishing
design infiltration rates for Category 1 and Category 2 Small site projects must use the methods
described in Section 5.5.2 and Appendix C of the Edmonds Stormwater Code Supplement.No other
methods will be accepted at this time.
bld20150294-Salish Pavillion-E3.docx Page 1of 3
Please read through the May 11, 2015 comments thoroughly and contact me should you have any
questions.Upon receipt of a thorough response, the Engineering Division review will continue.
Comments 1 –May 11, 2015:
The submittal received is incomplete with regards to information needed for the Engineering
Division to complete the plan review.The comments provided below are based upon review of the
current submittal, but additional comments may arise during review of a future complete plan
submittal.
Please revise and resubmit plans thataddress thefollowing:
1)Demolition plan (A-0.2)
a.ok
2)Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan
a.ok
3)Traffic Control Plan
11/23/2015–Response letter states “corner curb ramp has not been called out asto
a.
be protected …”. A response has not been provided, however, that indicates this
corner curb ramp meets ADA compliance. Please confirmand resubmit
accordingly.
5/11/2015comment-Please confirm whether the existing public sidewalk will need to
be closed during the course of construction for the subject development. If all work can
be completed from within the site, please note that on the plans. If sidewalk closure will
be needed, please indicate the desired duration of closure and provide a traffic control
plan showing closure limits, required signage, etc. Disruption fees will be assessed for
sidewalk closure based on square footage and duration of closure.
11/23/2015 –Please provide a response as to whether WSDOT is requiring review
b.
of the traffic control plan for this project or not.
5/11/2015 comment -A traffic control plan shall also be submitted for any lane closures
in Sunset Ave or James Street. Additional review by WSDOT may be required.
4)Utility plan.
11/23/2015 –Thank you for showing theutilites. 1.4% slope is indicated on the
a.
sanitary side sewer, however, City standards require 2% slope. Please revise
accordingly.
5/11/2015 comment -Show water, sewer and storm utilities from the building to the
connection point at the City utility system. Provide rim and invert elevations, indicate
pipe material, and size.
b.ok
11/23/2015 –Thank you providing additional soils analysis. The proposal is
c.
currently being reviewed by the City’s Stormwater Engineer and any comments
will follow these plan review comments.
5/11/2015 comment -During review of the Conditional Use and Design Review
applications it was noted that storm water regulations would apply to this project. At
that time the applicant indicated no new impervious surface area would be created. The
basis for this determination was the building being constructed on pin piles, therefore
allowing the existing asphalt parking lot to remain in place. However, the plans
submitted do in fact show the creation of new impervious surface area(mostly from the
Page 2of 3
removal of existing pervious areas and replacement with impervious), at a total of
1045sf. Impervious surface area is reviewed and tracked on the whole for the site. The
subject development cannot be reviewed as a stand-alone project, separate from the
entire site. As stormwater thresholds have already been triggered for the site, the
creation of any amount of new impervious surface area with the subject development
triggers the requirement for stormwatermanagement. The plans vaguely indicate a
connection to an onsite storm conveyance system, but it is unclear how this will function
or where the existing system discharges too. In addition, flow control has not been
provided. Please revise and resubmit plans accordingly.
5)Site Plan (A-1.0)
Revise A-1.0 to include the following, or provide a separate Site Development Plan (typically
seen as part of a civil construction plan set).
a.ok
b.ok
c.ok
d.ok
e.ok
f.ok
g.ok
11/23/2015 –Response letter indicates “no new public sidewalk is proposed as part
h.
of this project”.However, the following comment still applies ahs it pertains to
onsite construction.
5/11/2015 comment -Clearly note new sidewalk sections on site, where adjacent to
existing public sidewalk in the right-of-way, shall be installed to match the grade of the
existing public sidewalk.
i.ok
j.ok
11/23/2015 –Please refer to comment 3a above. If curb ramp is to be replaced then
k.
the following shall apply.
5/11/2015 comment -Reference and include details for pedestrian curb ramps. All
ramps shall be ADA compliant.
Traffic Impact Analysis
11/23/2015 –FYI -Consistent with our late October email communications and additional
1)
follow-up phone call, the 12 month window in which the demolition credit can be applied
has lapsed. Youcan either update the traffic analysis to reflect this or I can make redline
adjustments to the fees accordingly.
5/11/2015 comment -During review of the Conditional Use and Design review applications the
traffic impact analysis was reviewed and the applicant indicated concurrence with a traffic
impact fee credit relating to 8200sf of shopping center that was demolished under separate
building permit (bld20130200), instead of the 9300sf indicated in the analysis. The analysis
submitted with the building permit application still indicates a credit for demolition of 9300sf of
shopping center. Please revise and resubmit the traffic mitigation fee calculation accordingly.
Page 3of 3