pln20130020-Soundview Lane-Civil Comments 2.pdfof Ego CITY OF EDMONDS
�~ CIVIL PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
ENGINEERING DIVISION
A, St1 g90 (425) 771-0220
City Website: www.edmondswa.gov
DATE: October 21, 2014
TO: Rob Michel
rwmichel@nwlink.com
FROM: Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager
jeanie.mcconnell@edmondswa.gov
RE: Subdivision File #: PLN20130020
Project: Soundview Lane — 3 lot SP
Project Address: 7231 Soundview Lane
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 an Engineering Technician.
City of Edmonds handouts and standard details can be referenced on the City website under Permit
Assistance.
Comments 1- August 11, 2014
Comments 2 — October 21, 2014
GENERAL
1. October 21, 2014 — Please submit when civils are near final review.
8/11/2014 comment - Please provide an itemized engineers cost estimate, including units and
unit prices, for both on -site and off -site (right-of-way) improvements, including all utilities,
traffic control. Please use the King County Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet and
utilize the "write-in" sections where appropriate.
• A bond is required to be placed for all erosion control measures, right-of-way and
stormwater management improvements. Posting a bond for stormwater systems applies to
subdivisions that involve 7,000 square feet or more of land disturbing activity and as well as
on projects in a critical area or buffer including ESLHA. The amount of the bond will be
based on 120% of the City approved estimate. The City will inform you of the appropriate
bond amount after review of the cost estimate. Please obtain the appropriate subdivision
improvement bond forms from the City.
• If you intend to post a bond in order to record the subdivision, the bond amount will be
based on the entire scope of the project.
• Inspection fees for this project will be calculated at 3.3% of the 120% City approved
estimate for all improvements.
Page 1 of 7
2. October 21, 2014 — A note was added to the plans indicating a flagger would be provided
at the intersection of Soundview Lane and Soundview Drive. Please include a TCP in the
plan set that addresses placement of signage, cones, location of flaggers, etc. Soundview
Lane is to be widened beyond its existing limits, which will create a greater impact at the
intersection than just periodic placement of a flagger.
8/11/2014 comment - Please submit a traffic control and haul route plan for review and
approval.
3. October 21, 2014 — Comment not addressed
8/11/2014 comment - Please add a note to plans stating "A separate right-of-way construction
permit is required for all work within the city right-of-way. A ROW permit application with
contractor's signature shall be provided to the city.
4. ok
5. October 21, 2014 — The City can provide you with the appropriate special inspection form
when the civils are near final plan approval.
8/11/2014 comment - Please note, special inspections will be required for public road
compaction and construction of all elements of the private access road and drainage installation
(related slope stability & foundation support).
STORMWATER ENGINEER REVIEW
October 21, 2014 - The following comments are provided by Jerry Shuster, Stormwater
Engineer. Please contact Jerry directly at 425-771-0220 or by email at
ierry.shuster(&,edmondswa.gov with any specific questions you may have regarding these
comments.
The dispersal trench is now within the parameters of the Ecology manual for a detention outfall
system and approved by your geotechnical consultant as such. While figure 4.8 in Volume V of
the 2005 Ecology stormwater manual for western Washington (SWMMWW) says "15% max
flow control/water quality treatment in rural area," no part of Edmonds is considered a "rural
area," it is an incorporated city with infill and densifying development like this short plat. Also
note that the "dispersal trench" is in the Ecology manual under Hydraulic Structures, Outfall
Systems and not a treatment system. A treatment system must be included for the 6,590 sf of
PGIS.
Per Volume V, Section 3.5 in the 2005 SWMMWW:
Any one of the following options may be chosen to satisfy the
basic treatment requirement:
• Bio-infiltration Swale — See Chapter 7
• Infiltration — See Chapter 3 of Volume III
• Sand Filters — See Chapter 8
• Biofiltration Swales — See Chapter 9
• Filter Strips — See Chapter 9
• Basic Wetpond — See Chapter 10
• Wetvault — See Chapter 10 (see note)
• Stormwater Treatment Wetland — See Chapter 10
• Combined Detention and Wetpool Facilities — See Chapter 10
• Bioretention/rain garden — See Appendix III-C, and the Low Impact Development
Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound (LIDManual). Note: Any stormwater runoff
Page 2 of 7
that infiltrates through the imported soil mix will have received the equivalent of Enhanced
Treatment. Where bioretention/rain gardens are intended to fully meet treatment
requirements, they must be designed, using an approved continuous runoff model, to
infiltrate 91 % of the influent runoff file.
• Ecology Embankment — At the time of publication, this treatment option has received a
"Conditional Use" approval for road runoff. See
www.ecy.wa.goy/programs/wq/stormwater/newtech/treatment_train
for the current status of this treatment option and for design details.
• "StormFilter" with ZPGTM media — A canister -type filter with zeolite/perlite/granular
activated carbon manufactured by Stormwater Management, Inc. See Ecology website for
pertinent design and maintenance criteria.
Note: A wetvault may be used for commercial, industrial, or road projects
if there are space limitations. Ecology discourages the use of wetvaults
for residential projects. Combined detention/wetvaults are allowed; see
Section 10.3.
2. The changes to the model have been made as requested in the previous set of comments. The
modeling, however, does not appear correct. Although the WWHM2012 report says "Puget
East" for the precipitation file, the start and end dates (10/01/1948 and 09/30/2009, respectively)
only cover about 61 years of precipitation data. The actual "Puget East 36" precipitation file is
a synthetically generated file that covers 158 years of precipitation (01/10/1901/to 09/30/2058.
Check Clear Creek Solutions (model developer for Ecology) website for most recent updates to
the WWHM2012 program (free) not Ecology's website
(hLtp://www.clearcreeksolutions.com/SearchResults.asp?Cat=l.2). There maybe a bug in the
version you are using (many bugs in this program!). Recheck the detention sizing once you
have an updated model.
3. Detail 5 on Sheet 3:
a. The volume calculations for the detention system assume 4 feet of storage in each of two
54 inch diameter manholes. Detail 5, Sheet 3 only shows a 48 Inch manhole at the
downstream end not a 54 inch and the maximum depth is called out as 3 ft , 6
inches. The actual depth from the bottom of the upstream manhole and the invert of 30
inch reducer is not specified but should be.
b. Also, the elevation of the orifice in this this detail is called out as 37.4. In this design it
should be 67.4. This may change based on the redo of the modeling.
c. The riser pipe has 12 in pipe on top with a large rectangular weir that feeds into a 6 inch
diameter pipe. Demonstrate that the 6 inch diameter pipe has adequate capacity to
accept the flow from the 12 inch during overflow conditions. (assume 100- year event
not -detained)
4. Detail 4 on Sheet 3 shows underdrains along the north and south side of the detention pipe. It is
unclear how the underdrain along the south side of the detention pipe connects to the outfall
trench.
5. Detail 3, Plan View, on Sheet 3 shows a single 12 inch PVC pipe entering a yard basin at the
upstream end of the dispersal trench. Sheet 3 shows on 6 in PVC pipe from the control structure
and at least 1 underdrain pipe. Please reconcile the pipes that connect to the yard basin
Page 3 of 7
PLANNING DIVISION COMMENTS:
October 21, 2014 - The following comments are provided by Jen Machuga, Associate Planner.
Please contact Jen directly at 425-771-0220 or by email at ien.machuEa(a edmondswa.Eov with
any specific questions you may have regarding these comments.
1. ok
2. ok
3. ok
4. October 21, 2014 — comment not entirely addressed. Please revise plans to address the
following:
a. There is a callout for clearing limits in the Native Vegetation Area on the south
side of the parcel. It appears as though this is a carryover from the previous
civil submittal since the clearing limits were revised to exclude the Native
Vegetation Area.
b. A new clearing limit line has been shown on the plans. For the most part it is
visible, but the line starts to get lost in the area of the existing house. Please
clearly indicate the line of clearing limits and change line -type as needed.
c. Outside the Native Vegetation Area and within the limits of clearing, a note has
been added that states "Existing vegetation can be preserved as a means of
temporary erosion control. Upon removal of vegetation install straw wattles
and other erosion control measures as required." Please respond to the
following:
i. There are leader lines on the plans indicating the area in which this note
applies, however, one of the leaders extends into the Native Vegetation
Area on the north side of the parcel. Please revise as appropriate.
ii. Please clarify the intent of this note and the indicated need to remove all
of the vegetation within the area. While this area falls outside the Native
Vegetation Area, there are still steep slopes to consider and clearing on
the slope should be limited. Please indicate how permanent
restoration/stabilization will be achieved. As provided in the
construction sequence, clearly indicate the requirement for compost
amended soils in areas of soil disturbance.
iii. Add a note that states that temporary erosion control measures shall
remain in place until the slope is permanently stabilized.
8/11/2014 comment - Clearing limits are indicated around the entire perimeter of the property;
however, work associated with the civil improvements is not being conducted throughout the
entire site. In particular, no work is being conducted on the northern and western portions of the
site, so there is no need for the clearing limits to extend around the perimeter of the entire
site. Additionally, the clearing limits show conflict with the provisions of the vegetation
management plan. Please revise the clearing limits so that they only encompass those portions
of the site that require disturbance necessary for the civil improvements and so that they do not
conflict with the vegetation management plan nor with any existing trees that are to be retained.
5. October 21, 2014 — Comment not entirely addressed. See Sheet 2, comment 5 below.
8/11/2014 comment - Please include measures to protect all existing trees that are to be retained
pursuant to ECDC 18.45.050.H.
Page 4 of 7
6. Thank you for providing a vegetation management plan. Please revise the plan to address the
following:
a. ok
b. ok
c. ok
d. October 21, 2014 — Comment partially addressed. Please revise the Timing and
Implementation section of the Native Vegetation Plan to indicate that the
Vegetation Management Plan shall be implemented on Lot A at the time of civil
site development work. The Vegetation Management Plan shall be
implemented on Lots B & C at the time of civil site development work or no
later than prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy for the single family
residences to be constructed on each lot.
In addition, it is stated that planting is to occur between the months of October
& March. As heavy frost is often experienced during these months, please add
notes indicating that planting shall not occur during long durations of or
expected durations of freeze/frost.
8/11/2014 comment - Provide detail on when the vegetation management plan will
be implemented (i.e. following civil improvements, with building permits, some
combination of both). If the vegetation management plan will be implemented in
phases, please describe.
7. October 21, 2014 — Please revise the Vegetation Management Plan to show the gabion
retaining wall instead of the rockery, as appropriate.
Sheet 1 of 4 - SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
1. October 21, 2014 — Thank you for adding this plan sheet. As requested, please
show/clearly identify access easement and utility easement areas on this sheet.
8/11/2014 comment - Provide a Site Development Plan as the cover sheet that shows the
original parcel, proposed property lines, Soundview Lane road improvement, access easement,
utility easements, etc. The intent of this sheet is to provide a clean and clear overview of the
proj ect.
2. ok
3. ok
Sheet 2 of 4 (old Sheet 2 of 3) — TESC & GRADING PLAN
1. ok
2. ok
3. October 21, 2014 — comment not entirely addressed. Refer to Planning Division comments
above.
8/11/2014 comment - Revise clearing limits as noted in the Planning Division comments
provided above.
4. October 21, 2014 — A note regarding this comment was added to the Native Vegetation
Plan, however, that specific plan is intended to deal with vegetation on private property.
While it is acceptable to keep the note on this plan, it shall be specifically called out on
Sheet 2 (TESC, Grading & Demo Plan). As you had requested in our meeting on
8/19/2014, the policy regarding this requirement was emailed to you. The policy states
that the required documentation shall be submitted to the City prior to approval and
Page 5 of 7
issuance of the right-of-way construction permit. Please submit at least three quotes/bids
from tree removal contractors experienced in removal and sale of marketable timber.
8/11/2014 comment - Several trees proposed for removal are shown to be located within the
City right-of-way. Please provide documentation showing these trees will not provide
marketable timber. If the timber is marketable, the money provided to the owner/developer for
removal of the tree(s) will need to be paid to the City.
October 21, 2014 — Clearly indicate on the plans that the protective barrier fencing shall
be placed at the drip line of the trees to be retained as required by ECDC 18.45.050.H. In
addition, please show barrier fencing around the trees to be retained in the following
areas:
a. In the vicinity of the stockpiles;
b. Near the concrete driveway section to be removed;
c. At the NW corner of the improved road;
d. In the vicinity of Lot C where clearing is indicated and/or placement of straw
wattles is shown;
e. As well as any other locations where trees could be impacted by the development.
8/11/2014 comment - Tree protection measures are to be shown on this plan. Where trees are to
be maintained barrier fencing shall be placed at the drip line of the tree in order to protect the
root system.
6. ok
7. ok
Sheet 3 of 4 (old Sheet 1 of 3) — ROAD & DRAINAGE PLAN
1. ok
2. October 21, 2014 — The City Operations Department has asked that the water meters be
shown adjacent to the existing water meter servicing the existing house. In addition to this
change, please revise plans to fully address the 8/11/2014 comment which indicated the
water services shall extend to the property line. To further clarify, the water meters are to
be placed on the ROW side of the property line and easements shall be provided across
Lot A for the two new services. The services from the meter to the house must be located
entirely on private property.
8/11/2014 - Proposed water services shall be shown a minimum of 3-feet from the existing
blow -off. Services shall extend perpendicular from the water main line to the property line.
Easements shall be provided across Lot A as needed.
3. ok
4. ok
5. ok
6. ok
7. ok
8. ok
9. October 21, 2014 — It has been confirmed that a stop sign is in fact needed at the
intersection. Please show on plans.
8/11/2014 - A stop sign may be required at this intersection. Clarification is currently being
sought from the City traffic engineer.
10. October 21, 2014 — Revise plans to show gabion wall along driveway.
11. October 21, 2014 — Please revise detail references as needed to clearly indicate the sheet in
which the detail is provided.
Page 6 of 7
Sheet 4 of 4 (old Sheet 3 of 3) — PROFILES NOTES & DETAILS
L October 21, 2014 —Comment not addressed.
8/11/2014 comment - Revise the General Notes to reference the 2014 WSDOT Standard
Specifications.
2. ok
3. ok
4. October 21, 2014 - In Section A -A, please show the location of the asphalt thickened edge.
5. October 21, 2014 — Please revise detail references as needed to clearly indicate the sheet in
which the detail is provided
Page 7 of 7