2010, 06-23 Comment 10001879 First Submittal Reviewjai
July 22, 2010
John DeLeo
DeLeo Consulting Group, PS
P.O. Box 1269
Spokane Valley, WA 99037
RECEIVED
JUL 2 2 2010 Dev lopment Engineering
Spokane Valley permit Center
11707 E Sprague Ave Suite Spokane Valley WA 99206
509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 ♦ cityhalt@spokanevalley.org
Re: SUB -04-09 Elliott's Addition
St. Charles Road from 0h to 6th _
City Project (i.e. PLUS) No.: 10001879 Li
Review Comments for Submittal 91
Dear Mr. DeLeo,
Development Engineering thanks you for the opportunity to support you in the design and
implementation of your client's project. We have reviewed your submittal of the Civil Plans
and Drainage Report for the above-mentioned project. In our review of the design, there
were a few items for which we request further clarification.
Note: RS = Spokane County Road Standards, SRSM = Spokane Regional Stormwater
Manual
1. General
a. The plan sheets and drainage report were nicely laid out.
b. For the final submittal, all plan sheets need to be —
i. Signed and dated by project proponent or agent, and,
ii. Stamped and signed by Engineer.
c. Please confirm that all applicable items mentioned in RS section 5.04 are included
in the plans.
d. Make sure all text is of a legible size.
e. Please provide an elevation for the project datum.
f. For 4th and 6th Avenues, the street improvements (pavement widening, curb &
gutter, swale and sidewalk) need to extend to the project limits (i.e. property
boundaries).
g. The results of the geotechnical testing (located in the drainage report) classify the
surface soils as a silty sand (SM). Per RS Table 3.16, a local access street in silty
sand soil has a structural section of 3"/6".
2. Cover sheet
a. Include a legend of symbols used.
b. Materials
i. The percentages of the grass seed components should add up to 100%.
Dev. Eng.: SIB -04-09 Elliotts Addn - Review]. docx
ii. HMA — the HMA depths are different than 0.17 foot (2 inches). See
comments above and below for the different streets.
3. Sheet 2, St. Charles Road —
a. Curve table — please provide some method to relate the curves in this table to the
plan view.
b. Plan view —
i. The travelway is less than 32 feet wide. Please provide "No Parking Fire
Lane" signs per the International Fire Code along one side of the road.
ii. Include street name signs at 4b and 6t' and a stop sign at 4 '.
iii. Please label the structures (drywells, .inlets, approaches) and provide
construction notes pointing to them
iv. Provide stationing for all streets and confirm that the tic marks are easily
seen.
v. Callout the curb radii at the intersections.
vi. For the duplexes, since each half of the duplex is in its own lot, each lot
should have its own separate approach with each approach spaced 7.5 feet
from the property line.
vii. Label all utilities within the right-of-way and border easements and
specify which ones will need to be relocated. All fixed objects should be
outside of the clear zone area.
viii. For the curb inlets, show the concrete slope apron which will help
make the inlets stand out visually.
ix. Provide concrete driveway approaches on e for the existing residences.
x. For 6t' Avenue, please do not use a concrete cross gutter but make a note
that the cross-section for 6t' extends through the intersection. We have
had a lot of issues with concrete cross gutters.
xi. Check that the construction note callout numbers are correct.
c. Profile — based on the profile information, the curbs have different vertical
alignments. Please provide separate profile information for each curb.
d. Typical section —
i. Should include all pertinent items from RS section 5.08.
ii. Please provide dimensions on both sides of the centerline.
iii. Include the width of the border easement (13 feet).
iv. The travelway width appears to be dimensioned to the top of curb (TOC),
should this be to the face of curb?
v. Pavement structural section should be Y76".
vi. Roadside swale —
1. Please include the widths of the side slopes.
2. Call out the surfacing (Sod? Seed?)
3. Typically the drywell rim is 6", maximum, above the swale bottom
and then the gutter flowline is 3", minimum, above the drywell rim
(See SRSM section 6.7.1). Does the swale section shown provide
for these dimensions?
e. Construction notes —
i. Note 4, cross gutter — as mentioned above, please do not use a cross gutter.
ii. Note 6, driveway approaches —
1. Note that per RS Section 3.24 driveway approaches should not be
closer than 7.5 feet from the property line.
Page 2
Dev. End : SUB -04-09 Elliotts Addn - Reviewl docx
2. Are the block numbers provided in the note correct?
3. For the duplexes, since each half of the duplex is in its own lot,
each lot should have its own separate approach with each approach
spaced 7.5 feet from the property line.
4. Sheets 3, 4, & 5, Sewer and Water — not reviewed.
5. Sheet 6, 4th & 6" Avenues Plan and Profile —
a. Please provide a set of calcs for the road widenings that, at points along the
alignments, estimate the cross slope of the existing pavement and the new
pavement and also the profile grade of the edge of the widened pavement.
b. For the pavement tapers, the tapers should begin as close to the project limits as
possible and the taper angle be determined per the method in the MUTCD,
chapter 6. Also, please provide striping along the edge of the taper.
c. Typical section —
i. Please provide a separate section for 4th Avenue and 6th Avenue.
ii. Sections should include all pertinent items from RS section 5.08 with
values per the Hearing Examiner's decision.
iii. Pavement structural section for 6th should be 3"/6". Since 4th Avenue is an
arterial, the minimum pavement structural section should be 4"/6" (RS
Section 3.16).
iv. Roadside swale —
1. Please include the widths of the side slopes.
2. Call out the surfacing (Sod? Seed?)
3. Typically the drywell rim is 6", maximum, above the swale bottom
and then the gutter flowline is 3", minimum., above the drywell rim
(See SRSM section 6.7.1). Does the swale section shown provide
for these dimensions?
6. Sheet 7, Stormwater Plan and Profile —
a. Plan view — provide a construction note callout for the pipes.
b. Construction notes 1 and 3 —
i. Diameter of the leveling pipes (a.k.a. culverts) should be at least 12 inches
(SRSM 8.4.2).
ii. Pipes are called out as being installed 0.3 inches above the swale bottom.
Please confirm that this placement will not cause the tops of the pipes to
impinge on the concrete of the driveway approaches or the pedestrian
ramps.
c. Construction notes 4 and 5 — Frame type? Grate type?
d. Profile —
i. Drywell at station 10+65 — the profile says it is a Type B but the
construction notes say it is a Type A. Please correct.
ii. At station 10+65 the drywell and the inlet have grates at the same
elevations but the curbs adjacent to them are at different elevations.
Should the drywell and inlet grates be at different elevations?
iii. Is there adequate cover for the PVC pipe (minimum cover is 2 feet)? If so
then please specify the class of PVC pipe.
7. Sheet 8, ESC Plan —
a. Include name of onsite contact person.
b. Show the concrete truck washout area.
c. Include an inlet protection method per BMP C220.
Page 3
Dev. Eng.: SUB -04-09 EllioUs Addn - Reviewl docx
d. Confirm that the details of the rock construction entry conform to those in BMP
C105.
e. Please specify a geotextile fabric for the silt fence.
f. ESC Notes –please include note 1.(g) from SRSM Appendix 9A
Drainage Report:
8. Since the stormwater from the sidewalks flows directly into the swales and mixes with
the street stormwater, the sidewalks should be considered as impervious surface that is
hydraulically connected to the street stormwater.
9. Figure 2, Site plan – please make the test pit locations more obvious.
10. Figure 6, Post Developed Sub Basins – does the boundary for Area 2 extend to the
centerline of 4t'? If not, please move it to the centerline.
11. Table III -B – what area in the project does the last column refer to?
12. Table IV -A, Curb Inlets – the maximum amount of stormwater that should be bypassing
into the intersection is 0.1 cfs (SRSM 8.6)
13. Appendix C, Hydraulic Calculations –
a. The value of C for roofs and sidewalks should be 0.9.
b. Post -Developed Condition, Area 1, note 2 – note says that the road includes area
from 4t', should it be e?
c. It looks like the water quality volume was estimated using the 1815A method.
This area qualifies for using the 1133A method if you would like to.
Where applicable, please incorporate your responses to the above drainage comments
into the drainage report.
14. Prior to sign -off on the final Civil plans, the following needs to be accepted:
a. 208 Lot Plans, to also include:
i. clear -view triangle on corner lots,
ii. call out maximum allowable driveway width on each lot.
Please provide a written response to each comment above to ensure that we properly review
any revisions or lack thereof.
All submittals must be submitted to the Building Department Permit Center located at 11703
E Sprague Avenue, Suite B-3.
If you have any questions, please email me at hallen@spokanevalley.org or call me at (509)
720-5319.
Sincerely,
—;Henry en �Y?. ae�__
Development Engineer
Page 4
Dev. Enz: SUB -04-09 Elliotts Addn - Review]. docx
Copies:
• Mr. Brent Elliott, 3306 W. Bruce Ave., Spokane, WA 99208
• Spokane Valley Planning Department— Project Planner
• Spokane Valley Building Department - Permit Center
• Spokane Valley Development Engineering —Project File
Page 5