25496 PE-1414G
~(A
~ d r P141~ 0
S P O K A N E ar C O U N T Y
DIVISION OF ENGINEERING AND ROADS • A DIVISION OF THE PUBLIC WOR3:5 DEPARTIv1ENT
William A. Johns, P.E., County Engineer Dennis M. Scott, P E, Director
April 3, 1997
Todd Whipple, P.E.
Iriland Pacific Engineering
707 West 7th Avenue, Sui[e 200
Spukane. WA 99204
SUBJECT: P1414G - Riverwalk 3th Addition
Plan Submittal (IPE letter dated March 19, 1997)
Gendemen:
We have considered your request, and have reviewed our files for the various phases of the Riverwalk projec[.
The primary access poinc is located ac the easterly end of Indiana in Riverwalk 6[h. It appears that access to
Riverwalk 8th is, by any routing plan, available only by traveling some distance on Indiana Avenue. At our
tast si[e visit on April 2, 1997, Indiana had not ye[ been paved from the eas[ boundary of Riverwalk 2nd,
through Riverwalk 6th, to the access point for Riverwalk 8th.
We would like to note that the plat approval for Riverwalk 7th was granted in spite of the lack of approved
plans for the Barker Road improvements. Those improvements became necessary due to the lot threshold
which IPE had indicated would require those improvements. The plan acceptance of Riverwalk 7th was noE
affected by the acceptance of Indiana, as the primary access to most of the Riverwalk 7th lots is expected to
occur from Ylission Avenue.
The County has been working with IPE since at least the Spring of 1996 on developing the construction
doc:umentation for those phases of Riverwalk which constructed Indiana, and the supporting drau►age facilities,
up to the westerly boundary of Riverwalk 6th (phases 1, 2, and 3). This was all so thac following phases which
access Indiana could have plans submiasd and plats approved. The first submittal of the Record Drawings and
supporting documents for phase 1 was received in November 1996, and conunents were returned in December
1996. To date, the acdons necessary to address the various comments noted in our review of IPE's submittals
for phases 1, 2, and 3 have not yet been completed. We aclmowledge receipt of the Phase 1 Record Drawings
submitted at your mee[ing wich Ed Parry on March 28, 1997. You also indicated in tha[ meeting tha[ the
Record Drawings for phases 2 and 3 would be submi[ted by April 2, 1997.
As you will recall, the plans for Riverwalk 4th and Sth also were noc [o be submitted until the County had
accepced the construction and established Indiana for maintenance. This position was taken so that the Sponsor
did not get placed in the position of having to maintain and plow what would be the major access into and
through this large subdivision until the roads were finally established as County-maintained roads. This is
similar to the situation in the Westwood Subdivision, with which you are familiaz. It is unfortunate that this
position had to be taken on those projects, but it was the only opuon available to the Counry to encourage some
accion towazd the acceptance of Indiana. As the Sponsor demonstrated progress on the acceptance of Indiana,
1026 W. Broadway Ave. • Spokane, WA 99260-0170 •(509) 456-3600 FAX. (509) 324-3478 TDD: (509) 324-3166
Todd Whipple, P.E.
P1414G - Plan Submittal
April 3, 1997
Page 2 of 3
the Counry relaued that position to accepting the plans for review, and then construction, with plat approval
of chose phases to be granted when Indiana had been established.
At our February 24, 1997 meeting with the Sponsor of phases 1, 2, and 3, we had indicated the Counry
Engineer would be willing to consider granting Final Approval for Riverwalk 4th and Sth prior to acceptance
of Indiana. Tl:is, liowever, wos contingertt upon contijtued progress toward the acceptance and establisliment
of Indianu. We are concerned that with the Record Drawings having been submitted, progress in processing
the calculations to support the plan changes may stagnate. This will have an effect on the plat approvals for
Riverwalk 4th and Sth.
There are many icems which can, and should be completed prior to the actual submittal of the Record
Drawings and supporting documents. Among [hese items are any plan changes which are contemplated. Plan
Change Requests should be treated in a fashion analogous to a Design Deviation Request in the project design
process. If plan changes are necessary to account for tield conditions, then the justiticaaon for those changes,
co include all supporting calculations, will need to be submitted, and then receive the Counry Engineer's
approval, prior to submiuing the Record Drawings. This is necessary so that (1) the processing of the Record
Drawings is not delayed by the processing of the plan changes, and (2) so that Record Drawings are not
returned due to plan changes which the County Engineer will not approve. This will also minimize the potential
co re-record any additional easements which may resWt from the proposed plan change.
We aze enclosing a list which summarizes generally the actions necessary to address the different categories
of the comments provided. Please refer to the actual comments (previously provided) for the specific icems
of concern. Our file search indicates that calculations showing how the revised ponds meet GSM requirements
for water qualiry treaunent and storage volume have not ye[ been submitted. Although the County Engineer's
Office is primarily concerned with the calculations for ponds receiving runoff from public rights-of-way,
calcula[ions for all pond revisions (including [hose which serve only the private roads) are needed as part of
the public recocd for chis project.
We will allow the submittal of road and drainage plans for Riverwalk 8th and 9th Additions ac this cime. In
light of the above, we do not feel that it would be prudent to accept for construccion plan submitcals for [hose
addidonal projects which can be expected to have their primary access from Indiana, until Indiana has been
accep[ed, and established by the Counry for maintenance to the point of primary access. This includes
Riverwalk 9th, as well as Riverwalk 8th.
Todd Whipple, P.E.
P1414G - Plan Submittal
April 3, 1997
Page 3 of 3
Please let us know, in writing, when the other supporting documents for Riverwalk lst, and [he Record
Drawir►gs and supporting documents for Riverwalk 2nd, 3rd, and 6th will be submitted; we would also like
to laiow when to expect any Plan Change Requests which may be needed. I would appreciate your response
by April 9, 1997. If you have any questions, please contact Ed Parry, either by letter, or by telephone at 456-
3600.
Sincerely,
William A. Johns, P.E.
Spokane Counry Engineer
I _1? c
Edwar Jr., P.E.
Plan Review Ekgineer
cc: Project file. P1414, P1414A, P1414B, P1414C, P1414D. P1414E, P1414F, P1414G, P1414H
Spokane County Public Works Direc[or: Dennis Swtt, P E.
Spokane Counry Engmeer's Office: Bill Johns, P.E.. Bill Hecncnings, P.E., Ed Parry, P E, Dean Franz, P.E
Sponsors:
Riverwalk lst, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, Sth: Ed Dean/Mark Hancock, Dean Housley Company, 16720 N.E. 116th Street, Redmond. WA
98052
Riverwalk 6th: Milce Hume, 'I'omhnson Black North, 8205 North Division, Spokane, WA 99208 Riverwalk 8th
Riverwalk 8th: Mike Miller, P.E./Doug Bvch, Pacitic Properties Incorporated, 14410 Bel-Red Road, Bellewe, WA 98007
Riverwalk 9th• Mike Klicka, P.O. Box 1455, Hayden L.ake, ID 83855