20080347 Shea Carr 1 Cmt 03110920080347 Shea Carr 1 Cmt 031109
From: Tim Gibson [jim@sheacarrjewell.com]
sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 2:40 PM
To: Steve Harrington; Karen Bennett
Cc: Gina Dais; scottlritter@comcast.net; Amy Head
subject: Eagle Plaza - Civil Review No. 1
Steve -
After discussing the Review No. 1 civil comments with Gina Dais of TGBA (Project
Lead) she has asked me to follow up with you on a few of the review comments. I
have listed them by Comment Letter and subsequent comment number. So here goes.
Letter from Steve Harrington:
Comment No 6 - A fire lane must be provided through the development with adequate
turning movement (25' Radius) and turn around to each required fire hydrant. The
lane should be clearly marked on the plans and after construction.
we are proposing to relocate the fire hydrant located in front of Building B 100
feet south west to the planter island located along side the mid block access from
Tahoma Blvd. This will allow a direct travel way up to the FH from the mid block
Tahoma Blvd entrance. All the drive aisles are at least 23' feet wide and should
serve adequately as fire lanes. (Assumes that min fire lanes are 20' wide) This
should eliminate the need to have 25' radius to this fire hydrant. All of the
remaining FH are located on the main drive aisle thru the site. would you concur?
KPFF Consulting Engineers Peer Review Letter
Comment No 14 - Please show existing survey
information....50 feet beyond the site boundaries.
Currently we show the full improvements on both frontages (SR 510 and Tahoma Blvd)
these are the areas we are matching the driveway and access points to. The drainage
that the peer reviewer refers to is already be conveyed and disposed of by the LID.
we will not have any offsite drainage from the roadway or surrounding areas. This
additional survey seems to be unnecessary given the limited project benefit and cost
of doing so. Can this comment be eliminated from the review letter?
Comment No 16. - Existing Transformers and pedestals ..... are in conflict with the
parking areas.
we are proposing to install a landscape island in the location to contain these
utilities. However this island will not be able to have landscaping installed
within it. will this be acceptable to the City?
Comment No 18. - Please verify that all buildings and parking lot features meet
setback requirements.
This comment was addressed on the architectural plans (callouts). Is there
something specific that the City has observed that is not meeting setbacks?
Page 1
20080347 Shea Carr 1 Cmt 031109
Comments No 19, 20, 21 - All address the access points and design requirements from
Tahoma Blvd and SR 510.
Comment No 19 states that the approved driveway locations are not in conformance
with wSDOT Managed Access Guidelines and acknowledges that this is the ultimate
jurisdiction of the City. The City reviewed the access points with TGBA during the
SPR process and modified them during
this process. would you review this comment and verify that this is
indeed a necessary comment.
Comments No 20 is requesting changes to the driveway designs.
to design the driveways with the concrete driveway cut.
without substantially modifying the access points, 20' radii
The sidewalk is only 10' wide. we can make the driveway cuts
larger turning movements if that would address the concerns.
additional direction that would make this a little more clear
It was the City wish
Mould not be possible.
wider to accommodate
Please forward any
for us.
Comment No 21 is requesting changes to the joint access driveway on Tahoma Blvd.
This SPR review committee reviewed and accepted this design during SPR. Could you
review this comments and let me know how to proceed.
Comment No 22 - seems to be the same general comments as No 6 above.
Comment No 31 - Please extend the proposed water maim located in the 40'
access easement to the west property line.
This requirement seems redundant. The city already has a water main in this
location and the water department did not note the need for this extension. Could
you please confirm that we do not need to do this?
Sewer Plan Review
line?
Comment No. 5 - Is the irrigation going to be connected to "Rw" main
Does this project have the option of connecting to the reclaimed water system for
irrigation?
Steve these are the major items that we noted after reviewing the comment letters.
If you could review these and get back to us as soon as you are able to that you be
much appreciated.
Jim Gibson, PE
Shea, Carr and Jewell Inc.
2102 Carriage Drive Sw Bldg. H
Page 2
20080347 Shea Carr 1 Cmt 031109
Olympia, Washington 98502
Ph: 360-352-1465
Fax: 360-352-1509
Cell: 360-628-4766
jim@sheacarrjewell.com <mailto:jim@sheacarrjewell.com>
Internal virus Database is out of date.
Checked by AvG - www.avg.com
version: 8.0.237 / virus Database: 270.10.23/1951 - Release Date: 02/13/09 06:51:00
Page 3