RE Eagle Plaza - Civil Review No 1IPM.Note
RE: Eagle Plaza - Civil Review No. 1
RE:
Steve Harrington
Grant Beck
Steve Harrington
EX
/O=CITYOFYELM/OU=FIRST ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=GRANT
Eagle Plaza - Civil Review No. 1
EX
/O=CITYOFYELM/OU=FIRST ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=STEVEH
EX
/O=CITYOFYELM/OU=FIRST ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=STEVEH
Grant Beck
EX
/O=CITYOFYELM/OU=FIRST ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=GRANT
Steve Harrington
Eagle Plaza - Civil Review No. 1
See my minor comments in blue... nice job.
Thanks!
Grant
________________________________
From: Steve Harrington
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 10:09 AM
To: Grant Beck
Subject: FW: Eagle Plaza - Civil Review No. 1
Grant: Here are our responses to the comments e-mailed from Jim. Take
a look and see if I have covered everything accordingly.
Steve
________________________________
From: Jim Gibson [mailto: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?
No. The city does not concur with moving the fire hydrant would take
care of the fire truck turning issue. The fire truck access must be
be accessable to fire engines, which includes a 25 foot radius on all
corners along the identified fire lane.
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?
Strike this comment from the review letter # 1
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?
This is acceptable by the city as long as this will include some type of
beautification and protection for the utility.
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? We do not have architectural plans for buildings B and C .
See the redline comments on plans for buildings “B” and “C” along Tahoma
Boulevard.
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. Strike this comment from review letter # 1.
Comments No 20 is requesting changes to the driveway designs. It was
the City wish to design the driveways with the concrete driveway cut.
Without substantially modifying the access points, 20’ radii would not
be possible. The sidewalk is only 10’ wide. We can make the driveway
cuts wider to accommodate larger turning movements if that would address
the concerns. Please forward any additional direction that would make
this a little more clear for us. The City would like to see the
recommended 30’ driveway approaches for two way traffic, designed with a
25’ radius with a maximum 2% on driveway sidewalk cross slope. This
must meet ADA requirements. Call me to discuss the method we have
identiied to meet these standards.
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. Strike this comment from review letter # 1.
Comment No 22 – Seems to be the same general comments as No 6 above.
Strike this comment from review letter # 1.
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?
Strike this comment from review letter # 1.
Sewer Plan Review
Comment No. 5 – Is the irrigation going to be connected to
“RW” main line?
Does this project have the option of connecting to the reclaimed water
system for irrigation? Strike this comment from review letter # 1.
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
Olympia, Washington 98502
Ph: 360-352-1465
Fax: 360-352-1509
Cell: 360-628-4766
jim@sheacarrjewell.com <mailto:jim@sheacarrjewell.com>
<DC90029353CCCD468AA2A2858FFCD8F58FB665@server1.ci.yelm.wa.us>
<DC90029353CCCD468AA2A2858FFCD8F58FB65C@server1.ci.yelm.wa.us>
<DC90029353CCCD468AA2A2858FFCD8F58FB65C@server1.ci.yelm.wa.us>
RE%3A Eagle Plaza - Civil Review No. 1.EML
Steve Harrington
11.0
886522017-13032009
Steve Harrington
EX
/O=CITYOFYELM/OU=FIRST ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Steveh
steveh@ci.yelm.wa.us
steveh
Steve Harrington
Steve Harrington