Commercial / Mixed-Use Plan Review: 41 Issues Found

Summary: 140 index entries | 91 perfect matches | 2 mismatched | 47 missing Mismatched (2): C4.10: Expected: PUMP STATION PLAN | Actual: STORM DRAINAGE PLAN (p44) C4.12: Expected: STORM DRAINAGE NOTES AND DETAILS | Actual: PUMP STATION PLAN (p46) Missing (47) — listed in drawing index but not found in the document: Landscape: -...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft:

Summary: There is a direct contradiction regarding the finish floor elevation of the proposed building between the overall plan and the detailed plan. Sheet C6.0 specifies the finish floor elevation as '128.0', whereas Sheet C6.1 specifies it as '132.0'.

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft:

Summary: There is a direct contradiction in the slope direction and grades for 59th Ave NE between the site grading plan and the road profile. C3.3 indicates the road slopes downward from South to North, showing a Top of Curb (TC) elevation of 129.28 in the southern area and an existing grade of 126.10 near the northern area. Conversely, the road...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft:

Summary: The Water Plan (sheet C5.1) states that the Proposed Building Finish Floor elevation is 128.0. However, the Sanitary Sewer Plan (sheet C6.1) states that the Proposed Building Finish Floor elevation is 132.0, presenting a 4-foot discrepancy between the civil plans.

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft:

Summary: Sheets C4.11 and C4.12 are both titled 'PUMP STATION PLAN', but depict entirely different pump station configurations. C4.11 details a two-wetwell system ('CB #94, WETWELL A' and 'CB #95, WETWELL B') alongside a rectangular '144\' X 264\' VALVE VAULT'. In contrast, C4.12 illustrates a single-wetwell system ('CB #132, 120\' WETWELL') with a...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft:

Summary: There is a severe elevation mismatch between the storm drainage structures and the adjacent paving grades. The Grading Plan (C3.1) and Storm Drainage Plan (C4.1) both specify the Rim elevation for Catch Basin #9 as 126.19. However, the Grading Plan (C3.1) shows the adjacent parking lot pavement elevation (Bottom of Curb) at 127.85. This implies...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft:

Summary: There are major contradictions regarding the finished grade and top of wall elevations for the start of Retaining Wall 1 (Wall Station 0+00, Road Station 28+00). The C7.2 Road Profile states the finished grade (FG) at 28+00 is 128.68, which matches the C7.3 Wall Plan's top of wall (TW) elevation of 128.68 at 0+00.00. However, the C7.3 Wall...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft:

Summary: The Storm Drainage Plan (C4.1) identifies a catch basin as 'CB #129, TYPE 1' with a RIM elevation of 125.11 and a single 12' invert connection. This directly contradicts the Dispersion Trench section detail in the specifications (C4.13), which explicitly defines 'CB 129' as a '48' TYPE 2' catch basin with a beehive grate, a significantly...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft:

Summary: There is a direct contradiction regarding the exact text, letter height, and placement of fire lane markings between the Striping Notes and the Curb Details. Sheet C2.1 dictates that the text 'NO PARKING FIRE LANE TOW AWAY ZONE' be stenciled in 4-inch tall letters centered on the red stripe. However, Details 1 and 8 on Sheet C2.11 require the...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft:

Summary: The grading plan (Sheet C3.1) and the road improvement plan (Sheet C7.5) cite different recording numbers for the 10' PUD No. 1 Easement located along the northern boundary near 172nd St NE.

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft:

Summary: The Overall Grading Plan (Sheet C3.0) designates a single, uniform Finish Floor elevation of 128.00 for the Proposed Building. However, the Detailed Grading Plan (Sheet C3.5) introduces conflicting information by showing multiple Finish Floor elevations, specifically calling out both 'FF: 128.43' and 'FF: 128.00' within the same building area.

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft:

Summary: Sheet C2.5 contains unresolved placeholder sheet references ('X-X' and 'LX - LX') for the Edgecomb Creek trail plans and irrigation sleeving locations. The Overall Site Plan (C2.0) defines the available sheet index (C2.1 through C2.9) but does not provide the corresponding sheet numbers to resolve these placeholders.

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft:

Summary: Sheet C2.7 indicates via a boundary line that the area continuing south of the matchline onto Sheet C2.9 is located in the 'CITY OF MARYSVILLE'. However, the title block text on Sheet C2.9 states the location is 'CITY OF ARLINGTON, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON.'

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft:

Summary: The overall Grading Plan (C3.4) shows flush curb elevations (TC: 127.00 / BC: 127.00) and other specific top/bottom of curb elevations (TC: 126.77 / BC: 126.27) in the ADA parking area designated as Detail D. However, the referenced Site Grading Enlargement D (C3.11) shows conflicting curb elevations in the exact same area, including slight...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft:

Summary: Sheet C4.11 specifies Catch Basin #98 with a 24' pipe invert elevation (IE) of 119.00. However, the Anchored Plate Flow Spreader detail (1/C4.14) explicitly referenced for this location specifies a 'BOTTOM OF SUMP: 124.0'. The invert elevation of a pipe cannot physically be lower than the bottom of the catch basin's sump.

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft: