042209 Willowdale SD Conflict-JS approval.htm
MessagePage of
??
From: Shuster, Jerry
Sent:
Wednesday, April 22, 2009 9:36 AM
To:
McConnell, Jeanie
Cc:
English, Robert
Subject:
RE: Willowdale Townhomes SD Conflict
Jeanie,
I have reviewed the changes to the modeling and the proposed changes to sheet C8. They now have the storm
?
pipe with a 0.14% slope instead of the 0% slope initially proposed to avoid the duct bank. They are going to
adjust some of the invert elevations of the orifices and the outlet invert on the control structure to compensate. I
approve their proposed changes.
They will be resubmitting a revised drainage report and plan sheets.
Sincerely,
Jerry Shuster, P.E.
Stormwater Engineering Program Manager
City of Edmonds
121 5th Ave N.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Desk Phone: 4257710220 x1323
??
Fax: 4256725750
??
shuster@ci.edmonds.wa.us
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Flury \[mailto:mflury@flurywyrick.com\]
?
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 2:24 PM
To: Shuster, Jerry
Cc: McConnell, Jeanie; Bob Murphy; Doug Bratz
Subject: RE: Willowdale Townhomes SD Conflict
Hi Jerry,
Attached please find a revised vault outfall profile with 0.1 ft of fall between the referenced structures as
requested. Ive also attached the stormwater modeling result of this new scenario. The two detention
?
vaults will behave hydraulically as one vault. There is negligible friction loss in the 18pipe between the
?
two vaults and no restrictor on the westernmost vault; therefore they would not behave as vaults in series.
I could establish a stagestoragedischarge relationship for the western vault to allow level pool routing
??
from the west vault to the east vault, however, the 18pipe would not restrict any stormwater. The west
?
vault is dependent on the control structure, therefore they behave as onevault.
??
The increased pipe slope results in a new volume of 5,109 cf. This volume still exceeds the design volume
of 4,774 cf that is required to match the predeveloped forested release rates. The attached modeling
results represent the new outfall configuration. You will notice that the redesigned restrictor still mitigates
the design storms as required with extra capacity in the vault (maximum water surface of elevation of
437.45 vs. 437.70 provided). Please also note that the predeveloped forested release rates are a vast
improvement over the previously developed site which was nearly entirely impervious and provided no
detention nor water quality.
Please advise me as to whether the proposed changes are acceptable at your earliest convenience.
Thank you,
Mark
Mark Flury, P.E.
FluryWyrick & Associates, Inc.
?
3409 McDougall Avenue, Suite 102
Everett, WA98201
file:///C:/Users/cockrum/AppData/Local/Temp/042209%20Willowdale%20SD%20Conflict...7/5/2017
MessagePage of
??
Ph: 4252590964
??
Fax: 4252592189
??
Cell: 4253156160
??
From: Shuster, Jerry \[mailto:shuster@ci.edmonds.wa.us\]
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:28 AM
To:Mark Flury
Cc: McConnell, Jeanie
Subject: RE: Willowdale Townhomes SD Conflict
Mark,
I've consulted with the City Engineer and Jeanie on your issue. We do not want a flat
pipe in the rightofway. Can you resubmit a drawing that shows the pipe from CB2 to
???
CB1 and CB 1 to the existing manhole with at least .1 ft between CB2 and existing. Also,
given this change in the control structure outlet invert, provide a replacement drainage
plan that models this new condition. I would like to see the modeling done in way that
matches your design of two separate vaults in series, with the flows routed from vault 2 to
vault 1, to the control structure and then discharge to the City system (not just modeled
as one large vault).
As you know, this site drains to Hall Creek and then LakeBallinger. The City is currently
involved in "high profile" project working with five other jurisdictions on past flooding and
water quality issues in the Lake, so I need to ensure the redesign of the detention
?
system meets the standards to the extent possible and document it.
Call me if you want to talk about this more.
Thanks,
Jerry Shuster, P.E.
Stormwater Engineering Program Manager
City of Edmonds
121 5th Ave N.
Edmonds, WA98020
Desk Phone: 4257710220 x1323
??
Fax: 4256725750
??
shuster@ci.edmonds.wa.us
-----Original Message-----
From:Mark Flury \[mailto:mflury@flurywyrick.com\]
?
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 11:11 AM
To: McConnell, Jeanie; Shuster, Jerry
Cc: Bob Murphy
Subject: RE: Willowdale Townhomes SD Conflict
Hi Jerry,
When we spoke on Friday afternoon, you thought you might have an answer this morning on the
proposed storm outfall revision.
Is this still the case?
Thank you,
Mark
Mark Flury, P.E.
FluryWyrick & Associates, Inc.
?
file:///C:/Users/cockrum/AppData/Local/Temp/042209%20Willowdale%20SD%20Conflict...7/5/2017
MessagePage of
??
3409 McDougall Avenue, Suite 102
Everett, WA98201
Ph: 4252590964
??
Fax: 4252592189
??
Cell: 4253156160
??
From: McConnell, Jeanie \[mailto:Mcconnell@ci.edmonds.wa.us\]
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 6:34 AM
To: Shuster, Jerry
Cc:Mark Flury; Bob Murphy; Doug Bratz
Subject: FW: Willowdale Townhomes SD Conflict
Jerry,
Willowdale Townhomes project is at the intersection of 208th & 76th Ave W. They ran across some
utility conflicts yesterday while trying to install the storm outfall. Can you please review the email
?
below for comment. I will pull the storm drainage report for you as well.
Please let me know if you need any additional information from their engineer. If their
proposal seems acceptable I will have them submit a revised drainage report that incorporates the
new data, as well as pertinent plan sheets.
Thank you,
Jeanie
-----Original Message-----
From:Mark Flury \[mailto:mflury@flurywyrick.com\]
?
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 3:49 PM
To: McConnell, Jeanie
Cc: Bob Murphy; Doug Bratz
Subject: Willowdale Townhomes SD Conflict
Hi Jeannie,
I met with Bob Murphy and representatives from UniversalLand this afternoon to discuss a storm
drainage conflict that has become apparent on the subject site. I understand from talking to Bob
that you have a cursory understanding of the problem. I have attached a revised profile sheet that
th
depicts the location of the conflicts in 76 Ave and our proposed solution which consists of a revised
detention vault outfall. The conflict is between the storm outfall and an existing concreteencased
?
fiber optic bank and an existing gas main. The top elevations of these two utilities are located at
elevations 433.42 and 433.52 respectively. The proposed revision consists of running the storm
outfall above the conflicts at a flat slope. The head that will be produced by the vault will regularly
flush the outfall pipes and it is unlikely that sediment will accumulate. The raised outfall will
obviously result in a loss of live storage volume. The vault control structure invert would be raised
exactly one foot. The area of the vaults is 1,310 sf and the required vault volume is 6,683 cf. The
raised invert would therefore result in a loss of 1,310 cf of volume resulting in a reduction to 5,373
cf. The design volume needed to meet the required release rates was 4,774 cf (see Sheet C12 and
drainage report). This was increased by a 40% safety factor per the 1992 DOE Manual. With the
proposed reduction in the required volume from 6,683 cf to 5,373 cf the safety factor is reduced from
40% to 13%. This safety factor reduction is somewhat mitigated by the fact that the safety factor is
intended, in part, to compensate for the SBUH methodology which tends to overestimate peak flows
from pervious areas in the predeveloped condition, not taking interflow into account as the HSPF
?
model does. Given the fact that this site was nearly entirely impervious in the predeveloped
?
condition and the design proposed to mimic forested release rates, the loss of a portion of the safety
factor will not dramatically affect the overall improvement to the downstream drainage system that
this development will affect. The existing storm drainage system drains to the south at
approximately 0.5% for at least 300LF; therefore reconstructing the existing system to a greater
depth and flatter slope does not appear feasible.
Please advise me at your earliest convenience as to whether this proposal is acceptable as the
contractor is currently working onsite.
?
file:///C:/Users/cockrum/AppData/Local/Temp/042209%20Willowdale%20SD%20Conflict...7/5/2017
MessagePage of
??
Thank you,
Mark
Mark Flury, P.E.
FluryWyrick & Associates, Inc.
?
3409 McDougall Avenue, Suite 102
Everett, WA98201
Ph: 4252590964
??
Fax: 4252592189
??
Cell: 4253156160
??
file:///C:/Users/cockrum/AppData/Local/Temp/042209%20Willowdale%20SD%20Conflict...7/5/2017