06-038 Wright response to Engr.doc
MEMORANDUM
Date:
March 24, 2006
To:
Ron Riach
JRR Engineering
From:
Jeanie McConnell
Engineering Technician
Subject:
Plan Check 06-038, Wright SFR
The memo is being sent in reponse to your e-mail sent 3/22/06.
For clarification before I respond to your comments, there are a few correction items in
which you have asked for reference to the code and you will notice in some of those
instances a direct code reference has not been provided. The code dictates the
requirement for certain things and if during a plan review it cannot be determined if the
work proposed will be in conflict with the code or other City policies then additional
information or clarification is sought.
Below is a copy of the questions you e-mailed to me with my responses noted in the
bullets.
Please provide the code section or clarify the following items from your review:
3. we find only a requirement for the water meter to be shown- please provide code
section
City of Edmonds handout #B57 requires the water service line to be shown.
o
5. Contours are at 2 foot intervals, please clarify where code requires intervals less
than 2 foot as was shown on the plans
My review comment does not relate to the requirement for contours to be
o
provided at 2 foot intervals. The existing contour at the South yard drain is
at 142 and the RIM elevation proposed for this drain is at 140.9. The
existing contour at the North yard drain is at about 143 and the proposed
RIM elevation for the this drain is at 141. The proposed contours indicate
this area will remain at 142 which would also indicate about a 1’ grade
change between the driveway and these yard drains. Is this accurate?
6. City detail L2.6.1 is for 2-3 lot short plats. This is a legal existing lot and we only find
a reference to 30 feet of width for a SFR driveway turnaround while the proposed is 40-
something, please provide code section
ECDC 18.80.010, Table of Street standards requires a turn around. Also,
o
due to the location of this SFR and for compliance with 18.80.060B, a turn
around would have been required anyways so as not to create unsafe
traffic movements.
City of Edmonds
Community Services Department
Engineering Division
7. Please clarify who provided a reduced copy which was redlined with “use reduced
copy”?
I am not able to answer this question. You could check with our Permit
o
Coordinators to see if it was created by them or during intake of the
application.
11. Note 2 under the detention pipe detail on C-3 states Galvanized Pipe is to have
asphalt treatment #1 or better. Please clarify if you require this note in more places.
Note 2 is specific to the detention system, so yes another note on the
o
drawings referencing all other pipe material is required.
16. 4” PVC inverts are called out in CB#5 as 138.64. Please clarify if you require the
type of water collected be shown at the CB information as well and if so reference the
code section.
This correction is for clarity of the drawings. At present it appears as
o
though the driveway drain and the house TL tie into this catch basin and
nothing else. The rockery and footing drains are not shown on the drawing.
Therefore, it is unknown what the invert elevation for the rockery and
footing drains shall be.
17. Does it matter to the City if ACP or concrete is used? Both are impervious and both
handle traffic loads. Does code allow a driveway of ACP and turnaround of concrete?
You can choose to use either concrete or ACP on private property. If a
o
sidewalk exists or will be constructed (which in this case they exist) then
you can use concrete up to the back of sidewalk, within the City right-of-
way. This comment is also for clarity as it is noted in one area on the
drawings the driveway will be concrete and in another area a detail for
asphalt construction is provided.
18. The existing frontage is in acceptable condition. Please provide code section which
allows the city to require to direct the removal and replacement of sdwk, curb & gutter.
Attached for you is a copy of the City policy that requires c/g & s/w to be
o
replaced under certain circumstances. As damage to the sidewalk can
occur during the construction process, the determination on what sections
of c/g & s/w are to be removed & replaced is made in the field.
19. We are unable to locate the requirement for a construction sequence for a SFR,
please provide code section.
To ensure compliance with ECDC 18.30 Storm Water Management, when
o
impervious surface areas exceed 5000 square feet a construction
sequence is required for review by our Storm Water Engineer.
20. We are unable to locate the requirement for a bottom of ftg elevation at every step
in the foundation, please provide code section.
Please refer to City of Edmonds handout for grading, fill and excavation
o
#B37.
Please indicate who reviewed the drainage report and pump schematic so I can contact
him directly.
The drainage report and pump schematic was reviewed by our Storm Water
o
Engineer, Damon Roth.
City of Edmonds
Community Services Department
Engineering Division
City of Edmonds
Community Services Department
Engineering Division