20180620135824.pdfDate: June 18,20L8
To:Jennifer Lambert, Engineering Technician, Engineering Division, City of Edmonds
Jenn ifer,lambert@edmondswa.gov, and
Zachary Richardson, Storrnwater Engineer, Engineering Division, City of Edmonds
zachary.richardson @edmondswa.gov
From: Kelli Martin, Permit Specialist, The Permlt Network
thepermitnetwork@ gmail. com
Re Comments Response Letter- ENGINEERING DIVISION REVIEW
Application f: 81D20180354
Project: James Weis- Single Family Residence
Project Address: 16630 74th PIW
The purpose of this letter is to address comments recelved from you on May 18, 2018 regarding the
aforementioned project. For your convenience and to expedite the review and approval process, your
original çomments are included verbatim and our responses are provided in BOLD.
The following new or revised documents are incorporated by reference herein:
r ROW Permit Application Form
r Side Sewer Permit Application Form
r Stormwater Covenant
r Grading and TESC Plan Cl of 2 dated 6/4lLg
r Stormwater and Utility Plan C2 of 2 dated 6/4/tg
r Stormwater Site Plan for Weis SFR dated June 1, 2018
r Geotechnical Plan Review Letter dated June 14, 20L8
ENGINEERING DIVISION REVIEW
GENERAT
L, Submit ROW Permit Application form.
Respondent: John An of Evergreen Contracting
Response: The ROW Permit Application form was submitted on May 3O 2018.
2. Submit Side Sewer Permit Application form.
Respondent: John An of Evergreen Contracting
Response: The Side Sewer Permit Application form was submitted on May 30, 2018.
3. A Stormwater Covenant is required to be recorded against the property based on the proposed
stormwater facilities for the project. Please complete the covenant, including notarization and
any required exhibits and submit to the city. Ensure the Stormwater covenant meets
Snohomish County Record Drawing requirements. The document must be complete, but will
not be recorded prior to permit issuance. Prior to construct¡on, final location of facilities are to
be verified (by field inspectiön and asbullt) and then the covenant will be recorded.
RES"TB
JUN 20 ?t1$
1
ErëffiÈ?Bnãff]tr17CITY COPY
Respondent: James Wçis
Response: Stormwater Covenant with required exhibits, signed by Owners and notarized are
submitted herewith.
4. The City standards details have been updated. Please revise all details accordingly.
Respondent: Jacob D. [Vlealey, P.E., lnsight Engineering
Response: The standard details have been updated accordingly
5. Add a note to the plans stat¡ng existing failing, damaged or non-ADA compliant frontage
improvements (76th Ave W) shall be removed and replaced as determined by the City
Engineering lnspector.
Respondent; Jacob D. Mealey, P.E., lnsight Engineering
Response: Refer to note #12 on sheet C2.
6. Disruption fees shall apply to cuts made in streets that have been overlaid within the last 5-
years. Refer to City map to verify status of street and use the calculator in Permit Trax {ROW
permit) to determine specific fee based on the size of the cut and the year in which it was
overlaid. The fee to cut into a street was overlaid within the last year has a multiplier of 5 times
the fee. A street overlaid within the last 2 years has a multiplier of 4 times the fee, and so forth,
Respondent: James Weis, Owner
Response: Noted.
7. Please make sure to revise all plans sheets as changes are made.
Respondent: Jacob D. Mealey, P.E., lnsight Engineering
Response: All plan shegts have been revised.
SITE PLAN
1. The sewer location is not consistent with the Civils. Please revise the plans accordingly
Respondent: Jacob D. Mealey, P.E., lnsight Engineering
Response: The site plap has been revised.
2. The driveway shall be a minimum of 12' in width. Please revise the plans accordingly
Respondent: Jácob D. Mealey, P.E., lnsight Engineering
Response: The driveway width has been revised to t2',
3. The City sewer maip does not exist as shown. Please show all City utilities located in 74th Pl W
and 76th Ave W.
Respondent: Jacob D. Mealey, P.E., lnsight Engineering
Response: Please refer to revised site plan.
GRADING AND TESC PIAN (Sheet Cl Of 2}
L. Notes: remove nurnbers 2 and 3 (those notes apply when demoing the structure)
Respondent: Jacob D. fVlealey, P.E., lnsight Engineering
Response: Notes have been removed.
2
2. The silt fence needs to be located on private property only. Please revise the plans accordingly
Respondent: Jacsb D. Mealey, P.E., lnsight Ëngineering
Response: The silt fence has been shown pnly on the private property.
3. Add note: lnstalland maintain allTESC measures according to approved plans, City of Ëdmonds
standard details, and allother measures that may be required during construction.
Respondent: Jacob D. Mealen P.E., lnsight Engineering
Response: Refer to note #2 on sheet Cl.
4. The minimum width of the driveway shall be 12'. Please revisç the plans accordingly.
Respondenü Jacob D. fVlealey, P.E., lnslght Engineering
Response: The drivewqy width has been revised to !2'.
5. Consistent with Edmonds Community Development Code 18.80.060, driveway slopes shall not
exceed LAYoslope.
a. The contours don't appear to match the spot elevations provided.
b. lt appears on the plans the south side of the driveway is almosl?Oo/o steep. Please show
how you willmaintain a minimum of 12'wide driveway and under 14% slope.
c. Please note the t$Yo requtrement on the plans.
Respondent: Jacob D. Mealey, P.E., lnsight Engineering
Response: The proposed contours have been revised to match the spot elevations. Refer to note
f4 on sheet Cl for 14%max slope requirement.
6. There appears to be a retaining wall located in the middle of the driveway. Please revise the
plans accordingly.
Respondent¡ Jacob D. Mealey, P.Ë., lnsight Engineerlng
Response: The retaining wall is located to the south and east of the proposed driveway, please
refer to the revised plans for more information.
sfoRnnJ{AIER Al¡D UTltlTI PIAN (sheçt C3,of ?,}
L. General Note - Revise note l from 2016 to 2018.
Respondent: Jacob D. Mealey, P.8., lnsight Engineering
Responsel Note has been revised.
2. Please show the final topographic grades on this plan sheet.
Respondent: Jacob D. Mealen P.8., lnsight Engineering
Response: Please refer to revised Stormwater and Utility Plan (Sheet C2 of 21.
3. The minimum width of the driveway shall be 12'. Please revise the plans accordingly.
Respondent: Jacob D. Mealey, P.E., lnsight Engineering
Response: The driveway width has been revised ta L2',
J
4. Please show the driveway as it is to be constructed. There appears to be a retain¡ng wall located
in the middle of the driveway which I assume is not intended. Please revise accordingly.
Respondent¡ Jacob D. Mealen P.E., lnsight Engineerlng
Response: The retalnir¡g wall is located to the south and east of the proposed driveway, please
refer to the revlsed plans for more information.
5. Please labelthe driyeway as asphalt from the paved road to the property line. Once on prlvate
property the driveway may be any material the applicant chooses or as required to meet
stormwater code requirements.
Respondent: Jacob D. fVlealey, P.E., lnsight Engineering
Response: Please refer to revised Stormwater and Utility Plan {Sheet C2 of 2}.
6. Utility patches shall be combined and full width or half width overlay will be required
depending on the extent of disturbance. Where utility patches fall entirely within one travel
lane, the overlay shall extend to the centerline of roadway. Where utility patches extend intp
both travel lanes then a full width overlay is required.
Respondent: James Weis, Öwner
Response: Noted. çW e:2,
7. The City of Edmonds does not review or approve rockeries. Construction of rockeries is
prohibited within the City of Êdmonds under certain circumstances and in certain situations per
Edmonds Community Development Code 18.40.020. Please review the specific circumstance
pulled from the code section that pertains to this project.
Respondent: James Weis, Owner
Response: Noted. (ÞeUO,ræ feü\4 ?lA*ù
8. Please provide a written response from the geotech that the civil construction plans are
consistent with the geotech report and recommendations.
Respondent: Lee S. Bellah, [G and M, Khaled Shawish, PE, Nelson GeotechnicalAssociates, lnc.
Response: Geotechnical Plan Revlew Letter dated June 14 201,8 from Nelson Geotechnical
Associates, lnc. is submitted herewith. ln addition, the building plan sheets A3 and A6 have been
revised to lncorporate the recommendations made in the Geotechnical Plan Revlew letter that
the lower western and western 15 feet of the northern and southern residence foundations be
embedded a minimum of four feet into the native glacial soils encountered within the site, to
provide additional protection against any shallow failures on the steep slope below
WATER
t. As indicated by the Fire Department, a fire sprinkler system is required for this property.
Typically if there is an existing water service line from the watermain to the meter, the water
service line/meter will not be the appropriate size and a new tap will be required. The applicant
will be required to pay for the new tap on the main and the new meter. Please revise plans to
include the following:
a. Please add a note that a L" meter is to be installed
4
b. Show the water meter located in the right'of-way, such that the back of the meter is on
the property line. The water meter shall not be located within the driveway.
c. Please show a L-L/Z" water service line to be installed from the back of the meter to the
house (as required for a combination fire and domestic service).
d. Please labelthe pipe material and note tracer wire to be installed on the water service
line.
Respondent: Jacob D. Mealey, P.E., lnsight Engineerlng
Response: New water meter has been shown.
2. lf an irrigation system is proposed, please obtain approval from the Geotechnical engineer,
Also, add a note to the plans indicating where the landscape irrigation backflow assembly will
be located (if one is proposed).
Respondent: James Wqis, Owner
Response: No irrigation system is proposed
3. Please show the City watermain located on76th Ave W.
Respondent: Jacob D. Mealey, P.E., lnsight Engineering
Response: The existlng water main along 76th has now been shown.
sEwqR
1. The plans state that schedule 40 is to be used for the side sewer; however, the City requires
gasketed fittings and schedule 40 is typically glued. Please revise the plans accordingly and note
that gasketed fittings are required.
Respondent: Jacob D. Meale¡ P.E., lnsight Engineering
Responset The side sewer has been revised to SDR-35 with gasketed fittings, refer to revised
callout.
2. Show a 5" cleanout at the property line. Please add a note that the 6" cleanout at the property
line shall have a L2" cast iron lamphole cover with1/z" hexbolts. lf there is not a 6" cleanout, it
will need to be installed.
Respondent: Jacob D. Mealey, P.8., lnsight Engineering
Response: A new cleanout has been added.
3. Provide invert elevations at the stub and at the house so that a minimum 2% slope and
minimum 2' pipe coverage can be verified, lf the slope of the pipe exceeds 2O% the pipe will
need to be anchored.
Respondent: Jacob D. Mealey, P.8., lnsight Engineering
Response: Contraçtor will verify the existing CO elevations. Refer to the reviged callout,
4, Please add the following note to the plans: lf a new sewer lateral is determined to be required,
and the connection will be core drilled, the connection at the sewer main will need to be a
Romac lnserta-tee or if the sewer connection will be cut in, a wye is to be installed.
Respondent: Jacob D. Mealen P.E., lnsight Eng¡neering
Response: Refer to note #11 on sheet C2.
5
pRY UT¡LrnEq
1. No comments at this time. lf location of utilities change comments may arise.
Response: N/A
sroßM
L. Show where the footing drains will discharge to.
Respondent: Jacob D. Mealey, P.E.,lnsight Engineering
Response: The footing drains will be connected to the dralnage system that wlll connect to the
existing catch basin alpng 76th Ave W.
2. Show where the retaining wall and rockery drainage will discharge to.
Respondent: Jacob D. Mealey, P.E., lnsight Engineering
Response: The wall drains will be connected to the drainage system that willconnect to the
existing catch basin algng 76th Ave W.
3. A catch basin is required prior to connection of the stormwater facility.
a. Show the tightline connecting to the catch basin.
b. Provide invert elevations for all pipes at catch basins and manholes. Please note that a
minimum of 2' of cover is required for all pipes located under driveable surfaces and L'
of cover under landscape areas.
Respondent: Jacob D. Mealey, P.8., lnsight Engineering
Response: The drainage will be conveyed through an overland plped system to the existing catch
basin along 75th Ave W.
4. Please add a note tþ the plans that if the rim to invert elevation exceeds S-feet then a type ll
manhole will be required.
Respondent: Jacob D. Mealey, P.E., lnsight Engineering
Response: Refer to note #13 on sheet C2.
çToRMWAI EB BEyl EW CqM MENTS {Rqv¡ewqr zack, RichaTdson }
L. Drainage Report: lt is unclear that sheet flow dispersion is an adequate BMP for the driveway
surfaces; revise design andlor provide clarifying information as needed:
a. lt is not clear that the driveway surface and/or downstream flow path is less than L5%;
update plan or add information as needed to ensure flow path remains under 15%.
b. lt appears that the dispersion device cannot be located to be more than 50 feet from a
slope exceeding 15%; revise design or provide geotechnical support for dispersion
within 50' of a steep slope.
c. The geotech recommends collecting and rout¡ng the driveway runoff through an
'appropriate drainage system', which is interpreted to be a recommendation against
dispersion for erosion impacts; revise plan and or include additional geotechnical text
addressing approval of dispersion on this site.
d. lt appears that the width of the surfaces draining to the strip exceed 20' ln width for the
portion in fçont of the garages; update or revise as needed.
6
Respondent: Jacob D. Mealey, P.E., lnsight Engineering
Response:
a. Driveway dispersion has been removed. The runoff from the driveway wlll be directed to the
proposed drainage system,
b. The drainage will be conveyed through an overland piped system to the existing catch basin
along 76th Ave W.
c. The drainage will be conveyed through an overland piped system to the existing catch basin
along 76th Ave W.
d. Driveway dÍspersion has been removed. The runofffrom the driveway will be direded to the
proposed drainage system.
2. Drainage Report: lt is unclear that perforated pipe connection is an adequate BMP for the roof
drains; revise design and/or provide clarifying information as needed:
a. lt appears that the perforated connection cannot be located to be more than 50 feet
from a slope exceeding 15%; revise design or provide geotechnical support for
infiltration within 50' of a steep slope.
i. Geotech shall also address impacts to any structure within L0 feet of the trench
location (including adjacent rockery wall).
b. lt is not clear that the project can maintain 1' of separation to the impervious rock layer;
include elevat¡on information for the pipe invert and trench top/bottom and ensure it
can achieve positive flow from building and separation (see note comment pertaining to
footing drains too)
Respondent; Jacob D. Mealey, P,8., lnsight Engineering
Response: The perforated p¡pe connection has been removed. The drainage will be tight-lined
through an overland piped system to the existíng catch basin along 76th Ave W.
3. Drainage Report; Update report and plans to address concern about the proposed point
dlscharge on a steep slope within a landslide hazard area; typically, discharges on a steep slope
are required to tightline the system to the bottom of slope where an energy dissipation device
is provided in order to avoid creating an erosion nuisance or hazard.
a. lf a tightllne system is not proposed, the geotechnical report must specifically address
the proposal to discharge runoff on the slope.
Respondent: Jacob D. Mealen P.E., lnsight Engineering
Response: The drainage will no longer be point discharged to the steep slope, The drainage will
be tight.lined through an overland piped system to thè existing catch basin along 76th Ave W.
4. C2: lf perforated pipe connection remains, revise layout so BMPs functions as a flow-through
system (ie. pipe must go through the length of the trench; like the detail shows).
Respondent: Jacob D. Mealen P.E., lnsight Engineerlng
Response: The perforated p¡pe connect¡on has been removed. The drainage will be tight-lined
through an overland piped system to the existlng catch basin along 76th Ave W.
5. C2: lf rock dissipation pad remains, provide dimensions for pad size (including depth) and rock
type.
7
Respondent: Jacob D. Mealey, P.E., lnsight Engineering
Response: The drainaqe will no longer be point discharged to the steep slope. The drainage will
be tight-lined through an overland piped system to the existing catch basin along 76th Ave W.
6. C2: Show and identify all building and wall footing drain outlet locations; show piping as
needed.
a. Geotech shall address any propose surface point discharges proposed.
Respondent: Jacob D. Mealey, P.E., lnsight Engineering and Lee S. Bellah, [G and M. Khaled
Shawish, PE, Nelson Qeotechnical Associates, lnc.
Response: Outlet locations have been shown. Geotechnical Plan Review Letter dated June 14
2018 from Nelson GeotechnicalAssociates, lnc. is submitted herewith.
lf you have questions or need additional information, please call or e-mail me at
thepermitnetwork@ grnai 1. qom
Respectfu,lly,
-ffr//^
Kelli Martin, Permit Speciaf ist
8