BLD20151352-Roosendaal_ENG2.pdf
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
ENGINEERING DIVISION
(425) 771-0220
City Website: www.edmondswa.gov
th
DATE:January13,2016
TO:Craig Roosendaal
Roosendaal.craig@gmail.com
FROM:Jennifer Lambert
Engineering Technician
RE:Application #: BLD20151352
Project: Roosendaal -Addition
Project Address: 704 Bell St
During review of the above noted application, it was found that the following information, corrections, or
clarifications are needed. Reviews by other divisions, such as Planning and Building, may result in
additional comments. Please redline plans or submit three (3) sets of revised plans/documents with a
written response to each of the items below to a permit coordinatoronce all divisions have completed
their review.
nd
Resubmittals can be made at the Development Services Department on the 2floor of City Hall. Permit
Center hours are M, T, Th & F from8am-4:30pm. The Permit Center is closed on Wednesdays.
City of Edmonds handouts, standard details and development code can be referenced on the City website.
Please Note:Building Handouts do not include updated Engineering Division Requirements. Refer to
Engineering Handouts for all Engineering Requirements.
st
1Review –12/1/15
nd
2Review –1/13/15
1)OK
2)OK
13
Page of
3)1/13/16 –Comment was partially addressed. However, it is still not clearon the planwhat is
new impervious area verses what was pre-1977 impervious area.
a.It appears as though there is area that is being counted twice(i.e. overlap of 1990
addition and proposed addition).
b.The portions where the drivewaydid not previously exist would be considerednew
impervious area, but were not added to the impervious surface calculations.
nd
c.The 2story addition area only matters when the roof lineis extended over area that
was previously pervious. From what is shown on the plans, it is not clear what areas
nd
from the 2story addition are new.
d.Please revise the plans and impervious areacalculationsaccordingly.
12/1/15 Comment -Clearly label what portions of the home are new (1990 & proposed), what
nd
areas will added, and what areas are a 2story addition only.
e.
Anyareas where the existing foundation, concrete, asphalt is being removed to bare soils,
that area is considered new impervious area. The only exception is if the driveway is being
replaced/repaired. Please revise the plans and impervious surface calculations accordingly.
4)1/13/16 -It appears that the comment was not addressed.
a.From the architecturalit appears that the deck is pervious.Isthe materialbelowthe
deck, an impervioussurface; therefore, making the deckimpervious?Please label as
requested in comment on 12/1/15.
b.If the deck is pervious (spaced) with a pervious surface below the deck,the deck will
not be considered imperviousand the impervious surface calculations will need to be
revised accordingly.
12/1/15 Comment -The Plot Plan states that the existing deck(north side of home)will be added
onto with a deck; however, the architectural drawingsstate that it will be added onto with a patio.
Revise accordingly.
c.
If this is a deck that will be expanded, please label what kind of deck and what material is
below the deck (i.e. spaced decking with landscape below).
5)OK
6)1/13/16 –Comment was addressed. However, the rockery may continue from the proposed
rockery to theexisting rockery as originally designedif you choose toand if approved by the
planning andbuilding departments. If you choose not to continue the rockery, please show
how you will handle the slope between the tworockeries.
a.The previous comment on 12/1/15 (below) was to make sure that therockery met
setback requirements and to verify that therockery did not have a surcharge. The
previous note was also to inform you that if you were to remove any additional
portions of the rockery it would haveto meet City standards.I apologize if my
previous comment was not clear.
b.Please keep in mind that if you remove any portion of the rockery adjacent to Bell St,
th
7Ave N, and the alley it will need to be replaced per City Standards. If the rockery
23
Page of
is left untouched, the City will not require the rockery to be replaced to meet City
standards at this time.
12/1/15 Comment -Please provide the bottom and top elevations of the proposed rockery.
Rockeries on private property adjacent to the city right-of-way must be set back from the city
right-of-way a minimum horizontal distance equal to the height of the rockery (per Edmonds
Community Development Code 18.40.020).
7)OK
33
Page of