Design Review Request for Info.2.pdfMEMORANDUM
Date: December 20, 2016/ July 10, 2019
To: Brad Shipley, Planning Division
From: JoAnne Zulauf, Engineering Technician
Zachary Richardson, Stormwater Engineer
Subject: PLN20180058 —Design Review Better Bellevue
4 Unit Condo — 8029 23811 St SW
The following comments are provided by the Engineering Technician, JoAnne Zulauf. Please
contact JoAnne directly at 425-771-0220 or by email at Joanne.zulauf(a edmondswa.gov with
any specific questions you may have regarding his comments.
1. Done.
2. Done.
3. Done.
4. Ok.
5. 7/10/19 It is unclear on plans where the power pole will be moved. It must be
behind the sidewalk then underground power will run from that location. Water
meters shall be installed in the streetscape.
The fire marshal would like the hydrant moved to the west side of the west
entrance at the corner in the streetscape area where the concrete ramp is shown.
The currently shown location has accessibility problems due to the road block.
Please show location of all hydrants, power poles or other utilities in the area.
Hydrants shall be located in the streetscape buffer. Power poles shall be moved
behind the sidewalk.
6. 7/10/19 This comment was incorrect. The sidewalk should be kept high through
the driveway entrances. No ramping needed. The streetscape strip can be returned
to landscaping. Single directional curb ramp improvements shall be shown at each
driveway.
7. 7/10/19 New Comment: 10' is not adequate for a multifamily entrance. Since it is
an ingress and egress, it should be at minimum 20' ft wide.
8. 7/10/19 New Comment: On the east side of the west entrance, new curbing shall
extend from the streetscape area and encompass the road barrier. Catch basin
shall continue to function as is. The barrier area will be a concrete slab and the
existing sign will be reused.
9. 7/10/19 New Comment: There is an existing private stormwater system shown on
this property outfalling to the catch basin at the west entrance. It appears to be
shared with the property to the west. Will changes be made to that system? An
easement will be required granting the neighboring access and maintenance rights
over said property. Please provide existing documentation or a draft document.
Please show the private storm system on the plans.
Please address the following plan review comments by City Stormwater Engineer, Zachary
Richardson. Please contact Zack directly at 425-771-0220 or by email at
Zachary.richardsongedmondswa.gov with any specific questions you may have regarding his
comments.
Review Comments:
It does not appear that any drainage or site specific geotechnical information was
submitted; prior to preliminary approval, the applicant shall review ECDC 18.30 and the
Edmonds Stormwater Addendum and submit storm water site plans and report consistent
with those codes sections
a. The drainage report must include site specific geotechnical information sufficient
to determine the feasibility of all stormwater BMPs; see Edmonds Addendum
Appendix B for geotechnical requirements and Appendix A for infeasibility
criteria.
Update: Not addressed. A geotechnical report was provided but not a drainage report;
the geotech report is only one element of the required drainage report. Additionally, the
report does not address several of the potential BMPs available, including rain gardens
and detention. Review the referenced codes and submit drainage site plan and report
compliant with those requirements and the referenced stormwater manual. At a
minimum, a detention system will be required for this project to meet Minimum
Requirement #5.
2. New Comment: The geotechnical report appears to have some inconstancies that require
clean-up as noted:
a. Cover sheet states `dense silty sand (till)' was found 2 to 4 feet below surface,
however boring log show a uniform sandy loam throughout; address/update text
as needed for consistency.
b. It remains unclear why a sandy loam with gravel, typically considered good soils
for infiltration, was determined to be `till' or a restrictive layer; expand text as
needed to explain classification or perform addition infiltration testing and/or
provide additional gradation or blow -count data to support conclusion.
c. The USCS classification of "SM-GP" does not appear to adhere to the USCS
standard as a sand or gravel is determined by what passes the #4 sieve; therefore it
appears an S and a G cannot be used in the same classification. Update report to
provide clear USCS classification.
d. Include a map showing where on -site the boring were taken.