Engineering.Storm.Traffic Memo2-Need More Info-Design Review-PLN20180060-GRE.pdfDate:
ral
MEMORANDUM
December 18, 2018
Brad Shipley, Associate Planner
From: Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager
Zachary Richardson, Stormwater Engineer
Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer
Subject: PLN20160054 —Design Review Westgate Mixed Use Zone
Westgate Village - 10032 Edmonds Way
Comments 1 — October 23, 2018
Comments 2 — December 18, 2018
Stormwater Engineer Review:
The Stormwater Engineer completed review of the resubmittal and recommends approval to
move into engineering design. Comments have been provided in the attached memo with specific
concerns to be addressed in addition to general compliance with drainage codes.
Transportation Engineer Review:
The following comments are provided by the City Transportation Engineer, Bertrand Hauss.
Please contact Bertrand directly at 425-771-0220 or by email at
Bertrand.haussgedmondswa.gov with any specific questions you may have regarding his
comments.
December 18, 2018 — Thank you for providing a revised Traffic Impact Study. Please
revise as follows:
a. Page 8 of the analysis states 195 units were assumed. The Trip Generation
Summary appears to be based off 195 units as well. Page 12, however, refers
to 193 units. The analysis will need be submitted with the building permit
application providing an analysis based on the actual proposed number of units.
b. Page 8, Table 4, please include trip length factor.
10/23/2018 comment - The Traffic Study provided is not the most current version. If
you intend to utilize the traffic study completed with the previous proposal, please submit
the most current version.
General Engineering Review:
The following comments are provided by the Engineering Program Manager, Jeanie McConnell.
Please contact Jeanie directly at 425-771-0220 or by email at
Jeanie.mcconnellgedmondswa. og_v with any specific questions you may have regarding his
comments.
December 18, 2018 — Please respond to the following:
a. A power pole has been shown at the corner of 234' and Hwy 99 adjacent to the
curb radius. Power poles are to be located at least 10-ft back from the travel lane
and at the back of sidewalks/curb ramps and therefore, this location is not found
to be acceptable. In revising the location of the power pole, please confirm with
PUD setback requirements from the building. The building may need to be
modified at this corner to accommodate the pole. Alternatively, the proposal
could include undergrounding additional lines to eliminate this pole.
b. The designated trash enclosure area will not work as proposed. The hauler has
not approved the configuration for pick-up with their front -loader trucks. Please
note, the City will not give approval to have the hauler stop in 234' to wheel the
containers out to the truck. Alternate locations/configurations have been
discussed amongst City staff and Brad Shipley will discuss this further with you.
c. The driveway approach has been shown to flatten out at the connection to the
street. As 234' St SW has an established street grade, the driveway will be
required to meet this grade through the sidewalk and street connection. The
driveway cross slope can be adjusted on private property, but please keep in
mind the shorter the driveway the more difficult it will be to achieve a smooth
transition.
10/23/2018 comment - Please update project Perspectives (pages 22-29) to reflect the
following:
a. Sidewalks along 234th St SW
b. Corner curb ramp at 2341h and Hwy 99
2. December 18, 2018 — Thank you for providing notes from your meeting with PUD.
10/23/2018 comment - The plans indicate the power lines and associated appurtenances
will be placed underground adjacent to the subject property along Highway 99. Please
provide confirmation that PUD is aware of this proposal and at a preliminary level finds
this to be acceptable.
of EDM STO RM WATE R REVIEW COMMENTS
City of Edmonds
Engineering Division
To: Applicant
Date: December 11, 2018
Project Name: GRE Edmonds
Permit Number: PLN20180060
Address: 23326 Highway 99
Review Type: Design Review (Preliminary)
Submittal Date: 12/05/2018
Reviewer: Zack Richardson, PE
City of Edmonds, Stormwater Engineer
Recommendation: No drainage information has been provided pertaining to the
proposed design. A geotechnical report has been provided which generally
demonstrates that BMPs are infeasible except for detention. The detention system is
uniquely position under the building and will need to be finitely designed in conjunction
with the building in order to ensure clearances from other building elements such as
piles or footing. Accordingly, I recommend that the project be approved to move into
engineering design. Note that this approval is in no -way intended to be a warranty as to
the proposed system's adequacy and the project engineer is responsible for ensuring
the vault can be designed to meet all design and maintenance standards without
impacting the building footprint or site plan. The review comments below are specific
concerns which remain to be addresses in addition to general compliance with drainage
codes.
Review Comments:
1. Geotechnical approval of the final detention vault design will be required to
ensure no loading from the building is anticipated and/or correctly accounted for
in vault design.
2. Is not clear that the vault is fully maintainable in its current location; provide
sufficient report text and/or details to explain how the vault will be maintained and
that proper clearance has been left.
a. If a typical vactor truck is proposed for maintenance; engineer should
demonstrate that garage clearance is adequate for truck access to vault.
b. If an alternative method is prescribed; it must be fully outlined in the
maintenance requirement included with the drainage report.
Page 1 of 2
3. It is not clear that surface flows from the adjacent parcel to the west have been
adequately controlled; it appears the fill proposed by the project will create a
barrier to the natural flow path off of the adjacent parcel and therefor additional
drains or alternative grading may be needed to collect this water.
4. It is not clear that the frontage improvements have been adequately mitigated for;
no new CBs or piping appear to be provided so it is unclear how this are
mitigated.
5. It is not clear how the impervious surfaces of the south driveway entrance are
accounted for; they appear to bypass the detention system and discharge without
mitigation as shown.
6. CB #3 appears to require a Type 2.
7. Show/detail how the pipe between CB #2 and #3 will penetrate the proposed
wall.
8. All surfaces of the building, including planter spaces of the upper floors, shall be
considered impervious surfaces for the sake of drainage review, unless they are
designed as fully compliant BMPs.
9. Reminder: Edmonds uses the Puget East 36 rain data set for modelling, and
includes detention as a BMP to meet MR #5.
10. Enough information about the roof surfaces materials and equipment are
required in order to determine that the roof surfaces is not a pollution generating
surfaces.
a. Surfaces shall be treated to prevent leaching and equipment must have
self-contained spill/leak apparatuses (not subject to rainfall) in order to be
non -pollution generating.
11. The drains for garages surfaces not subject to direct rainfall shall be connected
to sanitary sewer.
Page 2 of 2