Laserfiche WebLink
• • <br /> Kirk Brooks <br /> From: Jane Zimmerman <br /> Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2015 4:12 PM <br /> To: 'Leif Johansen' <br /> Cc: Ding Ye; Kirk Brooks <br /> Subject: RE: 1001 N Broadway, building demo and parking lot construction <br /> Hi Leif— <br /> Thank you very much for your written response and for modifying your plans in accordance with my comments. I've <br /> only been able to take a quick look at the revised plans, but if you add a note regarding the required spacing and width <br /> of the curb cuts, as well as a detail that shows a profile view of a typical curb cut and the relative ground <br /> elevation/surface in the raingarden to prevent vegetation blocking the curb cut and/or erosion at the curb cut entrance <br /> —I would suggest looking at the Ecology manual for their recommendations—I believe that you will have addressed all <br /> my concerns. <br /> Thank you again. At this point, I'll be out of the office until 9/10, so I wanted to give you some quick feedback before I <br /> depart for"home labor" projects! <br /> Jane <br /> Jane Zimmerman, Sr. Engineer <br /> City of Everett Public Works Department <br /> phone: 425-257-8885 fax: 425-257-8882 <br /> e-mail:jzimmerman@everettwa.gov <br /> From: Leif Johansen [mailto:ljohansen@reidmiddleton.com] <br /> Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2015 11:57 AM <br /> To: Jane Zimmerman <br /> Cc: Ding Ye <br /> Subject: FW: 1001 N Broadway, building demo and parking lot construction <br /> Jane <br /> Thank you for proving comments on the parking lot drainage. Our understanding is that you would like to see <br /> more parking lot areas drain to the bioretention cells and curbs around the bioretention cells for driving safety. <br /> We have modified the parking lot grading to increase the surface area draining to each of the bioretention areas. <br /> It was possible to increase the areas drainage to bioretention areas 1 and 2 (see attached exhibit) but due to the <br /> steep cross slope of the existing parking lot we were not able to increase the area draining to bioretention area <br /> 3. The modification results are as follow: <br /> 1. Bottom area of bioretention area 1 is now approximately 8% (coinparing to 30% prior to modification) <br /> of the size of the contributing drainage area. <br /> 2. I3ottom area of bioretention area 2 is now approaimatcly l 3% (comparinb to 30%prior to <br /> modification) of the size of the contributing drainage area. <br /> 3. Bottom area of bioretention area 3 is now approximately 21% (comparing to 21% prior to modification) <br /> of thc size of the contributing drainage area. <br /> ��3� <br />