The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSWP272940(4) DRAINAGE REPORT Proposed Rousso Short Plat "B" 1324 Aberdeen Avenue N.E. Renton, Washington Prepared for: Mark Rousso 64 Rainier Avenue South, Suite T" Renton, WA 98055 March 14, 2001 Our Job No. 7586 JAC% WAS tP o y Z n 69 Ip �� EY.FI^ES 10/10/ 7i P��HA CIVIL ENGINEERING,LAND PLANNING,SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH, KENT,WA 98032 - (425)251-6222 - (425)251-8782 FAX • www.barghausen.com (� f V TABLE OF CONTENTS • 1.0 INTRODUCTION/GENERAL INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.0 TIR WORKSHEET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.0 VICINITY MAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.0 ANALYSIS OF THE FIVE CORE REQUIREMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.0 ANALYSIS OF SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.0 SCS SOILS MAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 • • • • 1.0 INTRODUCTION/GENERAL INFORMATION 1.0 INTRODUCTION/GENERAL INFORMATION • The proposed project site, known as Rousso Short Plat`B," is located within the southeast quarter of Section 5, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian, City of Renton, King County, Washington. More particularly,the site is located at 1324 Aberdeen Avenue N.E.,Renton,Washington. The site currently consists of an existing single-family residence located on a 0.28-acre lot, with an associated garage to be demolished,concrete driveway,and several trees scattered through the backyard of the lot. The proposal for this development is to construct a 2-lot short plat by adding one new lot to the development behind the existing single-family residence located in the front portion of the lot. The entire lot slopes off toward the back of the lot in an easterly direction at an approximate grade of 5.50 percent. The project site soils are classified as Indianola, which is a Type "A" soil, meaning infiltration would be applicable if it was required-for this development. • • 7586.003[JPJfjss] • 2.0 TIR WORKSHEET King County Department of Development and Environmental Services TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET • Part 1 PROJECT OWNER AND Part 2 PROJECT LOCATION AND PROJECT ENGINEER DESCRIPTION Project Owner Mark Rousso Project Name Address 64 Rainier Avenue South, Suite T," Rousso Short Plat"B" Renton, WA 98055 Location Phone Township 23 North Project Engineer Hal Grubb Range 5 East Company Barqhausen Consulting Engineers, S.E. 1/4 Section 5 I Inc. Address/Phone 18215-72nd Avenue South Kent, Washington 98032/(425) 251-6222 Part 3 TYPE OF PERMIT Part 4 OTHER REVIEWS AND PERMITS APPLICATION ❑ Subdivision HPA ❑ DFW HPA ❑ Shoreline Management ❑ Short Subdivision ❑ COE 404 ❑ Rockery ❑ Grading ❑ DOE Dam Safety ❑ Structural Vaults • ❑ Commercial ❑ FEMA Floodplain ❑ Other ❑ Other. Short Plat ❑ COE Wetlands Part 5 SITE COMMUNITY AND DRAINAGE BASIN Community City of Renton Drainage Basin Lake Washington Part 6 SITE CHARACTERISTICS ❑ River ❑ Floodplain ❑ Stream ❑ Wetlands ❑ Critical Stream Reach ❑ Seeps/Springs ❑ Depressions/Swales ❑ High Groundwater Table ❑ Lake ❑ Groundwater Recharge ❑ Steep Slopes ❑ Other • 7585.004 [JPJ/athfjss] Part 7 SOILS Soil Type Slopes Erosion Potential Erosive Velocities • Indianola 4 to 15 percent ❑Additional Sheets Attached Part 8 DEVELOPMENT LIMITATIONS REFERENCE LIMITATION/SITE CONSTRAINT ❑Additional Sheets Attached Part 9 ESC REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION AFTER CONSTRUCTION ❑ Sedimentation Facilities ✓ Stabilize Exposed Surface ❑ Stabilized construction Entrance ✓ Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities • ✓ Perimeter Runoff control ✓ Clean and Remove all Silt and Debris ❑ Clearing and Grading Restrictions ❑ Ensure Operation of Permanent Facilities ✓ Cover Practices ❑ Flag Limits of SAO and open space preservation ✓ Construction Sequence areas ❑ Other ❑ Other Part 10 SURFACE WATER SYSTEM ❑ Grass Lined ❑ Tank ❑ Infiltration Method of Analysis Channel ❑ Vault ❑ Depression ❑ Pipe System Compensation/Mitigation P y ❑ Energy Dissipater ✓ Flow Dispersal of Eliminated Site Storage ❑ Open Channel ❑ Wetland ❑ Waiver ❑ Dry Pond ❑ Stream ❑ Regional Detention ❑ Wet Pond Brief Description of System Operation Facility Related Site Limitations Reference Facility Limitation 7585.004 [JPJ/athfjss] Part 11 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS Part 12 EASEMENTS/TRACTS ❑ Cast in Place Vault ❑ Drainage Easement • ❑ Retaining Wall ❑ Access Easement ❑ Rockery>4' High ❑ Native Growth Protection Easement ❑ Structural on Steep Slope ❑ Tract ❑ Other ❑ Other Part 13 SIGNATURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER or a civil engineer under by supervision have visited the site. Actual site conditions as observed were incorporated into this worksheet and the attachments,,To the best of my knowledge the information provided here is accurate. Signed/Date • • 7585.004 [JPJ/athlss] • • 3.0 VICINITY MAP 3S ' SE �� M x- 79fb AY f s I Nl[ W T N� 35 dY N182i •t �� r �• AY S �-0. � :. � fi�,�its+, r�. Q t � OVA,a A . :113tx�� 3�N.x' >,� a •r1.j ,��yj'�`ti{<� '� t9,(�a ��qA � "3>x �,;a .J�' ,' v c e.: .1 c.n 1 cn4E- Die, Ste 5 • • 4.0 ANALYSIS OF THE FIVE CORE REQUIREMENTS • 4.0 ANALYSIS OF THE FIVE CORE REQUIREMENTS • Core Requirement No. I -Discharge at the Natural Location: The discharge from the proposed project site must occur at the natural location. Response: This project site proposes no change in the discharge location of any on-site runoff generated and released from the project site. Core Requirement No. 2-Off-Site Analysis: All proposed projects must identify the upstream tributary drainage area and perform a downstream analysis. Levels of analysis required depend upon the problems identified orpredicted. At a minimum,a Level 1 Analysis must submitted with the initial permit application. 1' Response: The City of Renton has indicated that a Level 1 Downstream Analysis is not required for this project. Core Requirement No. 3-Runoff Control: Proposed projects must provide runoff control to limit the developed condition's peak rates of runoff to the pre-development peak rates for specific design storm events based on the runoff from defined existing site conditions and install biof ltration measures. Response: This project proposes to construct less then 5,000 square feet of new impervious surface. Therefore, the requirements for peak rate runoff control are not met. In addition, the requirement for providing stormwater quality treatment: If there is a 5,000 square feet of new impervious surface subject to vehicular use or storage of chemicals will dictate whether a project is required to provide treatment for water quality. Since this project is proposing much less than 5,000 square feet of new impervious • surface subject to vehicular traffic or storage of chemicals,water quality improvements are not required for this development. Core Requirement No. 4- Conveyance System: All conveyance systems for proposed projects must be analyzed, designed, and constructed for existing tributary off-site runoff and developed on-site runoff from the proposed project. Response: As mentioned previously, the soil type is Indianola, as classified by the SCS Classification System,which is highly permeable type soil. According to the 1998 King County, Washington Surface Water Design Manual,for individual single-family residential lots that have not previously been covered under an approved drainage plan with a lot area that is under 22,000 square feet, splash blocks may be used in place of other downspout systems, provided that certain requirements are met. This project proposes splash blocks as a means of downspout conveyance. It is likely that runoff from the downspouts will infiltrate into the ground very readily. Core Requirement No. 5- Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control: All projects that require engineered drainage plans shall provide temporary erosion and sedimentation control measures that minimize the transport of sediment to drainage facilities, water resources, and adjacent properties. Response: A Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan shall be provided with the final construction drawings prepared for this project,meeting all the requirements of the 1998 King County, Washington Surface Water Design Manual. • 7586.003[JPJ/jss] 5.0 ANALYSIS OF SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS 5.0 ANALYSIS OF SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS • Many of the special requirements delineated in the 1998 King County, Washington Surface WaterDesign Manual are applicable to this project site, therefore,no analysis of these requirements are being made at this time. This project site does not meet the threshold of any of those requirements. • f • • 7586.003[JPJ/jss] • 6.0 SCS SOILS MAP AW.t:. jop . ,� , a 4 tDU• G t t V,�; •ti r , Y �> '4 Q V • �� G •Ev Cr —ye ..S '...1 r ' 1�� y j � ..I• �OCi m • U`� _�JC•i .Q j:, �• i l m �r�, �.1` � . •.� N li .. m Nm 11 ..:/. > .. u? itLL �o• l. �'''��,�y,��.F`A k�,.. •I U "' I '•=cam ��,,,- �' N: � �,� .,. � � ps aw Ir ,�.t.;� � @; 3�1-5. �'O ;I �'. �' y••• U r l�ti `lr^ �',kli♦ :mot-�' �'�'y;� U ' ��. a� � M �I. • • • • • • Y'QI�J� rfM SYr i.� •ww `'r'. �. h � �,� �"• .fig� •° .` •In o In Lm x a� yo < ,..L• m E :gyp• W �. � I o .^ m t-2 LANE _ m t LANES �' � G ��s .•�� ,••_ N o Ono �y a •c i r+• + p . � ��y is �..• a _ .'� .�t •�''.' �,• I L� 1 r : �i • .'�.�•' j' der �1 C �' .rn .,�'w a ,F•�, 4�.;,; � � .n 13 :i. m 'gik•'v �' ,l:� l aM � ¢ •Y �{N `\ a 1. •M • Ub�"N J y i�,i e� �, *��• :``.. .H?`. l _e:''�. y,: '•�� j� N O O �5h41, O I V Y,{ 1• . .� Y r girl-pi l S�,y I � f ,5. .r �..r � �.. .1 J.�J.},;py�t•T)L�`'9G:.r'FKr• J31'Z: �lJ • r•7 r'LY. *. { A .-•",f..i'.'y�-. - •'•�:�:•' �•. �. I�+N s:4y�'"L.,. �2 ,� h.�� !• +1. SI Y: � 4 � tif; t 'S..� >. f.?•: � (�. ,+Y s �.. x^"'j�,c� v I .C� *�a�,.'� ��yr�w'�r,! Ye o� �k,5�' rn l � .. Vi': �• r�na'�{,,sK,;Q a ih �'4 SF�y i• W 4.. t' + '�i• �• �. �ml:^, yr�wa'rsi:..:7`✓Y -'�7�{� l• i..~r .. GUIDE TO MAPPING UNITS For a full description of a mapping unit, read both the description of the mapping unit and that of the soil series to which the mapping unit belongs. See table 6, page 70, for descriptions of woodland groups. Other information is given in tables as follows: • Acreage and extent, table 1, page 9. Engineering uses of the soils, tables 2 and 3, Town and country planning, table 64 page 57 pages 36 through 55. Recreational uses, table 5, page 64. Estimated yields, table 7, page 79. Woodland Map Described Capability unit group symbol Mapping it on PP g unit page Symbol Pa e g Symbol AgB Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes---------- 10 AgC Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes--------- 8 IVe-2 76 3d2 AgD Alderwood IVe-2 96 3d1 gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes-------- 10 VIe-2 78 3d1 AkF Alderwood and Kitsap soils, very steep------____r_____________ AmB Arents, Alderwood material, 0 to 6 percent slopes 1 _ 10 VIIe-1 78 2d1 10 IVe-2 76 3d2 AmC Arents, Alderwood material, 6 to 15 slopes I percent An Arents, Everett material 1/ P opes 1/--------- 10 IVe-2 76 3d2 ---------------- 11 IVs-1 BeC Beausite gravelly sandy loam---------, 6 to 15 percent slopes---------- 11 IVe-2 77 32 BeD Beausite gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes--------- 12 VIe-2 76 3d2 BeF Beausite gravelly sandy loam, 40 to 75 percent slopes--------- ----- 12 V 78 3dl Bh Bellingham silt loam----________ " " ----------- IIe-1 78 3d1 """--"-- - - r Briscot silt loam______________________ ----------------------- 12 IIIw-2 76 3w2 13 IIw-2 Bu Buckley silt loam------_____..___ 75 3w1 --------------------------- 13 IIIw-2 Cb -- 76 4w1 Coastal beaches________________________ 14 VIIIw-1 ----------------------- Ea . Earlmont silt loam---- 78 -------------------------------------Ed Edgewick fine sandy loam-----__-___-_ _ 14 IIw-2________________ 75 3w2 EvB Everett gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes15 IIIw-1 75 2ol EvC Everett gravelly sandy loam, 5 to IS percent ses-------__ 15 IVs-1 77 3f3 P P -- 16 VIs-I 78 3f3 EvD Everett gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes---------- EwC Everett-Alderwood gravelly sandy loamy, 6 to 15 percent 16 VIe-1 77 3f2 slopes------------------------------------------------------ I16 VIs-1 InA Indianola loamy fine sand 0 to 4 percent slopes 78 3f3 P apes--------_ 17 IVs-2 77 4s3 I Indianola loamy fine sand, 4 to 15 percent slopes ____-___ 16 IVs-2 InD Indianola loamy fine sand 15 to 30 percent r 77 4s3 slopes-------_____ 17 VIe-1 76 4s2 KpB Kitsap silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes---------------------- es-------- 17 III--1 75 2d2 KpC Kitsap silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes -------------- 18 IVe-1 76 Zd2 KPD Kitsap silt loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes--------------------- 18------- VIe-2 78 2d1 KsC Klaus gravelly loamy sand, 6 to 15 percent slopes------------- 18 VIs-1 Ma Mixed alluvial land_____________ 78 3fl NeC Neilton very gravelly loamy sand, 2 to 15 percent slopes------ 19 VIs-1 18 VIw-2 78 201 Ng Newberg silt loam____________________"______-____--_ 78 3f3 ------ 19 IIw-1 74 2ol Nk Nooksack. silt loam_____________________________ 20 IIw-1 --------------- 74 � 2ol No Norma sandy loam----------------------------- 20 IIIw-3 Or Orcas peat---------- -------------------------------------- 76 3w2 ---- ----------------- 21 VIIIw-I Os Oridia silt loam-----___ 78 --_------------------------------- 21 IIw-2 OvC Ovall ----' 75 3wl gravelly loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes___________________ 22 IVe-2 76 3d1 OvD Ovall gravelly loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes------------------ 23 Vle-2 OvF Ovall gravelly loam, 40 to 75 percent slopes__________________ 78 3d1 Pc Pilchuck loamy fine sand_________________ 23 VIIe-I 78 3dl ------------------- 23 VIw-1 78 2sl Pk Pilchuck fine sandy loam________________ -------------------------------------- 23 Puget silty IIIw- 76 2sl 8 ty clay loam----------------------------------------- 24 IIIw-2 76 3w2 Py Puyallup fine sandy loam------=------------------------ 24 IIw-1 RaC Ragnar fine sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes 74 4sl RaD Ragnar fine sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent s 25 IVe-3 77 4sl P oPeS--------------= 26 VIe-2 78- 4s! RdC Ragnar-Indianola association, sloping: I/------- __ ------ -- --- Ragnar soil-------------------------------------- - IVe-3 77 --------- - 4s1 Indianola soil--------------------------------- -'-'------ -- IVs-2 77 4s3 RdE Ragnar-Indianola association, moderately steep: 1/-----_______ 26 -------- --- Ragnar soil-------------------------------- -- -------------- - VIe-2 Indianola soil----------_ - 78 4sl ------------------------------ - VIe-1 77 4s2 • U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:1973 o-465-266 GUIDE TO MAPPING UNITS--Continued Woodland Described Capability unit group on of Mapping unit page Symbol Page Symbol Re Renton silt loam------------------------------------------=- 26 IIIw-1 75 3w1 Rh Riveiwash--------------------------------------------------- 27 VIIIw-1 78 --- Sa Salal silt loam--------------------------------------------- 27 IIw-1 74 2ol Sh Sammamish silt loam----------------------------------------- 27 IIw-2 75 3wl Sk Seattle muck------------------------------------------------ 28 IIw-3 75 --- Sm Shalcar muck------------------------------------------------ 29 IIw-3 75 --- Sn Si silt loam------------------------------------------------ 29 IIw-1 74 2ol So Snohomish silt loam----------------------------------------- 30 IIw-2 75 3w2 Sr Snohomish silt loam, thick surface variant------------------ 31 IIw-2 75 3w2 Su Sultan silt loam-------------------------------------------- 31 IIw-1 74 3wl Tu Tukwila muck------------------------------------------'----- 32 IIw-3 75 --- Ur Urban land-------------------=------------------------------- 33 -------- -- --- Wo Woodinville silt loam--------------------------------------- 33 IIw-2 75 3w2 1/ The composition of these units is more variable than that of the others in the Area, but it has been controlled well enough to interpret for the expected use of the soils. _ • • 4.0 RETENTION/DETENTION POND ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 4.0 RETENTION/DETENTION POND ANALYSIS AND DESIGN • There are no detention or water quality facilities required for this project. Please see Section 3.1 of this report for further details. • • 7586.004[DED/bgU 5.0 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 5.0 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN There are no conveyance systems required for this project. Therefore,this section does not apply. • • 7586.004[DED/bq/knl 6.0 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES 6.0 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES • No special reports or studies have been required for this project. • • 7586.004[DED/bq/kn] 7.0 BASIN AND COMMUNITY PLAN AREAS 7.0 BASIN AND COMMUNITY PLAN AREAS See enclosed maps. • 7586.004[DED/bq/knl •r W a d Z i.. ZZ If )Y'll 1-14 it AI I I �� J f•�� -� 19 ir> C • ^�..•: 1 r �jf�r ° / ..t,.; , � t! �, ,•\ 1'� � Irk' � I !U I , }i w-�''/ I. 1 i j „ 1 CGZ77 Zy I ! f it r _•�! _' ' I I • : I It Ih We It ,,- � � .�'-` � � 11 � _,,,,,., "" ` ` '•• 1, uj r l Q 'f f li it w i 1 Its .. 1C ,� 11 1' " / it W � '_ . {�..n' �.7 1 11 1 Q Cr I o .. Ij 60 -- :, - ilk;; - �1 •' .y - - - - - --= -. __ Amw SK DISH 4t, 4 RIVER 11 r- - SNU YA T IOTA L'•_f Ow/ S; - - ;-- 4 M >_ ' 11Wiu twW Uw• `�- - - • !i� , • . ` ,e \..Imo` - ..\ `Or/lin GM. ' - _ - �t - A I - S`TO t < _ 41 t �`_. L"^� RIVER wr '�. j 1 � - -- i - = t Isla M -_C G.►' _ '�` - 11 PUGETIfvp'+1,G iM.G.M s Rl,w ... ..� 1 i j r JJJ ..a' �,~�_�I1yr,_ • '� - •3^o0wkrw RMr qU Dr ael w I o �,.• -. soh For! - �' south Figure 2 Upp- `,• � �.� •�%_ - `_ ''; `iwr �: - ij DRAINAGE BASINS- .�- � • ..... � sKo 6u•a».• �rT� s•rrowAa �Nr o.•� `—��:_. i � 1 `= ` `�•_DRAT NAG �-- - mm � � King County . � _ :1" -}r � i.� Via„ G•� � it — .\� j,,, j-t, ';` - -_ f''�•y ,° -'=.✓ Lam='" -.N` ' `�. - ,- - _ ,^ q �..�■ Major Basin Boundaryupw Sub-Basin Boundary 1 i ��Y � �; ✓.."••^ � Source: King County Sensitive Areas Map Folio,Wetlands Supplement `A - ' . •'ecty ` ��w 1,i /,r"''�r VAS 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Miles 8.0 OTHER PERMITS 8.0 OTHER PERMITS • At this time,the permits anticipated for this project are as follows: ► Right-of-way use permit. ► Demolition permit. • • 7586.004[DED/bq/kn] 9.0 EROSION/SEDIMENTATION CONTROL DESIGN 9.0 EROSION/SEDIMENTATION CONTROL DESIGN The limits of clearing have been shown on the construction plans to encompass the entire site area. Silt fences have been shown on the plans to protect the adjacent properties from any possible sediment runoff. Since the site is only approximately 0.28 acres in size,we do not feel that it is necessary to provide any formal sediment traps or ponds. As construction progresses, silt fences will be maintained and catch basin protection will be installed to ensure that all stormwater leaving the site is clean and free of sediment. • 7586.004[DED/bq&jn