The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSWP272940 DRAINAGE REPORT Proposed Rousso Short Plat "B" 1324 Aberdeen Avenue N.E. Renton jr �Wg, hington MAR 15 2001 MAR 15 2001 RECEIVED RECEIVED Prepared for: • Mark Rousso 64 Rainier Avenue South, Suite "F" Renton, WA 98055 March 14, 2001 Our Job No. 7586 JACpes o�WAS y Z 1 '0,p0 69 Er.F1^e� 10/10/ 7 �¢&14A CIVIL ENGINEERING,LAND PLANNING,SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH, KENT,WA 98032 - (425)251-6222 (425)251-8782 FAX www.barghausen.com n0 � .r • 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 dam^ riv� eway,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[JPJ/jss] • • 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"F," Rousso Short Plat"B" Renton, WA 98055 Location Phone Township 23 North Project Engineer Hal Grubb Range 5 East Company Barghausen Consulting Engineers, S.E. 1/4 Section 5 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 pPJ/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 Compensation/Mitigation ❑ Pipe System ❑ 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/ath/jss] 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 I 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 • i 7585.004 [JPJ/ath/jss] • • 3.0 VICINITY MAP ' �=s t r K vs: 3N +� h s I N SE : „ K il•9 39gp b �.T •O,'�,P I ��NM� N h ,�N MII" ply UNM r I 10 E I ae AY 3S A MI x 3S �Y H18ZI W j ..qSE Hall c u u t%N y( K(prr/ �C^y G� AV NOlAVO w 3 Z1 e R E F`~ , • ,, 4E-, z 5 d S I9 • • • 4.0 ANALYSIS OF THE FIVE CORE REQUIREMENTS • 4.0 ANALYSIS OF THE FIVE CORE REQUIREMENTS Core Requirement No. 1 -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 I Analysis must submitted with the initialpermit application. 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 biofiltration 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 Water Design 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. • • 7586.003[JPJ/jss] 6.0 SCS SOILS MAP �.. , � 24 - B r i { 2 3 'AgC• m sai ,? 42 8aC Pin APB r.. _a '' l4 •�rs AmC I x KPbl; k last QS x Bed E9E Am.C:. vC BeD 'i ib 4-1 gM� •, MayM. OvD : . ' B AgD r AgC No \ABC r BMA ,. 605 g 0 31afi a _ ,ti r £ z AgC AgC I �\ �r m ICED •Se ABD 0r rye - r - - - •� {'.: Fi AgD y •InC AkF _ I ..•/ ' ; .� I AkF EvB ~` AkF U• s .. �� AgC - :. r BeG Coleman-Poin PY GRAVEL C. S. . •.. PIT .: • — AkF. 30G 'InA ...� l �e ~ , : •• AgC B •C /LgP n _ BMi l �tVl t myy n ' BM' 03 ••• n u s�sr E 1 m 11 Il -aE.10 '. a EvC/Q C._ >c Via. v I • � . . k ; o= ' -,` .. ', Y ;::� s``• n AkF AmC Qs . F i „ •' y - c Wig? t , <`` C>• �t � f •r � E ". c, s - •DY 'r. '' ` REs ry ir. z �+ RdG 3 x r �J..J C Planf f RENTON V9 MI. 12'30" (Joins sheet 11) RdC 10' RENTON 1.7 M/. Scale 1:24 000 1,,[2 1/4 0 1 2 Miles 30& 2000 1000 0 5000 10000 Feet This map is one of a set of 20. 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. • information is given in .tables as follows: Other Acreage and extent, table 1, page 9. Town and country planning, table 4 Engineering uses of the soils, tables 2 and 3, , page 57. pages 36 through 55. Recreational uses, table 5, page 64. Estimated yields, table 7, page 79. Woodland Map Described Capability unit group s of Mapping unit on page FVIIe-1 ol Page Symbol AgB Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes---------- 10 AgC Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 1S percent slopes--------- 8 2 76 3d2 AgD Alderwood 2 76 3dl gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes-------- 1p 2 78 3d1 AkF Alderwood and Kitsap soils, very steep________________________ AmB Arents, Alderwood material, 0 to 6 percent slopes 1 __________ 10 78 2d1 10 IVe-2 76 3d2 AmC Arents, Alderwood material, 6 to 15 percent slopes An Arents, Everett material 1/ -- 1/--------- 1p IVe-2 76 3d2 ------------ -------------------- 11 IVs-1 BeC Beausite gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes---------- 11 IVe-2 77 3f3 BeD Beausite gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes--------- 12 76 3d2 BeF Beausite gravelly sandy loam, 40 to 75 percent slopes VIee- 78 3d1 Bh BellinghamP ------------- 12 VIIe-1 78 3d1 silt loam------------------------------------------ Br Briscot silt loam----------- 12 IIIw-2 76 3w2 ------------------------ u Buckley silt loam____________________________ -------------- 13 IIw-2 -----" 75 awl 13 IIIw-2 76 4wl Cb Coastal beaches____________________________ 14 VIIIw-1 ------------------- 78 Ea Earlmont silt loam------_ --_ --------------------------------- 14 IIw-2 Ed Edgewick fine sandy loam----------------- _-____--_ 75 3w2 EvB Everett gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes 15 IIIw-1 75 2ol EVC Everett gravelly sandy loam, 5 to 15p percent slopes------_-_ 15 IVs-1 77 3f3 P P -- 16 VIs-1 78 3f3 EvD Everett gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes---------- 16 Vle-1 EwC Everett-Aldexwood gravelly sandy loams, 6 to 15 percent 77 3f2 slopes------------------------------------------ 16 VIs-1 • InA Indianola loamy fine sand, 0 to 4 percent slopes ---=___= 78 3f3 InC Indianola to P opps ----- 17 IVs-2 77 4s3 amy fine sand, 4 to 15 percent slopes 16 IVs-2 77 InD Indianola . --"""-- 4s3 loamy fine sand, 15 to 30 percent slopes----- 17 VIe-1 KpB Kitsap silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes------------ 76 4s2 ----------- 17 IIIe-1 75 2d2 KpC Kitsap silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes---------_ 18 IVe-1 ------------ 76 �d2 KpD Kitsap silt loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes----------_ 18 VIe-2 ---------- 78 2d1 C Klaus gravelly loamy sand, 6 to 15 percent slopes------------- 18 VIs-1 Ma Mixed alluvial land----- 78 3f1 NeC Neilton very gravelly loamy sand, 2 to 1S percent slopes------ 19 VIs-1 78 201 Ng Newberg silt loam_____________________________________________ 78 3f3 Nk Nooksack. silt loam-------------- 19 IIw-1 74 2ol ---=---------------------------- 20 _ IIw-1 No Norma sandy loam------------------- 74 2ol --------------------------- Or Orcas peat---------------------------------------------------- 20 IIIw-3 76 3w2 21 Illw-3 78 Os Oridia silt loam_______________ --- 21 IIw-2 75 awl C Ovall gravelly loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes----------_ 22 IVe-2 -------- 76 3d1 D Ovall gravelly loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes------------------ 23 VIe-2 78 3d1 F Ovall gravelly loam, 40 to 75 percent slopes------------------ 23 VIIe-1 78 ------------------ 3dl Pc Pilchuck loamy fine sand____________________ 23 VIw-1 78 2s1 Pk Pilchuck fine sandy loam__________________ 23 IIw-1 Pu Puget silty clay loam----------------------------------------- 76 2sl ------ 24 IIIw-2 76 3w2 Py Puyallup fine sandy loam------ ----------- ____-- 24 IIw-1 RaC Ragnar fine sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes---------___ "" 74 2ol ---- 25 IVe-3 77 4s1 RaD Ragnar fine sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes--------__ 26 VIe-2 78 4s1 C Ragnar-Indianola association, sloping: 1/------___ ------------- 26 -------- Ragnar soil--------- — -- Indianola IVe-3 --""""-' - 77 4s1 Indianola soil____________________ -- IVs-2 -------------- 77 4s3 RdE Ragnar-Indianola association, moderately steep: 1/---_-_____-- 26 -------- Ragnar soil-------------------------------------- "' -- - VIe-2 78 4s l-Indianola soil--------------------------------- _ VIe-1 77 4s2 • U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:1973 0-468-266 GUIDE TO MAPPING UNITS--Continued Woodland Described Capability unit group on symbol Mapping unit page Symbol Page Symbol Re Renton silt loam-------------------------------------------- 26 IIIw-1 75 awl Rh Riverwash--------------------------------------------------- 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 --- UrUrban 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. •