HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA-08-127_Report 2SITE ENGINEERING & PLANNING
STRUCTURAL Fi;EVIEW TRANSMITTAL
TO: Hou-Ching Chow, Plan Review Services *DATE: Marcil 4. 2005
* FM: Mark Follmer . Review Engineer
* * RE: Structure for Petro Vista Project No.: L02POC12
Activity No.: L04SR074
Please accept and review the attached Structural Review Package. The Site Engineering and
Planning Review Unit has begun reviewing the engineering plans for the roed and storm system;
we anticipate completion by April 1. 2005 . Your efforts in assisting us with this deadline
are greatly appreciated. Please contact me at 206 296 7039 when your review begins or at any
time you require additional information. Upon structural approval, please return the plans and
approval documentation to the Site Engineering and Planning Section with an approval memo
!tating any required fees. II '17: / .r .1)." . .1 r ~ ) ~ r>. ,,I {<,
Description of Structure: ' , ' /
Detention/~.~nd Filter Vault
Lock+Lo~?;viIalis
Rockery walls
*Location of Structure (Page # and/or describe location):
Please refer to Grading Plan for layout
Public ROW: Existing ______ _
Public Tracts: Existing ______ _
Private Tracts: Existing ______ _
Easement (. ___ -:-:---:-__ ): Existing ______ _
(type)
RestrictionslRequirements Related to the Structure:
(e.g. other approvals (HPA, DOT), ordinances, elevations)
Future---,:-:-____ _
Future---'X'-'-____ _
Future ______ _
Future ______ _
'Submittal Package Includes: minimum:
Engineering Plans (RoadlDrainage) 3 copies (1)
Structural Drawings and Plans 3 copies (2) for Vaults
Manufacturing Specifications(if necessary) copies (2)
Design Calculations 3 copies (2) for Vaults
Soils Report copies (1)
MSE Walls and Rockeries Geotech Recommendations 3 copies (1)
Note: If this is a REVISION to an approved structural plan, then include the approved plans.
List of Key Contacts:
King County Sensitive Area Staff: -:,.-_-=---:-_--:-----:-:-:::--__________ _
Design Engineer: Structural Collons Engineering, LLC
Engineering Plans: _________________ _
Other:
Installation/Inspection
Inspection Responsibility of Commercials: ________________ _
Contractor License # (if needed) _______ _ Structural Value $ _____ _
Attachments ______________________________ _
*REQUIRED
REVISION DATE: March 4':o!k
SIGNATURE: ~ M A
)
()
"'-.,;<)>$ ) ~
~' 1£,
\
." ~-?:' . "'.I-"~;'~ <r
j I PROI'OSED
TO BYPASS
/WO AREA-ue;,
TO
/WO
~/;/i~
"p.r
A1':;.~ ~~:f"'"
."
HI
~
i
,
\
DEVELOPED BASIN AREA MAP
~
T'4O'
\ k3 T T ',:1::$/', '
IECIICN" TO''' •• D NCIRTK RANQE II EAST, WI..UMETlE LULWI
KIIQ COIMY, srAlE a= WAS! HlTON
~ I ,.e.'" '"
________ -;::-:_l __________ ~ rW fl:l!;
I_~
,? 'W , .,."",
~;;
'}"\~:;~
,;~~.
'." t tn'-·iiEPEI~fI?: .. ,!"-,~.------' . ' '"
/f
__ .,i 'M ,,~.
,,~
~_~+3./S
-,~' 0;>11: ~ '(~.e,.~
t~> <M-1I .-::........:>.\!<
->,.-'¢!of"-./
s '"
"\
"'''''' ,
, Y';:.~fc.
';;it'"
--~ ~u~
/ ::::.-<(;..'m.
.'{:,
.-,~ ~1.-,a
{;\tf' 0: :t ... m.x<
,YGlItf't:t·,:m.n
&:$i ~;Vl
.~~ $' GIl' fL.,..,.~{l\hl:
~ 'JiIoTER *HJr;.~1
)(;'~.~~:'"
•
• • • • • • • • • • •
-~
• •
• • • •
•
·1 ,
,:G, '\}'jj;.-
~. '
• • • • . , . • r • •
,
/ ,~
~pt-,
'~'r ,
., ~/
··-·f\ '/ '
: \ I \
: \
, , I ,~ffr '
,c'" Y',Yn:>l'·
il$P'fY'
II
~
i
; i l
I ~~ I R
V!:~.
>'
,~.
" .. "1-#% ·'~1+'" \ 1, -------+-
\
~.
al
~~§
lUI
I P Ii
~
i.a; ~i.t!!!~if S!~.!._
/ I~"" I:=-I~-~
~
JOB NAME'
JOBI
REVISED
Petro Vlsto
11011
11 f3/'XXJ4
A .. ContrlbUt1ng Area (Ae)
C .. Runoff Coefficient
Tc,. TI"ne of Concentrofion (mn)
i .. intensity at Tc (In/tv)
d= DlOTteter of PIpe (in)
lz Length of PIpe (ft)
D .. Wofer Depltl at Qd (In)
FRCM TO A
C", CB4
CB4 CB3 DOS C 0.40 . _
CB3 C"" 0.21 ."....
C"" CSI 0.76 .-CSI VAULT 0..59 ~ .
11 115
BARGHAUSCN CONSULTING ENGINEERS -PIPE FLOW CALCULATOR
usino the Rational MethOd & Mannino Formula
KING COUNTY DESIGN FOR M.II.'JIf*i'M.-'
NOTE: ENTER DEFAULTS AND STOI<M DATA BEFORE Bl:GINNING
DEFAUlTS Coo 0.71 n.. 0,012
d.. 12 Tc= 6.3
Qd= DeSlOn Flow (cfs)
Qf .. Fu~ Copocl!y Flow (cfs)
Vd", Velocity at Desjgn Flow (fps)
VI= Velocity at Full Flow (I'ps)
s= Slope of pipe (%)
n= Monnlno Roughness Coefficient
Tt .. Travel TIme at Vd (min)
o Te n C I SUM A I A·C ISUMA"C
" 12 6.3 0,012 0."' DOS 0..04 0..04
99 12 6.5 0,012 0..7 0..45 0.26 0.32
B3 12 6.7 0.012 0..7 0..66 0.15 0,47
2' 12 6.9 0.012 0..7 1,42 0..53 1.00
26 12 7.0. 0.012 0.7 2,01 0,41 1.41
Qd
2.73 -2.68 ...,..
2.62 1"t!""
2.57 ..
2.55 3.61
Qf
3.86
10.11
5.63
5.56
11.94
DITCH CBIC
CBlD CB9
CB9 DITCH
0..50 r; 12 6.3 0.012 0.8 0..5 0..40 0..40 2.73 .... 17.12
0..00 12 6.3 0.012 0..9 0..5 DDD 0..40 2.73 ""'" 11.39
0..09 12 6.8 0.012 0..9 0..59 0..08 0..48 2.60 .. 2.73
CB8 CS7
CB7 CEI6
3.00 -85 12 210. 0.012 D.' 3 1.20 1.20 1.29 4J:' 2.73
ODD ~ 47 12 20' 0,012 0..7 3 0.00 1.20 1.27 9.04
Pagel
.. ~.
Qd/Qf Old D VI vo Tt
0.030 0.120 1.44 4.92 2,19 0.18
D .... 0.196 2.35 12.89 7.35 0.22
0.219 0.315 3.78 7.18 5.72 0.24
D-'62 0.478 5.74 7.09 7.01 D.06
.. 302 0.376 4.51 15.22 q.31 0.03
D.'" 0.172 2.06 21.Bl 12.081 0.02
0 .... 0..206 2.49 14,51 9,01 0.00
D.458 0.476 5.71 3.48 3.43 0.09
D .... 0.539 6.46 3.48 3.58 0..40
0.169 0,275 3.30 11.52 S.54 0.09
Joe NAf.IE: Petro VIsta
JOBI: 11011
REVISED 11/3/2004
A.. Contt1Mr.o hea (Ac)
Coo Runoff CoeffICient
Tc: TIme of ConcentratIOn (min)
1= Intensity at Tc (In/IY)
d" Diameter of Pipe (lr.)
L= Length Of Pipe eft)
0.. Water Depttl at Qd (in)
FROM
CB6
CB4
COO
CB2
C.I
DITCH
CBID
CBQ
CBS
CB7
TO
CB4
CBJ
C82
C.I
VAULT
CB10
CBQ
DITCH
C87
CB6
X
/"/ ~,
A
005
0.'"
0.21
0.76
0.59
0.'"
0.00
om
300
0.00
100
6.87
2.13
2.06
'.58
19.68
8.71
0'"
0.'"
5.49
110 ,5
BAAGHAUSEN CONSULTING ENGNEERS -PIPE FLOW CALCUtATOR
IJSing the Rotlooal Method & MarY'llrlQ Formula
KING COUNTY DESIGN F~ 100 YEAR STORM
NOTE: ENTER DEFAULTS AND STORM DATA BEFORE BEGINNING
DEFAULTS I C.. 0.71 n... 0.012
d.. 12[ Tc; 6.3
Qd .. DesIgn Flow (cts) COEFFICIENTS FOR THE RATIONAl METHOD 'r"-EQUATION
Qf= Full Copoclty Flow (cis)
Vd::: Velocity at DesIgn FlOw (fps)
Vf .. Velocity at FlAl Flow (fps)
s= Slope of pipe (%)
n., Mannino Roughness Coel'flclenl
Tt .. Travel TIme at Vd (min)
srO>M
2YR
lOYIl
25YR
50VR
lOOYR
AI
158
2.44
2.66
2.75
2.61
d To n c r SUM A r A"C rSUMA·C
24 12 6.3 0.012 0.65 0.05 0.04 0.04
Q9 12 6.5 0.012 0.7 0.<15 02. 0.32
00 12 6.7 0.012 0.7 0.66 0.15 0.47
24 12 6.' 0.012 0.7 1.42 0.53 100
26 12 7.0 Dm2 0.7 2.01 0.41 1.41
13 12 6.3 om2 0 .• 0.5 0.'" 0.'"
269 12 6.3 0.012 0.9 0.5 0.00 0.'"
10 12 6.8 0.012 0.9 0.59 0.06 0."
65 12 200 0.012 0.' 3 120 120
47 " 20' 0012 0.7 3 000 1.20
" 0.58
0.64 PRECIP", 3.'
0.65 A,. 2,61
0.65 ". 0.63
0.63
Qd QI
3.19 0.14 3.B6
3.14 101 10.11
3.06 144 5.63
3.01 3.01 5.56
3.00 4.24 11.94
3.19 '-28 17.12
3.19 1.27 11.39
3.05 1<16 2.73
'" 165 2.73
1.52 I.BJ 9.04
Pooe I
QdlQf Did D VI Vd Tl
.. = .......... "'''' .. ''' .... = ........... -······t
0.035 0.130 156 4.92 2.19 0.18
0.100 0.213 2.56 12.89 8.14 0.20
0.256 0.345 4.14 7.18 6.00 0.23
0.5012 0.524 6.29 7.09 722 0.06
0.J5S 0.411 4.94 15.22 13.94 O.QJ
0.075 0.185 222 21.81 12.43 0.02
0.112 0.227 2.72 14.51 9.51 0.47
0.537 0.521 6.25 3.48 3.53 0.09
0.678 0.602 7.23 3.48 3.73 0.38
0.202 0302 3-62 11.52 8.96 om
,L
, , ,
/ ( •
" ,
X'l'J ~1;'/l(!2tl
ZZZi-1g:(;'/l'
ztOH va '.1HDI
H1nOS 3nIG\V aNti. ;LZB L
/
/ / \
/ / /
I
I :
I
I r:,;~:.!~~ :
:-:-.,,_L I ,
: i ,
,
t ,
c--eo,"i , ,
I ,
I , ,
I ,
,
I
•
11/
~
"'" ¥:' i!: 0-
*' )0£"",\
~V'
.<.;;;;~
«d''!> .;{ ..
,,;,.;p>'" 'r <>:.
:<;' ~."
,i;
~-;:;,.' H~_">'~t>:::: -diP'
w~f.n.YItIn ..
lI',.,~,dt
;:<.>6'011..
\~'";;.
,t';~' ~~~:p
"
.'\--
~
1'40'
fa.., T T
,,;~fj;; ,>-
,-';d\!>;
!l=i«v-~;)t.?;-
.I/~ .. £~.~+
.. "~ ·~~~w·-----·-···
, " .... """
CONVEYANCE AREA MAP
8ECIlCN. TO ...... 21 NORI11.IW«E S EAST', WI..1JIIt.EnE LL
ICNQ ootNTY, Sf Ale OF WAllIiIOlCM
L ··':8
~~l>.;
1):" ,~ ~ 't~~l,~
-'P ,;t¢>' •
~,::;~4#"1-" ,'"
<,¢,~
~""" '
{fl"--'iifrcWiNiii(jjl?~'~'-" ~l-... ~---~~~ ____ --~:---~~~-I ~=~ ~ ~WHl
" ~W'1~T<~~·)
~
,
~ , LNTERCEPTOR DITCH TO
COllECT ~..JeIYEY
l.f'S'TI£AM ~ TO
lllACT 'B',.~
;l¢' ''* ~ I>":W; 7;
I
I
lllACT 'C' ~ ,
BASIN NEA TO ,
DITCH-O.50 AC ~
~
~ ,
-=
• • • • • '" ~ :.... .....
• •
..... '" ..... ..... I '"
-I< ... '" ..... .f ... ..... . ..... .... ..... ,'''' ..... ..... . . . . t . . .
·OftE' te ~et :ran&'
'" -I-'" fl'.: Gres"" .... . . . . t . . . . .
• • • .... .... .... ... .... ,
/ ,/
--.; " ;-~
,/ #"
/ //
//
,
¢;.t~"
~~. ~p. :.:{~ dft-~
1/
~
fi ",,"C" . ,,,",,, ~'
----; ~!
~,-.,p.
o~ A,~~~ .
..... ~
~:,~-5
\, i
';
!
/
I ~i
\L-~. , ,
\ oS11 \ ~ ~ Ida
lUI
III
~ "I hI! i ~d! ~I
,..... _____ ~. 1-i _______ ...;.!'\
"----~-....
COMPUTED BY 6./..W DATED \ dzo t>4,
CHECKED BY DATED ,. I -
PROJECT NO. , \-0/>$ SHEET I OF 8
SUBJECT Lrzk-AJ -L.qAo ~ -'-'--
Earth Consultants Inc.
~1lca\1'J'rgIflt'«I;,,~'''tmvlf\lI\ITI!'r\~oIl5<1f1111!.ti1
PROJECT .... .6 .~\l\-'
1
2
3
•
5
e
7 ,
• {2::. 0"
9
10
11 ,. i q, /, ')( ~,
13
14
15
1.
17
'. ,. To: t:lCl., ::::.J.r Ill' """ ~
20 '). ; I r'),; It:b ,~ rl.
,
21
22 ~ [h :>
23
2. '7,b . -:: '1 b
2. .
28 <5;'.0 , r-, ::J
27
:I~ (' :C r
~'£; < [Q.
·--, r~-"
~ ____________ ~' ~J ________________ ~i~ l ____________ ~
COMPUTEO BY (i,LA,) OATED to /kl/tf r,~
CHECKED BY OATED __:_----:--
PROJECT NO. \ \"1~_ SHEET ~ OF <5
SUa.ECT /a.i;-W-L04a w/ffA-
*~2!!.u}~~~·
PROJECT ~D '\j~?~.
1
2
S
4
G
e
7
8
H-++-l--H-++i-rrT"f~'9"'..o. I. I L.. ~tdA!
I-I-+-t-+-H-r-r-~ '(J.'I) rJ...~ ,=+-f:-U+,±,-t-+~-+~".-t-H""+++-H-H
-+-I--H-r-t-;
8
I 0
11
12
13
14
1&
18
17 1--'\'
18
19
20
21
22 ..
24
2lI
26
Zr
18
28 , S 'I '" II ,:
SO ' .. 1/<O'~. I. _.to-I ~'V;
81
32
33 'C OelTUNN
3.
3&
36
37
38
39 ,
40 ., ~, ~IT J: "-ho. -~~ f rJl~
• 1 '"
" I L. ~., .
, 42 -
43 ~
." t-. -r~ f.; -il. t'<-I-I Y •• t-t-...
I' l't P"I"
r--_____ ....J.rlJ--_______ ....!(~ .. ! ____ -'-_
~ ~. .. .. S?~ul."'t~~,~~. COMPUTED BY EW DATED ~ leA, I ~ ~.~._ _~_ •• ~,, __ ~__ CHECKED BY DATED ____ _
~ PROJECT NO. I \4'75 SHEET ..if-OF 8
PIIOJECT ~ "1 1 'S-r:t;., SUBJECT c>:'Ct<:.-A,) .t..?~ IvIf.4..
1
2
3
4
•
e
7
8
•
10
11 . I.: I t I t~ , 1<
12
13 11: F I ' -~~ I 0 ~ ~
14
I. IF, 1$1 0 ~c;. . ~. ., • 'I I'
18
17 ( 0 0 "j
Ie ,. D., b ,j/
t
20
.:11
F r ... 1)::, ' .1..,. 10 ..,
'.
22
28 .1 I'l-l.. I '/I ~...J,.,d". I ... I I.
Ii!<
2 5 /t?, ~' H l/ /Q I> it I:Gc '10 I"" f'1P rA .. I\.
{l.. 27
ILl) IF f ... '.S I",
G'28 I/( , I~ .b I",
2 e
~SO I~ I~bc 6: 2 t>.1>,[J ~ .6 0') 0 IZ ,'!il
" 1
~ " 2 ~ 11t2.' !l; c· I~ '" h ~. 17 7· Z 7
S 3 ,g 34 t-1~I7' r:r. 1/,4, Z 1-{( b ,3 J rf<' z.. I~ ~
OO II
3 8
7 3 j() 1'0 t<> 1-11 ? 16 D IT t:'R F D -38 , '( I-=< " 166 r~!:-2cJcto
3 , rr.-12 1 '" rr 0 I 'Szs
40 I 2. 11" I" I< o 0 z kto 7 27..
>41 -..
43 t-H-+--+-I--t--.-.. ---t-++-t-H-++·.J--I-W--l--l-·_-t-_.+--l-l--I-+--+-l---l-l
1-. ,..... ·-l'--1-+-~ .... . . -+.-+-+ .... J...-i_. ,.., r' ------+-+-H--+-+-I--+-·I-I-l
4 ..... t-+--.+-t--.-l-'~ .... +--l-I.-+"'+--' -+--1-1-+---\-.... ---t--+-+-+-H-+~--
1
2
3
4
5
e
7
e
8
10
11
12
13
"
18
'" 17
18
19
(
20
21
22
23
.24
25
2EI
27
,I-' _______ ... l. i
~ ~~~~.!~~ .. ~<?. COMPUTED BY EW ..... -DA-:re-D-IO-0~z-V.;..t1--
9n' -~ .-, .. -.. -.... -CHECKED BY DATED -:----
PROJECT ~O -'JIS"TA PROJECT NO. _\140/-5 -SHEET.s..... OF ...J8bl-_
SUBJECT Lock • jJ ~ tol4Q IN4-<1-
-
H-l-.+-l...,!;l ~ ,~ 11""
R (I,Ll -A \ = '.: 17
:'t". -
c c.S '0." • 13D
VA Cf.~ S' I .. ' 11. f '-
HH-++++-t--+-'~(:l ~ . /~ . t a ft.!:=-
-• L ,A<
-
-T1-t-H-++-l-lLl
n IW: {J '" ""H-t-I-+-I-+-1-W-I
7~.', .'?'1 :1
I
14 ,.
18
17' • f'1--I, ,.
19 11-1 ,.
•• ' "0. 20
(e 21 b ~o IU7
22
8 23 ., , ') ...
8 26 < "I 0 'fIlZ
28 g 21 YO / ~Iz
28
"" so
28'
,
,-j , ~------------------
_~2!!.~~E2~·
PROJECT ~\1Z.a \,j \ ~
COMPUTED BY rc: 1-<.)
CHECKED BY _~--::
PROJECT NO. \ \2\t?6
DATED !o/z.VM 'r "", DATED ___ -:-_
SHEETJOF e
29 I-r. ew+-t--:,r., ~ ~::-tl-; ~:::+-
~ ,---/-" ,-,---f---f-r--J----'-of.---+-+-+--+-l--I-+'-+-I--+-t
"r-t-+-r-r---j--I"', i--t---
(
()
_~2~~~!?' COMPUTEO BY tJ.rkJ DATED \~ /2.\lCl~
i 1
CHECkED IY OATED
PROJECT NO. \\~~ SHEET....B.. Of A
PROJECT ,~. ~\Sjf's SUBJECT lAck -tJ -ta~ ~
•
3
4
6
8
7
8
9
0
1
•
13
4
6
•
11
1 •
19
20
'"
23
24
26
26
27
26 ..
30
31
3.
33
34
36
38
37
as
39
<0 .,
1--
--
--
42 t-
43
«
411 f---
"
•
I
.. -
-
-'':' IJ" S-
I 'lJ::l, ,,.. \,
! '
'!. h~. \r
~ tAll
'-I '
"" ... -... --
--
-...
i-i-' ..
,., --'" -l"-
l7" , (--: ~ /.{( ,I{ 'i 'l, • Ii I = N... I~' , i" I . .... , . 'r' "r
,/
'~.-;. -U:>" '2.0 FoiZ:.. ~ ~ ~ IJ./ II /' 'ebd,*--I 'ld.9' ~, <b l~ 1.1>.1
' . I I I .
". ~ ,,.
-
I
--
...
-
. -.. ---,
Collons Engineering. LLC
195 Front Street North • Issaquah, WA 98027
p: (425) 369-1101 • f: (425) 369-1157
Petro Vista Project
Detention Vault I Sand Filter
Project
Location
Contractor
Structural
Petro Vista Project
King County
Bob Ehrlichman
BennetShenman,LLC
2100· 124th Avenue NE, Suite 100
Bellevue, WA 98005
(425) 709·6508
Bryan Collons, P.E., S.E.
Project Number 05·021
Date February 22, 2005
·1
COLLONS ENGINEERING
195 Front Street North· Issaquah, WA 911027
p: 1m) 369·1101 • t (425)369·1157
I' \
<I', 11
/ \.,
pc lif
, \
t t l' t l'
'6
~c :-~ /lICCO _
("t l-rl
w\... .-
"t-
"'O~I Petra Vista YCIIlt
"'D~I"~ 05-021
Dole Ste\cb
By BU:' Shetl
, l.DI I WI J -t-------'t -...---.1"
I
Petro Vista -Permit
Page 2 of 25
l
1 of
Project Information
Petro Vista Project
Detention Vault I Sand Filter
King County
Project Number 05-021
Bob Ehrlichman
Bennel Sherman, LLC
2100 -124th Avenue NE, SUite 100
Bellevue, WA 98005
(425) 709-6508
Geotechnlal Report Reference
E3RA, Inc.
Report No. T04116B. Dated August, 11, 2004.
Vault Geometry
Length
Width Cell 1
Cell 2
Lid Thickness
11600 ft -Interior Dimensions
20.00 ft -Interior Dimensions
20.00 ft -Interior Dimensions
1.04 ft
SOil grade over vault Max. 415.00 ft
415.00 ft
413.00 ft
414.04 ft
407.00 ft
Min.
Under Side of Vault Lid
Top of Vault Lid
Vault Bottom
Soil Cover
Wall Height
H20
240 psf
0.96 ft
6.00 ft
Loading Criteria
AASHTO Loading
Surcharge
Equivalent Loading 110 psf uniform thrust
2.00 ft of additional fill
Geotechnical Design Values
Allowable Soil Bearing
Native Soil 3,500 psf
Struct'l Fill 3,500 psf
E FP acU" Restrained
EFP passive
6 It walls
EFP uniform -seismi
EFP uniform -gravit~
Friction Coetl.
55 pct
250 pet
28 psf
psf
0.35
8 Seismic load of 8 x wall height 11.7. Actual seismic load fact·
Uniform pressure at 0 x wall height. Live load factor = 1.7
Soil Density
Lid Density
Material Strengths
Concrete Walls
Footings
Lid
Reinforcing Steel
0!H)21 Oetn Vault - 6 ft walls.x1s
212t12005
~'~2 PM
120 pcf
85 pcf (85 pcf =HCP, 150 = Concrete)
3,000 psi
3,000 psi
3,000 psi
60,000 psi Petro Vista -Permit
Page 3 of 25
Project Information
Petro Vista Project
Detention Vault f Sand Filter
King County
Bob Ehrlichman
Bennet Sherman, LLC
2100 -124th Avenue NE, Suite 100
Bellevue, W A 98005
(425) 709-6508
Exterior Walls l"~--~-B-"'L
Wall Thickness 8.00
Concrete Strength 3,000
Rebar Grade 60,000
Soil Pressure top 248
base 578
Design Values Service
Moment 1,898
R top 1,075
R bot 1,405
Reinforcing
Horizontal Reinforcing Options:
in
psi
psi
psf
psi
Ib-ft
Ib
Ib
Rho Horiz #4 @ 12 in ole
#5 @ 18 in ole
#6@ 18 in ole
Vertical Reinforcing Options:
#5@ 22
#6@ 32
#7@ 44
#8@ 58
Wall Shear
Footing dowel #5
Slab dowel #5
Shear, Vn, at top of wall
Shear, Vn, at base of wall
in ole
in ole
in olc
in ole
Project Number 05-021
Factored 1 .7
3,226 Ib-It
1,827 Ib
2,388 Ib
rho = 0.0020
rho = 0.0020
rho = 0.0025
6 It walls
Crack Control z -limit to 145 klin
Is [ksi) dc [in] Ac [in2) z [klin]
24 2 88 134 OK
24 2 128 152 no good
24 2 176 169 no good
24 2 232 185 no good
2.15 kips/lt
2.81 kipslft
One-way shear, Vc, with dowels at center of wall
2 of
One-way shear, Vc, with dowels at inside face of wall
Footing dowel shear with friction coefficient = 1.0 & #5 dowel
5.26
7.89
18.60
kipsllt
kips/ft
kipslbar
Wall shear OK
Place #5 footing dowels 2-inches from inside wall face.
Place #5 slab dowels in center of wall.
05-021 Oem Vault - 6 ft walls. xis
212112005
3:32PM
Space dowels at 79 olc max.
Space dowels at 103 olc max.
Petro Vista -Permit
Page 4 of 25
Project Information
Project Number 05-021 Petro Vista Project
Detention Vault / Sand Filter
King County
6 It walls
Bob Ehrlichman
Bennet Sherman, LLC
2100 -124th Avenue NE, Suite 100
Bellevue, WA 98005
(425) 709-6508
Exterior Footing
Footing Thickness
Wall Thickness
Tributary Width
Concrete Strength
Rebar Grade
Design Loads
Dead
Live
10.00 in
8.00 in
10 It
3,000 psi
60,000 psi
Service
Soil 115 psf
Lid 89 psf
Wall
Ftg weight
Soil wedge at heel
Surchal 240 psf
Soil grade over vault
Service
1,227 plf
944 plf
600 plf
242 plf
640 plf
2,560 plf
6,213 plf
Factored
1,717 plf
1,322 plf
840 pit
338 pit
896 plf
4,352 plf
9,466 plf
415 It
Width 1.78 It Use
Soil Bearing
2.00 It
3,106 psf
4,733 psf
Wall Load for Slender Design
Moment
Shear
Service
Factored
1.1 kip-It
1.2 kips
1.4 kips
DL 2,171 pit
LL 2,560 plf
3 of
Mu
Vu
Vn
Vc Shear OK, calculation not required, cone shear failure.
Rei nforci ng
Longitudinal Reinforcing Options:
3 #4
2 #5
1 #6
Transverse Reinforcing Options:
#5@ 83 in olc
#6@ 118 in olc
#7 @ 160 in olc
#8@ 211 in ole
05-021 Detn Vault-6 ft wallS. xis
212112005
3:32 PM
Transverse reinforcing not required. Cone shear failure.
Transverser reinforcing not required. Cone shear failure.
Petro Vista -Permit
Page 5 of 25
Project Information
Petro Vista Project
Detention Vault.' Sand Filter
King County
Bob Ehrlichman
Bennet Sherman, LLC
2100 -124th Avenue NE, Suite 100
Bellevue, WA 98005
(425) 709-6508
Interior Footing
Footing Thickness
Wall Thickness
Tributary Width
Concrete Strength
Rebar Grade
Design Loads
Dead
Live
Width 2.98
12.00 in
10.00 in
20 ft
3,000 psi
60,000 psi
Service
Soil 115 pst
lid 89 pSf
Wall
Ftg weight
Surehal 240 psI
ft Use 3.00
Soil Bearing Service 3,475
Factored 5,365
Moment Mu 3.1 kip-ft
Shear Vu 3.1 kip
Vn 3.7 kip
Vc 11.8 kips -OK
Reinforcing
Longitudinal Reinforcing Options:
4 #4
3 #5
2 #6
Transverse Reinforcing Options:
#5@ 35 in ole
#6@ 50 in olc
#7@ 68 in ole
#8@ 90 in ole
05-021 Delo Vaull· 6 It walls.xls
212112005
3:32PM
Project Number 05-021
6 It walls
Soil grade over vault 415 ft
Service
2,396 plf
1,845 plf
750 plf
435 plf
5,000 plf
10,425 pit
Factored
3,354 plf
2,582 plf
1,050 plf
609 plf
8,500 plf
16,096 plf
ft Wall Load lor Slender Design
psf DL 4,240 plf
psf LL 5,000 plf
4 01
Petro Vista -Permit
Page 6 of 25
Project Information
Petro Vista Project
Detention Vault I Sand Filter
King County
Bob Ehrlichman
Bennet Sherman, LLC
2100 -124th Avenue NE, Suite 100
Bellevue, WA 98005
(425) 709-6508
Buoyancy
Vault Geometry
Length
Width
Lid Thickness
Soil grade over vault
Under Side of Vault Lid
Vault Bottom
Soil Cover
Wall Height
Allowable Water Table
Potential uplift
Walls
Lid
Soil Cover
Footings
Floor 4 in thick
Soil Column 16_00 in proj
Ratio 4.979
Project Number 05-021
117.3 ft -outside dim.
42.2 ft -outside dim.
1.04 ft
415.00 ft
413.00 fI
407.00 ft
0.96 fI
6.0 fI
408.0 fI-FT"'ir e.
307,738 Ib -per fool 01 vault length
191,400 Ib
36,5051b
568,9691b
79,750 Ib
247,378 tb
1,124,002 Ib
perimeter only
perimeter only
6 ft walls
5 of
408,3201b Total am'nt of fig that ext'ds beyond the ext wall face.
Accounts for both sides of the vault.
Accounts for dry soil above ftg drain only.
Set footing drain no higher than Elev. 408.00 fI
Ftoor Slab Net Uplift
SlabWeighl
05-021 Detn Vaull-6 ft walls.xls
212112005
3:32PM
82.9 psI
50.0 pst « Design floor reinforcing lor net uplift »
Petro Vista -Permit
Page 7 of 25
1 of
Project Information
Petro Vista Project
Detention Vault I Sand Filter
King County
Project Number 05-021
Bob Ehrlichman
Bennet Sherman, LLC
2100 -124th Avenue NE. Suite 100
Bellevue. WA 98005
(425) 709-6508
Geotechnial Report Reference
E3Ra. Inc.
Report No. T04116B. Dated August 11,2004.
Vault Geometry
Length
Width
Lid Thickness
Cell 1
Cell 2
116.00
20.00
20.00
1.04
It -Interior Dimensions
It -Interior Dimensions
It -Interior Dimensions
It
Soil grade over vault Max. 415.00 It
415.00 It
413.00 It
414.04 It
402.70 It
Min.
Under Side of Vault Lid
Top of Vault Lid
Vault Bottom
Soil Cover
Wall Height
Loading Criteria
AASHTO Loading
Surcharge
Equivalent Loading
Geotechnical Design Values
Allowable Soil Bearing
H20
0.96 It
10.30 It
240 psf
11 0 psf un iform thrust
2.00 It of additional fill
Native Soil 3.500 psf
Struct'l Fill 3.500 psf
EFP Be". Restrained
EFP passive
10ft walls
EFP uniform -seismi
EFP uniform -gravi\i
Friction Coeff.
55 pcl
250 pcl
48 psf
psf
8 Selsm ic load of 8 x wall height! 1 .7. Actual seism ic load fact·
Uniform pressure 01 a x wall height. Live load factor = 1.7
Soil Density
Lid Density
Material Strengths
Concrete Walls
Footings
Lid
Reinforcing Steel
05-021 Detn Vault· 10ft walls.xls
2121/2005
3:31 PM
0.35
120 pel
85 pel (85 pel=HCP, 150 = Concrete)
3,000 psi
3,000 psi
3.000 psi
60,000 psi
Petro Vista -Permit
Page 8 of 25
Project Information
Petro Vista Project
Detention Vault / Sand Filter
King County
Bob Ehrlichman
Bennet Sherman, LLC
2100 -124th Avenue NE, SUite 100
Bellevue, W A 9B005
(425) 709-650B
Exterior Walls
Wall Thickness 10.00 in
Concrete Strength 3,000 psi
Rebar Grade 60,000 psi
Soil Pressure top 268 psf
base 835 psf
Design Values Service
Moment 7,466 Ib-ft
R top 2,355 Ib
Rbot 3,328 Ib
Reinforcing
Horizontal Reinforcing Options:
Rho Hafiz #4 @ lOin olc
#5@ 15 in ole
#6 @ 22 in ole
Vertical Reinforcing Options:
#5@ 10
#6@ 14
#7@ 19
#8@ 25
Wall Shear
Footing dowel #5
Slab dowel #5
Shear, Vn, at top of wall
Shear, Vn, at base of wall
in ole
in ole
in ole
in ole
Project Number 05-021
Factored 1 .7
12,692 Ib-ft
4,004 Ib
5,657 Ib
rho = 0.0020
rho = 0,0020
rho = 0,0025
10 It walls
Crack Control z -limit to 145 klin
fs [ksi] de [in] Ae [in2] z [klin]
24 2 40 103 OK
24 2 56 116 OK
24 2 76 128 OK
24 2 100 140 OK
4.71 kipslll
6,66 kipslft
One-way shear, Ve, with dowels at center of wall
2 of
One-way shear, Ve, with dowels at inside face of wall
Footing dowel shear with friction coefficient = 1.0 & #5 dowel
6.57 kips/ft
10.52 klps/ft
1B.60 kips/bar
Wall shear OK
Place #5 footing dowels 2-inehes from inside wall face,
Place #5 slab dowels in center of wall.
05-021 Detn Vaull -10 It walts.xls
212112005
3:31 PM
Space dowels at 33 ole max.
Space dowels at 47 ole max.
Petro Vista ~ Permit
Page 9 of 25
Project Information
Petro Vista Project
Detention Vault I Sand Filter
King County
Bob Ehrlichman
Bennet Sherman, LLC
2100 -124th Avenue NE, Suite 100
Bellevue, WA 98005
(425) 709-6508
Exterior Footing
Footing Thickness
Wall Thickness
Tributary Width
Concrete Strength
Rebar Grade
Design Loads
Dead
Live
Width
Soil Bearing
Moment
Shear
Reinforcing
2.18
Soil
lid
Wall
10.00 in
10.00 in
10 It
3,000 psi
60,000 psi
Service
115 psf
89 psf
Ftg weight
Soil wedge at heel
Surchal 240 pst
It Use
Service
Factored
2.50
3,050
4,582
Mu 1,6 kip-It
Vu 1,9 kips
Vn 2,2 kips
Vc 9,2 kips -OK
Longitudinal Reinforcing Options:
3 #4
2 #5
2 #6
Transverse Reinforcing Options:
#5@ 54 in olc
#6 @ 77 in olc
#7 @ 106 in olc
#8 @ 139 in ole
01;-021 Detn Vault ·10 ft walls ,xis
212112005
3:31 PM
3 of
Project Number 05-021
10 ft walls
Soil grade over vault
Service
1,246 pit
959 plf
1,288 pit
302 pit
1,230 pit
2,600 pit
7,625 pit
Factored
1,744 pit
1,343 plf
1,803 pit
423 pit
1,722 plf
4,420 pit
11,454 plf
415 It
It Wall Load tor Slender Design
pst DL
psf LL
2,205 pit
2,600 plf
Petro Vista -Permit
Page 10 of 25
Project Information
Petro Vista Project
Detention Vault / Sand Filter
King County
Bob Ehrlichman
Bennet Sherman, LLC
2100 -124th Avenue NE, Suite 100
Bellevue, WA 98005
(425) 709-6508
Interior Footing
Footing Thickness
Wall Thickness
Tributary Width
Concrete Strength
Rebar Grade
Design Loads
Dead
Live
Width
Soil Bearing
Moment
Shear
Reinforcing
3.15
12.00 in
10.00 in
20 ft
3,000 psi
60,000 psi
Service
Soil 115 psf
Lid 89 psf
Wall
Ftg weight
Surchal 240 psf
ft Use
Service
Factored
3.50
3,153
4,843
Mu 4.3 kip-It
Vu 4.0 kip
Vn 4.7 kip
Vc 11.8 kips -OK
Longitudinal Reinforcing Options:
5 #4
3 #5
3 #6
Transverse Reinforcing Options:
#5@ 25 in olc
#6 @ 36 in ole
#7 @ 50 in olc
#8 @ 66 In ole
05-021 Detn Vault -10 ft walls.xls
2/21/2005
3:31 PM
4 of
Project Number 05-021
10 ft walls
Soil grade over vault
Service
2,396 plf
1,845 plf
1,288 plf
508 plf
5,000 plf
11,035 plf
Factored
3,354 plf
2,582 plf
1,803 plf
711 plf
8,500 plf
16,950 plf
415 It
It Wall Load for Slender Design
psf DL
psf LL
4,240 plf
5,000 plf
Petro Vista -Permit
Page 11 of 25
Project Information
Petro Vista Project
Detention Vault / Sand Filter
King County
Bob Ehrlichman
Bennet Sherman, LLC
2100 -124th Avenue NE, Suite 100
Bellevue, WA 98005
(425) 709-6508
Buoyancy
Vault Geometry
Length
Width
Lid Thickness
Soil grade over vault
Under Side of Vault Lid
Vault Bottom
Soil Cover
Wall Height
Allowable Water Table
Potential uplift
Walls
Lid
Soil Cover
Footings
Floor 4 in thick
Soil Column 20.00 in proj
Ratio 23,39
Project Number 05-021
117.7 ft -outside dim.
42.5 ft -outside dim.
1.04 ft
415,00 ft
413,00 ft
402,70 ft
0,96 ft
10,3 It
403,0 It
93,316 Ib -per foot of vault length
412,429 Ib
36,8991b
575,0961b
120,1251b
250,0421b
1,394,590 Ib
perimeter only
perimeter only
10ftwalls
5 of
788,0201b Total am'nt of Itg that ext'ds beyond the ext wall face.
Accounts for both sides of the vault.
Accounts for dry soil above ftg drain only.
Set footing drain no higher than Elev, 403.00 ft
Floor Slab Net Uplift
Slab Weight
05-021 Deln Vault-l0 It wallS.xls
212112005
?· ... A PU
39.4 psI
50,0 psI No net uplift on floor slab
Petro Vista -Permit
Page 12 of 25
COLLONS ENGINEERING
lIS Front Street North, I"'qua), WA 9ro27
p: (425)369-1101 • t (425)369-1157
Pr,ject Petro Yisto Youll
Pr'left No. 050021
DIll
Err .. S( 41 S (f-"M--
s,1:! 1~t'1I(.. <=' 0, ~~ ~ ..... ~--' ~~\"Sf"
1;,.r Z "bOp~~
~("M\!..-(,U\..< (;\1 _ 1-\= \ l.uo1
'/Df':>F"
Petro Vista -Permit
Page 13 of 25
Ske~h
SIoet
Sliding Restraint
#6@11.ln
@Toe
•
14.00051n Cone wi #5@ 14.ln ole
14.00051n Cone wi #7 @ 7.ln ole
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Designer select 1 '-9"
6'-0" #O@O.in all horlz. rein! 1------"-='~-----_f4_-'-..:...._I
@Heel 7'-9"
1/2"
3"
::J 3"
1'-0"
7'-8"
11'-8"
5'-O~ i
1'-3"
( I'e\r~-Permit
\0 J~age 14 of 25
I
I
12'-8"
Title;
Dsgnr:
Description:
Scope:
Jab #
Date: 4:12PM, 20 FEB 05
"';;;--.'""',,-___________________ -'cc::od~e=_R_'e=_f:_'Ac::C_=_:1 318-02, 1997 UBC, 2003 IBC, 2003 NFPA 5000
[---Rev 580010
User. KW..<J605983. Ver 5.8.0, l-Dec-2003
(c)1983·2003 ENERCALC Engineering Software
Description
I Criteria
Retained Height : 11.67ft
Wall height above soil : 1.00 ft
Slope Behind Wall : 0.00: 1
Height of Soil over Toe : 5.00 in
Soil Densily : 120.00 pet
Wind on Stem = 0.0 psi
I Surcharge Loads
Surcharge Over Heel = 240.0 psf
Used To Resisl Sliding & Overturning
Surcharge Over Toe .:: 0.0 psf
Used for Sliding & Overtuming
Cantilevered Retaining Wall Design Page 1
05·021 petra \lisla,ecw,Cairulatians
• Soil Data
Allow Soli Bearing : 2,500.0 pst
Equivalent Fluid Pressure Method
Heel Active Pressure : 35.0 psflft
Toe AClive Pressure : 0.0 pst/ft
Passive Pressure : 250.0 pstlft
Water height over heel : 1.0 ft
FootingllSoil Friction : 0.300
Soil height to Ignore
for passive pressure : O.OOin
I I Lateral Load Applied to Stem
Lateral Load : 108.0 #/ft
... Height to Top : 11.66 ft
... Height to Bottom 0.00 ft
I
I
I Footing Strengths & Dimensions
Ie : 3,000 psi Fy : 60,000 psi
Min. As % : 0.001'
Toe Widlh : 6.00 ft
Heel Widlh 1.75
Total Footing Width : 1.75
Footing Thickness : 15.00 in
Key Widlh : 0.00 in
Key Deplh : 0.00 in
Key Distance from Toe;;; 5.92 ft
Cover@ Top: 3.00 in @ BIm.: 3.00 in
I Axial Load Applied to Stem I
Axial Oead Load
Axial Live Load ;:::
Axial Load Eccentricity
O.Olbs
0.0 Ibs
0.0 in
I
I Design Summary • Ic.,S""t .. e.m.C""o .. n .. s .. tr .. u .. c .. ti.o.n_ .. ....:.c~~C:----oc=..=------. ----.---I Top Stem 2nd
Stem OK Stem OK
Total Bearing Load == 6,767 lbs
... resultant ecc. 19.54 in
Soil Pressure @Toe : 2,006 psI OK
Soil Pressure @ Heel a psf OK
Allowable : 2,500 pst
Soil Pressure Less Than Allowable
ACI Factored @ Toe : 2,016 pst
ACI Factored @ Heel;; 0 psf
Footing Shear@ Toe 34.0 psi OK
Fooling Shear @ Heel 34.7 psi OK
Allowable : 93.1 psi
Wan Stability Ratios
Overturning
Sliding
:
:
1.55 OK
NlA
Sliding Cales Slab Resisls All Sliding!
Laleral Sliding Force : 5,l94.7Ibs
I Footing Design Results •
~ Heel
2,016 --a-psI Factored Pressure :
Mu': Upward 25,519 0 ft-#
Mu' : Oownward : 5,965 2,334 ft-#
: Mu: Design
Actuall-Way Shear :
19,534 2,334 ft-#
33.96 34.70 psi
Allow 1-Way Shear
Toe Reinforcing
Heel Reinforcing
Key Reinforcing
: 93.11 93.11 psi
: #6@11.00in
: None Spec'd
: None Spec'd
Design height
Wall Material Above "HI"
Thickness
Rebar Size
Rebar Spacing
Rebar Placed al
ft:
:
:
:
:
5.00 0.00
Concrete Concrete
14.00 14.00
# 5 # 7
14.00 7.00
Edge Edge
Design Data -----------.-----------_.
fb/FB + la/Fa : 0.677 0.744
Tolal Force @ Section Ibs;; 3,338.0 7,615.'
Moment. ... Actual ft-# ;; 9,653.1 36,335.5
Momenl.. ... Allowable ft-# : 14,260.3 48,836.4
Shear ..... Actual psi : 22.8 64.9
Shear ..... Allowable psi = 93.1 93.1
Bar Develop ABOVE Ht. in : 21.36 37.36
Bar Lap/Hook BELOW Ht. in : 21.36 9.73
Wall Weighl psi: 169.2 169.2
Rebar Depth 'd' in = 12.19 11.56
M.son~D.m --------------------.----
fm psi:
Fs psi =
Solid Grouting
Special Inspection
Modular Ratio 'n'
Short Term Factor
:
:
:
Equlv. Solid Thick. :
Mason~ Block Type: Normal Weight
Concrete Data
Fe
Fy
psi = 3,000.0
psi: 60,000.0
3,000.0
60,000.0
Other Acceptable Sizes & Spacings
Toe: #4@ 5.25 in, #5@ 6.25 in, #6@ 11.50 In, #7@ 15.75 in, #6@ 20.75 in, #9@ 26.
Heel: Not req'd, Mu < S * Fr
Key: No key defined
Petro Vista -Permit
Page 15 of 25
Title: Job!
Dsgnr: Date: 4:12PM, 20 FEB 05
Description:
Scope :
Code Ref: ACI 316-02, 1997 UBC, 2003 IBC, 2003 NFPA 5000
Rev: 580010 ---
User: KW·0605983. Vee 5.8,0, l-De~-2003
(c)19BJ-2003 ENERCALC Engineering Sollware Cantilevered Retaining Wall Design
Description
Summa!l: of Overturnin~ & Resistin~ Forces & Moments
..... OVERTURNtNG .....
Force Distance Moment
Ilem Ibs ft ft-#
Heel Active Pressure 3,935.4 4.70 18,491.7 Soil Over Heel ,
T 08 Active Pressure , Sloped Soli Over Heel
Surcharge Over Toe , Surcharge Over Heel ,
Adiacent Footing Load , Adjacent Footing Load ,
Added Lateral Load 1,259.3 7.08 8,915.7 Axial Dead Load on Stem,
Load @ Stem Above Soil' 5011 Over Toe ,
SeismicLoad , Surcharge Over Toe ,
Stem Weight(s) ,
Total , 5,194.7 O.T.M. 27.407.4 Earth @StemTransitions=
Reslstlng/Overturnl ng Ratio , 1.55 Footing Weight ,
Vertical Loads used for Soil Pressure ;;; 6,766.9 lb. Key Weight
Vert. Component ,
Vertical component of active pressure used for soil pressure Total'
Page 2
05·021 pelro visI8.ecw:Calculallons
.RESISTING .....
Force Distance Moment
Ibs n ft-#
816.6 7.46 6,090.6
140.0 7.46 1,044.2
0.00
300.0 3.00 900.0
2,142.7 6.58 14,105.9
1.453.1 3.88 5,630.8
5.92
1.914.5 7.75 14,837.3
I
----.. ---~
6,766.9 lb. R.M.'
Petro Vista -Permit
Page 16 of 25
42,60B.B
callaNS ENGINEERING
195 Front Street North • Issaqua~ WA 98027
p: (425) 369·1101 • t (425)369·1157
M; 4.r:,-z... '" \.1
12-"1"~ I ,'2y&r " '1
~~ L. "'>r J-. "1 ~
~
,
Project Petra Vista VCIIlt
Project No, 05-021
DI~
By
4D~ _I" ---;-=s..IH~""",' .1-" ~
fu\i DM Ti69 )
fi.f-1'1) ~
B <; iL-' .0
/0'
A> "'" 41., ... 0 ,"2.. .':/~= O"~n
S'i 1'1-,....,"V
C.ftl..<., 0V1 c; V 1 0
Petro Vista -Permit
Page 17 of 25
Sk.tth
Sheet
r---'-' '--ADAPT-:STRUCTURAL CONCRETE SOFTWARE SYSTEM----,
ADAPT·RC Version 4.01 Date: 212212005 Time: 1 :50:36 PM File: Petra Vista· Mmax
1· PROJECT TITLE Willow Ridge
1.1 DESIGN STRIP 10 Beam· Mmax
I
2 [ftYEMBER ELEVATION9 ___ ._. __ . 10.00 (j I
[---.----.-.-J ~-------~~--------------------. I
3 -TOP REBAR
3.1 User selected
3.2 User selected
3.3 ADAPT selected
3.4 ADAPT selected
5 -BOTTOM REBAR
~ 5.1 User selected
5.2 User selected
5.3 ADAPT selected
5.4 ADAPT selected
.. __ ._-'.-.. -.. I
0211i5X10'Q"
(02#5X11'0·
._-----------------_ .. -
6 -REQUIRED & PROVIDED BARS
6.1 Top Bars
[ in~
required
provided
6.2 Bottom Bars
max
~[l--: i-j-!
max
7 -SHEAR STIRRUPS
7.1 ADAPT selected.
Bar Size #3 Legs: 2
Spacing [in)
0,00 ._ ... --=JI
0.96
9.5 -, -=-~~=-~ ~~:~= -~~ I
I 7.2 User-selected
Bar Size # Legs:
7.3 Required area
pn'lft) ~~[rlllll ! IJ II I 11UD]i
8-LEGEND
9 -DESIGN PARAMETERS
9.1 Code: ACI rc = 4 ks! fy = 60 ksi (longitudinal) f~ = 60 ksi (shear)
I 9.2 Rebar Cover: Top = 1 in Bottom = 1 in Rebar Table: ASTM -US Customary bars (Non-redistributed Moments)
I
10 -DESIGNER'S NOTES l' .. \ loll-
\Jo.J ::P';1i7onO.~it I ~1_:f_25J
ADAPT CORPORATION
STRUCTURAL CONCRETE SOFTWARE SYSTEM
1733 Woodside Road, Suite 220, Redwood City, California 94061
--------------------------------------------------------
ADAPT-RC FOR REINFORCED CONCRETE BEAM/SLAB DESIGN
Version 4.01 AMERICAN (ACI-318-99/UBC-1997)
ADAPT CORPORATION -Structural Concrete Software System
1733 Woodside Road, Suite 220, Redwood City, California 94061
Phone: (650)306-2400, Fax: (650)364-4678
Ema~1.: Support@AdaptSoft.com, Web s~te: http://www.AdaptSoft.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
DATE AND TIME: OF PROGRAM EXECUTION;
?RO.1ECT FILE:
? R 0 J E C T TIT L E:
'r'i":.llow !<.':"dge
1 0 3eam -Mmax
Feb 22,2005 At 7ime: 13:49
Petra Vista -Mmax
1 - G ENE R A L DES 1 G N PAR A MET E R S
CONCRETO::
STRENGT~ at 28 days, for BEAMS/SLABS
for COLUMNS ...•.
1-10DULUS OF ELASTICITY for BEl'.MS/SLABS
for COLUMNS ....
CREEP factor ~or deflections for BEAMS/SLABS
CONCRETE WE I GHT
SEL? W'=::lGHT
REINFOECEMENT:
YTELD Strength ........ .
Min.l.mum Cover at TOP .. .
Minimum Caver at BOTTOM
ANALYSIS OPTIONS USED;
Structural system ..
Moment of Jnertia over support is
F-ffect~ve flange width consideration
4000.00 pS1.
3000.00 pn
4030.00 ks.l.
3122.00 kn
2.00
NORMAL
150.00 pcf
60.00 ksi
1. 00 in
1.00 in
BEAM
NOT INCREASED
NO
2-INPUT G E 0 MET R Y
2.1.1 PRINCIPAL SPAN DATA OF U~IFORM SPANS
--------------------------
S F I I TOP I BOTTOM/MIDDLE I
POI I FLANGE I FLANGE I REF I MULTIPLIER
A RI LENGTH I WIDTH CEPTHI width thick. I w~dth thick. IHEIGHTI left right
N M I ft I 1n 1n I in ~n I in ~n I in I
-1-----3----4-------5-------6-------7------8------9------10----11-----12----13-
1 1 10.00 12.00 20.00 -20.00 .50 .50
LEGEND:
1 -SP.Il,.N 3 -FORM
C = CantIlever Rectangu~ar section
2
3
T or Ie-.ver-ted L sect~on
I section
7
Extended T or L ~ectio~
.Joist
8 = Waffle
11 -Top surface to reference line
2.2 -SUP P 0 R T WID T H AND COL U M N OAT A
SUPPORT
WIDTE
LOWER COL~~N ------>
B[DIA) D CBC·
<------UPPER COLUMN ------>
LENGTH LENGTH 8[0111.) D (3C*
JOINT ~n ft i:1 1.11 ft~.:1. in
--:-------2---------3-------4-------5-----6---------7-------8-------9----10---
1 .00 5.00 24.00 8.00 (2) .00 .00 .00 (1)
2 .CO 5.00 24.00 8.00 (2) .00 .00 .00 (1)
*TH~ COLUMN 30vNDARY CONDITIOK CODES (CBC)
Fixed at boti'. ends ... (STANDARD)
Hinged at near end, f~xed at far· end
Fixed at near end, hinged at far end
Fix~d at near end, roller with rotational fixity at far end
3-INPUT A P ? LIE 0 LOA DIN G
3
<---CLA55--->
D = DEAD LOAD
L = L':::VE LOAD
<--------------TyPE------------------->
v = UNIFORM P = PARTIAL GNIFORM
C = CONCENTRATED
Li'" LINE LOAD
M APPLIED MOMENT
Intensity ( From To , I M or C •.• At) Total OQ Trib
SFAN CLASS TYPE k/ft h 2 I ft fe, (k-ft or k ... ft) k/:t
-4----------5--------6---------7-------8---------9
L C 16.00 5.00
D U .300 .00 10.00
SW U .00 10.00
NOTE: LIVE LOADING is SKIPPED ",·':"th a skip factor of 1.00
3.1 -LOADING AS APPEARS IN USER· S INPUT SCREEN PRIOR. '1"0 I'ROCESS lNG
UNIFORM
(k/ft h 2), ( CON. or ?Il,.RT. ( M C MEN T )
Petro Vista -Permit
Page 19 of 25
Petra Vista -Mmax.doc
.300
.250
lof3
SPAN CLASS TYPE LINE (k!ft) (k@ft or ft-ft ) (k-ft @ ft)
-1-----2------3---------4------------5-------6-----------7-------8------------
L C 16.00 5.00
D U .300
NOTE: SELFWEIGHT INCLUSION REQUIRED
:"1 \IE. LOADING is SKIPPED with a skip factor of 1.00
4-CALCULATED SEC T ION PRO PER TIE S
'-, For Unito~m Spans and Cantilevers only
SB.N AREA Yb Yt
in~2 in~4 in in
-:-------------2----------------3---------------4-------------5-----
240.00 .8000E+04 10.00 10.00
Note:
Span/CantileveL" is NOlcuniform, see block 4.2
5-DEAD LOA D MOM E N T S, SHE A R S REA C T ION S
< ~.1 SPA N MOM E N T S (k-ft) > < 5.2 SPAN SHEARS (k) >
SPAN M(l}" mldspan M(r)'" SHIll SHIrl
--1---------·2---------------3--------------4--------------5-----------6-------
.00 6.BB .00 -2.75 2.75
Note:
= Centerline ~oments
J01 NT <:;.3 REAC:;'IONS (k) > <-5.4 COLUMN MOMENTS (k-ft) ->
__ 1 _______________ 2 ________________ Lower columns----Upper columns-----
1 2.75 .00 .00
2 2.75 .00 .00
6-LIVE LOA D MOMENTS, SHE A R S & REA C TON S
<--6. L I V E LOA J SPAN MOMENTS (k-ft) and SHEAR FORCES (k) -->
<-----lett* -----> <---midspan ---> <----right~ -----> <--SHEAR FORCE-->
SPAN max nun max m,n max
.00 .00 40.00 .00 .00 .00 -8.00 8.00
Note:
CeDterline moments
<-6.2 REACTIONS 1') ->
<---LOWER
6.3 COL'JMN MO~lENTS (k-ft) -------->
COLUMN ---> <---UPPE", COLUMN --->
JOINT max m'" max
-3------------4--
8.00 .00 .00
8.00 .00 .00
min
.00
.00
max
.00
.00
10 -F ACT 0 RED MOMEKTS REA C T ION S
Calculated as ( 1.40D + 1.70L)
10.1 fACTORi:':D DESIGN MOMENTS (k-tt)
<-----le£t~ ------> <----midspan ----> <-----rlght' ----->
SPAN mox mi.n max min max mn
----------3-------
.00 20.40 77.63 9.63 .00 20.40
Note:
face of support
10.2 FACTORED REACTIONS
1')
10.3 FACTORED COLJMN MOMENTS (k-ft)
<--LOWER column --> <--UPPER col'-.lmn -->
JOINT max mln max mln 8ax mln
min
.00
.00
-1----------2----------3-----------q----------5-----------6----------7-----
17.45 3.85 .00 .00 .00 .00
17.45 3.B5 .00 .00 .00 .00
ll-MI.i...D S TEE L
Top baL" extension beyond where required
Botto~ bar extension beyond where requ~red
Il.I-MILD S T =.: F. L TOT A L S T t\ I P
12.001n
12.00 In
11.1.1 TOP STEEL SELECTION AT MID-SPAN BOTTOM STEEL AT MID-SPAN
(in"2) <--SELECTION --> (ln~2) <--SELECTION -->
SPAN (ULT MIN*) NO SIZE LENGTH (ULT ~EN*) NO SIZE LENGTH
--1-------2-------3------4---5------6-----------7-------8------9--10-----11---
( .00 .00) ( .96 .75) <1 * 5 x 10'-0"
11.1.2 TOP STEEL SELECTIO~ AT SUPPORTS BOTTO~l STEEL AT SU?PORTS
(jn~2) <--SELECTION --> (ln~2) <--SELECTION -->
JOINT (ULT MIN*) NO SIZE LENGTH ULi M,W) NO SIZE LENGTH
--1-------2-------3------4---5------6-----------7-------8------9--10-----11---
1 ( .00 .00) ( .00 .00)
2 ( .00 .00) ( .00 .00)
Petro Vista -Permit
Page 20 of 25
Petra Vista -Mmax.doc 2of3
Page 6 (Petra Vista -Mmax) ADAPT-RC V-4.01 ACI
11.1.3 TOTAL WEIGHT OF REBAR 41.7 lb AVERAGE 4.2 psf
Note:
Min w ~ Minimum rebar listed under column 3 and 8 is calculated bast:"d
on eitr.er "rho min = 200/fy" or "1.33*Area of reinforcement for
strength (listed under column 2 and 7)"
Number of bars listed under column 4 1$ based on either area of bar under
colu:an 2 or column 3, whichever is larger.
Number of ~ars listed under column 9 is based on either area of bar under
colu:nn 7 or column a, whichever is larger.
11.4 -S E L E C T ION o F REB A R
11.4.1 STEEL PROVIDED
SPAN ID LOCAT10N NUM BAR LENGTH [ft] AREA [inA2]
----5-------6---------7--------
Notes:
1
2
B
B
2 iI 5 x 11'0·
2 t 5 X 10'0"
Bar location - T ~ Top, B = Bectem.
NUM -Number of ba~s.
.62
.62
Refer to steel dlSpositlon tables and PTsum graphical display for
positioning of bars.
l1.1.2 S'l'EEL DISPOSITION -TOP BARS
_______ 1 ___________ TOP STEEL -----------------1
SPAN 1 1D LOCATION I NUM BAR LENGTH [ft] 1 __ 1 ____ 1 __ 2 ______ 3 _____ 1 ___ 4 ____ 5 ______ 6 _______ 1
11.4.3
-------(
SPA~ 1 1D
--1----1
1 I 1
1 I 2
-------1
PClge 7
STEEL DISPOSITIO~ -BOTTOM BARS
BOTTOM STEEL -----------------1
LOCATION 1 NUM BAR LENGTH [ftll
---3-----1---4----5------6-------1
RIGHT 1 2 I 5 X 11'0" 1
RIGHT 1 2 4 5 x 10'0" 1
---------1-----------------------1
(P~tra Vista -~~ax) ADAPT-RC V-4.01 ACI
12 -SHE A R DESIGN FOR BEAMS AND ONE-WAY SLAB SYSTEMS
LEGEND :
Concrete
d
#3@
Mu , Vu
CASES
SPl-.N
Vc
Av
NORMAL weight (full shear allowed for)
dlStance of compression fiber to centroid of
tens10n rebar
spacings of two-legged it3 stirrups, (fy= 60000. psi)
***** means no stirrups are required
factored moments and shears
1 ACI eqn 11-6 governs
2 mln permissible value of 2(fc}Al/2 governs (ACI eqn 11-3)
3 max permissible value of 3.5(:c)A~/2 governs
no reinforce~ent required
2 min reinforcement required (Acr egn :1-141, for beams only
3 stirrup requlred by ana1ysls (ACr eqn 11-15)
LENGTH 10.00 it (Net spa.n from .00 to :0.00 ft )
X d Vu Mu RATIO Av iI 3@ CAS:SS
X/L ft in k k-ft Vu/iVc inA 21ft in Vc Av R.r:MARKS
--1-----7 -------3 -------4 ----------5-------6------·1---- --8 -----9 -1 0 -- ----11----
.00 .00
.05 .50
.10 .00
.15 L 50
.20 2.00
.25 .50
.30 3.00
.35 3.50
,40 4000
.45 4.50
.50 5.00
.55 5.50
.60 6.00
.65 6.50
.70 7.00
.75 7.5C
.80 B.OC
.85 8.50
.90 9.0e
.95 9.50
.00 10.00
18.69
18.69
18.69
18.69
18.69
18.69
18.69
18.69
18.69
18.69
2.8.69
18.69
18.69
18.69
18.69
:'8.69
:'8.69
18.6'1
2.8.69
:'8.69
18.69
13 -MAXIMUM SPA N
-17.45
-17.07
-16.68
-16.30
-15.91
-15.53
-15.14
-14.76
-14.37
-13.99
13.60
13.99
14.37
14.76
15.14
15.53
15.91
16.30
16.68
17.07
17.45
.00
8.63
17.07
25.31
33.36
41.22
48.89
56.36
63.64
70.73
77.63
70.73
63.64
56.36
48.89
41.22
33.36
25.31
17.07
8.63
.00
.72
.71
.69
.68
.66
.64
.63
.61
.60
.58
.56
.06
.60
.61
.63
.64
.66
.68
.69
.71
.72
D E F LEe T ION S
.12
.12
.12
.12
.12
.12
.12
.12
.12
.12
.12
.12
.12
.12
.12
.12
.12
.12
.12
.12
.12
Concrete's modulus of elastlclty ..... Ec
Creep factor .. K
Values in parentheses are (span/max deflection) ~acios
9.5 (2 2) BEAMS ONl,Y
9.~ (2 2) BEAMS ONLY
9.5 (2 2) BEAMS ONLY
9.5 (2 2) BEAMS ONLY
9.5 (2 2) BEAMS ONLY
9.5 (2 ;:0) BEAMS ONLY
9.5 (2 2) BEAI-IS ONLY
9.5 (2 2) BEAMS ONLY
9.5 (2 2) BEAI'IS ONLY
9.5 (2 2) BEAMS ONLY
9.5 (2 2) BEAMS ONLY
9.5 (2 2) BEAMS ONLY
9.5 (2 2) REAMS ONLY
9.5 (2 2) BEAMS ONLY
9.5 (2 2) BEAMS ONLY
9.5 (2 2) BEAMS ONLY
9. (2 2) BEAMS ONLY
9.5 (2 2) BEAMS ONLY
9. (2 2) BEAMS ONLY
9. (2 2) BEAMS ONLY
9.5 () )) REAMS ONLY
4030.00 bi
.00
<. . . DEFLECTION ARE ALL It-:" inches, DOW~""ARD POSITIVE ....... >
SPAN DL
• CO
DL+CREEP LL
.01 (10441) .03{ 4594)
IJL+LL+CRF.:EP
.041 31901
Petro Vista -Permit
Page 21 of 25
Petra Vista -Mrnax.doc 30f3
I ADAPT· STRUCTURAL CONCRETE SOFTWARE SYSTEM
I ADAPT-RC Version 4.01 Date: 212212005 Time: 1:47:32 PM File: Petra Vista -Vmax
i 1-PROJECT TITLE Petro Vista
I
, 1.1 DESIGN STRIP 10 Beam -Vmax
2 -MEMBER ELEVATION,)
[ft] 'y_______ ---"",,,,0,,-0 __________ _
l
3 -TOP REBAR
3.1 User selected
3.2 User selected
3.3 ADAPT selecled
3.4 ADAPT selecled
5 -BOnOM REBAR
5.1 User selected
5.2 User selected
5.3 ADAPT selected
5.4 ADAPT selecled Q)3/i1SX11'O" ,
CJ ---.. ;-
------_._--------------------------
6 -REQUIRED & PROVIDED BARS
max 0.00 6.1 Top Bars
r In']
required
provided ::f~1 I
01
,---,---, ~ l
6.2 Bottom Bars max 0.75
7 -SHEAR STIRRUPS
7.1 ADAPT selecled. I
Bar Size #3 Legs: 2 ~
Spacing [in] d '.5
7.2 User-selected
Bar Size # Legs:
7.3 Required area
~n'!ft] ~L I 1----. -----]
0.0 ·-'--'----'-----------c.f',----
8 -LEGEND
9 -DESIGN PARAMETERS
9.1 Code: ACI r, = 4 ksi f, = 60 ksl (longitudinal) f, = 60 ksi (shear)
9.2 Rebar Cover: Top = 1 in Botlom = 1 in Rebar Table: ASTM -US Customary bars (Non-redistribuled Moments)
p
10 -DESIGNER'S NOTES 2. .\ f. 'N :p -=-/1oJ'-
~ ..,....:;~p~ ~ ~~ Petro Vista -Permit
'--______________________________________ . __ P_a_ge.220f25
ADAPT CORPORATION
STRUCTURAL CONCRETE SOFTWARE SYSTEM
1733 Woodside Road, Suite 220, Redwood City, California 9~061
ADAPT-RC FOR REINFORCED CONCRETE BEAM/SLAB DESIGN
Version ~.01 AMERICAN (ACI-318-99/UBC-1997)
ADAPT CORPORATION -Structural Concrete Software System
1733 Woodside Road, Suite 220, Redwood City. California 94061
Phone: (650) 306-2400, Fax: (650) 364-4678
Email: Support@AdaptSoft.com, Web site: http://www.AdaptSoft.com
-------------
DATE AND TIME OF PROGRAM EX£CUTION:
PROJf,C'r FTLE:
PROJECT
Pet.lo VJ.sta
10 Bei'lm -Vmax
TIT L E;
Feb 22,2005 At Time: 13:47
Petra Vista -Vmax
1 - G ENE R A L DES I G N PAR A MET E R S
CONCRFTF.:
S'fRENGTH at 28 days, for BEAMS/SLABS
for COLUMNS
MODULUS OF ELASTICEY fo.r BEAMS/SLABS
for COLUMNS .. "
CR~EP factol for deflectlons for BEAMS/SLABS
CONCR~:n: WEIGHT
S::::LF IolEIGRT
REINFORCEMENT:
YIELD St rength
M.i r.imum Cover at TOP ...
Mir.imum Cover at BOTTOM
ANJI.LYS:CS OPTIONS USBO:
Str~cturol system
Moment of Inertia over support. is ....
~:ffective flange width consideration
4000.00 PSl
3000.00 psi
4030.00 ksi
3122.00 ksi
2.00
NORMAL
150.00 pc!
60.00 ksi
1.00 in
1.00 J.n
BEAM
NOT INCREASED
ND
2 - I N P () T G E 0 MET R Y
2.1.1 PRINCIPAL SP~~ DATA OF UNIFORM SPA~S
S F 1 1 TOP 1 BOTTOM/MIDDLE I
P 01 1 FLANGE 1 FLANGE 1 REF) MU~TIPLIER
A RI LENGTH) WIDTH DEPTH) width thick. t width thlCk.IHEIGHTI left right
N M I ft I in In 1 In In I In .L1l I .Lll )
-1-----3----4-------5-------6-------7------8------9------lC----11-----12----13-
1 10.00 12.00 20.00 -20.00 .50 .50
LEGEND:
1 -SPAN
C ... Cantilever Rectanguldr sect.ion
FO:;{M
1 ,
3
T or Inverted L sectlon
I sectlo;';
Extended T or L sect.Lon
Joist
= Waffle
11 -Top surface to reference line
.2 -SUP P 0 R T WID T H AND COL U M ~ D A ']' A
SUPPORT
I-HCTH LENGTH
LOWER COLUMN ------>
B(DIA) D C3C*
<------UPP£~ COLUMN ------>
LENGTH B (DIA) D CSC"
JOINT l.n ft In ln ft. In in
--1-------2---------3-------4-------5-----6---------7-------8-------9----10---
I .00 5.00 24.00 8.00 (2) .00 .00 .00 (1)
2 .00 5.00 24.00 8.00 (2) .OC ,00 .00 (1)
*T",E COLUMN eOCNDARY CONDITION CODES (CBC)
F.Lxed at both ends ... (STANDARD)
H r.ged at near end, fixed at far end = 2
F x~d at near end, hinged at far end ............ 3
F xed at near end, .roller with .rotational fJ.xity at far end ~ 4
3 -1 N PUT
<---CLASS--->
D DEAD LOAD
L = LIVE LOAD
A P P LIE 0 LOA DIN G
U '" UNIFORM
C '" CONCENTRATED
Ll~ LINE LOAD
P
M
PARTIAL UNIFORM
APPI,r:::D MOMENT
Intensity ( From To 1 ( M 0' C ... At) Total on Trib
SPAN CLASS TYP;:; k/ ft ~ 2 ( ft '" (k-ft or k ... ft) k/ft
-4----------5~-------6~--------7-------8---------9
L c 16. CO 2.00
D D .300 .00 10.00 .300
SW D .00 10.00 .250
NOT~: LIVE LOADING is SKIPPED w.Lth a skip factor of 1.00
Petro Vista -Permit
Page 23 of 25
Petra Vista -Vrnax.doc 10f3
3.1 -LOADING AS APPEARS IN USER'S INPUT SCREEN PRIOR TO PROCESSING
UNIFORM
(k/ft~2) r ( CON. or PART. ( MOM E NT)
SPl'.N CLASS TYPE LINE (k/ft) (k@ft or ft-ft ) (k-ft @ ft)
-J-----)------3---------4------------5-------6-----------7-------8------------
L
D
c
u
16.00
.300
~OTE; SELf WEIGHT INCLUSION REQUIRED
2.00
LIVE l.OADING ~s SKIPPED with a skip factor at 1. 00
4 CALCULATED SECTION PRO PER T E S
--==~~-=~=========================~-~=====-~===============~==================
4.1
SPAN
!<int.e;
for Uniform Spans and Cantilevers only
AREA
:cn"2
240.00
in"4
. 8000E+04
Yb
in
10.00
Span/Cantilever is Nonuniform, see block 4.2
Yt
H •
10.00
J E A D LOA D MOM E N T S, SHE A R S & REA C T ION S
---=-===================================~=~-=================~==============
<5.1SPAN MOM E N T S (k-ft) >
midspan M(r)*
< 5.2 SPAN SHEARS (k) >
SPj\N !'1(1)" SHell SH(r)
.00 6.88 .00 -2.75 2.75
Note:
Centerline momen~s
<-5.4 COLUMN MOMENTS (k-ft) ->
---------------2----------------Lower colurnns----Upper columns-----
JO:NT < '5.3 REACTIONS (k)
6-LIVE
.75
.75
LOA D MOM E N T S,
.00 .00
. 00 .00
SHEARS REA C T ION S
~==-==~~=~~=~~=======~~=~~===========~~===================~==~===============~
<--6. L I V E LOA D SPAN MOMENTS (k-ft) and SHEAR FORCES (k) -->
<-----left* -----> <---mldspan ---> <----right* -----> <--SHEAR FORCE-->
SP/I.N max min max min max ml.n left rl.ght
-1-------2---------3--------4--------5---------6---------7--------8--------9--
1 .00 .00 20.80 .00 .00 .00 -12.80 3.20
Not_e:
C~llterll.ne moments
<-6.2 R8ACTIONS (k) -> <--------6.3 COLUMN MOMENTS (k-ft)
<---LOW:::R COLUMt\ ---> <---UPPER COLUMN --->
JOINT mox min max min max min
2
12.80
3.20
10 - F ACT 0 RED
.00
.00
MOMEN':rS
Calculated as ( 1.400 + 1.70L)
10.1 FACTORED DESIGN MOMENTS (k-ft)
.00
.00
.00
.00
REA C T ION S
.00
.00
<-----1eft* ------> <----midspan ----> <-----~ight· ----->
SP:IIN max min mox m'-~ max me
-1----------2----------3-----------4----------5-----------6-
.00 32.64 44.99 9.63 .00 8.16
Note:
face of support
10.2 FACTORED REACTIONS 10.3 FACTORED COLUMt.J MOMEN7S (k-ft)
(k) <--LOWER column --> <--UPPER column -->
JOINT max mln max nlln max "'; n
.00
.00
----------5-----------6----------7-----
25.61
9.29
3.85
3.85
. 00
.00
ll-MILD S TEE L
Top bar extension beyond where required
Bottom bar extension beyond where required
ll.l-MILD S TEE L TOT A L
~1.:' .
SPAN
TOP STEEL SELECTION AT MID-SPAN
(in"'2)
ULT MIN*l
<--SELECTION -->
NO SIZE LENGTH
--1-------2-------3------4---5------6--
.00 .00)
ll.1.2 TOP STEEL SELECTION AT SUPPORTS
.00
.00
S T R I
.00
.00
12.00 ~n
1:::'.00 In
.00
.00
EOTTOM ST:O:EL AT !1Il)-SPAN
(in"21 <--SKSZCTION -->
OLT MIN~) NO SIZ~ LENGTH
7-------8------9--10-----11---
.61 .75) 3 Ii 5 X 10'-0"
B07TOM STEEL AT SUPPORTS
(In''2) <--SELEC'l'ION --> (in~2) <--SELECTION -->
JOINT (U~T MIN*) NO SIZE LENGTH ULT MIN·) NO SIZE LENGTH
--1-------2-------J------4---S------6-----------7-------8------9--10-----11---
( .00 .00) ( .00 .aO)
( .00 .00) ( .00 .00)
Petro Vista -Permit
Page 24 of 25
Petra Vista -Vmax.doc 20f3
Page (Petra Vista -Vmax) ADAPT-RC V-4.01 Acr
11.1.3 TOTAL WEIGHT OF REBAR 31. 3 lb AVERAGE 3.1 psf
Note:
Min" Minlmum rebar listed under column 3 and 8 is calculated based
on <:>iLher "xho m1.n = 200/fy" or "1.33"Area of reinforcement for
strength (l~sted under column 2 and 7)"
N~mber of bars listed under column 4 is based on elther area of bar under
column 2 or column 3, whichever is larger.
Number of bars listed under column 9 is based on either area of bal' under
column 7 or column 8, whichever is larger.
11.4 -S E L E C T ION o , REB A R
11. 4..1 STEEL PROVIDED
SPAN JJ LOCATION NUM BAR LENGTH [ft) AREA [in~21
--1----2-----3------4----5-------6---------7----------
B 3 # 5 x 11'0" 0.93
Nvtes;
Bar location - T Top, B Bottom.
NUM -~umber ot bars.
Refer to steel disposition tables and PTsum graphical display for
positioning of bars.
L.4.2 STEEL DISPOSITION -'rop BARS
-------1-----------TOP STEEL -----------------1
SPAN 1 1D LOCA~ION 1 NOM BAR LENGTH [ftll
--1----1--2------3-----1---4----5------6-------1
11.4.3 STEEL DISPOSITION -BOTTOM BARS
-------j--------BOTTOM STEEL -----------------1
SPAN ID LOCATION 1 NUM BAR LENGTH ~ttll
--1----.--2------3-----1---4----5------6-------1
1 1 RIGHT 1 3 H 5 x 11'0" 1
-------1---------------1-----------------------1
Page (Petra Vista -Vmax) ADAPT-RC V-4.01 AC!
12 -SHE A R
LEGEND
Conc::rete
d
!3@
Mu , Vu
CAS,.;S Vc
Av
DES I G N FOR BEAMS AND ONE-WAY S:AB SYSTEMS
NORM.i\L weight (full shear allowed tor)
d1.stance of compression fiber to cent~oid of
tension rebar
spacings of two-legged #3 stirrups, (fy= 60000. psi)
",,*** means no stjrrups are required
factored moments and shears
1 ACI eqn 11-6 governs
2 min permissible value of 2(fc)~1/2 governs (ACI eqn 11-3)
3 max permissible value of 3.S(fc)A1/2 governs
no reinforcement regulred
min reinforcement required {ACI egn 11-14), for Deam~ only
stirrup requlred by analysls (ACI egn 11-15)
SPA:-.! '"' LENGTH 10.00 ft (Net span :rom .00 to 10.00 ft 1
X d Vu Mu RATIO iW it 3@ CASES
X/L ft ~n k x-ft V·,;./iVc 1n~2/tt 1n VC Av REMARKS
--1-----2-------3-------4----------5-------6------7------8-----9-10------11----
.00 .00
.05 . SO
.10 1.00
.15 1.50
.20 2.00
.25 2.50
.30 3.00
.35 3.50
.40 4.00
.45 LSD
.50 5.00
.55 5.50
.60 6.00
.65 6.50
.70 7.0C
.75 7.50
.80 .00
.85 .50
.90 9.00
.9:0 9.50
1.00 10.00
18.69
18.69
18.69
1S.69
18.69
18.69
18.69
18.69
18.69
18.69
18.69
18.69
18.69
18.69
18.69
l8.69
is.69
18.69
18.69
18.69
18.69
-25.61
-25.23
-24.84
-24.45
3.13
3.52
3.90
4. 28
4. 67
5.06
5.44
5.82
6.21
6.60
6.98
.36
.75
8.14
8.52
8.90
9.29
.00
12.71
25.23
37.55
19.68
48.02
46.17
14.12
41. 88
39.45
36.83
34.01
31.00
27.80
24.41
20.82
17.04
13.07
8.91
.55
.00
1. 0 6
1. 05
1. 03
.01
.13
.15
.16
.1 B
.19
.21
.23
.24
.26
.27
.29
.31
.32
.34
.35
.37
.39
.12
.12
.12
.12
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.OC
.00
.00
_ 00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
;1.5 (2 3)
9.5 (2 3)
9.5 (2 3)
9.5 (1 3)
(2 1)
12 1 )
(2 1)
(2 1)
(2 1)
(2 1)
(2 1)
(2 1)
(2 1 )
(2 1)
(2 11
(2 II
(2 11
(2 11
(2 11
(2 11
(2 II
13 -MAXIMUM SPA N D E F L E C T ION S
C~ncrete's modulus of elasticity ~c = 4030.00 kSl
Creep factor :'" 2.00
Values in parentheses are (span/max deflection) ratios
< ..••. DEFLECTION ARE ALL IN incr.es, DOW}l\~"RD POSITIVE ....... >
SPAN DL DL+CREEP lL :JL+L:!..+CREEP
-1--------2--------------------4---------------5---------------6-----
.00 .01(10441) .01 (116C7) .02( 5496)
Petro Vista· Permit
Page 25 of 25
Petra Vista -Vrnax.doc 30f3
SEE
DRAWINGS)
Mr. Mark Follmer, P.E.
King County
Department of Development
and Environmental Services
Engineering Review Section
900 Oakesdale Avenue S.W.
Renton, WA 98055-1219
CIVIL ENGINEER,NG, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
March 25, 2005
COURIER DELIVERY
RE: Response to Second Review Comments for Engineering Plans
Plat of Petro Vista
King County Project No. L02POO12
Our Job No. 11011
Dear Mr. Follmer:
We have revised the plans and Technical Information Report (TIR) for the above-referenced project in
accordance with the your comment sheet dated March 9, 2005. Enclosed are the following documents for
your review and approval.
1. Two sets of revised engineering plans
2. Two copies of the Storm Filter Sizing Calculations
The following outline provides each of your comments in italics exactly as written, along with a narrative
response describing how each comment was addressed:
General Comments
A revised preliminary plat matching the current lot configuration is required.
Response: We are currently preparing revised preliminary plat documents that will be submitted
to Fereshteh Dehkordi for her review and approval. A copy of these documents will be submitted
to you for your use as wen.
Engineering Plans
Sheet C4
Show fences on plan for rockery in Tract D and along //8h Ave. SE.
Response: Fences have been shown on the plans in this location as required.
Rockery heights in setback areas shall not exceed 6 feet. Reference: King County Code
21A. 12. 170. Setbacks apply in tracts. , I' h ., l ('7 I
1//-11 17 / tJ5!'! r j J
Response: The previously proposed slope Tract 'D' his' been removed from the plans. We have
also revised the proposed rockery so that it does not exceed 6 feet in height.
18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251'6222 (425) 251·8782 FAX
BRANCH OFFICES • OLYMPIA, WA • TEMECULA, CA • WALNUT CREEK, CA
www.barghausen.com
Mr. Mark Follmer, P.E.
King County
Department of Development
and Environmental Services
Engineering Review Section
SheetC5
Add Plan Note: Per KCRS Section 4.01 F:
-2-March 25, 2005
A I inch full width overlay shall be required. The overlay may be waived only after an
evaluation of pavement conditions or channelization requirements has been completed and
approved by the County Road Engineer or Development Engineer. If road suiface failures
are present, all appropriate repairs to the existing subgrade, base material and suifacing
shall be made prior to placing the overlay.
Response: This note has been added to Sheet C5 of the plans as requested.
The split railfence atop the lot 13 Lock+Load Wall will not be adequate -use a chain linkfence
or pipe handrail.
Response: Our intent was to show a chain-link fence in this location; however, the note was
incorrect. The note has been revised to specify a chain-link fence as required.
Sheet C6
Submit technical data for streetlight!s) proposedfor illuminating the sag curve.
Response: The proposed streetlights have been shown on Sheet C5 of the plans. We have added
light specifications that meet the requirements noted in the April 27, 1994 memo from Paulette
Norman. As we discussed by phone, this will be satisfactory for the street light~.
SheetC7
Provide access at the wet vault flow restrictor separate from the 5 x 10 grate.
Response: The 5 x 10 access grate will be equipped with a minimum 24-inch square opening to
provide easier access for maintenance inspections. This is being done to eliminate the number of
openings through the top of the vault.
Provide vehicle access across the top of the sand filter to reach the removable grates. Provide
access to each of the detention vault cells via the removable grates at the south end of the vault.
Response: Vehicle access roads have been provided across the top of the sand filter to serve each
of the removable grates. We have also provided an access road to the removable grates at the
south end of the detention and water quality vault as requested. S;c::.0'" f COu.". f-,.,., '" y f, 0 r
be fi-.Q $ , b lit hi'""-L
Fill cannot be placed on top of the removable sand filter lid, but can be placed on top of the
water quality and flow control cells of the vault. All access points and ventilation grates must
remain unobstructed, and to grade
Response: The sand filter has been revised so that the lids are exposed at the surface, as required
for future maintenance. All access points have remained unobstructed and at grade.
Mr. Mark Follmer, P.E.
King County
Department of Development
and Environmental Services
Engineering Review Section -3-March 25, 2005
Provide an opening in the center divider wall that is the full width and height of the wetpool.
Eliminate the two 12" pipes through the center wall.
Response: We have removed the two 12-inch pipes and provided a 20-foot-wide opening in the
center divider wall as required.
The gravity drain shall be controlled with a gate valve, not a shear gate.
~: As we discussed by phone, Item 4.d on page 6-82 of the King County Surface Water
Design Manual allows the use of a shear gate on the upstream end of the maintenance drain. So,
rather than add additional access manhole with a gate valve, we are proposing to keep the shear
gate as shown on the plans.
Submit storm filter vault sizing calculations. Provide manufacturer's recommendations for the
leaf compost filter design capacity.
Response: These calculations have been included in the submittal package for your review as
requested.
We believe that the above responses, together with the enclosed revised plans and Technical Information
Report, address all of the comments contained in your comment sheet dated March 9, 2005. Please
review and approve the enclosed at your earliest convenience. If you have questions or need additional
information, please do not hesitate to contact me at this office. Thank you.
Respectfully,
If) h t !JUA;P~
DD/dmltep
lI011c.012.doc
enc: As Noted
Don Dawes
Project Engineer
cc: Mr. Bob Ehrlichrnan, Bennett Sherman, LLC (w/enc)
Mr. Todd Sherman, Bennett Sherman, LLC
Mr. Hal P. Grubb, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. (w/enc)
C4,.
COM[ RAIN, W[ 5HIH[.~ !STORMWA~~
"" .......... f"".JjT INC.
Determining Number of Cartridges for Systems Downstream of Detention
Project::
Location:
Step 1
StoP 2
Stop 3
Stop 4
Step 5
Step 6
Stop 7
Step 8
Petro Vista
Renton, WA
Date:
8MI Engr.:
Determine maximum release rate from detention
Qrelease peak (CfS)
Determine treatment release rate from detention
QreleBSe treat (cfs)
Input the percentage of pollutant removel required
Agency %
calCulate pretreatment removal efficiency using FHWA method
Volume of settling basin, Vb (ft.j)
Runoff Volume, Vr (ft.j)
Ratio of Vb/Vr
Depth of water in basin. H (ft)
Pretreatment Efficiency, EJ)fe
(not to exceed 50%. see attached graph)
calculate the annual mass load
Mean Annual Rainfall, P (in)
Site Area. A (acres)
Impervious Area (acres)
Percent Impervious (%)
Composite Runoff Coefficient, C
Percent Runoff capture
Mean Annual Runoff,V, (ft.j)
Event Mean Concentration of Pollutant, EMC (mgll)
Annual Mass Load, M lotal (Ibs)
Calculate the number of cartridges on 8 mass-loadlng basis
Mass removed by pretreatment system, M PIe (Ibs)
Mass load to filters after pretreatment, M passl (Ibs)
Estimate the required filter efficiency, E!lher
Mass to be captured by filters, M fiher (Ibs)
Allowable cartridge Flow rate, Qcart(gpm)
Check that Qcan can meet Efiher
Mass load per cartridge, M cart (Ibs)
Number of Cartridges required. N mass
Treatment Capacity (ets)
Oetennlne Critical Sizing Value
Number of Cartridges using Qre!easetrellt' Nnow
Chose Method With Most Number of Cartridges
Method to Use:
SUMMARY
Treatment Flow Rate
Cartridge Flow Rate
Number of cartridges
February 24, 2005
JHR
1.7
0.043
80%
#VALUEI
50%
38
2.22
1.43
64
0.63
90%
173,556
60
649.69
324.85
324.85
60%
194.91
7.5
OK
36
6
0.10
3
MASS-LOAOING
0.10
7.5
6
Page 1
COMf RAIN, WE SHDH:"
Determining Number of cartridges for Systems Downstream of Detention
Project:
Location:
Step 1
SteP 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5
Step 6
Step 7
StepS
Petro Vista
Renton, WA
Date:
SMI Engr.:
Oetennine maximum release rate from detention
Qreleasepea~ (efs)
Oetennine treatment release rate from detention
Qrele~58 treat (efs)
Input the percentage of pollutant removal required
Agency %
Calculate pretreatment removal efficiency using FHWA method
Volume of settling basin, Vb (ft.i)
Runoff Volume, Vr (ft.i)
Ratio of Vb/Vr
Depth of water in basin, H (tt)
Pretreatment Efficiency, E~'8
(not to exceed 50%, see attached graph)
Calculate the annual mass load
Mean Annual Rainfall, P (in)
Site Area, A (acres)
Impervious Area (acres)
Percent Impervious (%)
Composite Runoff Coefficient, C
Percent Runoff Capture
Mean Annual Runoff,VI (tt;;)
Event Mean Concentration of Pollutant. EMC (mg/I)
Annual Mass Load, Mtat8l (lbs)
Calculate the number of cartridges on a mass-loading basis
Mass removed by pretreatment system, M pre (lbS)
Mass load to filters after pretreatment, M passi (Ibs)
Estimate the required filter efficiency, EMer
Mass to be captured by filters, MMe, (Ibs)
Allowable Cartridge Flow rate, Qcart(gpm)
Check that Qcart can meet Ell",",
Mass load per cartridge, M cart (Ibs)
Number of Cartridges required. N mass
Treatment Capacity (efs)
Determine Critical Sizing Value
Number of Cartridges using Qr~easet,eai' Ntlow
Chose Method With Most Number of Cartridges
Method to Use:
SUMMARY
Treatment Flow Rate
cartridge Flow Rate
Number of Cartridges
February 24, 2005
JHR
1.7
0.043
80%
#VAlUE!
50%
38
2.22
1.43
64
0.63
90%
173.556
60
649.69
324.85
324.85
60%
194.91
7.5
OK
36
6
0.10
3
MASS-LOADING
0.10
7.5
6
Page 1
®
King County
Department of Development
and Environmental Services
Land Use Services Division
900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest
Renton, Washington 98055-1219
(206) 296-6600
. Cover.heet
Alternative formats available
upon request
Drop-Off Cover Sheet for Land Use Services Division
***********************IMPORTANT***********************
PROJECT NUMBER AND NAME IS NECESSARY
FOR ALL DROP-OFFS
Project No.:
Project Name:
FROM:
TO:
L02P0012/ L04SR074
Petro Vista
Don Dawes, Barghausen Engineers
Company Name / Contact Person
Telephone No. (425) 251-6222
Mark Follmer
Date Received by LUSD
10) iE cC IE II ~§ ~. rDl
'fU MAR 2 8 Z005 ~.
K.C. D.D.E.S
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUESTED BY KING COUNTY STAFF (please print)
Short Plat I Plats
Please specify item(s) dropped-off:
2 sets revised engineering plans: 2 copies storm filter sizing calcs
Lot Line Adjustment Permit
Please specify item(s) dropped-off:
Right of Way Permit
Please specify item(s) dropped-off:
Clearing I Grading Permit
Additional information requested; please specify item(s) dropped off:
y .....
Other: ______________________________________________________________________ ___
PLEASE NOTE: All drop-off item(s) will be logged into the computer under the project number, therefore, it is
important that the top portion of this form is completed properly before you drop-off anything. Assistance in finding a
project number can be provided by speaking to a Land Use Services Division Person of the Day (POD) or the
Zoning/Land Use Technician. Your cooperation is important. Thank you.
LUSD Drop-Off Cover Sheet Ig·cvs-dropoff.pdf 05-30-2002Page 1 of 1
®
King County
Department of Development
and Environmental Services
900 Oakesdale Avenue SW
Renton, WA 98055-1219
March 17, 2005
Don Dawes
Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc,
18215 nnd Avenue South
Kent, W A 98032
RE: Petro Vista Recreation Plan, KC File No, L04MI074
Subdivision File No. L02POOl2
Dear Mr. Dawes:
I have reviewed the recreation plan submitted December 17,2004 for the above referred
subdivision. It appears that the proposal has changed from what was proposed and approved
by the King County Examiner on April 30, 2004. The proposed revision such as reduction of
number of lots and shifting the lot lines constitute a minor change which will not require
opening of the public hearing records. However it requires a subdivision revision approval
which must be reviewed and approved by the King County LUSD. Please submit five copies
of a subdivision revision with appropriate fee (see attached).
The review of the recreation plan will be "on hold" pending the approval of the revision. If
you have any questions regarding this letter, please call me at (206) 296-7173.
Sincerely,
Fereshteh Dehkordi, ProjectlProgram Manager
Current Planning Section
Enclosure
Cc: Kim Claussen, Project Manger III
Mark Follmer, Engineer, Engineering Review Section
DDES 2005 Fee Estimate Detail-DDES, King County Washington
Search ® King County ~ ~ Ci'!i'@t.G.I!l!.II§'
Department of Development and E,nvironmental Service •
• DOES Homepage
Summary of Estimated Permit Fees
Effective January 1, 2005
Plat Revision
Revisions made to preliminary plat
approval
Go to Index
POTENTIAL PROCESSING FEE DETAIL:
Attention:
The following sample fees for 2005
are examples only. Actual fees
depend upon services required and
length of review. Current hourly
charges are $144.90/hour. Sample
fees may be rounded to the nearest
dollar.
This permit/review process may be subject to Project Management.
Average: Small to medium-scale project with limited revisions which involves standard review
by multiple staff and typically requires staff to review critical areas or other special studies.
Large/Complex: A difficult or large project with one or more substantive issues to be resolved
involving multiple staff; may require review of critical area and/or other special or technical
studies; and, may require legal research.
Service
Counter Service Fee (fixed)
Land Use/Planning Review (hourly)
Engineering Review (hourly)
Estimated Total
Updated: December 31,2004
Average
$103
$1,449
$725
$2,277
...... .-...... ....... _ .................................................... _ ............................. .
Large/Complex
$103
$2,898
$1,450
$4,451-
Top of Page
King,,Cou.n!y I DOES I News I Services I Comments I Search
Links to extemal sites do not constitute endorsements by King County.
By visiting this and other King County Web pages,
you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site.
The details.
http://appsOl.metrokc.gov/www/ddes/scripts/fee2004-2.cfin?key _ val= IS
Page 1 of I
03/16/2005
, ,
t+-·
"
...
. ,.
! , ,
, ,
:l
:'
'"
..
QC
CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
TO: Mark Follmer DATE: March 8, 2005
King County DDES SENT VIA: Courier Delivery
900 Oakesdale Avenue S.W. OUR JOB: 11011
Renton, W A 98055
RE: Petro Vista
King County Project No. L02POO 12
Quantity Date Description
1 Set Significant Tree Replacement, Street Trees, and Recreation Landscape Plans (Ll -L3 of 3)
Enclosed is another set of street tree plans, per your request.
-R 510-(j~-
AJCJj/I/( (J
Signed:
Don Dawes
Project Engineer
18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT. WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 (425) 251-8782 FAX
BRANCH OFFICES • OLYMPIA. WA • TEMECULA. CA • WALNUT CREEK. CA
www.barghausen.com llOllt.OlI.doc
King County
Department of Development
and Environmental Services
Land Use Services Division
900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest
Renton, Washington 98055-1219
(206) 296-6600
Alternative formats available
upon request
Drop-Off Cover Sheet for Land Use Services Division
***********************IMPORTANT***********************
PROJECT NUMBER AND NAME IS NECESSARY
FOR ALL DROP-OFFS
Project No,:
Project Name:
FROM:
TO:
L02P0012
Petro Vista
Don Dawes, Barghausen Engineers
Company Name I Contact Person
Telephone No. (425) 251-6222
Mark Follmer
Date Received by LUSD
~~CC~[1W~'lQ)
MAR 0 9 2005 '
K.C. D.D.E.S.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUESTED BY KING COUNTY STAFF (please print)
Short Plat I Plats
Please specify item(s) dropped-off:
1 set of street tree plans
Lot Line Adjustment Permit
Please specify item(s) dropped-off:
Right of Way Permit
Please specify item(s) dropped-off:
Clearing I Grading Permit
Additional information requested; please specify item(s) dropped off:
Other: __________________________________________________________________________ ___
PLEASE NOTE: All drop-off item(s) will be logged into the computer under the project number. therefore. it is
important that the top portion of this form is completed properly before you drop-off anything. Assistance in finding a
project number can be provided by speaking to a Land Use Services Division Person of the Day (POD) or the
Zoning/Land Use Technician. Your cooperation is important. Thank you.
LUSD Drop-Off Cover Sheet Ig-cvs·dropoff.pdf 05·30-2002Page 1 of 1
®
King County
Department of Development
and Environmental Services
900 Oakesdale Avenue SW
Renton, WA 98055-1219
March 9, 2005
Bob Ehrlichman
Bennett Sherman, LLC
12011 NE 1st St., Ste. 201
Bellevue, W A 98005
RE: Review Comments
Project Name: Petro Vista
Activity Number: L04SR074
Dear Mr. Ehrlichman:
Our office has completed a second review of engineering plans for Petro Vista. The attached
list provides a summary of design issues which must be addressed in your next submittal. We
based our review comments upon the design plans and technical information report received
February 9, 2005 and supplemental information received from Don Dawes on March 4.
Structural plans for the vaults and walls, the recreation plan, the tree retention plan, and the
street tree plan arc in the review process.
Once these review comments have been addressed, please submit 2 sets of revised plans and
two Technical Information Reports. To assist in reviewing the revised plans, the design
engineer should prepare a written response for each issue identified in the attached comments.
If you have questions regarding the design requirements for the project, please contact me at
206-296-7039.
41:t~
Mark Follmer, P.E.
Engineer
Enclosure
cc: Hal Grubb
Review Comments
Project Name: Petro Vista
Page I of I
General Comments
March 9, 2004
Project Number: L02POOl2
A revised preliminary plat matching the current lot configuration is required.
Engineering Plans
Sheet C4
Show fences on plan for rockery in Tract D and along 118 th Ave. SE.
Rockery heights in setback areas shall not exceed 6 feet. Reference: King County Code
2IA.12.l70. Setbacks apply in tracts.
Sheet C5
Add Plan Note: Per KCRS Section 4.0IF:
A I inch full width overlay shall be required. The overlay may be waived only after
an evaluation of pavement conditions or channelization requirements has been
completed and approved by the County Road Engineer or Development Engineer. If
road surface failures are present, all appropriate repairs to the existing subgrade, base
material and surfacing shall be made prior to placing the overlay.
The split rail fence atop the lot 13 Lock+Load Wall will not be adequate -use a chain link
fence or pipe handrail.
Sheet C6
Submit technical data for streetlight(s) proposed for illuminating the sag curve.
Sheet C7
Provide access at the wet vault flow restrictor separate from the 5 x 10 grate.
Provide vehicle access across the top of the sand filter to reach the removable grates. Provide
access to each of the detention vault cells via the removable grates at the south end of the
vault.
Fill cannot be placed on top of the removable sand filter lid, but can be placed on top of the
water quality and flow control cells of the vault. All access points and ventilation grates must
remain unobstructed, and to grade
Provide an opening in the center divider wall that is the full width and height of the wetpool.
Eliminate the two 12" pipes through the center wall.
The gravity drain shall be controlled with a gate valve, not a shear gate.
Submit storrnfilter vault sizing calculations. Provide manufacturer's recommendations for
the leaf compost filter design capacity.
King County
Roads and EngineeMng Olvision
Deo...'lftrnem of
Public Works
¥Csler BUilding m 'tesler w .. v Room 400
Seattle, y,u.. £1810".263i
April 27, 1994
TO: Gary Kohler. Manager, Land Use Services Division
Department of Development and Environmental Services (DDES)
TTN: Jim Sanders. P.E .• Development Engineer
VI .loyd Neal. P.E., Traffic Engineer. Traffic and Planning Section
RECEfVr=O
v\! \: ~:i 'j,. j"\'
~J\J'~~) ;JS[ ~;LF:\/,CLS'
FJ\. 1ulette Norman P.E .. Development Review Engineer
RE~eCifiCQtions for IIIuminRtion of Sag Curves on Residential Streets
King County's illumination requirements on arterial streets differ from those required by Puget
Power for residential streets. Section 2.12C, oftlle 1993 King County Road Standards, alJows
DDES to approve illumination as a means of mitigating deficient sag vertical curves for night
time conditions.
In an effort to eliminate inconsistencies in illumination designs. this office met with Puget Power
regarding criteria for illuminating sag vertical curves on residential streets. We rnutually agreed
on a minimum light level o[OA foot-candles and a 6: I uniformity ratio. To meet these criteria,
design residential streel lighting as follows:
100 watt High Pressure Sodium luminaires
2S foot mounting height
100 to 120 foot spacing. throughout the sag curve, as defined by King County Road
Standards
Illumination plans. which incorporate these elements, will provide night time stopping sight
distance on roadway widths of22 to 36 feet. without excessive illumination of neighboring
homes. I request that your engineering review staff utilize these standards in future
considerations.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Paulette Norman at 296-6596.
cc: Greg Frisbee, Lighting Engineer, Puget Power
.~.
Harold Taniguchi. Interim Manager, Roads and Engineering Division
ATTN: Tom Berlek, Road Variance Engineer, Engineering Services
Linda Smith. Signal Operations and Design Engineer
• •
CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
Mr. Mark Follmer, P.E.
Department of Development
and Environmental Services
900 Oakesdale Avenue SW
Renton, WA 98055-1219
February 8, 2005
RE: Response to Initial Review Comments for Engineering Plans
Plat of Petro Vista
King County Activity No. L04SR074
Our Job No. 1 lOll
Dear Mr. Follmer:
FE8 U 9
K.C.o.o.ES
We have revised the plans and Technical Information Report (TIR) for the above-referenced project in
accordance with the comments attached to your letter addressed to Bob Ehrlichman, Bennett Sherman,
LLC, dated January 14,2005. Enclosed are the following documents for your review and approval.
I. Two sets of revised engineering plans
2. Two copies of the revised TIR inserts
The following outline provides each of your comments in italics exactly as written, along with a narrative
response describing how each comment was addressed:
General Comments
The following additional plans are required:
• Structural plans for the retaining walls and vaults
• Recreation plan .~ )(' a~
• Tree retention plan
• Street tree plan
• Street light plan.
Response: The recreation, street tree, and tree retention plans were submitted to King County
'7 with the initial plan submittal. We are currently working with other consultants for preparation of
• the structural plans for the retaining wall and underground vault. Puget Sound Energy will be
preparing the street lighting plans and those will be forwarded to King County for review and
approval once they are complete.
18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT. WA 98032 (425) 251·6222 (425) 251·8782 FAX
BRANCH OFFICES • OLYMPIA. WA • TEMECULA, CA • WALNUT CREEK, CA
www.barghausen.com
Mr. Mark Follmer, P.E.
Department of Development
and Environmental Services
Engineering Plans
Sheet CI
-2-
Under "Agreements, Plan references, Permits, etc. " add item:
"Is this a erosion sensitive area site? (Yes/No):
Note: if "yes", a Highly Sensitive Site Erosion Control
Supervisor is required. See ESC plan and TIR for details. "
See title page on http://www.metrokc.gov/ddesllusdfcad.htm#E2.
February 8, 2005
Iti.ilfotmitticm bas been added to the cover sbeet. This site is not an erosion .
Sheet C4
Provide structural designs and details of "Lock Block" retaining walls and any rockeries over 4'
in height.
Response: As previously mentioned, we are currently in the process of coordinating with the
geotechnical engineer for preparation of these lock and load retaining walls.
Detail for l' deep swale along south boundary of plat is found on sheet C5.
Response: We have revised the sheet reference for this detail.
A handrail or fence is required where the wall height is over 3 feet adjacent to Tract B and Tract
C. A guardrail is required where an obstacle, including a dropoff, is within 10 feet of the gutter
line ofa rolled curb. No guardrail is required if the obstacle is more than 5-112 feet backfrom
the face of a vertical curb. Reference: KCRS Std. Dwg. 5-006.
~e: A 4-f~~highchain-Iink fenceis proposed atthe top of all walls exce~g 3 feet in
heighi. We hlIve ~~.rev¥,the pl;lil~#;I'prop!\Sea ~1l!Il~ and guueradjaetintto retaining
walls that art wil\ilillO teef ot'the edge of !he travellane:'The propOsed retaining walls are more
than 5-112 feet from the face of the vertical curb; therefore, no guardrail is required.
Rockery heights in setback areas shall not exceed 6 feet. Reference: King County Code
2IA.12.I70
Response: The proposed rockery at the back of Lots 1 through 6 is contained within Tract D,
which is a slope tract. The remaining rockeries are located within the building setbacks for each
lot and have been modified as necessary to ensure that the maximum height does not exceed 6
feet, or 10 feet including the 4-foo~-high chain-link fence at the top of wall .
.:5c.-i 100<: le$ C'l""l"'ly "I -T, t1 ("/"', a (",.,.
The total height of a rockery with a fence on top within a setback area shall not exceed 10 feet.
Reference: King County Code 2IA.14.220.
Mr. Mark Follmer, P,E,
Department of Development
and Environmental Services -3-February 8, 2005
Response: The total height of the proposed waIls will not exceed 10 feet including the fence,
Sheet C5
Eliminate CB#6, Daylight pipe at approximate elevation 404,5 at a location outside of buffer,
Response: These revisions have not been made for the following reasons:
1. The current design proposes discharge outside of the wetland buffer.
2. The Type II Catch Basins (CB No.6) with a birdcage lid is necessary to provide energy
dissipation for the stormwater prior to discharging into the wetland buffer.
3. We would not be able to obtain proper clearance for the conveyance pipe nnderneath the
proposedloek'amlloed wall. OK Ii (11,,6 ""Q, ,J,s:' ' ,,,:,. ,",
Please feel free to contact me a (425) 251-6222 if you would like to discuss this issue further.
Add Plan Note: Per KCRS Section 4.01 F, a 1 inch full width overlay shall be required. The
overlay may be waived only after an evaluation of pavement conditions or channelization
requirements has been completed and approved by the County Road Engineer or Development
Engineer. If road suiface failures are present. all appropriate repairs to the existing subgrade.
base material and suifacing shall be made prior to placing the overlay.
Response: We h~>;e added a note to Sljeet C5 of the construction plans regarding this item.
/1'''1' corr~c;-
Provide structural plans and details of "Lock and Load" retaining wall.
Response: Structural plans and calculations are currently being prepared by the geotechnical
engineer for the lock and load retaining walls. As soon as these plans are complete, they will be
forwarded to King County for review and approval.
Provide access r~ads to control structure.JJii!tlV_~~ and detention/wet
vault access openmgs. '
R~e: We have provided an access road as requested. Please refer to the enclosed revised
~truction plans for fwther details.'
Shaw roofllot drains for lots 15-18 to wetlands. including outlet details, Pipe shall be in an
easement,
"~~;~'!~~tV~pr0vide4fi " 'de,aprifO!X.lUlIlJ~~inlinefor Lots 15 through 18. P , WJIDlD a ' u" OOt-WI vate storm w .. mage easement,
This pipe is'
-, ,. ,y
/'
Mr. Mark Folhner, P.E.
Department of Development
and Environmental Services
Slww lot drain forlot 14.
-4-
R ........ '·We·have provided a roof and footing drain for Lot 14.
Sheet C6
CB#JO slwuld have a vaned grate.
February 8, 2005
R~, Catch Basin No. 10 is now Catch Basin No. 11. A vaned grate has been specified.
Label pipe between CB#9 and CB# 1 0 as ductile iron pipe.
1M!J!~"''''l!Milb"!,~+'~J'',,,!,J,,,,,,,~_frontlIge road in order to shorten
, . construction plans for further
Provide a detail of the beehive lid proposedfor CB's. ''It., Dliise: Tbls detail has been added to Sheet C8 of the construction plans.
Sheet C7
The detention vault shall be designed as a flow-through system (KCSWDM 5.3.3.1) The inlet and
outlet slwuld be at opposite corners.
V Response: The detention and wet vault have been revised to meet the requirements of section
5.3.3,1. Please refer to Sheet C7 of the construction plans for further details. If you should have
any questions or comments about this revised system during your review, please do not hesitate to
contact me so we can discuss,
The detention vault bottom slwll slope at least 5% from each side towards the center, forming a
broad "v" to facilitate sediment removal .
. ~.p: "!Ii" ba'1(~ ~vised ~ bottom of the vault so that it provides a 5 percent slope from .~'lital!t'l'iWatll$'Vi!C!tI(et: 4
The vault slwll be separated into two cells by a wall or bajJle (KCSWDM 6.4,2). Vault should not
be divided into additional subcells by internal walls.
t
Mr. Mark Follmer, P.E.
Department of Development
and Environmental Services -5-February 8, 2005
~~: ,A~.;entilation .. grates have been provided as required by the 1998 ,,,,-,. W"miIy""S' "'" . '" 'N·' -~~,,\.... .. ",ug co . . ,; MaIl_ ,.' .....
Provide access at flow restrictor. Show flow restrictor to scale.
RespoDse: Access .!Jas.~,ltW~.,*9 \l}e flow restrictor. The detail of the flow restrictor has
. beftadWritO·~ as itlqiJeSled.
A 5' x ]0' removable panel shall be provided over the inlet pipe.
Re.s~:,:.We have provided this 5-foot by lO-foot removable panels over the inlet pipe as
~\I'ired.
Provide a gravity drain from detentionlwetvault to CB#lA.
' ..... 'J1Il8: We have provided a gravity drainpipe from the wet vault to Catch Basin No. 1A.
Diameter of lower oriflce of flow restrictor should be 0.94" according to the analysis in the TIR.
R~: The diameter of the lower orifice of the flow restrictor has been revised to
O.~'het
Provide removable access panels over entire sand area. Provide a 4' x 6' area (minimum)
ventilation grate area per each 250 SF of sand area. Provide a flow spreader at the inlet to the
sand filter area.
ResJonse: Removable access panels havebeenl'rovided over the entire sand filter vault. We
have provided a 4-foot-wide b'{~"f66tolOtit~Wtte'~ tire intetend of the Sand filter.
A flow spreader 'has also bCen 'provided for this sand filter. Please refer to Sheet C7 of !lie
construction plans for further details,
Show stonnfilter vault details: energy dissipater (if required), outlet pipe, flow spreader (if
required), and ladder. Submit sizing calculations.
,LS,,>-.........
Response: "Details for the storm filter vault have been provided on Sheet C7 of the construction
plans', Siiing calculations are included with this subinittal package for insertion into Section 4 of
theTIR. 7
Sheet C9
" 'i t· / ! .((."--,+/.( .• ,,[
I
Show offsite flows that will bypass site.
Mr. Mark Follmer, P.E.
Department of Development
and Environmental Services -6-February 8, 2005
~sp<;mse: Please refer to exhibit 'c' in Section 3 of the TIR. Tbis shows the entire upstream
basin thai will bypass the site. r L
Show discharge point from site.
Response: The discharge point for the site is the existing catch basin #4148 within Petrovitsky
Road. The on-site stonn system is connected dlieetly to thiS catch basin and the overflow from
Tract 'B' (if there !sany) will enter through the lid.' v ~
TlR
Section I
Provide figure 3 according to KCSWDM 2.3.1.1, p. 2-8.
Response: This infonnation is covered with the existing and developed basin maps located in
Section 4 of the TIR. Please let me know if you would like thismformation to be duplicated in
Section 1 as welt. tJ ~
Section 4
Appendix A.2: Actual length of vault, per plan sheet C7, is 116' long. The riser diameter in the
TIR is 18". The target outflows from the vault should be the 2-and lO-year flows of the time
series "extar1.tsf' (IO-year: 0.061 cfs; 2-year: 0.043 cfs).
.on
, and volUIru:s at ~h i:llevlllion.
Tbl#fOlll, we any cnanges to,.,the plans or calculations for this comment. Please
(
~aIlmeifyouwouidliketodisF!-!.sffurther. C_ ~ 'j (1yctc f O~f {I , 'j
rpufr.//1tlt'{ d~ILI n;/ot '''a('r~a.L .. J J ott s" '
Appendix B.3 Sand Filter sizing: Specify an infiltration pond as the facility type, per KCSWDM
Section 6.5.2.1 (p. 6-106). 't I .,.j,il·.~:~ '(v('1 ."f "$C IV'!. /1, c'f ,I'"
Fo.·\tJ?~'
Response: If necessary, we can go back and redo the calculations to use an "Infiltration Pond" as
the facility rore. " ~«?i¢' ~"do. thit,~~!, ~ like 10 dis~~ ~issue with you.
Specifically, .how using an infiltration pond. facility rather than an infiltration trencbfacility
would change the sizing results of the facility. (Y('l /,t[:(. .':1 'Pi r,dc~,)
/'7 -{c'ef JI-/V("c/,·'.,.v.J _n ""t 't'Icuct ~
Provide manufacturer's recommendations for the leaf compost filter design capacity.
Response: Enclosed within the submittal package are recommendations from the manufacturer
for the leaf compost filter design capacity. Please insert this information into Section 4 of your
copy of the TIR. "';.! do. . c~ f I"; I
Mr. Mark Follmer, P.E.
Department of Development
and Environmental Services -7-February 8, 2005
Please provide a map to illustrate the tributary areas for the time series "texwet.tsf" and
"tfuwet.tsf"
Response: We have revised the existing and developed basin maps to show this, inf9, rmation ..
Copies have been included for insertion into Section 4 of the TIR. V._::::~ .. rf_f{.~.~1!::,:::f:.j'!.L. ,,1.
Section 5 -....
Verify rational methodflow calculations for pipe CB#8 -CB#7. (S", Tb C)
lte~: We have verified these calculations and revised them as necessary. Copies have been
lncl~~ftttb&!etlon 5 of the TIR. / '.
J
. . ___ .( !', -t1 c' .,", ,l /', . ( ,-/ ! /., ,-.; ,(/ !!. /',-i. f
Section 6 V(/'" "/ _., ,., ,. /.1 / ( ; .: t r" Ii c, ~. <, ...
The "Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment" is not required to be included in the TIR.
~: .. ~wledged.
Section 9
Provide Bond Quantity Worksheet.
~ ~8Qnd Quantity :W0rllsbeet ~'~i~nwle~d and.~ ~n in~luded within, this sU~J1atkage for your reView, approval, and msertlon mto Section 9 orthe T1:R that you
ciJriently have.
We believe that the above responses, together with the enclosed revised plans and Technical Information
Report inserts, address all of the comments attached to your letter addressed to Bob Ehrlichman, Bennett
Sherman, LLC, dated January 14, 2005. Please review and approve the enclosed at your earliest
convenience. If you have questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at
this office. Thank you.
Respectfully,
i', In Jj t' 21. ItY{zut..{V_
u'-'
DDldm/ca [1 101 lc.009.docl
enc: As Noted
Don Dawes
Project Engineer
cc: Mr. Bob Ehrlichman, Bennett Sherman, LLC (w/enc)
Mr. Todd Sherman, Bennett Sherman, LLC
Hal P. Grubb, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.
B . //'
IFFER ,//
SION) //
Ii
//
rr t < •
i L=
......... ~~:p.::9r-~ Lf 12" SO o 0.50%
L
p
W o
FLC
NOT TO
®
King County
Department of Development
and Environmental Services
900 Oakesdale Avenue SW
Renlon, WA 98055-1219
January 14,2005
Bob Ehrlichman
Bennett Sherman, LLC
12011 NE 1st St., Ste. 201
Bellevue, W A 98005
RE: Review Comments
Project Name: Petro Vista
Activity Number: L04SR074
Dear Mr. Ehrlichman:
Our office has completed the initial review of engineering plans for Petro Vista. The attached
list provides a summary of design issues which must be addressed in your next submittal. We
based our review comments upon the design plans and technical information report received
November 4,2004.
As outlined in the review comments, several key design issues must be addressed including
submittal of structural plans for the retaining walls and vaults, a recreation plan, a tree
retention plan, a street light plan and a street tree plan. A revised preliminary plat matching
the current lot configuration is also required. More review time will be required after the
second submittal and additional comments will be added.
Once the initial review comments have been addressed, please submit 2 sets of revised plans
and two Technical Information Reports. To assist in reviewing the revised plans, the design
engineer should prepare a written response for each issue identified in the attached comments.
If you have questions regarding the design requirements for the project, please contact me at
206-296-7039.
SinCerelY'~
!l1~llmer, P.E.
Engineer
Enclosure
cc: Hal Grubb
Review Comments
Project Name: Petro Vista
Page I of3
General Comments
The following additional plans are required:
•
•
Structural plaris for the retaining walls and vaults
Recreation plan
• Tree retention plan
• Street tree plan
• Street light plan.
Engineering Plans
Sheet Cl
Under "Agreements, Plan references, Permits, etc." add item:
"Is this a erosion sensitive area site? (Yes/No):
January 14, 2005
Project Number: L02POOl2
Note: If "yes", a Highly Sensitive Site Erosion Control
Supervisor is required. See ESC plan and TIR for details."
See title page on http://www.metrokc.gov/ddes/lusdlcad.htm#E2.
Sheet C4
Provide structural designs and details of "Lock Block" retaining walls and any rockeries over
4' in height.
Detail for I ' deep swale along south boundary of plat is found on sheet C5.
A handrail or fence is required where the wall height is over 3 feet adjacent to Tract B and
Tract C. A guardrail is required where an obstacle, including a dropoff, is within 10 feet of
the gutter line of a rolled curb. No guardrail is required if the obstacle is more than 5·1/2 feet
back from the face of a vertical curb. Reference: KCRS Std. Dwg. 5·006.
Rockery heights in setback areas shall not exceed 6 feet. Reference: King County Code
21A.12.170
The total height of a rockery with a fence on top within a setback area shall not exceed 10
feet. Reference: King County Code 2IA.l4.220.
Sheet C5
Eliminate CB#6. Daylight pipe at approximate elevation 404.5 at a location outside of buffer.
Add Plan Note: Per KCRS Section 4.01F, a 1 inch fullwidth overlay shall be required. The
overlay may be waived only after an evaluation of pavement conditions or channelization
requirements has been completed and approved by the County Road Engineer or
Development Engineer. If road surface failures are present, all appropriate repairs to the
existing subgrade, base material and surfacing shall be made prior to placing the overlay.
Review Comments
Project Name: Petro Vista
Page 2 of3
January 14, 2005
Project Number: L02P0012
Provide structural plans and details of "Lock and Load" retaining wall.
Provide access roads to control structure, stormfilter vault, sand filter vault, and detention/wet
vault access openings.
Show roof/lot drains for lots 15-18 to wetlands, including outlet details. Pipe shall be in an
easement.
Show lot drain for lot 14.
Sheet C6
CB# 1 0 should have a vaned grate.
Label pipe between CB#9 and CB#IO as ductile iron pipe.
Provide a detail ofthe beehive lid proposed for CB's.
Sheet C7
The detention vault shall be designed as a flow-through system (KCSWDM 5.3.3.1) The inlet
and outlet should be at opposite comers.
The detention vault bottom shall slope at least 5% from each side towards the center, forming
a broad "v" to facilitate sediment removal.
The vault shall be separated into two cells bya wall or baffle (KCSWDM 6.4.2). Vault
should not be divided into additional subcells by internal walls.
Provide access over the inlet pipe and outlet structure. Access openings shall be no more than
50' from any location within the vault.
Provide access at flow restrictor. Show flow restrictor to scale.
A 5' x 10' removable panel shall be provided over the inlet pipe.
Provide a gravity drain from detention/wetvault to CB# 1 A.
Diameter of lower orifice of flow restrictor should be 0.94" according to the analysis in the
TIR.
Provide removable access panels over entire sand area. Provide a 4' x 6' area (minimum)
ventilation grate area per each 250 SF of sand area. Provide a flow spreader at the inlet to the
sand filter area.
Show stormfilter vault details: energy dissipater (if required), outlet pipe, flow spreader (if
required), and ladder. Submit sizing calculations.
Review Comments
Project Name: Petro Vista
Page 3 of3
Sheet C9
Show offsite flows that will bypass site.
Show discharge point from site.
TIR
Section I
Provide figure 3 according to KCSWDM 2.3.1.1, p. 2-8.
Section 4
January 14, 2005
Project Number:. L02POO 12
Appendix A,2: Actual length of vault, per plan sheet C7, is 116' long. The riser diameter in
the TIR is 18". The target outflows from the vault should be the 2-and 10-year flows of the
time series "extarl.tsf' (lO-year: 0.061 cfs; 2-year: 0.043 cfs).
Appendix B.3 Sand Filter sizing: SpecifY an infiltration pond as the facility type, per
KCSWDM Section 6.5.2.1 (p. 6-106).
Provide manufacturer's recommendations for the leaf compost filter design capacity.
Please provide a map to illustrate the tributary areas for the time series "texweUsf' and
"tfuwet. tsf."
Section 5
Verify rational method flow calculations for pipe CB#8 -CB#7. (So, T" C)
Section 6
The "Phase I Environmental Site Assessment" is not required to be included in the TIR.
Section 9
Provide Bond Quantity Worksheet.
Page I of I
Follmer, Mark
From: Don Dawes [ddawes@barghausen.comJ
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 3:26 PM
To: Mark Follmer
Cc: File
Subject: FW: Petro Vista, wall calculations
Mark,
Here are the structural calcs for the retaining walls. Please print a copy to go with the report from ECI that I
submitted today before you route for structural review. Let me know if you need anything else.
Don Dawes
Project Engineer
Barghausen Consulting Engineers
425-251-6222
-----Original Message-----
From: scott.dinkelman@uslaboratories.com [mailto:scott.dinkelman@uslaboratories.com]
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 12:27 PM
To: ddawes
Subject: Petro Vista, wall calculations
Don,
I didn't get your voicemail until this morning.
Attached are the Petro Vista Lock and Load Calculations
Thanks,
Scott Dinkelman, LEG
Principal
Earth Consultants, Inc. -US Labs
1805 -136th Place NE, Suite 201
Bellevue, Washington 98005
Phone: 425-643-3780
FAX: 425-746-0860
Mobile: 206-255-3410
For the benefit of business and people
NOTICE: This message contains information which is confidential and the copyright of our company or a third
party. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please delete it and destroy all copies. If you are the
intended recipient of this message, you should not disclose or distribute this message to third parties without the
consent of our company. Our communication is free of virus interception or interference. The liability of our
company is limited by our General Conditions of Services.
03107/2005
Mark Follmer
King County Department of Development
and Environmental Services
900 Oakesdale Avenue S.W.
Renton, WA 98055-1219
CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
March 4, 2005
HAND DELIVERY
RE: Submittal of Structural Detention Vault and Retaining Wall Designs for Petro Vista Plat
King County Proj ect No. L02POO 12
Our Job No. 11011
Dear Mark:
The enclosed structural design plans and calculations are for your use in routing to Hou-Ching Chow for
Building Department review. Enclosed are the following items:
1. Three sets of detention vault design plans prepared by Collons Engineering, LLC (Sheets SI
through S6) dated February 23, 2005
2. Three copies of the detention vault calculations prepared by Collons Engineering, LLC dated
February 22, 2005
3. Three copies of the grading and retaining wall plan (Sheet C4 of 10) prepared by our office
dated February 9, 2005
4. Three copies of the retaining wall report prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc. dated October
22, 2004 (retaining wall calculations will be forwarded to you under separate cover)
Please route the enclosed documents for structural review and approval. If you have any questions or
need additional information, please contact me at this office. Thank you.
DD/ca
llOllc.Oll.doc
enc: As Noted
Respectfully,
lJN./L £CLULfU
CrI--
Don Dawes
Project Engineer
cc: Bob Ehrlichrnan, Bennett Sherman, LLC (w/enc)
Hal P. Grubb, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.
18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251·6222 (425) 251-8782 FAX
BRANCH OFFICES • OLYMPIA. WA • TEMECULA, CA • WALNUT CREEK, CA
www.barghausen.com
•
CIVil ENGINEERING. LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
TO: __ ~M~a~r~k~F~o~ll~m~e~r ________________________ __ DATE: March 4, 2005
King County DDES SENT VIA: Hand Delivery
900 Oakesdale Avenue S.W. OUR JOB: 11011
Renton, W A 98055
RE: Petro Vista
King County Project No. L02POO 12
Quantity Date Description
I Set 12/13/04 Significant Tree Replacement, Street Trees, and Recreation Landscape Plans (L 1 -L3 of 3)
2 Sets
For your review.
11122104 Wetland Mitigation Plans (WLl -WL3 of 3)
Signed:
b()J; Dawes CtD
Project Engineer
18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT. WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 (425) 251-8782 FAX
BRANCH OFFICES • OLYMPIA. WA • TEMECULA. CA • WALNUT CREEK. CA
www.barghausen.com llOlll.OlO.doc
02/11/20057:18 AM
Follmer, Mark
From: Follmer, Mark
Sent:
To:
Friday, February 11, 2005 7: 18 AM
'Don Dawes'
Subject: RE: Petro Vista KC Project L02P0012 (BCE #11011)
Don,
I have not received:
§ Structural plans for the retaining walls and vaults
§ Recreation plan
§ Tree retention plan
§ Street tree plan
§ Street light plan.
I have not worked on the project since sending out the review comments on 1-14-2005. Nick
Gillen reviewed and approved the buffer mitigation/averaging plan on 12-21-2004.
If the road and drainage plans land on my desk today, I will probably have them re-
reviewed and comments back to you by the end of the week of March 4.
-----Original Message-----
From: Don Dawes [mailto:ddawes@barghausen.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 4:05 PM
To: Mark Follmer
Cc: Bob Ehrlichrnani Hal Grubb; File
Subject: Petro Vista KC Project L02P0012 (BCE #11011)
Mark,
Can you let me know the status of the plan review for the Recreation, Street Tree, Tree
Retention and Wetland plans for this project? Also, if you could let me know who is
reviewing each of those plans?
Also, we did resubmit the road and drainage plans earlier this week. If you haven't seen
those they should be on your desk soon. When you get the plans, please let me know an
approximate turn around time for your review. If you should have any questions or need
additional information as you go through the review, please call me so we can discuss.
Thanks,
Don Dawes
Project Engineer
Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.
18215 72nd Ave. South
Kent, WA 98032
(425)251-6222
(425)251-8782 Fax
ddawes@barghausen.com
www.barghausen.com
1
King County
Department of Development
and Environmental Services
Land Use Services Division
900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest
Renton, Washington 98055·1219
(206) 296-6600
Alternative formats available
upon request
Drop-Off Cover Sheet for Land Use Services Division
***********************IMPORTANT***********************
PROJECT NUMBER AND NAME IS NECESSARY
FOR ALL DROP-OFFS
Project No.:
Project Name:
FROM:
TO:
L02P0012
Petro Vista
Don Dawes, Barghausen Engineers
Company Name I Contact Person
Telephone No. (425) 251-6222
Mark Follmer
Date Received by LUSD
~ ~~ c·' [-= " f\ "I 1= D c .. 1( .. " .L.c .. ,. II \Ijjl 1..-., G; .\ -'J l .. I'! "
FEB 0 9 ZOU:)
K.C_ D.D.E.S.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUESTED BY KING COUNTY STAFF (please print)
Short Plat I Plats
Please specify item(s) dropped-off:
2 sets revised engineering plans: 2 sets revised TIR inserts
Lot Line Adjustment Permit
Please specify item(s) dropped-off:
Right of Wav Permit
Please specify item(s) dropped-off:
Clearing I Grading Permit
Additional information requested; please specify item(s) dropped off:
Other: ______________________________________________________________________ ___
PLEASE NOTE: All drop-off item(s) will be logged into the computer under the project number, therefore, it is
important that the top portion of this form is completed properly before you drop-off anything. Assistance in finding a
project number can be provided by speaking to a Land Use Services Division Person of the Day (POD) or the
ZoninglLand Use Technician. Your cooperation is important. Thank you.
LUSD Drop-Off Cover Sheet Ig-cvs-dropoff.pdf 05-30-2002Page 1 of 1
<®
King County
Department of Development
and Environmental Services
900 Oakesdale Avenue SW
Renton, WA 98055-1219
January 14, 2005
Bob Ehrlichman
Bennett Sherman, LLC
12011 NE 1st St., Ste. 201
Bellevue, W A 98005
RE: Review Comments
Project Name: Petro Vista
Activity Number: L04SR074
Dear Mr. Ehrlichman:
Our office has completed the initial review of engineering plans for Petro Vista. The attached
list provides a summary of design issues which must be addressed in your next submittal. We
based our review comments upon the design plans and technical information report received
November 4,2004.
As outlined in the review comments, several key design issues must be addressed including
submittal of structural plans for the retaining walls and vaults, a recreation plan, a tree
retention plan, a street light plan and a street tree plan. A revised preliminary plat matching
the current lot configuration is also required. More review time will be required after the
second submittal and additional comments will be added.
Once the initial review comments have been addressed, please submit 2 sets of revised plans
and two Technical Information Reports. To assist in reviewing the revised plans, the design
engineer should prepare a written response for each issue identified in the attached comments.
If you have questions regarding the design requirements for the project, please contact me at
206-296-7039.
SinCerelY'~
I!!!:£nmer, P.E.
Engineer
Enclosure
cc: Hal Grubb
Review Comments
Project Name: Petro Vista
Page I of3
General Comments
The following additional plans are required:
• Structural plans for the retaining walls and vaults
• Recreation plan
• Tree retention plan
• Street tree plan
• Street light plan.
Engineering Plans
Sheet Cl
Under "Agreements, Plan references, Permits, etc." add item:
"Is this a erosion sensitive area site? (Yes/No):
January 14,2005
Project Number: L02POOl2
Note: If "yes", a Highly Sensitive Site Erosion Control
Supervisor is required. See ESC plan and TIR for details."
See title page on http://www.metrokc.gov/ddes/lusdlcad.htm#E2.
Sheet C4
Provide structural designs and details of "Lock Block" retaining walls and any rockeries over
4' in height.
Detail for I' deep swale along south boundary of plat is found on sheet C5.
A handrail or fence is required where the wall height is over 3 feet adjacent to Tract B and
Tract C. A guardrail is required where an obstacle, including a dropoff, is within 10 feet of
the gutter line of a rolled curb. No guardrail is required if the obstacle is more than 5-112 feet
back from the face ofa vertical curb. Reference: KCRS Std. Dwg. 5-006.
Rockery heights in setback areas shall not exceed 6 feet. Reference: King County Code
21A.l2.170
The total height of a rockery with a fence on top within a setback area shall not exceed 10
feet. Reference: King County Code 21A.l4.220.
Sheet C5
Eliminate CB#6. Daylight pipe at approximate elevation 404.5 at a location outside of buffer.
Add Plan Note: Per KCRS Section 4.01F, a I inch full width overlay shall be required. The
overlay may be waived only after an evaluation of pavement conditions or channelization
requirements has been completed and approved by the County Road Engineer or
Development Engineer. If road surface failures are present, all appropriate repairs to the
existing subgrade, base material and surfacing shall be made prior to placing the overlay.
Review Comments
Project Name: Petro Vista
Page 2 of3
January 14,2005
Project Number: L02POOl2
Provide structural plans and details of "Lock and Load" retaining wall.
Provide access roads to control structure, stormfilter vault, sand filter vault, and detention/wet
vault access openings.
Show roofllot drains for lots 15-18 to wetlands, including outlet details. Pipe shall be in an
easement.
Show lot drain for lot 14.
Sheet C6
CB#IO should have a vaned grate.
Label pipe between CB#9 and CB# I 0 as ductile iron pipe.
Provide a detail of the beehive lid proposed for CB's.
Sheet C7
The detention vault shall be designed as a flow-through system (KCSWDM 5.3.3.1) The inlet
and outlet should be at opposite corners.
The detention vault bottom shall slope at least 5% from each side towards the center, forming
a broad "v" to facilitate sediment removal.
The vault shall be separated into two cells by a wall or baffle (KCSWDM 6.4.2). Vault
should not be divided into additional subcells by internal walls.
Provide access over the inlet pipe and outlet structure. Access openings shall be no more than
50' from any location within the vault.
Provide access at flow restrictor. Show flow restrictor to scale.
A 5' x 10' removable panel shall be provided over the inlet pipe.
Provide a gravity drain from detention/wetvault to CB#IA.
Diameter of lower orifice of flow restrictor should be 0.94" according to the analysis in the
TIR.
Provide removable access panels over entire sand area. Provide a 4' x 6' area (minimum)
ventilation grate area per each 250 SF of sand area. Provide a flow spreader at the inlet to the
sand filter area.
Show stormfilter vault details: energy dissipater (if required), o.utlet pipe, flow spreader (if
required), and ladder. Submit sizing calculations.
Review Comments
Project Name: Petro Vista
Page 3 of 3
Sheet C9
Show offsite flows that will bypass site.
Show discharge point from site.
TlR
Section I
Provide figure 3 according to KCSWDM 2.3 .1.1, p. 2-8.
Section 4
• January 14, 2005
Project Number: L02POOl2
Appendix A.2: Actual length of vault, per plan sheet C7, is 116' long. The riser diameter in
the TIR is 18". The target outflows from the vault should be the 2-and lO-year flows of the
time series "extarl.tsf' (lO-year: 0.061 cfs; 2-year: 0.043 cfs).
Appendix B.3 Sand Filter sizing: Specify an infiltration pond as the facility type, per
KCSWDM Section 6.5.2.1 (p. 6-106).
Provide manufacturer's recommendations for the leaf compost filter design capacity.
Please provide a map to illustrate the tributary areas for the time series "texwettsf' and
"tfuwet. tsf."
Section 5
Verify rational method flow calculations for pipe CB#8 -CB#7. (So, T" C)
Section 6
The "Phase I Environmental Site Assessment" is not required to be included in the TIR.
Section 9
Provide Bond Quantity Worksheet.
Activity Number:
PROJECT INFORMATION (1998 Surface Water Design Manual)
* Project Name: Pe-iv-o \./ l'Sju.. . 7
* Development Number: * Activity Number:
* Project Number: -----'L=-=-O--"'L-=----'-p_· -=O=-O=-----:("-''2~==_ _ ____oc
* Parcel Number: (PI? wiRO 038'Qt 033/
* Project Location (approximate cross street): s£ Sf ~frovd5L Rd.) @ I!<i fz., Av(.
* Telephone: * E-mail Address: SG
* Owner (or rep.): :])aii 11t'fii;;{;a;(;:;j ~
* Design Engineer: Be"·"1 kt ~
* Peer: * DOES -Pr-e-'im-i-na-ry-E-ng-r-: ---r,p-..,.c--;])==--y-e------
* DOES Planner: =rev.--;;. tdei1 'De 6 ko>d, \
* DOES Review Engr: Mot/(. {offt1df'v
I * DOES Engr. Tech:
~ )---
( )---
( )---
( )----
( )----
( )----
( ),----
Instructions: Consulting Engineer must check items that were completed, note N/A for items that do not apply, and
for items left blank, please provide a brief explanation why not completed.
Consulting DDES
Engineer
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Reviewer
[ 1 * Blue Engineer File Created with Key Documents
[ 1 * Plat Ordinance Number: ........... date: ______ _
[ 1 * Hearing Examiner's Report .................................... date: ______ _
[ 1 * DDES Staff Report .................................................. date: ______ _
[ 1 * Preliminary Plat Map ............................................... date: ______ _
[ 1 * Revised Preliminary Plat Map ................................. date: ______ _
[ 1 * 5-year Expiration .................................................... date: ______ _
[ 1 * Project information on Permits Plus
ROUTING TO OTHER KING COUNTY SECTIONS
1 * Wetland Report/Plans:
Route Date: 12 -(0 Response Date:
[ * Geotechnical Re29lt/Plans:
Route Date: L -1.3 Response Date:
* Grading Report/Plans:
Route Date: _______ Response Date:
[1 * Structural Report/Plan: (Include two reports with design cales, two structural
[
[
[
1
plan sheets, one set of engineering plans, one soils report and two copies of
manufacturing specs, as necessary.)
Route Date: Response Date:
* Landscape/Park Report/Plan:
Route Date: _______ Response Date:
* Traffic Report/Plan:
Route Date: _______ Response Date:
1 • other Report/Plan:
Route Date: _______ Response Date:
GENERAL SUDIVISION REQUIREMENTS
Site plans match preliminary approval application map
Compliance with conditions of preliminary approval letter
Compliance with Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance
* Denotes completion by engineering technician
Site Engineering Review Application & Checklist le-appckl-serchec.pdf 01113103 Page30fll
Consulting DDES
Engineer Reviewer
Activity Number:
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS -SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL
2.3.1 Profiles
(1) * Existing/Proposed roadway centerline (Cl) at 50' stations increasing,
reading from left to right. Show stationing of points of smooth
vertical curve, with elevations
[ (2) * Final storm drain profile of structures within the right-of-way
[ (3) * Minimum cover dimensions if less than 2.0'
[ (4) * Property boundaries
[ (5) * Profiles for conveyance systems of 12" and larger pipes or channels
other than roadway ditches
2.3.1.2 General Plan Format (SWDM 2.3.1)
[ 1 (1) * Sheet size 24" X 36"; quality reproducible
[ 1 (2) * King Co. Standard Map Symbols; existing/proposed (SWDM Ref. 7A)
[ 1 (3) * Project Information/Cover Sheet
[ 1 a. * Title: Project name and DDES file number
[ 1 b. * Table of Contents, if more than three plan sheets
[ 1 c. * Vicinity Map
[ 1 d. * Name & phone of utility field contacts and One call Number:
1-800-424-5555 (water, sewer, gas, power)
[ [ 1 e. * Pre-construction/Inspection notification requirements
[ [ 1 f. * Name and phone of erosion control supervisor
[ [ 1 g. * Name & phone of Surveyor
[ [ 1 h. * Name & phone of Owner/Agent
[ [ 1 i. * Name & phone of Applicant
[ [ 1 j. * legal description
[ [ 1 k. * Plan approval block for DDES
[ [ 1 I. * Name & phone of engineering firm preparing plans
[ [ 1 m. * Fire Marshal's approval stamp (if required)
[ [ 1 n. * Mailbox location approval by U.S. Postal Service
[ [ 1 o. * List of conditions of preliminary approval on all site improvements
[ [ 1 (4) * An overall site plan if more than three plan sheets are used
[ [ 1 a. * The complete property area development
[ [ 1 b. * Right-of-way information
[ [ 1 c. * Street names and road classification
[ [ 1 d. * All project phasing and proposed division boundaries
[ [ 1 e. * All natural and proposed drainage collection and conveyance systems with
catch basin numbers shown
(5) * Each sheet and llR is stamped, signed, and dated by a Professional Engineer
licensed in Washington State
[ 1 1 (6) * Survey control Ian sheet st b licensed PLS in Washington State
[ 1 1 (7) * Title block on each sheet
[ 1 1 a. * Development title
[ 1 1 b. * Name, address and phone number of engineering firm
[ 1 1 c. * Revision block
[ 1 1 d. * Page numbering
[ 1 1 e. * Sheet title (e.g., road and drainage, grading, etc.)
[ 1 1 (8) * A blank approval block (4" high x 6" wide) on each plan sheet
[ 1 1 (9) * The location and label for each section or other detail shall be provided
[ 1 1 (10) * Sensitive Area Setbacks deSignated as required by the SAO (K.C.C. chapter 21A.24)
[ 1 1 (11) * All match lines correspond to the sheet referenced
[ 1 1 (12) * Division phase lines with limits of construction
[ 1 1 (13) * Wetlands are numbered or marked "un inventoried"
[ 1 1 (14) * General, Drainage, * Structural notes (Reference 7B)
* Denotes completion by engineering technician
Site Engineering Review Application & Checklist le-appckl-serchec. pdf 01/13/03 Page4of11
Activity Number:
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS -SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL (Continued)
Consulting DDES
Engineer Reviewer
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[ 1
[ 1
[ 1
[ 1
[ 1
[ 1
[ 1
[ 1
[ 1
[ 1
2.3.1.2 Plan View
(1) * Property lines, R/W lines, roadway widths shown (existing and proposed)
(2) * Existing/Proposed road features; CL, edge pavement, edge shoulder, ditches, curb,
sidewalk, & access pts
(3) * Existing/Proposed Topographic Contours @ 2', 5' > 15% slope, 10' > 40% slope
(4) * All affected utilities are shown; utility poles marked
(5) * All roads and adjoining subdivisions identified
(6) * Existing/Proposed R/W dimensioned and shown
(7) * Existing/Proposed surfacing shown
(8) * Scale 1" = 50' Horizontal (1" = 100' for lots> 1 Acre)
(9) * Tract table if three or more tracts. Identify name, size and purpose.
(10) * Road classifications
(11) * Floodplains
(12) * Setbacks (street, interior, facility, rockery, etc. (K.C.C. 21A.12.030,
110-170, 220)
* Denotes completion by engineering technician
Site Engineering Review Application & Checklist le-appckl-serchec.pdf 01/13/03 Page 5 of 11
Activity Number: L04SRW4-
ROADWAY DESIGN -KING COUNTY ROAD STANDARDS (K.C.R.S.) 1993
K.C.R.S Variance Number: Approval Date: ___________ _
ROAD CLASSIFICATION TABLE
Name of Roadway K.C.R.S. Classification
//9/7-, /1vc s£ f/y£" /I/LNO;' horktJoc/ GI/a:: loy
/
S6 / 1& th (.4U~r U f' b cvY1 .:J", /:U:l C t" = 'Cc-:s;--i-t-
~f,.-ol//f.sko/ -/7/1 A""; /1 ~ jJ
1
Consulting DDES
Engineer Reviewer ____ Roadway KCRS
[ [V( [ #&'1 ;&!, 2.03C Maximum Superelevation (2.05)
[ [ 1A ilf' 2.03E Maximum grade (2.11) 12-%
[ [ [/7(;, 2.03E Maximum grade (2.11) IS-X
[ [) ] [ 'Z">11 ] 2.03F Stopping Sight Distance (2.05, 2.12) 2--;,.V./
[ [ ] [ /50" ] 2.03F Stopping Sight Distance (2.05, 2.12),-5<7 --
] [ ] [ .-..v c:L.-] 2.03G Entering Sight Distance (2.05, 2.13)
] [ 1 [ 490" ] 2.03G Entering Sight Distance (2.05, 2.13)( '2. 2-
[J( [ II~ ] 2.03H Minimum pavement width 3'2..1' [~0 [ /7r;. ] 2.03H Minimum pavement width 24-../
[1 /1 l:5 2.031 Minimum roadway width 3Z'"
[ ] / 7(.. 2.031 Minimum roadway width '2,4,"'-
[ ] [1 [ II~ 2.03J Minimum RjW width b~'"
[ 1 iJ...-[ 17~ 2.03J Minimum RjW width 40 '
[ ] [ 2.03J Min. R/W width (incl. 1 ft behind walk/curb)
[ 1 ~'[ ,#/A ] 2.03L Minimum Half-Street width (2.07)
[ ] [ ] [ ] 2.05,2.10 Horizontal curves /}I' A -Sir ,. (" i ". en, 51>"'10t
[ ] [ ] [ ] 2.05,2.10 Horizontal curves
] [ 1--[" [ ] 2.0SA Minimum cul-de-sac diameters
] [~' [ ] 2.0SB Maximum cul-de-sac length j maximum
cross-slope (6%)
[~[ ] 2.1OA Intersection minimum curb radius
[ [ ] 2.10A Intersection minimum curb radius
[ [ ~( 2.10A Intersection minimum RjW corner radius
[ [ [ 2.10A Intersection minimum RjW corner radius
[ [v] 2.10A Angle of intersection between 85 and 95 degrees,
minimum centerline radius
[ [ t-f' [ ] 2.10B Intersection minimum spacing /,:;:>0/ C -c [vr[ ((I t d;1»] 2.1OC Intersection landing
[t----] [ 17k; ] 2.10C Intersection landing
Site Engineering Review Application & Checklist le-appckl-serchec.pdf 01/13103 Page 6 of 11
Activity Number:
ROADWAY DESIGN -KING COUNTY ROAD STANDARDS (Continued)
Consulting
Engineer
'-L
[
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 "r'
DDES
RWt/
Roadway KCRS
[ 1 2.11
[ 1 [r 1 2.13
/, 1 3.01 :~ 1 302A & B
[~[ 1 3.05
[ L.t-[ jl¥Pt 1 4.01
[ ....-r [ S6 17/;r:,c:lf-4.01
[ [ 4.01
[~ 1 4.01F
['-1 [ 1 4.02
[0 [ 1 4.02
[ ./t1//4 1 4.03
[IJIA 1 4.05
.@
[ 1 [ f/Z;'t/, eLf tjb 5.01
[M [ 1 5.02
[ 1 [5r. [Yc.e p/i2-n.-l~. 5.03
[vT [ 1 5.04
[ 1 [fJkiA1.. ret-1 5.05
[ 1 [#4 '" ,.J .. _ .. -.5.06A
[ l,-Vf -..., c.ct:~., "1Z,,,4~8
[ '7 1 [ 1 5.11
--[ vr 1 7.02A-D
[v1 1 7.01A
[rJ 1 7.03L
[vi 1 7.04A
[Vf 1 7.04E
[v] 1 7.0SA-E
[v{ 7.0SB
[ 0../ 1 8.02G
[-] 8.03B
NOTES:
Grade brakes -max. 1% at intersections
Driveways; ESD
Driveways
Sidewalks and widths
Handicapped access ramp (W~3)
Proper road sections and surfacing
(Dwg. Nos. 1-001 -1-006)
Proper road sections and surfacing
(Dwg. Nos. 1-001 -1-006)
Proper road sections and surfacing
(Dwg. Nos. 1-001 -1-006)
Pavement overlay for widening and channelization
Residential street design
Poor subgrade evaluation
Arterial pavement design
Pavement markings, channelization and tapers
(requires KCDOT review)
Rock facings (Dwg. Nos. 5-004 -5-007)
Side, slopes, generally 2H: 1 V
Street trees and landscaping
Mail boxes (Dwg. Nos. 5-010 5-012)
Illumination plan or notes (requires KCDOT review)
... Survey.monumellts to.bedisturbe~ are shown
Bollards for walkways or maintenance'roads)
Roadside obstacles
Grass-lined, pipe or rock lined, special designed ditch
Minimum self-cleaning pipe flow velocities (KCSWDM
Section 4.3.4)
Beveled ends for culverts in ROW
Maximum spacing between catch basins
CBs taller than 5' (grate to invert) are Type II
Manholes for CBs> 12' depth; Vaned grates, locking
covers and grates for all CBs (except rolled grates)
Through-curb inlets or flanking inlets at sags
Utility pole relocations / retaining walls --structural
design requires review by BSD
Open cutting of existing roadways, patch requirements
Site Engineering Review Application & Checklist le·appckl-serchec,pdl 01/13/03 Page 7 01 11
(
I
" , ,
Activity Number:
DRAINAGE DESIGN -SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL (1998)
SWDM Variance Number: ___________ Approval Date:
Consulting DDES
Engineer Reviewer
[
[
[
/ 2.3.1.1. Technical Information Report
1 [ v1 Project Overview (Section 1)
1 [ vJ Figure 1: TIR Worksheet
1 [ ~ Figure 2: Site Location
----,"."".~~---'-'---"'" -----l-r 'T ' Figure 3: D'ralnage Basins
1 [ 1 a. Acreage of subbasins
1 [ 1 b. Identify all site characteristics
" ......
-""'
[
[
[
[
[
1 [ 1
1 [ 1
c. Show existing discharge points to and from the site \
d. Show routes of existing, construction, and future flows at all discharge points and \
downstream hydraulic structures '
\ [1 1 e. Use a minimum USGS 1:2400 topographic map as a base )
\, [1 1
"--" -.. , '
f. ShOW, and cite the length of travel from the farthest upstream end of a proposed
storm..5¥S1em, in the development to any proposed flow control facility
[ 1 [~ ., -, ~ . .' .. ",,-,~ .
Figure 4: Soils
[ 1 [ 1 a. Show the project site
[ 1 [ 1 b. the area draining to the site
_.;.[_,;.-l_"'[;-,-",l,.../"'-.,_---::,---;c:-=:c.--=.th:..::e:='d:.:.ra:::i"'na""ge system downstream for the distance of the downstream analysis
[ 1 [ V1 Preliminary Conditions Summary, Variances, & SWDM adjustments (Section 2)
_~[ """'Cl~~[_;!-l.,-----'Off-Site Analysis (Section 3)
[ 1 [[ ~' Flow Control and Water Quality FacilitVinalysis and Design (Section 4)
[ 1 Existing Site Hydrology (Part A) ,/ ,
[ 1 [ vt Developed Site Hydrology (Part B»
[ 1 [ Vl,.. Performance Standards (Part C0
[ 1 [ v] , Flow Control System (Part D)
.--"-.~ .. ~----~-.-[ 1 , .. --W.ater"Qu,ali S stem (Part E
[ 1 [ Conveyance System Analysis and Design (Section 5)
[ 1 [[ ~' Special Reports and Studies (Section 6)
[1 VJ Flood plain/floodway Analysis (SWDM 4.4.2)
, [ , ~l _-:-[ _ 1 Other Permits (Section!)_
[ 1 [,~lo-__ -,E,-ro_s'7io-=n/~cJ!~~ntation_C_ontrol Design (Section 8)
[ 1 [1 Bond Quantities Worksheet and RID Facility Summary (Section 9)
~---, -,--_ .. ~--.--, [ 1 [1 Maintenance and Operations Manual (Section 10 for privately maintained or special non-
standard features)
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[ vf"
~.::f'
[ 1
[Yj
1 [ I---T"
l c:i:5
1 [ 1
1 [ 1
1 [ 1
1 [ 1
1 [ 1
1 [ 1
4.1 Conveyance System Design and Analysis
Conveyance systems are in easements with BSBLs
Pipes are parallel to and alongside property lines
Easements for pipes outside of right-of-way
Catch basin lids are flush with ground line
Plan & Profile (pipe type, length, elevs., dia., & slope)
Minimum cover for pipes (4.3.4D-U)
Stations and Offsets provided for each CB in roadway
Roof drain stubouts are shown, type of pipe described
Arrows show direction of all surface and system flows
Energy dissipation at outlets rrft -
~
Pipe clearance
Headwater analysis for inlets I lIUL__ '
Surchar~(Qackwate~, analysis may be reqUired[, / II I Ie(
Open channels y'_\
(
Site Engineering Review Application & Checklist le-appckl-serchec.pdf 01/13/03 Page8of11
Activity Number:
DRAINAGE DESIGN -SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL (Continued)
Consulting DDES
Engineer Reviewer
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
[~
[ ----l
[ v-r
[ , 1
[ . 1
[~
[;V~
[ &.o-J
[~ ..
W~l
W<l
f:Ol<l
[ n
~.q
[ 1
[ 1
W4
[;v}1
[ 1
,rfItj
[
[
[
[
~
["1
[ ~
[Ll
[ !--]
[ 1
NOTES:
5.3 Retention/Detention Facility Design
RID Facilities are in tracts or dedicated RlW with setbacks
5.1.1 Downspout Infiltration Feasibility
5.1.3 Perforated stub-out connections d fiv><.<.-(1./ tCIlIt/"'1f {".:I. 1St>.
Emergency overflow path -conveyance I f
Setbacks
Flow-through system
5.3.1 Detention Ponds
Dam Safety Compliance
Two cross-sections through pond (one x-section to include control structure)
Designed as flow-through system
Side slopes interior 3H:1 V or fenced
Vertical interior retaining walls stamped by licensed structural civil engineer.
Min. 25% of perimeter vegetated and no steeper than 3:1
Embankments -Geotech (key requirements)
Primary overflow
Secondary inlet
Emergency Overflow Spillway / Freeboard
Soil and compaction requirements described (95% modified proctor)
Access road min. turning radius, maximum grade, min. width, fences or gates
Minimum berm width of 6 feet
Pond sign
Fencing and planting requirements
5.3.2. Detention Tanks
6" of dead storage in tank bottom
Minimum pipe diameter of 36"
Materials and structural stability
Access risers and CBs are spaced properly with max. depth from finished grade to tank
invert shall be 20 feet and accessible by maintenance vehicles
Buoyancy
5.3.3 Detention Vaults
Structural package submitted for approval
Grate over sump with 2' x 2' hinged access door
Access to tank positioned a max. of 50 feet from any location. (if over 3 foot cover use
cone riser).
Removable 5 x 10 panel if vault greater than 1,250 sq. ft. floor area
Maximum depth from finished grade to vault invert to be 20 feet
Minimum internal height shall be 7 feet, min. width shall be 4 feet min.
Ventilation pipes provided in all four corners
5.3.4 Control Structures
Section and plan view shown top scale
Orifice size and elevation on plans match calculations
Site Engineering Review Application & Checklist le-appckl-serchec.pdf 01/13/03 Page 9 of 11
Activity Number: ___________ _
DRAINAGE DESIGN -SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL (Continued)
Consulting DDES
Engineer Reviewer
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
] [ ...--r-
] [.....-j
] W1]
] W4]
] y1It4]
] [ I ]
] [ .. ]
]
] [ ]
] [ ]
] [ ]
] [ ]
] [ ]
] [1114]
] [ I ]
[ ]
[ -1'
[;Y4
] [ ]
] [ ]
] [ ]
] [ ]
] [ ]
1 [ ]
] [ ]
] [ ]
NOTES:
5.4 Infiltration Facilities
Appropriate soils logs and testing procedures in llR
100-yr overflow conveyance
Spill Control device
Pre-settling
Design water surface set back of 20 feet from external tract, easement or property lines
6.1. Water Quality Design
6.1 Water Quality Menus
6.2 Water Quality facilities
6.2.2A Water Quality sequencing
6.2.3 Setbacks, slopes and embankments
6.2.4 Facility Liners
6.3.1 Biofiltration swales and soil amendments
6.3.1 Swale geometry, plantings, flow conveyance (high flows) velocity and access
6.3.4 Filter strip geometry (slopes)
6.4. Wetpool Facility Designs
6.4.1 & 6.4.2 Wetponds and Wetvaults
6.4.1.1 Sizing basic or large
6.4.1.1 Cell Requirements
6.4.1.2 Berms, Baffles, Slopes
6.4.1.2 Inlet/Outlet Design
6.4.1.2 Access, setbacks and plantings
6.4.3 Stormwater Wetlands; overflow criteria
6.4.3.2 Wetland geometry, liners, access, plantings
6.4.4 Combination Detention and Wetpool facilities
6.4.4.2 Detention & wetpool geometry, berms, baffles and slopes
6.4.4.2 access and plantings
6.5 Media Filtration Facility Designs
6.5.1 Presettling/pretreatment
6.5.2 Sand Filters -Basic and Large
6.5.2.1 Sizing, geometry
6.5.2.2 Overflow/bypass, underdrain and access
6.5.3 Sand Filter Vaults
6.5.3.2 Pretreatment, flow-spreading, energy dissipation
6.5.3.2 Sizing, geometry
6.5.3.2 Overflow/bypass, underdrain and access
Site Engineering Review Application & Checklist le,appckl,sercl1ec.pdf 01113103 Page 10 of 11
Consulting DDES
Engineer Reviewer
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
1. C[ ]
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[ v1'
[ v't
[Y]
[vl [ .vr-
[r-]
[v/]
[" ]
[i ]
[ vi-·
~
[--1
[Ve]
[-{
[
[/]
[.---j
[ /]
NOTES:
Activity Number:
TEMPORARY EROSION/SEDIMENTATION CONTROL
SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL
Appendix 0 Erosion/Sedimentation Control Plan
Native Growth Protection Easement (NGPE) delineation fencing at NGPE boundaries w/detail
(D.4.1.1)
General
(1) Separate plan sheet showing entire site w/features
(2) Limits of clearing to be flagged in the field are shown
(3) Perimeter control of runoff at property boundaries (D.4.3)
(4) Construction entrance with detail (Fig. D.4.G)
(5) Existing/Proposed Drainage features identified (streams, wetlands, bogs, springs, seeps,
swales, ditches, pipes & depressions
(6) Construction sequence (D.10.4)
(7) Utility corridors other than roadways shown
(8) Standard ESC plan notes (D.1O.3)
(9) Sufficient conceptual details to convey design intent
(10) Drainage divides and flow directions shown
(11) Specify requirements & best management practices
(12) Show cut and fill slopes with catch lines indicated
(13) Highly sensitive site (D.S.4)
Conveyance
(1) Inverts, min. slopes, & cover for temporary pipes (D.4.6.2)
r "mensions & direction of 0 n channel flow (D.4.6.3)
(3) Off-site runoff bypasses disturbed are s
Soils/Ground Cover Protection
(1) Pertinent info. from soils report is added to plans
(2) Areas receiving special treatment are specified (jute netting, rock lining, or sod)
(D.4.2)
(3) Soils cover practices and locations of disturbed areas (D.4.2)
Sedimentation facilities
(1) Sediment pond/trap w/structures shown (D.4.S.1 &2)
(2) Details of sediment pond riser (Fig. D.4.K)
(3) Control/restrictor device location and details
(4) Mulch specifications/berm & slope cover recommendations (D.4.2)
(S) Rock specifications & detail for rock check dams (Fig. D.4.R)
(6) Check dam spacing as required for on-site slopes
(7) Front and side views of rock check dams shown (Fig. D.4.R)
(8) Silt fabric fence locations shown w/detail and specs. (D.4.3.1)
Site Engineering Review Application & Checklist le-appckl-serchec.pdf 01/13103 Page 11 of 11
)0
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
400 YeslerWay, Room 404
Seattle, Washington 98104
Telephone (206) 296-4660
Facsimile (206) 296-1654
April 30, 2004
CORRECTION TO REPORT AND DECISION
SUBJECT: Department of Development and Environmental Services File No. L02P0012
Proposed Ordinance No. 2004-0143
Location:
Applicant:
PETRO VISTA
Preliminary Plat Application
Approximately on the southeast comer of the intersection 'of
11811> Avenue Southeast and Southeast Petrovitsky Road
Leroy Surveyors & Engineers Inc., represented by
Paul Green
Leroy Surveyors & Engineers, Inc.
1103 Shaw Road
Puyallup, Washington 98372
Telephone: (253) 848-6608
King County: Department of Development and Environmental Services, represented by
Fereshteh Dehkordi
900 Oakesdale A venue Southwest
Renton, Washington 98055-1219
Telephone: (206) 296-7173
Facsimile: (206) 296-6613
This is a corrected report and decision that was mailed on April 29, 2004. That report and decision states
the incorrect case number and file name on pages 2 through 11.
SUMMARY OF DECISIONIRECOMMENDATION:
Department's Preliminary Recommendation:
Department's Final Recommendation:
Examiner's Decision:
Approve, subject to conditions
Approve, subject to conditions
Approve, subject to conditions
L02POOI2-Petro Vista
EXAMINER PROCEEDINGS:
Hearing Opened:
Hearing Closed:
•
2
April 27, 2004
April 27,2004
Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in the attached minutes.
A verbatim recording of the hearing is available in the office of the King Connty Hearing Examiner.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner
now makes and enters the following:
FINDINGS:
1. General Information:
OwnerlDeveloper:
Consulting Engineer:
STR:
Location:
Zoning:
Acreage:
Number of Lots:
Density:
Lot Size:
Proposed Use:
Sewage Disposal:
Water Supply:
Fire District:
School District:
Dale VanDerschelden
21308 Snag Island Drive East
Sumner, W A 98390
(253) 891-1442
LeRoy Surveyors & Engineers, Inc.
1103 Shaw Road
Puyallup, WA 98372
(253) 848-6608
NW 'l4 33-23-05
Approximately, Southeast comer of the intersection of I 18 th Avenue SE
and SE Petrovitsky Road
R-6-S0
3.83 acres
23
6 dulacre
3,450 square feet average
Detached and attached residential dwellings
Soos Creek Water & Sewer District
Soos Creek Water & Sewer District
King County Fire District 40
Renton School District
Complete Application Date: September 16, 2002
2. Except as modified herein, the facts set forth in .the King Connty Land Use Services Division's
preliminary report to the King County Hearing Examiner for the April 27, 2004 public hearing
are fonnd to be correct and are incorporated herein by reference. The LUSD staff recommends
approval of the application, subject to conditions. The SEPA MDNS condition as described
within the staff report should be corrected so that the word "derbies" reads "debris".
.-
L02POOI2-Petro Vista 3
3. Dale VanDerschelden has filed a preliminary plat application to subdivide 3.83 acres into 23 lots
for single-family residential development. Many of the small R-6 zoned lots will be constructed
with attached residential structures. The property is within a rapidly urbanizing area located
south ofPetrovitsky Road about I mile east of its intersection with the Benson Highway.
4. The major complications with respect to this plat application relate to wetland issues. The tract B
onsite wetland functions as a closed depression and overflows Petrovitsky Road to its north
during major storm events. As a consequence, most site drainage will be rerouted to a detention
tract located directly to the wetland's east, with the wetland itself only receiving a reduced flow
sufficient to maintain its hydrology. Since the wetland will no longer be allowed to overflow,
existing problems relating to drainage backup on properties to the south should also be resolved.
5. An offsite wetland to the east and its outlet stream have been identified by DDES staff as part of
the Soos Creek headwaters system and assigned a class I wetland rating and a class 2 S stream
category respectively. Accordingly, the eastern flank of the Petro Vista plat will be constrained
by sensitive areas buffers. Moreover, DDES has determined that the off site stream is in hydraulic
continuity with a downstream bog, and the plat will be required to provide· enhanced water
quality treatment of site runoff.
6. Students from Petro Vista will talk to Renton School District schools, including Benson
Elementary located at I 16th Avenue Southeast and Southeast 186 1h Street. There are no shoulders
or sidewalks along 118 1h Avenue Southeast south of the plat, but the roadway only carries a
moderate amount of traffic. An alternative route further west via Petrovitsky Road and 1161h
A venue Southeast provides better walking facilities but is characterized by more traffic. In view
of the small size of the plat in the context of an area-wide lack of walking facilities, it is not
appropriate to require the Applicant to cure this neighborhood deficiency.
CONCLUSIONS:
. I. If approved subject to the conditions imposed below, the proposed subdivision makes appropriate
provision for the public health, safety and welfare; serves the public use and interest; and meets
the requirements ofRCW 58.17.110.
2. The conditions of approval imposed herein, including dedications and easements, will provide
improvements that promote legitimate public purposes, are necessary to serve the subdivision and
are proportional to its impacts; are required to make the proposed plat reasonably compatible with
the environment; and will carry out applicable state laws and regulations and the laws, policies
and objectives of King County.
DECISION:
The preliminary plat application for Petro Vista, as revised and received on February 26, 2004, is
APPROVED, subject to the following conditions of final plat approval:
I. Compliance with all platting provisions of Title 19 of the King County Code.
2. All persons having an ownership interest in the subject property shall sign on the face of the final
plat a dedication that includes the langnage set forth in King County Council Motion No. 5952.
L02POO 12-Petro Vista 4
3. The plat shall comply with the base density (and minimum density) requirements of the R-6-S0
zone classification. All lots shall meet the minimum dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone
classification or shall be as shown on the face or'the approved preliminary plat, whichever is
larger, except that minor revisions to the plat which do not result in substantial changes may be
approved at the discretion of the Department of Development and Environmental Services.
4. All construction and upgrading of public and private roads shall be done in accordance with the
ICing County Road Standards established and adopted by Ordinance No. 11187, as amended
(1993 KCRS).
5. The Applicant must obtain the approval of the King County Fire Protection Engineer certifying
the adequacy of the fire hydrant, water main, and fire flow to meet the standards of Chapter 17.08
of the King County Code.
6. Final plat approval shall require full compliance with the drainage provisions set forth in King
County Code 9.04. Compliance may result in reducing the number andlor location oflots as
shown on the preliminary approved plat. Preliminary review has identified the following
conditions of approval which represent portions of the drainage requirements. All other
applicable requirements in KCC 9.04 and the Surface Water Design Manual (SWDM) must also
be satisfied during engineering and final review.
a. Drainage plans and analysis shall comply with the 1998 King County Surface Water
Design Manual and applicable updates adopted by King County. DDES approval of the
drainage and roadway plans is required prior to any construction.
b. Current standard plan notes and ESC notes, as established by DDES Engineering
Review, shall be shown on the engineering plans.
c. The following note shall be shown on the final recorded plat:
All building downspouts, footing drains, and drains from all impervious surfaces such as
patios and driveways shall be connected to the permanent storm drain outlet asshown on
the approved construction drawings # on me with DDES andlor the King
County Department of Transportation. This plan shall be submitted with the application
of any building permit. All connections of the drains must be constructed and approved
prior to the final building inspection approval. For those lots that are designated for
individual lot infiltration systems, the systems shall be constructed at the time of the
building permit and shall comply With plans on file."
d. Storm water facilities shall be designed using the KCRTS Level One Flow Control
standard. Water quality facilities shall also be provided using the Sphagnum bog
protection menu. As shown on the conceptual drainage plan, the outlet of the detention
pond and water quality facility will connect to the existing conveyance system along
Petrovitsky Road and small areas ofundetained flows will be used to maintain wetland
hydrology within Tract B. Based upon the final drainage analysis, the size of the
proposed drainage tracts may have to increase to accommodate the required detention
storage volumes and water quality facilities. All runoff control facilities shall be located
in a separate tract and dedicated to King County, unless portions of the drainage tract are
used for recreation space in accordance with KCC 2IA.l4.180.
L02POO 12-Petro Vista 5
e. The final drainage analysis shall evaluate the requirements for off-site bypass as outlined
in the drainage manual on page 1-36. As noted in the design criteria, the contribution of
flows to an onsite wetland must be maintained and the natural attenuation of flows under
pre-developed conditions must also remain. The design engineer shall evaluate all areas
which may contribute off site flows including the ditch along I 18 1h Avenue SE. As noted
in the applicants Level One Offsite analysis dated May 15, 2003, during major storm
events the onsite wetland fills up and overtops to Petrovitsky Road and also backs up
water across the south property line. The design engineer shall evaluate any potential
flooding issues and provide drainage designs which adequately prevent potential drainage
problems. As shown on the preliminary plat, an interceptor swale is proposed along the
south property line of) ots 10 and II.
f. The final drainage plans and technical reports shall evaluate all applicable design criteria
for onsite closed depressions and ponding areas as discussed in the drainage manual on
page 3-54. The existing wetland in Tract B currently captures surface water from offsite
areas and the western portion of the project area which may influence the storm water
modeling for pre-and post-developed flow rates and volumes. During final engineering
review, King County will review and determine how much off site flow and/or undetained
project areas may drain to the wetland in Tract B without pretreatment in detention or
water quality facilities.
g. The final engineering plans and recorded plat shall show the 100-year floodplain
boundaries as required by Special Requirements No.2 in the drainage manual.
8. The proposed subdivision shall comply with the 1993 King County Road Standards (KCRS)
including the following requirements:
a. Southeast 1761h Court shall be improved as an urban subaccess street
b. One hundred eighteen (I ISIh) Avenue Southeast shall be improVed as a~ urban
neighborhood collector along the frontage of the subject property. As noted in KCRS
2.03, for neighborhood collector streets intersecting with an arterial (SE Petrovitsky), the
width must be 36-feet wide for the first 150 feet. A 25-foot right'of-way line radius is
also required as shown in KCRS 2.10.
c. One hundred eighteen (1ISIh) Avenue SE is designated a neighborhood collector street
which may require designs for bus zones and torn outs. As specified in KCRS 2.16, the
applicant or his engineering consultant shall contact Metro and the local school district to
determine specific requirements.
d. Street illumination shall be provided at intersections with arterials in accordance with
KCRS 5.05.
f. Modifications to the above road conditions may be considered by King County pursuant
to the variance procedures in KCRS LOS.
9. During preliminary site inspections, King County has identified fill material, building debris, and
a concrete foundation within the site. To address the required site grading and designs for
development, the applicant shall submit a geotechnical report with the engineering plans to
address all applicable earthwork, site preparation, road construction, and utility installation. The
• •
L02POO 12-Petro Vista 6
geotechnical engineer shall also evaluate the soil conditions and requirements for the proposed
storm water vault located within Tract A. Structural plans and calculations for the vault must be
prepared bya licensed structural engineer.
10. All utilities within proposed rights-of-way must be included within a franchise approved by the
King County Council prior to final plat recording.
II. King County Code 16.82.150D requires seasonal limitations for construction within the Soos Creek
basin. During the period October I through March 31, clearing and grading is not allowed unless
certain provisions are complied with as oudined in the code. The applicants engineering plans shall
demonstrate compliance with the applicable code requirements and provide notes referencing the
seasonal limitations set forth in KCC 16.82.150D.
12. The applicant or subsequent owner shall comply with King County Code 14.75, Mitigation
Payment System (MPS), by paying the required MPS fee and administration fee as determined by
the applicable fee ordinance. The applicant has the option to either: (J) pay the MPS fee at final
plat recording, or (2) pay the MPS fee at the time of building permit issuance. If the fIrst option
is chosen, the fee paid shaH be the fee in effect at the time of plat application and a note shall be
. placed on the face of the plat that reads, "All fees required by King County Code 14.75,
Mitigation Payment System (MPS), have been paid." If the second option is chosen, the fee paid
shall be the amount in effect as of the date of building permit application.
13. Lots within this subdivision are subject to King County Code 2IA.43, which imposes impact fees
to fund school system improvements needed to serve new development. As a condition of fInal
approval, fIfty percent (50%) of the impact fees due for the plat shall be assessed and collected
immediately prior to recording, using the fee schedules in effect when the plat receives fInal
approval. The balance of the assessed fee shall be allocated evenly to the dwelIing units in the
plat and shall be collected prior to building permit issuance.
14. There shall be no direct vehicular access to or from 11 8th Avenue SE from those lots which abut
it, except lot 23. A note to this effect shall appear on the engineering plans and fInal plat.
15. The proposed subdivision shall comply with the Sensitive Areas Code as outlined in
ICCC 2IA.24. Permanent survey marking, and signs as specified in KCC 2IA.24.160 shall also
be addressed prior to final plat approval. Temporary marking of sensitive areas and their buffers
(e.g., with bright orange construction fencing) shall be placed on the site and shall remain in place
until all construction activities are completed.
Preliminary plat review has identifIed the following specifIc requirements which apply to this
project. All other applicable requirements from KCC 21A.24 shaH also be addressed by the
applicant.
a. The Class I wetland near the east property line shall have a minimum buffer of 100 feet,
measured from the wetland edge.
b. The Class 2 wetland near the north boundary of the site shall have a minimum buffer of
50 feet, measured from the wetland edge.
L02POOI2-Petro Vista 7
c. The Class 2S stream shall have a minimum 100-foot buffer, measured from the ordinary
high water mark (OHWM).
d. The stream, wetlands and their respective buffers shall be placed in a Sensitiv~ Area
Tract (SAT).
e. A minimum building setback line of 15 feet shall be required from the edge of the tract.
f; Buffer width averaging may be allowed by King County if it will provide additional
protection to the wetland/stream or enhance there functions, as long as the total area
contained in the buffer on the development proposal site does not decrease. In no area
shall the buffer be less than 65. percent of the required minimum distance. To ensure
such functions are enhanced a mitigation plan will be required for the remaining on-site
sensitive areas. An enhancement plan shall be submitted for review during engineering
review.
g. A mitigation plan and financial guaranteelbond will be required for any proposed impacts
of sensitive areas including buffers. The bond amount will include all components of the
mitigation plan including, but not limited to, plantings, grading, fencing, signs,
inspections, and monitoring for five years.
-h. Prior to commencing construction activities on the site, the applicant shall temporarily
mark sensitive areas Tract(s) in a highly visible manner, and these areas must remain so
marked until all development proposal activities in the vicinity of the sensitive areas are
completed.
i. Prior to approval of construction activities on the site, the boundary between the sensitive
area Tract(s) and adjacent land shall be identified using permanent signs. Sign
specifications shall be shown on the engineering plans and shall be installed every 50 feet
or as deemed appropriate by county staff at the time of engineering review.
J. During engineering plat review the applicant shall provide a wetland hydrology analysis
to demonstrate how the wetland hydrology will be maintained post-construction.
k. Detention out-fall structures maybe permitted within the wetland/stream buffers,
however, structures shall be located in the outer edge ofthe buffer, ifpossible. All buffer
impacts shall be mitigated.
I. Development authorized by this approval may require other state and/or federal pennits
or approvals. It is the applicant's responsibility to correspond with these agencies prior
to beginning work on the site.
m. The following have been established under SEPA authority as necessary requirements to
mitigate the adverse environmental impacts of this development. The Applicant shall
demonstrate compliance with these items prior to final approval.
I) A four-foot taIl fence shall be constructed along the edge of the Sensitive Area Tracts
B and C. The fence shall follow the common boundaries of the wetland tracts and the
adjoining lots and road. Fencing details, construction and location shall be shown on
L02POOI2-Petro Vista
the engineering plans for DDES review and approval. This mitigation is intended to
reduce disturbance within the protective buffer and associated wetland.
8
2) An existing structures and other debris shan be removed from the sensitive area tracts
and the area shan be restored in accordance with KCC 2IA.24.
D. The fonowing note shan be shown on the final engineering plan and recorded plat:
RESTRICTIONS FOR SENSITIVE AREA TRACTS AND SENSITIVE
AREAS AND BUFFERS
Dedication of a sensitive area tract/sensitive area and buffer conveys to the public a
beneficial interest in the land within the tract/sensitive area and buffer. This interest
includes the preservation of native vegetation for an purposes that benefit the public
health, safety and welfare, including control of surface water and erosion, maintenance of
slope stability, and protection of plant and animal habitat The sensitive area
tract/sensitive area and buffer imposes upon all present and future owners and occupiers
ofthe land subject to the tract/sensitive area and buffer the obligation, enforceable on
behalf of the public by King County, to leave undisturbed all trees and other vegetation
within the tract/sensitive area and buffer. The vegetation within the tract/sensitive area
and buffer may not be cut, pruned, covered by fill, removed or damaged without approval
in writing from the King County Department of Development and Environmental
Services or its successor agency, unless otherwise provided by law.
The common boundary between the tract/sensitive area and buffer and the area of
development activity must be marked or otherwise flagged to the satisfaction of King
County prior to any clearing, grading, building construction or other development
activity on a lot subject to the sensitive area tract/sensitive area and buffer. The required
marking or flagging shall remain in place until all development proposal activities in the
vicinity of the sensitive area are completed.
No building foundations are allowed beyond the required 15-foot building setback line,
unless otherwise provided by law.
16. The proposal is to combine the recreation and drainage tracts. A suitable recreation space shall be
provided within the combined tract consistent with the requirements ofKCC 2IA.14.IS0 and
KCC 2IA.14.190 (i.e., sport court[s], children's play equipment, picnic table[s], benches, etc.).
a. An overall conceptual recreation space plan shall be submitted for review and approval
by DDES, with the submittal of the engineering plans. This plan shall include location,
area calculations, dimensions, and general improvements and landscaping. The approved
engineering plans shall be consistent with the overall conceptual plan.
b. A detailed recreation space plan (i.e., landscape specs, equipment specs, etc.) consistent
with the overall conceptual plan, and KCC 21A.16 Oandscaping code) as detailed in item
a., shall be submitted for review and approval by DDES and King County Parks prior to
or concurrent with the submittal of the final plat documents.
c. A performance bond for recreation space improvements shall be posted prior to recording
of the plat.
'.
L02P0012-Petro Vista 9
17. A homeowners' association or other workable organization shall be established to the satisfaction
ofDDES which provides for the ownership and continued maintenance of the recreatiol1, open
space andlor sensitive area tracts.
18. Street trees shall be provided as follows (per KCRS 5.03 and KCC 211\.16.050):
a. Trees shall be planted at a rate of one tree for every 40 feet of frontage along all roads.
Spacing may be modified to accommodate sight distance requirements for driveways and
intersections.
b. Trees shall be located within the street right-of-way and planted in accordance with
Drawing No. 5-009 of the 1993 ICing County Road Standards, unless King County
Department of Transportation determines that trees should not be located in the street
right·of-way.
c. If King County determines that the required street trees should not be located within the
right-of-way, they shall be located no more than 20 feet from the street right-of-way line.
d. The trees shall be owned and maintained by the abutting lot owners or the homeowners
association or other workable organization unless the County has adopted a maintenance
program. Ownership and maintenance shall be noted on the face of the [mal recorded
plat.
e. The species of trees shall be approved by DDE:S iflocated within the right-of-way, and
shall not include poplar, cottonwood, soft maples, gum, any fruit·bearing trees, or any
other tree or shrub whose roots are likely to obstruct sanitary or storm sewers, or that is
not compatible with overhead utility lines.
f. The applicant shall submit a street tree plan and bond quantity sheet for review and
approval by DDES prior to engineering plan approval.
g. The applicant shall contact Metro Service Planning at 684-1622 to determine if I 18th
Avenue SE is on a bus route. If it is a bus route, the street tree plan shall also be reviewed
by Metro.
h. The street trees must be installed and inspected, or a performance bond posted prior to
recording of the plat. Ifa performance bond is posted, the street trees must be installed
and inspected within one year of recording of the plat. At the time of inspection, if the
trees are found to be installed per the approved plan, a maintenance bond must be
submitted or the performance bond replaced with a maintenance bond, and held for one
year. After one year, the maintenance bond may be released after DDES has completed a
second inspection and determined that the trees have been kept healthy and thriving.
i. A landscape inspection fee shall also be submitted prior to plat recording. The inspection
fee is subject to change based on the current County fees.
19. To implement KCC 21A.38.230 requiring retention of significant trees, the applicant shall show
on the engineering plans that the significant trees retained within the sensitive area tract equal
25% or more of all the significant trees on the site. DDES Site Development Specialist shall
inspect and verify this prior to the engineering plan approval and any site preparation work.
L02POO 12-Petro Vista
ORDERED this 30th day of April, 2004.
King County Hearing Examiner
TRANSMITTED this 30th day of April, 2004, to the parties and interested persons of record:
steve Fiksdal
John L. Scott Real Estate
3380 -146th PI. SE, #450
Bellevue WA 98007
Becky KubefTy
17509 -1181h Ave. SE, #Cl0
Renton WA 98058
Ron Noreen
P.O. Box 58202
Renton WA 98058
GenevIeve Smith
17636 -1181h Ave. SE
Renton WA 98058
Greg Borba
DDES/lUSD
M OAK-DE·0100
Peter Dye
DDESILUSD
Engineering Review
MS OAK-DE-Ol00
Carol Rogers
DDES/lUSD
MS OAK-DE-0100
6ill & Jollen. Good
18011 -l20th Ave. SE
Renton WA 98058
Gary Lindstrom
17632 -118th Ave. SE
Renton WA 98058
Mali< & Michelle Rutherford
17634 -118th Ave. SE
Renton WA 98058
Dale VanOerschelden
c/o Leroy Surveyors & Engineers, Inc.
1103 Shaw Rd.
Puyallup WA 96372
Kim Claussen
DDESILUSD
Current Planning
MS OAK-DE-Ol00
Nick Gillen
DDESILUSD
Sile Development Services
MS OAK-DE-0100
Steve Townsend
DDESILUSD
Land Use Inspections
MS OAK-DE-Ol00
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Paul Green
P.O. Box 740
Puyallup WA 98371
Jeffrey & Rainie Manlpon
10809 SE 252nd Sl
Kent WA 98030
Seattle KC Heallh Dept.
E. Disl Environ. Health
14350 SE Eastgale Way
Bellevue WA 98007
Dale VanDerscheJden
21308 Snag Island Dr. E.
Sumner WA 98390
Fereshteh Dehkordi
DDESILUSD
Current Planning
MS OAK-DE-Ol00
Kristen langley
DDESILUSD
Land Use Traffic
MS OAK-DE-Ol00
Larry West
DDESILUSD
GeoRevlew
MS OAK-DE-Ol00
10
In order to appeal the decision of the Examiner, written notice of appeal must be filed with the Clerk of
the King County Council with a fee of $250.00 (check payable to King County Office of Finance) on or
before May 13, 2004. If a notice of appeal is filed, the original and six (6) copies of a written appeal
statement specifYing the basis for the appeal and argument in support of the appeal mustbe filed with the
Clerk of the King County Council on or before May 20, 2004. Appeal statements may refer only to facts
contained in the hearing record; new facts may not be presented on appeal.
..
L02P0012-Petro Vista 1J
Filing requires actual delivery to the Office of the Clerk of the Council, Room 1025, King County
Courthouse, 516 yd Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98104, prior to the close of business (4:30 p.m.) on the
date due. Prior mailing is not sufficient if actual receipt by the Clerk does not occur within the applicable
time period. The Examiner does not have authority to extend the time period unless the Office of the
Clerk is not open on the specified closing date, in which event delivery prior to the close of business on
the next business day is sufficient to meet the filing requirement.
If a written notice of appeal and filing fee are not filed within fourteen (14) calendar days of the date of
this report, or if a written appeal statement and argument are not filed within twenty-one (21) calendar
days of the date of this report, the decision of the hearing examiner contained herein shall be the final
decision of King County without the need for further action by the Council.
MINUTES OF THE APRIL 27, 2004, PUBLIC HEARING ON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT
AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FILE NO. L02POOI2.
Stafford L. Smith was the Hearing Examiner in this matter. Participating in the hearing were Fereshteh
Dehkordi and Pete Dye, representing the Department; Paul Green, representing the Applicant, and Jeffrey
Manipon.
The following exhibits were offered and entered into the record:
Exhibit No. 1 Department of Development and Environmental Services File No. L02POO 12.
Exhibit No.2 Department of Development and Environmental Services Preliminary report, dated
April 27, 2004.
Exhibit No.3. Application dated June 17,2002.
Exhibit No.4
Exhibit No.5
Exhibit No.6
Exhibit No. 7
Exhibit No.8
Exhibit No.9
Exhibit No. 10
Exbibit No. 11
Exbibit No. 12
Exhibit No. 13
Environmental Checklist dated December 19, 2002.
Mitigated Declaration of Non-significance dated March 15, 2004.
Affidavit of Posting indicating October 2,2002 as date of posting and DDES receipt on
October 4, 2002
Revised site plan dated February 26, 2004.
Assessors maps NW Yo section of33-23-5 & SW Yo section of28-23-05.
Level One Downstream Drainage Analysis by Paul Green dated September 13, 2002.
Revised Level One Off-site Drainage Analysis by Bargbausen dated May 15, 2003.
Traffic Impact Analysis by TPE Inc. dated January 14,2003.
Wetland Analysis Report by Wiltermood Associates, Inc. dated September 20,1999.
Petrovitsky Off-site Wetland Report by LeRoy Surveyors & Engineers dated
January 5, 2000.
Exhibit No. 14 Adjacent Owners -Orthophotograph
Exhibit No. 15 Color Photograph of Bog Area
SLS:gao/ms
L02P0012 RPT2
2.03 Residential Access Streets 1 Serving single-family development, see Drawings No. 1-001 through 1-006
For multiple-dwelling deve opment, see Section 2.04
LOCAL ACCESS STREETS
CLASSIFICATION NEIGHBORHOOD . SUBACCESS MINOR ACCESS
COLLECTORS / I 5 10 A'( SUBCOLLECTORS STREETS 5C/?wh. Ci" STREETS (RESIDENTIAL)
FUNCTION Streets connecting two or Streets providing circulation Permanent cul-de-sacs, or short Pennanent cul-de-sacs or
more neighborhoods and within neighborhoods loops (2]. connecting to subcollectors loops [2]. with low traffic, providing
typically connecting to arterials or typically connecting and not supportive of circulation and access to off-
other neighborhood collectors. to neighborhood collectors. through traffic. street parking within residential
development boundaries.
Public or Private Pul>lic streets Public streets Typically public Public or private
For private streets (See Sec. 2.06.) (See Sec. 2.06.)
Access Restricted, Lots As needed with As needed with As needec with
Access street restrictions. restrictions. restrictions.
Land Use Area Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban
SelVing Potential Number of
Single-Family Dwelling Units Over 100 [3J Over 100 [3J 100 Max. 100 Max. [4J 50 Max. 50 Max. 16 Max. 16 Max.
CRITERIA
A. Typical Road Type Shoulder Curb Shoulder Curb Shoulder Curb Shoulder Curb
B. Design Speec [5J Low Speed Curve Low Speed Curve Low Speed Curve Low Speed Curve
(MPH) 35 35 30 30 See Sec. 2.10 See Sec. 2.10 See Sec. 2.10 See Sec. 2.10
C. Max. Superelevation (FtlFt.) 0.06 See Sec. 2.05B 0.06 See Sec. 2.05B See Sec. 2.05B See Sec. 2.058 See Sec. 2.05B See Sec. 2.05B
D. Horizontal CUivature Low Speed Curve Low Speed CUive Low Speed CUNe Low Speed CUNe
Min. Radius (Ft.) See Table 2.1 See Table 2.2 See Table 2.1 See Table 2.2 See Sec. 2.10 See Sec. 2.10 See Sec, 2,10 See Sec, 2,10
E. Max. Grade [6] 11 12 12 15 15 15 15 15
F. Standard Stopping Sight See Table 2,1 See Table 2.2 See Table 2.1 See Tatoo 2.2 150 ft. 150 ft. 150 ft. 150 ft.
Dislance (Fl.) [7J
G. Standard Entering Sight
Dislance (Fl.) [8J See Table 2.1 See Table 2.2 ------
H. Min, Pavement Width (Ft.) 22 32[9J 22 28 20 24 20[10J 22
I. Min. Roadway VVid1tl (Ft.) [11] 38' 32[9J 38 28 28 24 28 [10J 22
J. Min. Right-aI-Way Width (Fl.) 60 56 60 48[12J 48 [12J 40[12J 48 [12J 40[12J
K. Type of Curb or Shoulder 8' Shoulder Vertical 8' Shoulder Vertical or Rolled 4' Shoulder Vertical or Rolled 4' Shoulder Vertical or Rolled
and Dilch [111 & D~ch [131 Curb & Gutter & Ditch [13J Curb & Gutter & Ditch [13J Curb & Gutter & Dilch [13J Curb & GuHer
L. Min. Hall St Paved Width (Fl.) 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
M. Min. One-Way Paved Width 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
1 -Within the above parameters, geometnc design for specfic streets shall be consistent with AASHTO Policy on Geometric DesiQn of HlQhwavs and Streets,
2 -See Section 2,15 for one-way loops. 3 -See Section 2.20 for residential access connection reQuirements 4 -See Section 2,21 for urban exception criteria,
5 -Design speed is a basis for determining geometric elements and does not imply posted or legally pennissible speed, Curves shall be designed within parameters of B, C and D above, (See
6 -Maximum grade may be exceeded for short distances. (See Section 2.11)
7 -Standard Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) shall apply unless otherwise approved by the Engineer. (See Section 2.12)
8 -Standard Entering Sight Distance (ESD) shall apply at intersections and driveways on neighborhood collectors unless otherwise approved by the Engineer (See Section 2,13)
9 -Neighborhood collectors intersecting with arterials shall be 36 feet wide for the first 150 feet See Section 4.05 for tapers.
10 -Exception to paving requirement on minor access shoulder type streets: (See Section 2.17)
11 -For guardrail installation, shoulders shall be two feet wider.
12 -Right-of-way (or easement) may be reduced to minumum roadway width, plus sidewalks, provided that all potential serving utilities and necessary drainage are
otherwise accommodated on permanent easements within the development. (See Section 2.19)
13 -As alternative to shoulder and ditch, underground pipe drainage with either Thickened Edge, Dwg. 1-005 or Extruded Curb, Owg. 1-006 is acceptable.
13
® King County
Land Use Services Division Permit Fee Estimate
Pre-app Estimate Number: L04SR074 Date: 11/18/2004
Permit Title: Petro Vista Plat
Permit Type: SITEREVP -Engineering Plan Estimated Maximum Honrs:205
Applicant: Robert Ehrlichman Total Fee:$32,083.28
The followmg disclaimers are attached and are part of the fee esttmate for thiS permit. The applIcant IS
required to submit a signed copy of this form with the application and fee payment acknowledging that
the applicant has read the disclaimers stated below.
Disclaimer
Applicants are responsible for all fixed fees, reported hours performed in reviewing submittal materials
and processing, up to the fee estimate. Changes in the scope of the project review will result in a revised
review fee estimate. Fee estimates are based on information submitted to DOES by the applicant prior
to finalization of the permit application. In addition, estimates are determined by utilizing historical
data gathered from projects of similar type, size, and scope. The fee estimate will be the maximum fee
charged unless the scope of the project changes. Should fewer hours be required to complete the
review, then the applicant may receive a refund for those hours. If items are identified that are not
originally disclosed or identified later in the process, a new estimate may be required. Applicants will
be responsible for any additional hours identified in a new estimate because of:
1) Changes in the project and unknown or undisclosed site issues.
2) Incomplete information or errors in applicant submittal.
3) County code fee changes.
4) Additional Review for changes and/()_T'lIiK.n"~·lli/l with the initial submittal:
a) Design Requirements for Plat Condition 15 (Sensitive Area Requirements), (b) Plat
Condition 16 (II: Ii illillllita..tRequired), (c) Plat Condition 18 Tree Plan) (d)
Plat Condition 19 (Tree Retention Requirements), walls and
vault, (f) Site plan changes due to conflicts with ()n wall heights
(KCC 2IA.12.170), (g) Revised site plan for reduced number oflots.
Keeping review fees at or below the fee estimate will depend on the applicant's commitment to
complete the .process review. This commitment should include submitting materials which address
all County codes, policies, previously approved conditions, and responding to the County's request
for corrections or additional information in a timely manner, not to exceed 90 days. /c /0
Acknowledged: 'jhf(}{) Date: ,".'4;11 /~ CJ" <:' (l-i9
Applicant/Owner Name (print)
Applicant/Owner Name (signature)
Project Manager.dot 1126/04
RECEIVED
DEC 0 fz004
KING COUNTY
LAND USE SERVICES Page 2
!
I
I
I
I
®
King County
Department of Development and Environmental Services
Land Use Services Division
900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest
Renton, Washington 98055-1219
(206) 296-6600 TIV (206) 296-7217
Date NOVEMBER 08TH 2004 Received:
I
J /"
/
Site Engineering Review
Application and Checklist
Alternative formats available
upon request
Activity Number:
L04SR074
[10 ITE ABOVE THIS DIVIDER
To submit a site engineering plan, this form and the following information is required
from the Applicant/Consultant:
Project Information
Related of Q Short Subdivision Project No: LO 2 POO 1 2 Permit: X Subdivision
(select one) Q Right-of-Way Use Permit
Applicant Information (Responsible for project and payment of fees)
Applicant BOB EHRLlCHMAN Phone: ( )
Name:
Company: BENNETT SHERMAN, LLC E-mail:
Address: 12011 N.E. 151 STREET SUITE 201
City, State & BELLEVUE WA 98005
Zip
Consulting Engineer Information
Consultant HAL. P. GRUBB, P.E. 425-251-6222
Name:
Company: BARGHAUSEN CONSULTING ENGINEERS E-mail: INC.
Address: 18215 72~D AVE SOUTH
City, State & KENT WA 98032 PE license No.
Zip
Submitted Materials Included
Check the applicable boxes that are included with this engineering plan submittal. Please note that
missing materials that are needed and not included may result in significant delays in review
processing.
Q Checklist (attached)
XThree (3) Sets of Plans
X THREE (3) copies of Technical Information Report (TIR)
Q Geo-tech/Soils Report, Other Special Reports
Q Legal Description of Property
Q KCRTS files on diskettes (optional)
XD Current Certificate of Applicant Status designating the consultant above as representative.
I, ___________________ , being duly sworn, state that I am the
owner or
(print name)
officer of the corporation owning property (or designated "Applicant/Agent") described in the
legal description filed with this application and that I have reviewed the rules and regulations of
the Department of Development and Environmental Services (DOES) regarding the preparation
and filing of this application and that all statements, answers and information submitted with this
application are in all respects true, accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and
belief.
During the review of this application, it may be necessary for DOES staff to make one or more
site visits. By signing this application form, you are giving permission for these visits. If it is
rental property, the owner hereby agrees to notify tenants of possible site visits.
Printed name Signature
Site Engineering Review Application & Checklist le~appckl~serchec.pdf 01113103 Page 1 ofll
I
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
LAND USE SERVICES DMSION
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
PRELIMlNARY REPORT TO THE BEARING EXAMINER·
Aprll27, 2004 -PUBLIC BEARING AT 9:30 A.M.
DDES Hearlng.Room
900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest
Renton, WA 98055-1219
Phone: (206) 296-6600 .
PROPOSED PLAT OF Petro Vista FILE NO: L02POOl2
PROPOSED
ORDINANCE NO: 2004-0143
A. SUMMARy OF PROPOSED ACTION:
This is a request for a subdivision of3.83 acres into 23 lots for single-family dwellings. The
majority of the lots will have attached residential structur~ and a feW Will have detached
residential units. The site's minimum density is 6 dwelling units per acre. The average lot size
is 3,450 and the smallest lot size proposed is 2,616 square feet. See Attachment I for a copy of
the proposed plat map. '
B. GENERAL INFORMATION:
OwnerlDeveioper: Dale VanDerschelden
21308. Snag Island Drive East
Swnner, WA 98390 .
(253) 891-1442
Consulting Engineer: LeRoy Surveyors & Engineers, Inc.
1103 Shaw Road
STR:
Location:
Zoning:
Acreage:
Number of Lots:
Density:
Lot Size:
Proposed Use:
Sewage Disposal:
Water Supply:
Fire District:
School District:
Puyallup, WA 98372
(253) 848-6608
NWY. 33-23-05
Approximately, Southeast comer of the intersection Of 118lh Avenue SE
and SE Petrovitsky Road.
R-6-S0
3.83 acres
23
6 dulacre
3,450 square feet average
Detached and attached residential dwellings
Soos Creek Water & Sewer District
Soos Creek Water & Sewer District
King Couuty Fire District 40
Renton School District
Complete Application Date:· September 16, 2002
Staffrpt/masters/2000staffreport.doc 2/~/OO -1 -
C. mSTORYIBACKGROUND:
The Subdivision Technical Committee (STC) of King County has conducted an on-site
examination of the subject property. The STC has discussed the proposed development with the
applicant to clarify technical details of the application, and to determine the compatibility of this
project with applicable King County plans, codes, and other official documents regulating this
development. As a result of preliminary discussions, the applicant presented the Technical
Committee with a revised pi at on February 26, 2004. The primary modifications include:
• Accurate delineation of the on-site wetlands
• Minor rearrangements ofIots
• Provision of a larger drainage and water quality facility
D. THRESHOLD DETERMINATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE:
Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SE;P A), RCW 43.21 C, the responsible official
of the LUSD issued a mitigated threshold determination of non-significance (MONS) for the
proposed development on March 15,2004. This determination was based on the review of the
environmental checklist and other pertinent documents, resulting in the conclusion that the
proposal would not cause probable significant adverse impacts on the environment provided the
following meastires are complied with: . .
1. A four100t tall fence shall be constructed along the edge of the sensitive Area Tracts B
and C. The fence shall follow the common boundaries of the wetland tracts and the
adjoining lots and road.
2. Fendng details, construction and location shall be shown on the engineering plans for
DDES review and approval. This mitigation is intended to reduce disturbance within
the protective buffer and associated wetland.
3. All existing structures and other derbies shall be removed from the sensitive area tracts
and the area shall be restored in accordance with KCC 21A.24.
Agencies, affected Native American tribes and the public were offered the opportunity to
comment on or appeal the determination for 21 days. Neither the MDNSnor the specific
mitigation meaSures were appealed by any party, including the applicant, and they have been
incorporated as part of the applicant's proposal .
• E. AGENCIES CONTACTED:
1. King County Department of Natural Resources: The comments from this division have
been incorporated into this report.
2. King County Park System: No response
3. King County Fire Protection Engineer: Fire protection engineering preliminary approval
has been granted.
4. Renton School District: The comments from this district have been incorporated into this
report.
5. Soos Creek Water & Sewer District: The comments from this district have been
incorporated into this report.
6. Washington State Department of Ecology: .No response.
7. Washington State Department ofFish and Wildlife: No response.
8. Washington State Department of Natural Resources: No response.
9. Washington State Department of Transportation: . No response.
10. METRO: No response.
L02P0012, Petro Vista Staff rpt. -2-
'.
F. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Topography: The site slopes down moderately from southwest to nOrtheast The
maximum slope is less than 20%. .
Soils: One surface soil is found on this site per King County Soil Survey, 1973. the
entire site is classified AgB .
A!ili -Alderwood gravely, sandy loam; 0-6% slopes. Runoff is slow ~d the eros!on
hazard is slight. This soil type has a moderate limitation for low building fOundatIOns
due to a seasonally high water table, and severe limitations for septic tank filter fields due
to very slow penneability in the substratum.
Wetland/streams: Two wetland reports were prepared by Wiltermood Associates, Inc.
and LeRoy Surveyors & Engineers, Inc. The King County Wetl~dE~ologist revi~wed
the reports and conducted a field visit. Two wetland areas were Identified on the SIte.
The area in the north central portion of the site is Classified as a Class.IT wetland. The
area near the east property line of the site and extending east outside of the site is
classified as a Class I wethind. There is a Class 2S stream a few feet east of the site. The
site lies within the Soos Creek drainage basin.
Vegetation: This site is moderately covered by second-story vegetation and
groundcover corisists of Northwest native species.
Wildlife: Small birds and animals may inhabit this site; however, their population and
species are limited due to nearby development. No threatened or endangered species are
known to exist on or near the property. .
Mapped Sensitive Areas: The Sensitive Areas Map Folio indicates that the Soos Creek
Inventoried Wetland 5402 is located a few miles east of the site. Ail off site Class II fish
bearing stream also runs east of the site.
G.NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS:
The property lies within a rapidly developing neighborhood south of SE Petrovisky Road and
east of Benson Highway. The site abuts 1 18th Avenue SE and SE Petrovisky Road to the west
and north respectively. A 25-foot wide Bonneville Power Administration transmission line
easement runs east of the site. There are residential parcels directly south of the site developed
with residential structures.
The site itself is developed with an office and storage buildings which will all be removed. The
site and the surrounding parcels to the west, south and east are zoned R-6. The area north of SE
Petrovisky Road is zoned R-18.
H. SUBDNISION DESIGN FEATURES:
1. Lot Pattern and Density: The proposed lot and street layout is in conformance with the
King County Subdivision and Zoning Codes
2. Internal Circulation: All the lots within the subdivision except Lot 23 will have access
to 118 th AvenueSE via a subaccess road (SE 1 76th Court) which will be constructed as
part of this subdivision. Lot 23 will have direct access to SE 11Sth Avenue SE.
SE 176th Court will extend east from 11Sth Avenue SE at mid width of the site and
terminate in a cul-de-sac near the east end of the site.
3. Roadway Section: The interior road and the site's frontage with 1 16th Avenue SE will
be improved to .urban road standards consisting of curb, gutter and sidewalks.
4. DraInage: The proposed developtnent site contains two primary drainage subbasins.
The east portion of the property drains. to an offsite wetland and stream corridor which
comprises portions of the headwater for Soos Creek. The western portion of the site
drains to an onsite wetland located within proposed Tract B as shown on the site plan.
As described in the applicant's preliminary drainage. analysis, the onsite wetland
functions as a closed depression which captures surface water within the project and
L02P0012, Petro Vista Staff rpt. -3-
• •
also collects drainage from offsite areas located south of the property. The closed
depression has some capacity to detain and infiltrate water, however, duriIig major
storm events the wetland fills up and overtops into the right-of-way for Petrovitsky
Road. Based upon the applicant's discussion with. property owners living south of the
project, the drainage from the closed depression also backs up across the south property
line. .
To assure that site development will provide adequate controls for surface water, the
applicant is proposing a storm water detention facility located adjacent to the onsite
wetland. This facility will collect and detain the majority of onsite storm water before
discharge from the site. An outlet from the facility will be provided to convey storm
water to the existing pipe system along Petrovitsky Road, which discharges surface
water to the wetland and stream corridor located east of the site. To reduce the existing
flooding condition of the onsite wetland, a small amount of runoff will be conveyed to
the wetland to provide surface water to support wetland hydrology without causing
flooding of surrounding property. As shown on the preliminary site plan, a drainage
interceptor will be provided along the south property line to collect offsitestorm water
for safe conveyance to the wetland. The larger volumes of storm water caused by site
development will be collected into the storm water facility before discharge to the
downstream system east of the site, rather than discharge to the onsite closed
depression.
During King County evaluation of downstream drainage conditions, a bog wetland was
identified as part of.the Soos Creek stream corridor. For site development which
drains to an identified bog, the King County drainage manual requires that special
water quality facilities must be provided to treat storm water prior to discharge from
the site. To accomplish the water quality designs, the applicant's drainage plan shows a
combination sand filter and compost filter adjacent to a stomi water detention vault.
Detailed designs for these facilities will be provided during final review when the
applicant submits construction plans for site deveiopment. After the construction and
inspection process, King County will ultimately own and maintain the drainage and
water quality facilities.
5. Other Design Features: The proposal includes a combined recreation and storm facility
tract. The storm facility tract will include a water quiUity feature per the KCSWDM. The .
storm detention and water quality facility will be constructed underground. The
recreation ·improvement will be placed above the drainage facility. .
L· TRANSPORTATION PLANS:
1. Transportation Plans: The King County Transportation Plan indicates that SE
Petrovisky Road is designated as a principal arterial and 1181h Avenue SE as a
neighborhood collector. The subject subdivision is not in conflict with this plan.
2. Subdivision Access: The subdivision will have access to SE Petrovisky Road a
principle, arterial via 1181h Avenue SE immediately west of the site.
3. . Traffic Generation: It is expected that approximately 230 vehicle trips per day will be
generated with full development of the proposed sUbdivision. This calculation includes
service vehicles (Le., mail delivery, garbage pick-up, school bus) which may currently
serve this neighborhood, as well as work trips, shopping, etc.
4. Adequacy of Arterial Roads: This proposal has been reviewed under the criteria in
King County Code 14.70, Transportation Concurrency Management; 14.80, Intersection
Standards; and King County Code 14.75; Mitigation Payment System.
a. King County Code 14.70 -Transportation Concurrency Management: The
. Transportation Certificate of Concurrency (#01386) dated March 27,2002
indicates that transportation improvements or strategies will be in place at the
time of development, or that a financial commitment is in place to complete the
irilprovements or strategies within six (6) years, according to
RCW 36.70A.070(6).
L02P0012, Petro Vista Staff rpt. -4-
' .
'.
b.
c.
King County Code 14.80 -Intersection S~dards.: !he. traffic gen~~ed by ~s
subdivision falls below the threshold requmng mItIgatIon. The eXIstIng artenal
system will accommodate the increased traffic volume generated by this proposal.
King County Code 14.75 -Mitigation Payment System:
King County Code 14.75, Mitigation Payment System (MPS), ie~~s t:h e
payment of a traffic impact mitigation fee (MPS fee) and an admini~tion fee for
each single family residential lot or unit created. MPS fees are determmed by the
zone in which the site is located. This site is in Zone(s) 342 per the
MPS/Quartersection list. MPS fees may be paid at the time offinal plat
recording, or deferred until building permits are issued. The amount of the fee
will be determiiJed by the applicable fee ordinance at the time the fee is collected.
J. PUBLIC SERVICES:
1. Scbools: This proposal has been reviewed under RCW 58.17.110 and King County Code
21A.28 (School Adequacy). .
b.
c.
d.
School Facilities: The subject subdivision will be served by Benson Hill
Elementary, Nelsen Junior High, and Lindbergh Senior High Schools, all located
within the Renton School District.
School Capacity: The Renton School Board has adopted capacity figures which
indicate their ability to accommodate additional students.
School Impact Fees: . Ordinance 14525 requires tI1at an impact fee perlot be.
imposed to fund school system improvements to serve new development within
this district. Payment of this fee (in a manner consistent withKCC 21A.43 will be
a condition of subdivision approval.
School Access: The Renton School District has indicated that the future students
from this subdivision will walk to all schools. The District has a policy to provide
bus service to elementary school children if they live more than one Inile from the
school. The bus service for junior high and senior Jrigh school students is
provided for residents living more than 1.5 and 2 miles from such schools
respectively. Walkway conditions to the elementary school and the junior high
school are substandard. There are sidewalk$ along the south side of SE
Petrovisky Road from.the site to 116th Avenue SB·and an average 2-footwide
paved shoulder along I 16 th A venue SE to the elementary school site.
2. Parks and Recreation Space: The nearest public park is Soos Creek Trail Park located
a few Iniles east of the site. KCC 21A.14 requires subdivisions in the UR and R zone
classifications to either provide on-site recreation space or pay a fee to the King County
Parks Division for establishment and maintenance of neighborhood parks. At this time,
the applicant is proposing to provide a recreation tract which will be combined with the
drainage facility tract.
KCC 21A.14.l90 requires subdivisions to provide tot/children play areas within the
. recreation space on-site. The applicant proposes to construct the drainage facility under
ground and create a recreation space above it.
3. Fire Protection: The Certificate of Water Availability from Soos Creek Water and
Sewer District indicates that water is presently available to the site in sufficient quantity .
to satisfy King County Fire Flow Standards. Prior to final recording of the plat, the water
service facilities must be reviewed and approved per King County Fire Flow Standards.
K. UTILITIES:
. 1. Sewage Disposal: The applicant proposes to serve the subject subdivision by means of a
public sewer system managed by Soos Creek Water & Sewer District. A Certificate of
L02P0012, Petro Vista statf rpt. ·5·
'. •
Sewer Availability, dated May 8, 2002 indicates this sewer district's capability to serve
the proposed development.
2. Water Supply: The applicant proposes to serve the subject subdivision with a public
water supply and distribution system managed by Soos Creek Water and Sewer District
A Certificate of Water Availability, dated May 8, 2002 indicates this district's capability
to serve the proposed development.
L. COMPREHENSIVE AND COMMUNITY PLAN:
1. Comprehensive Plan: This proposal is governed by the 1994 King County
Comprehensive Plan which designates this area as Urban. The proposed subdivision is
not in conflict with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Special Overlay District: The proposed site is subject to the tree retention requirement.
The majority of the significant trees are located within the sensitive area tracts. The
applicant states that the number of significant trees within the sensitive area tracts are
more than 30 percent of all the significant trees on site, thus meeting the requirement for
the significant tree retention.
M. STATUTES/CODES:
If approved with the recommended conditions in this report, the proposed development will .
comply with the requirements of the County and State Platting Codes and Statutes, and the lots
in the proposed subdivision will comply with the minimum dimensional requirements of the
zone district. .
N. ANALYSIS:
The Subdivision Technical Committee (STC) has not identified any significant issues involved
in the preliminary review and recommendations of this proposal.
The STC recognizes that there are substandard walkway facilities from the site to the Benson
Hill Elementary school if the children use 118th AvenueSE. There are no sidewalks or walkways
along this road. However, the elementary students from this area could use the sideWalk on the
south side ofSE Petrovitsky Road and the 2 -to-3-foot paved shoulder along 116* Avenue SE to
reach the school site.
The subjcx<t site appears to be more that one mile from Benson Elementary school. It would be
appropriate that the elementary school children be bussed from the site to the school since they
have to cross I 16th Avenue SE, which is a busy street.
O. CONCLUSIONS:
The subject subdivision will comply with the goals and objectives of the King County
Comprehensive Plan and will comply with the requirements of the Subdivision and Zoning
Codes and other official land use controls of King County, based on the conditions for final plat
approval.
P. RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is recominended that the subject subdivision, revised and received February 26, 2004 be
granted preliminary approval subject to the following conditions offinal approval:
1. Compliance with all platting provisions of Title 19 of the King County Code.
2. All persons having an ownership interest in the subject property shall sign on the face of
the final plat a dedication that includes the language set forth in King County Council
Motion No. 5952. '.
L02P0012, Petro Vista Staff rpt. - 6 -
'.
3.
4.
5.
6.
The plat shall comply with the base density (arid ~umden~ity) r:'quireme~ts of the
R-6 SO zone classification. All lots shall meet the nununum dimensiOnal requrrements
. of the R -6 zone classification or shall be as shown on the face of the approved
preliminary plat, whichever is larger, except that mino.r revi.sions to the plat which do not
result in substantial changes may be approved at the discretion of the Department of
Development and Environmental Services.
All construction and upgrading of public and private roads shall be done in accordance
with the IGng County ROIid Standards established and adopted by Ordinance No. 11187,
as amend~d (1993 KCRS).
The applicant must obtain the approval of the King County Fire Protection Engineer for
the adequacy of the fire hydrant, water main, and fire flow standards of Chapter 17.08 of.
the King County Code.
Final plat approval shall require full compliance with the drainage provisions set forth in
King County Code 9.04. Compliance may result in reducing the number and/or location
of lots as shown on the preliminary approved plat. Preliminary review has identified the
following conditions of approval which represent portions of the drainage requirements.
All other applicable requirements in KCC 9.04 and the SUrface Water Design Manual
(SWDM) must also be satisfied during engineering and fmal review.
a. Drainage plans and analysis shall comply with the 1998 King County Surface
Water Design Manual and applicable updates adopted by King County. DDES
approval of the drainage and roadway plans is required prior to any construction.
h. Current standard plan notes and ESC notes, as established by DDES Engineering
Review, shall be shown on tIie engineering plans. .
c. The following note shall be shown on the final recorded plat:
All building downspouts, footing drains, and drains from all impervious surfaces
such as patios and driveways shall be connected to the permanent storm drain
outlet as shown on the approved construction drawings #. . on file
with DDES and/or the King County Department of Transportation. This plan
shall be submitted with the application of any building permit. All connections of
the drains must be constructed and approved prior to the final building inspection
approval. For those lots that are designated fo, individua1lot infiltration systems,
the' systems shall be constructed at the time of the building permit and shall
comply with plans on file."
d. Storm water facilities shall be designed using the KCRTS Level One Flow
Control standard .. Water quality facilities shall also be provided using the
Sphagnum bog protection menu. As shown on the' conceptual drainage plan, the
outlet of the detention pond and water quality facility will connect to the existing
conveyance system along Petrovitsky Road and small areas ofundetained flows
will be used to maintain wetland hydrology within Tract B. Based upon the final
drainage analysis, the size of the proposed drainage tracts may have to increase to .
accommodate the required detention storage volumes and water quality facilities.
All runoff control facilities shall be located in a separate tract and dedicated to
King County unless portions of the drainage tract are used for recreation space in
accordance with KCC 21 A.l4.l80.
e. The final drainage analysis shall evaluate the requirements for off-site bypass as
outlined in the drainage manual on page 1-36. As noted in the design criteria, the
contribution of flows to an onsite wetland must be maintained and the natural
attenuation of flows under pre-developed conditions must also remain. The
design engineer shall evaluate all areas which may contribute offsite flows
including the ditch along 118th Avenue SE. As noted in the applicants Level One
Off site analysis dated May 15,2003, during major storm events the onsite
wetland fills up and overtops to Petrovitsky Road and also backs up water across
the south property line. The design engineer shall evaluate any potential flooding
issues and provide drainage designs which adequately prevent potential drainage
L02P0012, Petro Vista Staff rpt. -7-
problems. As sh.own .on the preliminary plat, an intercept.or swale is pr.oP.osed
al.ong the S.outh pr.operty line .ofl.ots 10 and 11.
f. The fmal drainage plans and technical reports shall evaluate all applicable design
criteria f.or .onsite cl.osed depressi.ons and P.onding areas as discussed in the
drainage manual .on page 3-54. The existing wetland in Tract B currently
captures surface water fr.om .offsite areas and the western P.orti.on .of the pr.oject
. area which may influence the storm water modeling f.or pre and P.ost developed
fl.oW rates and v.olumes. During final engineering review, King C.ounty will
review and determine h.oW much off site flow andl.or undetained project areas may
drain t.o the wetland in Tract B with.out pretreatment in detenti.on or water quality
facilities.
g. The final engineering plans.and rec.orded plat shall show the 100-year floodplain
b.oundaries as required by Special Requirements N.o. 2 in the drainage manual.
8. The proposed subdivision shall c.omply with the 1993 King C.ounty R.oad Standards
(KCRS) including the following requirements:
a. S.outhea:st I 76 th C.ourt shaH be improved as an urban subaccess street.
b. One hundred eighteen (1ISth) Avenue S.outheast shaH be improved as an urban
neighb.orh.ood c.ollect.or al.ong the frontage of the subject property. AS n.oted in
KCRS 2.03, f.or neighb.orh.o.od c.oHect.or streetsintersectmg with an arterial (SE
Petrovitsky), the width must be 36-feet wide for the first 150 feet. A 25-foot
right-of-way line radius is als.o required as sh.own in KCRS 2.10.
c. Orie hundred eighteen (llSth) Avenue SE is designated a neighb.orh.o.od c.ollect.or
street which may require designs for bus zones ~d turn .outs. As specified in
KCRS 2.16, the applicant or his engineering C.onsultant shall C.ontact Metr.o and
the l.ocal sch.ool district to determine specific requirements.
e. Street illumination shall be provided at intersecti.ons with arterials in acc.ordance
. with KCRS 5.05.
f. M.odificati.ons to the ab.over.oad.c.onditi.ons may be c.onsidered by King C.ounty
pursuant t.o the variance procedures in KCRS LOS.
9. During preliminary site inspecti.ons, King C.ounty has identified fill material, building
debris, and Ii c.oncrete f.oundati.on within the site. T.o address the required site grading
and designs for development, the applicant shall submit a geotechnical report with the
engineering plans t.o address all applicable earthw.ork, site preparati.on, r.oad c.onstructi.on,
and utility installati.on. The ge.otechnical engineer ~hall also evaluate the S.oil c.onditi.ons
and requirements f.or the pr.oP.osed st.orm water vault I.ocated within Tract A. Structural
plans and calculations for the vault must be prepared by a licensed structural engineer.
10. All utilities within proP.osed rights-.of-way must be included within a franchise appr.oved
by the King C.ounty C.ouncil prior to final plat reC.ording.
II. King County Code 16.S2.150D requires seas.ona1limitations for construction within the SO.oS
Creek basin. During the period Oct.ober I through March 31, clearing and grading is n.ot
all.owed unless certain provisions are c.omplied with as outlined in the code. The applicants
engineering plans shall demonstrate c.ompliance with the applicable code requirements and
provide notes referencing the seas.onallirnitati.ons set f.orth in KCC 16.S2.150D.
12. The applicant .or subsequent owner shaH c.omply with King C.ounty C.ode 14.75,
Mitigati.on Payment System (MPS), by paying the required MPS fee and administration
fee as determined by the applicable fee ordinance. The applicant has the option to either:
(I) pay the MPS fee at fmal plat rec.ording, or (2) pay the MPS fee at the time of building
permit issuance. If the first option is chosen, the fee paid shall be tlie fee in effect at the
time .of plat application and a note shall be placed .on the face .of the plat that reads, "All
fees required by King County C.ode 14.75, Mitigati.on Payment System (MPS), have been
i02P0012, Petro Vista Staff rpt. { - 8 -
. .
paid." If the second option is chosen, the fee paid shall be the amount in effect as of the
date of building pennit application.
13. Lotswithin this subdivision are subject to King County Code 21A,43, which imposes
impact fees to fund school system improvements needed to serve new development. As a
condition of final approval, fifty percent (50%) of the impact fees due for the plat shall be .
assessed and collected immediately prior to recording, using the fee schedules in effect
when the plat receives final approval. The balance of the assessed fee shall be allocated
evenly to the dwelling units in the plat and shall be collected prior to building permit
issuance.
14. There shall be no direct vehicular access to or from 11Sth Avenue BE from those lots
which abut it except lot 23. A note to this effect shall appear on the engineering plans
and final plat.
15. The proposed subdivision shall comply with the Serisitive Areas Code as outlined in
KCC 21A,24. Permanent survey marking, and signs as specified in KCC 21A.24. 160
shall also be addressed prior to final plat approval. Temporary marking of sensitive areas
and their buffers (e.g., with bright orange construction fencing) shall be placed on the site
and shall remain in place until ;ill construction activities are completed.
Preliminary plat review has identified the following specific requirements which apply to
this project. All other applicable requirements from KeC 21A.24 shall also be addressed
by the applicant.
a. The Class 1 wetland near the east property line shall have a minimum buffer of
100 feet, measured from the wetland edge.
b. the Class 2 wetland near the north boundary of the site shall have a minimum
buffer of 50 feet, measured from the wetland edge.
c. The Class 2S stream shall have a minimum I OO-foot buffer, measured from the
ordinary high water mark (OHWM).
d. The stream, wetlands and their respective buffers shall be placed in a Sensitive
Area Tract (SAT).
e. A minimum building setback line of 15 feet shall be required from the edge of the
tract.
f. Buffer width averaging may be allowed by King County if it will provide
. additional protection to the wetland/stream or enhance there functions, as long
as the· total area contaWd in the buffer on the development proposal site does
not decrease. In no area shall the buffer be less than 65 percent of the required .
minimum distance. To ensure such functions are enhanced a mitigation plan
will be required for the remaining on-site sensitive areas. An enhancement plan
shall be submitted for review during engineering review.
g. A mitigation plan and financial guaranteelbond will be required for any
proposed impacts of sensitive areas including buffers. The bond amount will
include all cOlnponents of the mitigation plan including, but not limited to,
plantings, grading, fencmg, signs, inspections, and monitoring for five years.
h. Prior to commencing construction activities on the site, the applicant shall
temporarily mark sensitive areas Tract(s) in a highly visible manner, and these
areas must remain so markeduntil.alldeve1opment proposal activities in the
vicinitY of the sensitive areas are completed.
i. Prior to approval of construction activities on the site. the boundary between the
sensitive area Tract(s) and adjacent land shall be identified using permanent
signs. Sign specifications shall be shown on the engineering plans and shall be
L02P0012, Petro Vista Staff rpt. -9-
installed every 50 feet or as deemed appropriate by county staff at the time of
engineering review.
J. During engineering plat review the applicant shall provide.a wetland hydrology
analysis to demonstrate how the wetland hydrology will be maintained post-
construction. .
k. Detention out-fall struttures maybe permitted within the wetland/stream buffers,
however, structures shall be located in the outer edge of the buffer, if possible.
All buffer impacts shall be mitigated.
1. Development authorized by this approval may require other state and/or federal
permits or approvals. It is the applicant's responsibility to correspond with
these agencies prior to beginning work on the site.
m. The following have been established by SEP A as necessary requirements to
mitigate the adverse environmental impacts of this development. The applicants
shall demonstrate compliance with these items prior to final approval.
1) A four-foot tall fence shall be constructed along the edge of the sensitive
Area Tracts B and C. The fence shall follow the common boundaries of the
wetland tracts and the adjoining lots and road. Fencing details, construction and
location shall be shown on the engineering plans for DDES review and
approval. This mitigation is intended to reduce disturbance within the protective
buffer and associated wetland.
2) All existing structures and other derbies shall be removed from the sensitive
area tracts and the area shall be restored in accordance with KCC 21A.24.
n. The following note shall be shown on the final engineering plan and recorded
plat:
RESTRICTIONS FOR SENSITIVE AREA TRACTS AND SENSITIVE
AREAS AND BUFFERS
Dedication of a sensitive area tract/sensitive area and buffer conveys to the public
a beneficial interest in the land within the tract/sensitive area and buffer. This
interest includes the preservation of native vegetation for all purposes that benefit
the public health, safety and welfare, including control of surface water anel
erosion, maintenance of slope stability, and protection of plant and animal habitat.
The sensitive area tract/sensitive area and buffer imposes upon all present and
future owners and occupiers of the land subjectto the tract/sensitive area and
buffer the obligation, enforceable on behalf of the public byKmg County, to
leave undisturbed all trees and other vegetation within the tract/sensitive area and
buffer. The vegetation within the tract/sensitive area and buffer may not be cut,
pruned, covered by fill, removed or damaged without approval in writing from the
King County Department of Development and Environmental Services or its
successor agency, unless otherwise provided by law.
The common boundary between the tract/sensitive area and buffer and the area of
development activity must be marked or otherwise flagged to the satisfaction of
King County prior to any clearing, grading, building construction or other
development activity on a lot subject to the sensitive area tract/sensitive area and
buffer. The required marking or flagging shall remain in place until all
development proposal activities in the vicinity of the sensitive area are completed.
No building foundations are allowed beyond the required IS-foot building setback
line, unless otherwise provided by law.
16. The proposal is to combine the recreation and drainage tracts. A suitable recreation space
shall be provided within the combined tract consistent with the requirements ofKCC
21A.l4.180 and KCC 21A.14.l90 (I.e., sport court[s], children's play equipment, picnic
table[s], benches, etc.).
L02P001Z", Petro Vis.ta Staff rpt. -10 -
'.
'.
· .
a.
b ..
c.
An overall conceptual recreation space plan shall be submitted for review and .
approval by DDES, with the submittal of the engineering plans. This plan shall
include location, area calculations, dimensions, and general improvements and
landscaping. The approved engineering plans shall be c~msistent with the overall
conceptual plan. .
A detailed recreation space plan (i.e., landscape specs, equipment specs, etc.)
consistent with the overall conceptual plan, and KCC 21A.16 (landscaping code)
as detailed in item a., shall be s1)bmitted for review and approval by DDES and
King County Parks prior to or concurrent with the submittal of the final'plat
documents.
A performance bond for recreation space improvements shall be posted prior to
recording of the plat.
17. . A homeowners' association or other workable organization shall be established to the
satisfaction ofDDES which provides for the ownership and continued maintenance of the
recreation, open space and/or sensitive area tracts.
18.· Street trees shall be provided as follows (per KCRS 5.03 and KCC 21A.16.050):
a. Trees shall be planted at a rate of one tree for every 40 feet of frontage along all
roads. Spacing may be modified to acconunodate sight distance requirements for
driveways and intersections.
b.· Trees shall be located within the street right-of-way and planted in accordance
with Drawing No. 5-009 of the 1993 King County Road Standards, unless King
County Department of Transportation determines that trees should not be located
in the street right-of-way.
c. If King County determines that the required street trees should not be located
within the right-of-way, they shall be located no more than 20 feet from the street
right-of-way line.
d. The trees shall be owned and maintained by the abutting lot owners or the.
homeowners association or other workable organization unle~s the County bas
adopted a maintenance program. Ownership and maintenance shall be noted on
the face of the fmal recorded plat.
e. The species of trees shall be approved by DDES iflocated within the right-of-
way, and shall not include poplar, cottonwood, soft maples, gum, any fruit-
bearing trees, or any other tree or shrub whose roots are likely to obstruct sanitary
or storm sewers, or that is not compatible with ovemead utility lines.
f. The applicant shall submit a street tree plan and bond quantity sheet for review
and approval by DDES prior to engineering plan approval.
g, The applicant shall contact Metro Service Planning at 684-1622 to determine if
118111 Avenue SE is on a bus route. If it is a bus route, the street tree plan shall
also be reviewed by Metro. .
h. The street trees must be installed and inspected, or a performance bond posted
prior to recording of the plat. If a performance bond is posted, the street trees
must be installed and inspected within one year of recording of the plat. At the
time of inspection, if the. trees are found to be installed per the approved plan, a
maintenance bond must be submitted or the performance bond replaced with a
maintenance bond, and held for one year. After one year, the maintenance bond
may be released after DDES has completed a second inspection and determined
that the trees have been kept healthy and thriving.
I. A landscape inspection fee shall also be submitted prior to plat recording. The
inspection fee is subject to change based on the current County fees.
L02P0012, Petro Vista Staff rpt. -11-
19. To implement KCC 21A.38.230 requiring retention of significant trees, the applicant
shall show on the engineering plans that the significant trees retained Within the sensitive
area tract is 25% or more of all the significant trees on the site. DDES Site Development
Specialist shall inspect and verify this prior to the engineering plan approval and any site
pr.eparation work.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS:
I. The subdivision shall conform to KCC 16.82 relating to grading on private property.
2. Development of the subject property may require registration with the Washington State
Department of Licensing, Real Estate Division.
3. Preliminary approval of this application does not limit the applicant's responsibility to
obtain any required permit or license from the State or other regulatory body. This may
include, but is not limited to the following:
a. Forest Practice Permit from the Washington State Dept. of Natural Resources.
b. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit from WSDOE.
c. Water Quality Modification Permit from WSDOE.
d. Water Quality Certification (401) Permit from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
TRANSMITTED TO PARTIES LISTED HEREAfTER:
STAFFORD SMITH
KING COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER, MS: YES-CC-0404
BORBA,GREG
CURRENT PLANNING SUPERVISOR DDES/LUSD MS: OAK -DE-0100
CLAUSSEN, KIM
PROJECT MANAGER ill DDES/LUSD MS: OAK -DE-0100
DEHKORDI, FERESHTEH
PROJECT MANAGER II DDES/LUSD MS: OAK -DE-0100
DYE, PETE
PRELIM.REVIEW ENGINEER DDESI LUSD MS: OAK -DE-0100
FIKSDAL, STEVE
JOHN L.SCOTT REAL ESTATE 3380 146TH PL SE, #450 BELLEVUE, WA 98007
GILLEN, NICK
WETLAND REVIEW DDES I LUSD MS: OAK -DE -0100
GOOD, BILL & JOLLENE
18011120TH AVENUE SE RENTON, WA 98058
GREEN, PAUL
PO BOX 740 PUYALLUP, WA 98371
KUBERRY, BECKY
17509118TH AVE SE, #CI0 RENTON, WA 98058
LANGLEY, KRISTEN
LAND USE TRAFFIC REVIEW DDESI LUSD MS: OAK -DE-0100
LINDSTROM, GARY
17632118TH SE RENTON, WA 98058
NOREEN, RON
PO BOX 58202 RENTON, WA 98058
RA1NIE MARIPOW
10609 SE 252ND STREET KENT, WA 98030
ROGERS, CAROL
CliRRENT PLANNING SECTION DDES I LUSD MS: OAK -DE-0100
RUTHERFORD, MARK & MICHELLE
17634 118TH AVE SE RENTON, W A 98058
SEATTLE KC HEALTH DEPT.
E. DISTRICT ENVIRON. HEALTH 14350 SE EASTGATE WAY BELLEVUE, WA 98007
SMITH, GENEVIEVE
17636118TH AVE SE RENTON, WA 98058
TOWNSEND, STEVE
LAND USE iNSPECTIONS MS: OAK ~DE-0100DDES/LUSD
VANDERSCHELDEN,DALE
21308 SNAG ISLAND DR E. SUMNER, WA 98390
WEST, LARRY
GEO REVIEW DDES I LUSD MS: OAK -DE-0100
L02P0012, Petro .Vista Staff rpt.
'.
z o
r_TfM.l
, -<~---
CiS
S
lLJ ,...,.. .. -
~ ~ ~
f'Ii:Of'05ED
R!GHfOfWAY
R-6
~) wu,
.~ ~.
c:;;I .....
\!!l ~ ~ ~t..~
~ .@S
<>-'-""" :'\J :10' ~'fEEIyE-CZ. 29 s.._f
12" ._
1£-G4._
1/ (-1 * PETROV tTSKY ROAD
•
IET"-
10'
R-6
®
King County
Department of Development
and Environmental Services
Land Use Services Division
900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest
Renton, Washington 98055-1219
(206) 296-6600
Alternative formats available
upon request
Drop-Off Cover Sheet for Land Use Services Division
***********************IMPORTANT***********************
PROJECT NUMBER AND NAME IS NECESSARY
Project No.:
Project Name:
FROM:
TO:
FOR ALL DROP-OFFS
L02P0012 f L04SR074
Petro Vista
Hal P. Grubb, Barghausen Engineers
Company Name f Contact Person
Telephone No. (425) 251-6222
Pete Dye
Date Received by LUSD
~~((~rE~wIE ~
NOV () 4 2004 -
KC. R.D,E.S,
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUESTED BY KING COUNTY STAFF (please print)
Short Plat I Plats
Please specify ilem(s) dropped-off:
3 sets plans f 3 copies TIR f Certification of Applicant Status form f fee estimate submittal payment receipt
Lot Line Adjustment Permit
Please specify item(s) dropped-off:
Right of Way Permit
Please specify item(s) dropped-off:
Clearing I Grading Permit
Additional information requested; please specify item(s) dropped off:
Other: ______________________________________________________________________ ___
PLEASE NOTE: All drop-off item(s) will be logged into the computer under the project number, therefore, it is
important that the top portion of this form is completed properly before you drop-off anything. Assistance in finding a
project number can be provided by speaking to a Land Use Services Division Person of the Day (POD) or the
Zoning/Land Use Technician. Your cooperation is important. Thank you.
LUSD Drop-Off Cover Sheet Ig-cvs·dropoff.pdf 05·30-2002Page 1 of 1
"
®
King caunty
Department of Developmlnland Environmental Service'
900 Oakesdale Avenue So.",west
BENNETT DEVELOPMENT
Certification of
Applicant Status
PAGE 82./0:':
Renton, Washington 98055-1219
206-296-6600 TTY 20&-298-7217 For alternate formats, call 206-296-6600.
Permit Number: L02P0012 Actlvlty Number: _--""LJJ.04~S;:uRIS.IOLJ7~4,--__ _
Perm't Name: Petro Vista
FOR INDIVIDUALS:
I, _ (print name), hereby certify that I am
the/an owner of the property which is the liubject of this permit. If I am not the sole owner of the
property, , certify that' am authorized to represent all other owner'S of the property, My mailing
address is: '
IJurjheroortlfy that lam t/'Ie "Applicant' for this permit and as slli:ham flmm!i!lally mspOftlllb!!!
for.;aIU'e •. JDd wfl .... "ce'v' any: ndlmds paid. I shan remain the"App"cerrt"10~ (he dliratlbn of
this permit unless I transfer my "appllcaor S!I!u!! in wtitll1doo.a fOrm provided by DOES.
Signature of Applicant
-OR-
FOR CQRPGRAEtlN$!BUSINESS ASSOCIAnONS:
Date Sigfled
I, Bob Ehrl1ehman (print name), hereby certify that I am
an authorized agent of Bennett ShHma'l, LLC , a corporation or other
business association authorized to do business in the State of Washington, whic~ is the sale
OWrler of the property that is the subject of this permit. If this corporation or business association
is not the sole owner of the property, I certify that this corporationlbuslness associatiorl is
authori:ted to represent all other owners althe property_ The mailing address of this
corporationlbusiness association is:
12011 H.E. 1st Street. Suite 201
Bellevue, WA 98005
I further certify thai the above narn~ CQI'pOre"orl/business a~(j\\on Is.tha "A!lJlilGant" fur this
permit and as such is ffIDndaUy!'!§ponslltlt'fwa!.l feeumhylfJ !!IC!lyA!II!1i.t!!uqdUIII!t
This corporationlbusiness association snalf remain Ihe "Appncarlt" for the duration ofihls permit
UnleS?U a~:tus in writing on a form provlded by DOES,
*)7. . -Q !O~?~i
Signature of Applicant's Agent ate Signed
* By Signing as tne Applicant or the Applicant's Agent, I certif)' under penalty of perjury under the laws of
Ina Stat8 of Washington thallhe infonnaijon provided abOV(I Is true and correcl.
Check out the DDES Web site af W!NW.metrokc.qovlddes
Cerlifieatlon of A"IlIIc:anl StatuQ Ic-cer-BPatat.pdr 01J08/04 ~agB 10f 2
1~/28/~~~4 14:11 425709555~ PAGE 03/0e' , ..
..
NOTICE TO APPLICANTS: By law, this department returns all engineering and other
plans to the applicant. If, however, you wish to authorize the department to return
engineering and Cithar plans directly to the engineer, architect, or ather consultant for the
limited ourpglltof makingool'l'eCtlons, please designate below:
[j] I authorize this department to return plans directly to my consultant(s) for the limited
purpose of making corrections as designated on this form.
CONSULTANTS:
Hal P. Grubb, P.E.
Barghausen Consulting Engineers. tnCt
18215 -72nd Avenue South
K'mt ,WA 98032
(425) 251-6222
hgrubb@barghausen.com
Check out the DDES Web site at www.metrokc.qovlddes
Cenllkallon of ADpilanl St.!Us lrx:er-,psf4:Il.pc'f O'/OIlI04 Pag.2of2
King County
Department of Development
and Environmental Services
Land Use Services Division
900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest
Renton, Washington 98055-1219
(206) 296-6600
·· •... OavetSheet
Alternative formats available
upon request
Drop-Off Cover Sheet for Land Use Services Division
***********************IMPORTANT***********************
PROJECT NUMBER AND NAME IS NECESSARY
FOR ALL DROP-OFFS
Project No.:
Project Name:
FROM:
TO:
L02P0012/ L04SR074
Petro Vista
Hal P. Grubb, Barghausen Engineers
Company Name / Contact Person
Telephone No. (425) 251-6222
Pete Dye
Date Received by LUSD
--=--, 1-
,( C: I) Iii' "
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUESTED BY KING COUNTY STAFF (please print)
Short Plat I Plats
Please specify item(s) dropped-off:
3 sets plans / 3 copies TIR I Certification of Applicant Status form / fee estimate submittal payment receipt
Lot Line Adlustment Permit
Please specify item(s) dropped-off:
Right of Way Permit
Please specify item(s) dropped-off:
Clearing I Grading Permit
Additional information requested; please specify item(s) dropped off:
Other: __________________________________ _
PLEASE NOTE: All drop-off item(s) will be logged into the computer under the project number, therefore, it is
important that the top portion of this form is completed properly before you drop-off anything. Assistance in finding a
project number can be provided by speaking to a Land Use Services Division Person of the Day (POD) or the
ZoninglLand Use Technician. Your cooperation is important. Thank you.
LUSD Drop-Off Cover Sheet Ig-cvs-dropoff.pdf 05-30-2002Page 1 of 1
Pete Dye
King County Department of Development
and Environmental Services
900 Oakesdale Avenue S.W.
Renton, W A 98055
CIVIL ENGINEERING. LA.ND PLA.NNING. SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
November 3, 2004
HAND DELIVERY
RE: Submittal of Plans for Fee Estimate Review for Petro Vista
Project Address: 11925 S.E. Petrovitsky Road
Parcel Nos. 619660-0380 and -0381
King County Project No. L02P0012 I Activity No. L04SR074
Our Job No. 11011
Dear Pete:
On behalf of our client, Bennett Sherman, LLC, we are submitting the following documents for a fee
estimate review.
1. One check in the amount of $784.88
2. Original signed Certification of Applicant Status form
3. Three full-size sets of engineering plans
4. Three copies of the Technical Information Report
We trust that the items listed above will help you in determining the fee estimate for this project. If you
have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at this office.
HPG!ca
llOllc.003.doc
enc: As Noted
RECEIVED
NOV 0 4 2004
KING COUNIY
lll.ND USE SERVICES
Respectfully,
!-W/.~~
Hal P. Grubb, P.E.
Director of Engineering Services
cc: Bob Ehrlichman, Bennett Sherman, LLC (w/enc)
Todd Sherman, Bennett Sherman, LLC
Fred Herber, Bennett Sherman, LLC
Don Dawes, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. (w/enc)
18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT. WA 98032 (425)251,6222 (425)251·8782 FAX
BRANCH OFFICES • OLYMPIA. WA • TEMECULA. CA • WALNUT CREEK. CA
www.barghausen.com
King County
Department of Development
and EU\lironmental Services
900 Oaksda1c Ave S W
Renton, WashingLon 98055~12l9
Thursday, November 04, 2004
FEE RECEIPT
----------
Activity Number: L04SR074
! Project Number: L02POOl2
---,-----------
Applicant: BENNETT SHERMAN, LLC
--------1
-~---
CHARGES
Description Checklog Check # Payee
Counter Service Fees
I
I
I
Date Entered Amount
__ ~~~~~~~~_--..S205.28
Dcposit-Based o~ Est HT~ ___ -,-,=====~ __ _ S579.60
SUBTOTAL:
PAYMENTS
Description
Check ------------
Cbecklog Check #
8738
SUBTOTAL:
CHANGE GIVEN:
BALANCE DUE:
RECElVED
NOV 0 4 2004
KINGCOUN1Y
ll'lND USE SERVICES
$784.88
Payee Date Entered Amount
BENNETT SHERMAN",,-,L,,,L,,C'---c===~I~I/o4/2=OO=4~---,-= ($784-:88)
($784.88)
$0.00
$0.00
The fees shown above represent current charges as of this date and are an estimate based on the information provided to DOES at the time
of application. DOES permit fees were restructured effective March 4th, 1999. Many fees previously assessed a flat fee, now are assessed as
hourly charges. Because of this change, and to ensure that our customers secure permits as quickly as possible, permits may be issued
prior to all hourly charges being recorded into our billing system. For services that are rendered on an hourly basis, the cost of those
services will be based on the actual hours worked. Hourly fees are charged at the rate in effect at the time of service, and will be billed
monthly, along with any other outstanding fees. Fees that have been posted prior to permit issuance will be collected at that time. Fees
subsequently posted will be billed to the applicant. All fees must be paid in full before DOES issues Final Approval, T.C.O. or C.O.
Printed on: Thursday, November 04, 2004 at 2: II :28 Page I of I
Message
Colleen Allen
From: Carlson, Joanne [Joanne.Carlson@METROKC.GOV]
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 11 :45 AM
To: 'callen@barghausen.com'
Subject: RE: Fee Estimate Submittals
Hi Colleen
Here is the Engineering Site Review number L04SR074 the deposit for the fee est is $784.88
Thanks
joanne
-----Original Message-----
From: Colleen Allen [mailto:callen@barghausen.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 11: 11 AM
To: carlson, Joanne
Subject: RE: Fee Estimate Submittals
Thanks Joanne.
Page 1 of 2
~ 110 II
The project number for the fee estimate submittal is L02P0012 (Petro Vista). As soon as you know the fee
estimate submittal fee, we will request a check from our client and the signed Certificate of Applicant status form.
Colleen Allen
Engineering Assistant
Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.
18215 nnd Avenue South
Kent. W A 98032
(425) 251-6222 -Phone
(425) 251-8782 -Fax
http://www.barghausen.com
-----Original Message-----
From: carlson, Joanne [mailto:Joanne.carlson@METROKC.GOV]
Sent: Wednesday, October 27,2004 10:50 AM
To: 'callen@barghausen.com'
Subject: RE: Fee Estimate Submittals
Colleen
RECE\VEO
NOV 0 4 2.GG4
KltiGCOUtiiY
LI\NO USE SERVICES
You can call me 296-7216, Beth Cheshier 296-7187 Engr Tech, or the program managers Ray Florent for finals 296-6790
or Pete Dye 296-7185 Engineering RdjStorm for Plats; Curt Foster Engineering RdjStorm short plats 296-7106. The first
choice would probably be I or Beth. If you can give us the project number we can setup the related Engineering number
or final survey number. Then you can put that number on your submittal and leave it at the front desk with Attn to Beth
or me. Then you can go over to the cashier give them the permit number and pay the Fee Est. deposit .We can let you
know that amount when we call you with the permit number. With initial submittal a signed Cert of Applicant status form
is needed, I believe all the submittal requirements are on the DDES web page if you need it.
Hope that helps
Joanne
111412004
Mes~age
-----Original Message-----
From: Colleen Allen [mailto:callen@barghausen.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 9:20 AM
To: Joanne carlson
Subject: Fee Estimate Submittals
Page 2 of 2
Joanne, what is the latest procedure for fee estimate submittals? Do we make an appointment or can we submit by drop-
off at the cashier's office? I can't remember what the latest and proper procedure is. Thanks.
Colleen Allen
Engineering Assistant
Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.
18215 nnd Avenue South
Kent, W A 98032
(425) 251-6222 -Phone
(425) 251-8782 -Pax
htlp:llwww.barghausen.com
111412004