17-10294341k
CITY OF
Federal Way
RECEIVED
JUN 16 2017
CITY OF FEDERALWAY
C,0MMUNFTY DEVELOPMENT
REQuEST FOR ADmiNiSTRATIVE DECISION
FILE NUMBER 1-7 - 10 Z-9 1- --3.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
33325 8 1h Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 9800
253-835-2607; Fax 253-835-2609
www.citvoffederalway.com
Date 6-16-17
— Applicant 12rmv) qleijt^,�g L-CF7- PRIMARY PHONE
NAME 206-861-3728
Rolerl Britt- .5 & (n �jo s 1%,'6L K /I
BUSINESS/ORGANIZATION ALTERNATE PHONE
LL Management lic
MAMIN G ADDRESS E-MAM
24913 104th ave se lawofficenow@gmail-com
CITY STATE ZIP FAX
kent wa 98030
Property Address/Locatio I Parcel: 7205310070 and Parcel: 1196003610
Description of Requ,st We working on parcel: 7205310070 and digging foundation out, due to the lot so
small we looking for a stockpile for 2-3 weeks until foundation is poured, we found owner welling
to let us stockpile on there property on percel: 1196003610 can you please take a look and see
if you can help us with this temporary dirt. Thanks
List/Describe Attachment
For Staff Use
0 Code Interpretation/Clarification
El Critical Areas Letter/Analysis/Peer Review
0 Request for Extension (Land Use/Plat Approval)
D Revisions to Approved Permit
0 Tree Removal
Zoning Compliance Letter
No Fee
No Fee (Actual Cost ifApplicable)
Check Current Fee Schedule
Check Current Fee Schedule
No Fee
Check Current Fee Schedule
Bulletin #079 — January 4, 2016 Page I of I k:\Handouts\Request for Administrative Decision
Map
Map
RS9.6
T SW 292ND ST
ch
< RS9.6
a
I$ Hm In
I
(N
RS9.6
t0apr
RS9.6
BUENNA Z
RS9.6 RS9.6
RS9.6 Ix
Z
RSq.d I
Page 1 of 2
IK I
Q;.
R�
S".
RS9 6
S
CE RS9.6".
c)
29MH -PL
R
4 Z
04
POIN
Site Address
Federal Way Zoning Boundary
13
City Limits
SEPA Planned Action Area Boundary
Subdivisions
King County Zoning Boundary
Federal Way Stream Classification Points
La kes
son
Wetlands (1998 City Survey)
Wellhead Protection Zones
,r.,6 Months
[31 Year
C35 Year
r,7,,,'!, 1 o y e a r
Landslide Hazard Areas
10
Erosion Hazard Area
http://cfwgisweblaspnet—clientlESRIlWebADFIPrintTaskLayoutTemplatesldefault.htm 6/16/2017
Map
Page 2 of 2
Streams
Buildings Puget Sound
Shoreline Designations - Federal Way
Streets
Shoreline Designations - King County
100 Year Floodplains
Parcels
ICI
http://Cfwgisweblaspnet—clientlESRIlWebADFIPrintTaskLayoutTemplatesldefault.htm 6/16/2017
December 20, 2005
Mr. James D. Burbidge
Ms. Jeanne A. Burbidge
2824 SW 300'h Place
Federal Way, WA 98023-2325
Re: Inquiry #05-106162-00-AD; Request for Land Surface Modification Waiver
Lot 4, Lakota Addition; Parcel Number 416660-0235-06
Dear Mr. and Ms. Burbidge:
The following is in response to your December 2, 2005, letter. In the letter, you request a waiver
from the city's land surface modification ("LSM") provisions to place approximately 100 cubic
yards of fill dirt on the above referenced vacant lot.
LSM is defined by the Federal Way City Code ("FWCC") as clearing or removal of vegetation
and all grading, excavation and filling activities. Therefore, the proposed work you describe is
classified as a LSM. LSM activity is regulated by FWCC Chapter 22, Article X111, Division 7.
This article classifies two types of LSM activities. First, Section 22-1093 outlines 13 types of
LSM activities that are permitted outright. Second, Section 22-1094 then provides a process for
applicants to request LSM approval if not otherwise permitted outright by Section 22-1093.
Beyond these types of activities, there is no other LSM exemption or waiver process provided by
city code. -
I have reviewed your proposal against the 13 LSM activities permitted outright under Section 22-
1093. Unfortunately, I do not see that the proposal matches up with any of the activities permitted
outright under this section. I understand Kathy McClung spoke to you on December 19'h to clarify
that the existing well isn't considered an active use to permit the proposed fill. Absent ability in
city code to exempt or waive the LSM provisions that you have requested; your request can then
only be considered under the process outlined in Section 22-1094.
As you apparently already know, the process outlined under Section 22-1094 (requiring use
process HI review) is both lengthy and costly in relation to the minimal nature of your proposal. It
is likely that the cost and time involved in this process would far outweigh the value of the
available fill material. It is also likely that a proposal of this nature would not meet the stipulated
decisional criteria, which require extenuating circumstances to allow grading and filling in
advance of a development proposal.
File #05-106162-00-AD Doc. I.D. 34333
James D. Burbidge
Jeame A. Burbidge
Page 2
December 20, 2005
I am sorry I don't have better news for you. LSM provisions in city code are written to address
more extreme cases of site grading. Unfortunately, there is no exemption or waiver of your type
of minimal activity. Under these circumstances, you are essentially constrained to wait to fill and
grade the property until a home is constructed.
If you have any further questions about your proposal, please contact me in person at
=jz.fewins@.ci�yoffederalway.com, or 253-835-2611.
Sincerely,
Greg Fewins
Deputy Director of Community
Development Services
File #05-106162-00-AD Doc. I.D. 34333
Becky Chapin
From: Becky Chapin
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2014 12:01 PM
To: 'Xiaoping Betsy Zhu (zhu@clangston.com)'
Subject: Fill and Grade Proposal, City of Federal Way
Hi Betsy,
I wanted to follow-up with you regarding the fill and grade proposal. When you came to the counter last week, you proposed to use the
excavated dirt from one of your projects to fill and develop a separate site. I believe the last thing we mentioned was with the large
amount of dirt proposed, 13,000 cubic yards, you will need to do a preapplication conference to discuss any potential impacts/conflicts
and code regulations.
From what I can find in our records, there has been no project with this much fill. I cannot say whether this would be allowed or not; a
preapplication conference will be necessary for any project. Are you still looking into potential development sites within the City, or
have you decided to contract out to remove the soil?
Hope you have a wonderful Holiday,
Becky Chapin
Associate Planner
City of Federal Way
33325 8th Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
Phone: 253-835-2641
Becky.Chapin(cDcityoffederalway.com
Fx. 253-896-1011
Fx. 253-896-2633
Mr. Robert Britt
c/o Advanced Building Consultants, Inc.
14422 SE 192 d Street
Renton, WA 98058
Attn: Mr. Glenn Carter
(206) 714-6246
FILE
GeoResources, LLC
5007 Pacific Hwy. E., Ste. 16
Fife, Washington 98424-2462
P(ESUBMITTED
October 27, 2015
FEB 2 2 2016
CITY OF FE0ERAL WAY
CDS
Geotechnical Consultation
Single -Family Residence
Redondo Highlands, #5, Lot 7
XXX SW 29,�h Street
Federal Way, Washington
PN: 7205310070
File: Britt. Lot7 Redondo. L
We previously prepared a GeotechnicalReportf or the proposed residence for the
project site near SW 297uStreet in Federal Way, Washington. We understand that the
proposed foundation excavation for the west portion of the residence/garage will be
approximately 9.5 feet deep. The proposed foundation elements for this portion of the
structure will be setback from the existing roadway and utilities approximately 18 feet. 111a our
opinion that provided the soils encountered are in a dense condition and no groundwater
seepage is observed, there is sufficient room for the cut face to be adequately sloped per our
previous report, and shoring will not be necessary.
As with all excavation cut slopes, site safety is the responsibility of the contractor. If
groundwater seepage or sloughing occurs, we should be contacted immediately.
We have appreciated working for you on this project. Please do not hesitate to
call at your earliest convenience if you have questions or comments.
Respectf ully submitted,
GeoResources, LLC
Rrnrl P RinrtPrcztqff I P(-,
BPB:DGB/bpb
Doc 1D:Britt.8W297thSt.L
Dana C. Biggerstaff, PE
Senior Enc[44k�
0
50040
0
Fx. 253-896-1011
Fx. 253-896-2633
Mr. Robert Britt
c/o Advanced Building Consultants, Inc.
14422 SE 192 nd Street
Renton, WA 98058
Attn: Mr. Glenn Carter
(206) 714-6246
GeoRe.sources, LLC
5007 Pacific Hwy. E., Ste. 16
Fife, Washington 98424-2462
November 25, 2014
Update - Geotechnical Report
Single -Family Residence
Redondo Highlands, #5, Lot 7
XXX SW 297 th Street
Federal Way, Washington
PN: 7205310070
File: Britt. Lot7Redondo.G Ru
INTRODUCTION
We previously prepared a Geotechnical Reportfor Stonegate Homes dated May 12,
2006 addressing the proposed residence on Lots 7 th roug h 10 in the Redondo H eig hts area
located near SW 297"' Street in Federal Way, Washington. Our report included soil
explorations on Lot 9 (B-2, TP-1, and TP2). Subsequently, you purchased Lot 7 and we have
since completed additional explorations for your proposed site development. We have
reviewed the proposed building plans and prepared a plan review letter. We understand that
the City has requested that the original report be up0ated to reflect your ownership and
proposed site development. This report is provided for that purpose.
The onsite slope ranges from approximately 55 to 70 percent with about 60 feet of
vertical relief. We understand the proposed residence will be constructed from the bottom up.
This phasing approach will reduce the potential for erosion and help increase the stability of the
site during construction. As previously indicated, because the upper 4 to 8 feet of soil material
is old fill material, temporary shoring may be required to meet the L&I requirements for worker
safety and maintain stability between the foundation excavation and the roadway above.
On January 30 and 31, 2014, we monitored the excavation of three additional test pits
in Lot 7. Exposed soils consisted of 4 to 8 feet of loose sandy gravel with assorted debris.
These soils are related to uncontrolled fill material, likely from prior grading activity. Underlying
the surficial soils, we observed medium dense to dense silty sand with gravel to gravelly sand
with trace boulders and silt, representative of native outwash deposits.
SITE CONDITIONS
Surface Conditions
The subject parcel is located at the east terminus of SW 297t' Street in Federal
Way, Washington. The parcel is irregular in shape extending over the east portion of the
lower steep slope. The site is currently undeveloped, but was previously used to place
uncontrolled fill material during development of the surrounding area and the
construction of 297th Street. The proposed new residence will include an upper
driveway off 297th, and typical associated utilities. The site is bounded by existing
Britt — Redondo Heights Lot 7
November 25, 2014
Page 2
single family residential development on the south and west, and by SW 297th Street to
the west. Additional undeveloped lots are situated on the north.
The site is located on the north margin and slope of the Redondo glacial upland
area. The ground surface at the site and adjacent areas generally slopes down to the
northeast at inclinations of 40 to 85 percent with locally steeper areas. West of the site,
near the cul cle sac, the ground surface flattens to approximately 5 to 10 percent. The
slope at the site is about 65 feet in height. A site plan with topography is included as
Figure 2.
Vegetation consists of invasive grass and brush with scattered trees along the
north margin of the slope. No surface water or seepage was observed at the time of our
site visits. The slope area appeared generally stable for the existing conditions at the
time of our site visits. No evidence of erosion, soil movement, landslide activity or deep-
seated slope instability was observed at the site or the adjacent areas.
Site Soils
The USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey for
King County maps the soils in the area of the site as Alderwood and Kitsap soils (AkF).
These soils are typically derived from glacial till that form on slopes of 25 to 70 percent.
These soils are listed as having a "moderate to very severe" erosion hazard, where
exposed. However, as the site has been filled with uncontrolled silty sand material, we
consider the erosion hazard the site to be very severe when the soils are exposed. A
bopy of the SCS map for the site vicinity is attached as Figure 3.
Site Geology
The Geological Map of the Poverty Bay 7.5 minute Quadrangle, Washington by
Booth, Waldron, and Troost (2003) indicates the site is underlain by pre -Olympia age
glacial deposits (Qpog,). These older glacial soils typically consist of oxidized silt, sand
and gravel that was deposited prior to the Vashon deposits. These soils are considered
overconsolidated and exhibit high strength values and low compressibility characteristics
where undisturbed. The near surface soils at the site have been disturbed by natural
weathering processes that occurred since their deposition. An excerpt of the referenced
map is included as Figure 4. As previously discussed, fill material was placed across the
lots during the historic development of the area. The fill is thickest near the roadway and
top of the slope, and decreases in depth towards to toe.
Subsurface Explorations
We previously completed both test pits and borings at and near the site, the
adjacent lots. Copies of those explorations are included in Appenclix "A" as part of the
previous geotechnical report. Additional test pits were complete on January 30, 2014 on
Lot 7 to specifically address the depth and condition of the old fill material. The
approximate locations of the previous and recent explorations are indicated on the
attached Site Plan, Figure 2.
A geologist from our office monitored the excavation of the test pits, created the
soil logs of the subsurface conditions encountered, and obtained representative soil
samples. The soil samples were placed in sealed plastic bags and taken to our
laboratory for further examination and testing, as deemed appropriate.
Subsurface Conditions
The previous test pits (4) and borings (2) were completed for the short plat in 2006
(Appendix "A"). In general, the soil conditions encountered consisted of 4 to 15 feet of old
Britt — Redondo Heights Lot 7
November 25, 2014
Page 3
fill material (silty sand with gravel and cobbles) interpreted to be till fill material. Belowthe
fill material, medium dense to dense silty sand and sand were encountered in the borings
to a depth of approximately 32 feet. Glacial till was encountered below the sandy material
to the full depths explored, 40.5 feet and 41.0 feet. Similar fill depths were also
encountered in the previous test pits.
On January 30, 2014, we observed the excavation of three additional test pits in
the lower portion of Lot 9. The soils encountered 4 to 7 feet of loose sandy gravel with
assorted debris. These soils are related to uncontrolled fill material, likely from prior
grading activity in the area. Underlying the surficial soils, we observed medium dense to
dense silty sand with gravel to gravelly sand with trace boulders and silt, representative of
native outwash deposits. The soils encountered were visually classified in accordance
with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) described on Figure 5. The test pit
logs are included as Figure 6.
Groundwater Conditions
No groundwater seepage was observed in the explorations at the time of
excavation, However, we expert that during periods of extended or heavy wet weather,
perched groundwater conditions could develop in the old fill material, and at depth above
the deeper till material. Appropriate drainage components for the proposed structure will
address any potential drainage issues.
Slope Stability
A slope stability analyses was also conducted as part of the previous
geotechnical report in 2006. That is discussed in detail in the attached report, Appendix
"A". The analyses indicated an acceptable factor of safety for the developed sites, both
under static and seismic conditions.
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
The Federal Way City Code states "geologically hazardous areas shall mean
areas that, because of their susceptibility to erosion, landsliding, seismic or other
geological events, are not suited to siting commercial, residential or industrial
development consistent with public health or safety concerns."
Erosion Hazard Areas
The City of Federal Way Code Chapter 19.150 defines erosion hazard areas as
those areas having a "severe" or "very severe" erosion hazard due to natural agents
such as wind, rain, splash, frost action or stream flow.
Landslide Hazard Areas per City of Federal Way Chapter 19.150
The Federal Way City Code Chapter 19.150 defines landslide hazard areas as
those areas potentially subject to episodic downslope movement of a mass of soil or
rock including but not limited to the following areas:
a. Any area with a combination of:
1. Slopes greater than 15 percent;
2. Permeable sediment overlying a relatively impermeable sediment or
bedrock;
3. Springs or groundwater seeps.
b. Any area which has shown movement during the Holocene epoch, from
10,000 years ago to the present, or which is underlain by mass wastage debris
of that epoch.
Britt — Redondo Heights Lot 7
November 25, 2014
Page 4
c. Areas potentially unstable as a result of rapid stream incision, stream bank
erosion, and undercutting by wave action.
d. Areas located in a canyon or on an active alluvial fan, presently or potentially
subject to inundation by debris flows or catastrophic flooding.
E). Areas that have a "severe" limitation for building site development because of
slope conditions, according to the USDA SCS.
f. Those areas mapped as Class U (Unstable), Uos (Unstable old slides), and
Urs (unstable recent slides) by the Department. of Ecology.
g. Slopes having a gradient steeper than 80 percent subject to rock fall during
seismic shaking.
Steep Slope Hazard
The Federal Way City Code Chapter 19.150 defines steep slope hazard areas as
"those areas with a slope of 40 percent or greater and with a vertical relief of 10 or more
feet, a vertical rise of 10 feet or more for every 25 feet of horizontal distance. A slope is
delineated by established its toe and top and measured by averaging the inclination over
at least 10 feet of vertical relief."
Seismic Hazards
The City of Federal Way Municipal Code Chapter 19.150 defines seismic hazard
areas as "those areas subject to severe risk of earthquake damage as a result of
seismically induced ground shaking, slope failure, settlement or soil liquefaction, or
surface faulting. These conditions occur in areas underlain by cohesionless soils of low
density usually in association with a shallow groundwater table."
CONCLUSIONS
Based on our site observations and data review, subsurface explorations and our
engineering analysis, it is our opinion that the proposed residential development on Lot 7
is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. It is also our opinion that active landslide,
erosion, or seismic hazards do not exist on the site. The old fill material is generally
stable under the existing conditions, but should be reworked during the site development
activities into an engineered and stable condition.
The new structure may be supported on new conventional spread footings or
floor slabs bearing on competent native soils or on structural fill placed above these
native soils where the setback criteria is met and the old fill material is adequately
mitigated. The fill and native soils at the site contain a relatively high percentage of
fines (silt and clay -size particles), which makes them moisture sensitive. These soils will
be difficult (to impossible if wet) to compact as structural fill in wet weather conditions.
We understand that grading at the site will include cuts and fills associated with the
foundation area for the proposed structure, d riveway/ga rage area and utilities. If grading
activities take place during the winter season, the owner should be prepared to export
unsuitable material and import free -draining granular material for use as structural fill
and backfill.
During wet weather conditions, perched water conditions may occur at the site.
Stormwater infiltration is feasible in the lower portion of the site, and has been designed
by others.
We understand that several deep foundation contractors have looked at the project
and determined that access is a challenge. Based on this, it was determined that hand
operated or small track mounted equipment would be utilized for installation of the
Britt — Redondo Heights Lot 7
November 25, 2014
Page 5
deepened foundation elements. Pertinent geotechnical recommendations and design
criteria are included in below. Proper surface drainage and erosion control measures
will reduce the risk for future erosion and slope instability at the site. Provided the
recommendations contained herein are included in the project plans; the proposed
development should have minimal impacts to the site and/or the adjacent properties.
Erosion Hazard Areas
The City of Federal Way municipal code Section 18-28 defines erosion hazard
areas as those areas having a "severe" or "very severe" erosion hazard due to natural
agents such as wind, rain, splash, frost action or stream flow.
The USDA NRCS maps the eastern portion of the site soils as and Kitsap soils
(AkF) which have a "severe" erosion hazard when exposed. This meets the technical
criteria for a "severe" designation per the City ordinance. Based on the explorations
completed at the site, the site surficial soils are fill material rather than native soils. But
these soils also have the potential for severe erosion. Therefore, erosion control
measures will be a critical element on this project site- We understand that spec�fic
erosion mitigation for the project is included in the Erosion Control Plan prepar ed by
others.
Landslide Hazard Areas
From the above listed indicators, we offer the following comments. Noevidence
of active landslide activity was observed at the site at the time of our site visit. A slope
steeper than 15 percent and 40 percent was observed on the property, but no seeps or
springs were observed on the slopes and no adverse or intersecting contacts are
mapped in the vicinity of the site. No other landslide hazard criteria were observed on
the site at the time of our site visits.
Based on our observations a * nd literature review, the site does mejet the technical
criteria of the above landslide hazard indicators. it is our opinion however that the old fill
material is marginally stable and the proposed development will improve the overall
stability of the site and adjacent area. The construction of basement/retaining walls and
drainage improvements will significantly improve the stability of the site. It is further our
opinion that the developed site will not constitute an active landslide hazard area.
Seismic Hazard
The Federal Way City Code Chapter 19.150 defines seismic hazard areas as
those areas subject to severe risk of earthquake damage as a result of seismically
induced ground shaking, slope failure, settlement or soil liquefaction, or surface faulting.
These conditions occur in areas underlain by cohesionless soils of low density usually in
association with a shallow groundwater table. No groundwater was encountered at the
site to depths of 41 feet. In addition, the previously completed stability analyses
demonstrated factors of safety greater than 1.1 under seismic conditions.
Based on our observation and the subsurface units mapped at the site, we
interpret the structural site conditions to correspond to a seismic Site Class "D" in
accordance with 2012 IBC (International Building Code) documents and ASCE 7-
Chapter 20 Table 20.3- 1. This is based on the likely range of equivalent SPT (Standard
Penetration Test) blow counts for the soil types observed in the site area. These
conditions were assumed to be representative for the conditions based on our
experience in the vicinity of the site. These soils are not prone to liquefaction and do not
constitute a seismic hazard area.
Britt — Redondo Heights Lot 7
November 25, 2014
Page 6
Liquefaction is a phenomenon where there is a reduction or complete loss of soil
strength due to an increase in pore water pressure. The increase in pore water pressure
is induced by seismic vibrations. Liquefaction mainly affects geologically recent deposits
of loose, fine-grained sands that are below the groundwater table. Based on the density
and consolidated nature of the glacial soils observed on the site, it is our opinion that
the risk for liquefaction to occur at this site during an earthquake is negligible. Provided
the design criteria listed below are followed, the proposed structure will have no greater
seismic risk damage than other appropriately designed structures in the Puget Sound
area.
Steep Slope Hazard
The steep slope located at the site is approximately 65 feet in vertical height and
meets the technical definition of a steep slope hazard area. A building setback from this
slope is required by the International Building Code. Based on our subsurface
evaluation, we have recommended a Structural Setback be utilized for the project. We
understand that needle piling will be utilized to accomplish the Structural Setback where
required, as well as extend foundation support through the old fill material.
SETBACK CRITERIA
The International Building Code requires a building setback from slopes that are
steeper than 3H:1V (Horizontal: Vertical) or 33 percent unless evaluated and reduced,
and/or a structural setback is provided, by a licensed geotechnical engineer. The
setback distance is calculated based on the vertical height of the slope. The typical I BC
setback from the top of the slope equals one third the height of the slope.
Based on our site observations, and in accordance with IBC (international
Building Code) Section 1805 guidelines, we recommend a setback distance of H/3 for
slopes below the structure that are greater than 10 feet in height from the top of slopes
greater than 33 percent. This equates to a prescriptive setback of 22 feet at this site.
Where this setback distance cannot be met, the foundation elements of the
structure should extend vertically, a Structural Setback (Figure 7), so that the setback
is measured horizontally from the lower outside edge of the foundation element to the
face of the slope. This structural setback is contingent on the foundation elements
extending through the old fill material and into the dense to very dense native soils that
underlie the site. We anticipate that portions of the foundation elements will not meet the
IBC setback distance or will need to be extended through the old fill material.
We understand that you have selected needle piling to accomplish the structural
setback where required. In addition, temporary shoring may be required to maintain stable
cut slopes above the building pad area, until the basement/garage fill walls are
constructed. This is discussed in the "Construction Considerations" section of this
report.
Needle piling consist of small diameter Schedule-80 steel pipe that are driven
into the underlying soils to refusal. Individual pipe segments typically range from about 8
to 21 feet long and are successively joined with external threaded couplings, internal slip
couplings, or butt welds as pile driving progresses. Minimum embedment shall be 8 feet.
We anticipate that the needle piles will meet refusal in the underlying stiff/very
dense soils. However, because refusal depths are difficult to predict and because soil
conditions could vary significantly across the site, the contractor should be prepared for
variable pile lengths. Also, it may be necessary to modify pile layouts if rocks or other
obstructions are encountered during pile -driving.
Britt — Redondo Heights Lot 7
November 25, 2014
Page 7
When refusal has been achieved, the pin piles can be cut to a predetermined
height or elevation. To provide a good bond between the piles and the pile cap,
reinforcing bars with 90-clegree bends can be welded to the top of the pile or,
alternatively, the top of the pile can be splayed apart. A structural engineer should be
responsible for designing the reinforced steel and foundation elements.
Allowable Value
Design Parameter 2-inch diameter
Static Compressive Capacity 0 pounds
Transient Compressive Capacity 5,300 pounds
We do not anticipate 2 inch piles will necessitate quick load testing. In areas
where the lengths of the pin piles are exposed and not directly incorporated into the
foundation grade beams, the area around the pin piles should be backfilled with a well
draining material such as angular quarry spalls, or CDF (lean mix).
If access for a small track driven machine is feasible, it may be more economic to
utilize fewer, but larger diameter piling. A properly installed 3-inch-cliameter or 4-inch-
diameter needle pile driven to refusal (as defined above) will typically provide the
following allowable axial capacities. Actual capacities and refusal criteria should be
verified by the contractor. Furthermo re, the stated uplift capacities would be applicable
only to needle piles that are installed with tension -resisting couplings.
Design Parameter
Static Compressive Capacity
Transient Compressive Capacity
Transient Uplift Capacity
Allowable Value
3-inch-diameter
12,000 pounds
16,000 pounds
8,000 pounds
4-inch-diameter
20,000 pounds
26,000 pounds
13,000 pounds
It should be noted that the native and fill soil material in this area may include large
soil particles (cobbles/boulders) or organic debris (roots). When encountered by piling,
these can result in early refusal depths and an unacceptable pile. It will be necessary to
move over and re -drive the piling or possibly increase the number of piling to achieve the
required support of the wall. The contractor should be prepared for this condition.
Based on our 2014 site observations, there has been no significant change in the
site conditions since our 2006 explorations and site visit. Copies of our previous
Geotechnical Report and Response to Comments Letter are attached for your reference.
Construction Considerations
All job site safety issues and precautions are the responsibility of the contractor
providing services/work. The following cut/fill slope guidelines are provided for planning
purposes only. Temporary cut slopes will likely be necessary during grading operations,
foundation construction or utility installation.
All excavations at the site associated with confined spaces, such as utility
trenches and retaining walls, must be completed in accordance with local, state, or
federal requirements. Based on current Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act
(WISHA, WAC 296-155-66401) regulations, the shallow upper soils on the site would be
classified as Type C soils. The very dense glacial till soils would be classified as Type A
soils.
Britt — Redondo Heights Lot 7
November 25, 2014
Page 8
According to WISHA, for temporary excavations of less than 20 feet in depth, the
side slopes in Type A soils should be laid back at a slope inclination of 3/4H:1V
(Horizontal: Vertical) and Type C soils should be laid back at a slope inclination of
11.5HAV or flatter from the toe to top of the slope. It should be recognized that slopes of
this nature do ravel and require occasional maintenance. All exposed slope faces
should be covered with a durable reinforced plastic membrane, jute matting, or other
erosion control mats during construction to prevent slope raveling and rutting during
periods of precipitation. These- guidelines assume that all surface loads are kept at a
minimum distance of at least one half the depth of the cut away from the top of the slope
and that significant seepage is not present on the slope face. Flatter cut slopes will be
necessary where significant raveling or seepage occurs, or if construction materials will
be stockpiled along the top of the slope.
Where it is not feasible to slope the site soils back at these inclinations, a
retaining or shoring structure will be required. Where retaining structures are greate�
than 4-feet in height (bottom of footing to top of structure) or have slopes of greater than
15 percent above them, they should be engineered per Washington Administrative Code
(WAC 51-16-080 item 5). Based on the height of the proposed cuts for the foundation
wall, we expect shoring will be required. We can provide a variety of options for
temporary shoring if the required cut slopes cannot be achieved. Typically this includes
sheet piling, driven H-piling with batter boards, or soil nails. The most cost effective of
these is the driven H-piling, which can then be used as the back form for the walls if
appropriately designed. The void between the lagging wall and the cut slope are filled
with drainage material, or a synthetic drainage membrain can be installed between the
H-pile wall and the concrete.
This information is provided solely for the benefit of the owner and other design
consultants, and should not be construed to imply that GeoResources assumes
responsibility for job site safety. It is understood that job site safety is the sole
responsibility of the project contractor.
Foundation Support
Based on the subsurface soil conditions encountered across the site, we
recommend that beyond the recommended setback area, spread footings for the new
residence be founded on dense native soils or on appropriately prepared structural fill
that extends to suitable native soils. The soil at the base of the footing excavations
should be disturbed as little as possible. All loose, soft or unsuitable material should be
removed or recompacted, as appropriate. A representative from our firm should observe
the foundation excavations to determine if suitable bearing surfaces have been
prepared, particularly in the areas where the foundation will be situated on fill material.
We recommend a minimum width of 24 inches for isolated footings and at least
12 inches for single story and 16 inches for two story continuous wall footings. All
footing elements should be embedded at least 18 inches below grade for frost
protection. Footings founded as described above can be designed using an allowable
soil bearing capacity of 2,500 psf (pounds per square foot) for combined dead and long-
term live loads. The weight of the footing and overlying backfill may be neglected. The
allowable bearing value may be increased by one-third for transient loads such as those
induced by seismic events or wind loads.
Lateral loads may be resisted by friction on the base of footings and floor slabs
and as passive pressure on the sides of footings. We recommend that an allowable
coefficient of friction of 0.30 be used to calculate friction between the concrete and the
underlying soil. Passive pressure may be determined using an allowable equivalent fluid
Britt — Redondo Heights Lot 7
November 25, 2014
Page 9
density of 300 pcf (pounds per cubic foot). Passive resistance from soil should be
ignored in the upper 1 foot, A factor of safely of 1.5 has been applied to these values.
We estimate that settlements of footings designed and constructed as
recommended will be less than I inch, for the anticipated load conditions, with
differential settlements between comparably loaded footings of 1/2 inch or less. Most of
the settlements should occur essentially as loads are being applied. However,
disturbance of the foundation subgrade during construction could result in larger
settlements than predicted. We recommend that all foundations be provided with
footing drains.
Subgrade/Basement Walls
Based on existing topography of Lot 7, we expect that the now structure will
include subgrade retaining walls. The lateral pressures acting on subgrade and
retaining walls (such as basement walls) will depend upon the nature and density of the
soil behind the wall. ft is also dependent upon the presence or absence of hydrostatic
pressure, as well as any upgradient loads that influence the wall. If the walls are
backfilled with granular well -drained soil, the design active pressure may be taken as 35
pcf (equivalent fluid density). Where the walls are restrained from moving, we
recommend an at -rest equivalent earth pressure of 55 pcf be used for design. We assume
a level backfill condition behind proposed basement or subgrade walls. Where a
surcharge occurs above the wall, the pressures will increase. This includes structures,
traffic or steep slopes. Based on the final design, this information can be provided at
your request.
Adequate drainage behind retaining structures is imperative. Positive drainage
which controls the development of hydrostatic pressure can be accomplished by placing
azone of coarse sand and gravel behind the walls. The granular drainage material
should contain less than 5 percent fines. The drainage zone should extend horizontally
at least 18 inches from the back of the wall. The drainage zone should also extend from
the base of the wall to within I foot of the top of the wall. The drainage zone should be
compacted to approximately 90 percent of the MDD. Over -compaction should be
avoided as this can lead to excessive lateral pressures. Typical wall drainage and
backfilling is shown on Figure 5.
A minimum 4-inch diameter perforated or slotted PVC pipe should be placed in
the drainage zone along the base and behind the wall to provide an outlet for
accumulated water and direct accumulated water to an appropriate discharge location.
We recommend that a nonwoven geotextile filter fabric be placed between the drainage
material and the remaining wall backfill to reduce silt migration into the drainage zone.
The infiltration of silt into the drainage zone can, with time, reduce the permeability of the
granular material. The filter fabric should be placed such that it fully separates the
drainage material and the backfill, and should be extended over the top of the drainage
zone. Lateral loads may be resisted by friction on the base of footings and as passive
pressure on the sides of footings and the buried portion of the wall, as described in the
"Foundation Support" section. We recommend that an allowable coefficient of friction
of 0.30 be used to calculate friction between the concrete and the underlying soil.
Passive pressure may be determined using an allowable equivalent fluid density of
300 pcf (pounds per cubic foot). Factors of safety have been applied to these values.
Retaining walls located on or near the toe of the slope that extends up behind the
wall should be designed for a lateral pressure that includes the surcharge effects of the
steep slope in proximity of the wall. For an irregular or composite slope, the equivalent
Britt — Redondo Heights Lot 7
November 25, 2014
Page 10
slope angle may be determined by extending a line upwards from the toe of the wall at an
angle of 1 to 1 (Horizontal to Vertical) to a point where the line intersects the ground
surface. The surcharge effects may be modeled by increasing the equivalent fluid
pressure for flat ground by the percentage given in the following table:
TABLE 1
SLOPE INCLINATION: EbUIVALENT FLUD PRESSURE
SLOPE ANGLE PERCENTINCREASE EQUIVALENT FLUID PRESSURE
Horizontal 0% 35 pcf
3H:1V 25% 44 pcf
2HAV 50% 53 pcf
1H:1V 75% 61 pcf
These pressures would apply for temporary cuts of 10 feet or less. Cuts of greater
height would require shoring or alternative construction methods. Design parameters for
temporary shoring can be provided at your request.
Floor Slab Support
Slab -on -grade floors, where constructed, should be supported on the medium
dense native soils or on structural fill prepared as described above. Areas of old fill
material should be evaluated during grading activity for suitability of structural support.
Areas of significant organic debris should be removed.
We recommend that floor slabs be directly underlain by a minimum 4-inch thick
pea gravel or washed 5/8 inch crushed rock. This layer should be placed and
compacted to an unyielding condition and should contain less than 2 percent fines.
A synthetic vapor barrier is recommended to control moisture migration through
the slabs. This is of particular importance where the foundation elements are underlain
by the silty till sediments, or where moisture migration through the slab is an issue, such
as where adhesives are used to anchor carpet or tile to the slab.
A subgrade modulus of 400 kcf (kips per cubic foot) may be used for floor slab
design. We estimate that settlement of the floor slabs designed and constructed as
recommended, will be 1/2 inch or less over a span of 50 feet.
Utilities
We expect that underground utilities, such as sanitary sewer, storm, and water
will consist of a series of pipes, vaults, manholes, and catch basins. The utility
excavations should be performed in accordance with appropriate governmental
guidelines. Utility pipes should be bedded and backfilled in accordance with American
Public Works Association (APWA) specifications.
We anticipate that the on -site, non -organic soils will be suitable for use as
structural backfill. If import soil is used as utility trench backfill, it should consist of a
material meeting the wet weather fill recommendations provided in the "Structural Fill"
section of this report. We recommend that utility backfill soils be compacted according
to the recommendations provided in the "Structural Fill" section of this report.
Erosion Control
Weathering, erosion and the resulting surficial sloughing and shallow land sliding
are natural processes that affect steep slope areas. As noted, no evidence of surficial
raveling or sloughing was observed at the site. To manage and reduce the potential for
these natural processes, we recommend the following:
Britt — Redondo Heights Lot 7
November 25, 2014
Page 11
No drainage of concentrated surface water or significant sheet flow onto or near
the steep slope area.
No fill should be placed on slopes greater than 25 percent unless placed as
engineered and compacted fill.
Grading should be limited to active construction areas to promote surface flows
away from the top of slope to an appropriate discharge.
Erosion protection measures will need to be in place prior to grading activity on
the site. Erosion hazards can be mitigated by applying Best management Practices
(BMP's) outlined in the Washington State Department of Ecology's (DOE) Stormwater
Management Manual for Western Washington. We understand that an erosion control
plan has been prepared by others for the project.
Site Drainage
All ground surfaces, pavements and sidewalks at the site should be sloped away
from residences. The site should also be carefully graded to ensure positive drainage
away from all structures and property lines. Surface water runoff from the roof area,
driveways, perimeter footing drains, and wall drains, should be collected, tightlined, and
conveyed to an appropriate discharge point.
We recommend that footing drains are installed for the residence, and basement
walls (if utilized) have a wall drain as describe above. The roof drain should not be
connected to the footing drain.
Stormwater Infiltration
Based on our site observations, subsurface explorations and laboratory analysis;
portions of the site have the abiNty to infiltrate the collected storm water runoff, provided
the design is appropriate. We understand that a design has been prepared by others.
Suspended solids could clog the underlying soil and reduce the infiltration rate for
the pond. To reduce potential clogging of the infiltration system, the infiltration system
should not be connected to the stormwater runoff system until after construction is
complete and the site area is landscaped, paved or otherwise protected. Temporary
systems may be utilized through construction.
LIMITATIONS
We have prepared this report for the Mr. Britt and members of the design team
regarding the development of Lot 7. The data used in preparing this report and this report
should be provided to prospective contractors for their bidding or estimating purposes
only. Our report, conclusions and interpretations are based on data from others and
limited site reconnaissance, and should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface
conditions.
Variations in subsurface condit�ons are possible between the explorations and may
also occur with time. A contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in the
budget and schedule. Sufficient monito(ing, testing and consultation should be provided
by our firm during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent
with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes
should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to
Britt — Redondo Heights Lot 7
November 25, 2014
Page 12
evaluate whether earthwork and foundation installation activities comply with contract
plans and specifications.
The scope of our services does not include services related to environmental
remediation and construction safety precautions. Our recommendations are not intended
to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as
specifically described in our report for consideration in design.
If there are changes in the loads, grades, locations, configurations or type of
facilities to be constructed, the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report
may not be fully applicable. If such changes are made, we should be given the
opportunity to review our recommendations and provide written modifications or
verifications, as appropriate.
We have appreciated working for you on this project. Please do not hesitate to
call at your earliest convenience if you have questions or comments.
Respectfully submitted,
GeoResources, LLC
Brad P. Biggers&1f, LLEG Dana C. Biggerstaff, PE
Principal Senior Engineer
fy, 10
BRADLEY P. i&ERSTA-F-FI
BPB:DCB.Ibpb
Doc lD:Piec1khotin.SW297lhSl.RG
Attachments: Figure 1: Vicinity Map
Figure 2: Site Plan
Figure 3: SCS Soil Survey
Figure 4: USGS Geology Map
Figure 5: Unified Soil Classilicaiion System
Figure 6: New Test Pit Logs
Figure 7: Structural Setback
Appendix "A': 2006 GeolechniGal Report by GeoResources. LLC
T
LI
Ile
&
i
LI
FA
a,
_a�
T17-b
--J L�__j
To ST
Approximate Site Location
(Map created from King County iMap http http://www5.kingcounty.gov/iMAP�
GeoResources, LLC
5007 Pacific Highway East, Suite 16
Fife, Washington 98424
Phone: 253-896-1011
Fax: 253-896-2633
Site Vicinity Map
Proposed Single Family Residence
SW 297 th Street
Federal Way, Washington
Not to Scale
Approximate Site Location
(Map created from King County Nap http httpl//www5.kingcounty.gov/iMAPI)
GeoResources, LLC
5007 Pacific Highway East, Suite 16
Fife, Washington 98424
Phone: 253-896-1011
Fax: 253-896-2633
Site Topography
Proposed Single Family Residence
15421115423 14" Ave NW
Gig Harbor, Washington
Not to Scale
Approximate Site Location
(An excerpt from the Geologic Map of the Poverty Bay 75-minute Quadrangle, Washington, Booth, D.B., Waldron,
H.H., and Troost, K.G., 2003)
r---j Opog- Glacial deposits of Pre-Olyrvia age
r
IV
GeoResources, LLC
5007 Pacific Highway East, Suite 16
Fife, Washington 98424
Phone: 253-896-1011
Fax: 253-896-2633
USGS Geologic Map
Proposed Single Family Residence
15421/15423 14" Ave NW
Gig Harbor, Washington
DocID: Britt. Lot7FIedondo.F
Not to Scale
December 2014 1 Figure 4
SETBACK FROM TO E OF SLOPE
Standard Setback
Slope > 30%
& > i c F" Relief
Setback Distance
Daylight Basement Setback
Slope > 30%
& > 10 i� Rellei
GeoResources, LLC
5007 Pacific Highway East, Suite 20
Fife, Washington 98424
Phone: 253-896-1011
Fax: 253-896-2633
Residential Structure
Residential Structure
0 .
-nent
Figuref, Schematic Section
Building Setback
COARSE
GRAINED
SOILS
More than 50%
Retained on
No. 200 Sieve
FINE
GRAINED
SOILS
SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
r-'Dn H D
MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOL
GROUPNAME
I GRAVEL I CLEAN GW WELL -GRADED GRAVEL, FINE TO COARSE
More than 50%
Of Coarse Fraction
Retained on
No. 4 Sieve
SAND
More than 50%
Of Coarse Fraction
Passes
No. 4 Sieve
SILT AND CLAY
Liquid Limit
Less than 50
SILT AND CLAY
More than 50%
Passes
No. 200 Sieve Liquid Limit
50 or more
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
GRAVEL
GRAVEL
GP
POORLY -GRADED GRAVEL
GRAVEL
GM
SILTY GRAVEL
WITH FINES
-
GC
CLAYEY GRAVEL
CLEAN SAND
SW
WELL -GRADED SAND, FINE TO COARSE SAND
SID
POORLY` -GRADED SAND
SAND
SM
SILTY SAND
WITH FINES
INORGANIC
SC
ML
CLAYEY SAND
SILT
CL
CLAY
ORGANIC
OL
ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CLAY
INORGANIC
MH
SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, ELASTIC SILT
CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAY
CH
ORGANIC
OH
PT
ORGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC SILT
PEAT
NOTES:
1. Field classification is based on visual examination of soil
in general accordance with ASTM D2488-90.
2. Soil classification using laboratory tests is based on
ASTM D2487-90.
3. Description of soil density or consistency are based on
interpretation of blow count data, visual appearance of
soils, and or test data.
GeoResources, LLC
5007 Pacific Highway East, Suite 16
Fife, Washington 98424
Phone: 253-896-1011
Fax: 253-896-2633
SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS:
Dry- Absence of moisture, dry to the touch
Moist- Damp, but no visible water
Wet- Visible free water or saturated, usually soil is
obtained from below water table
Unified Soil Classification System
Proposed Single Family Residence
SW 297 1h Street
Federal Way, Washington
D: Britt. Lot7Redon do. F Dec
TEST PIT LOGS
BRITT RESIDENTIAL SITE LOT 7
SW 297 1h STREET
FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON
TEST PIT 1 — Location: toe of slope near gate (See Plan)
Depth (ft.)
Soil Twe
Description
0.0 0.5
SM
Sparse Grass and topsoil
0.5- 2.0
SM
Brn silty SAND (med. Dense, moist)(Fill)
2.0 6.5
SM
Dk. Brn/black silty gravelly SAND w/dimensional lumber(Fill)
6.5- 7.0
ML
Gray/brn Mottled clayey SILT (hard, moist)
7.0-9.0
ML
Grey SILT (hard, moist) (Lacustrine)
Minor seepage and caving above 6.5 feet
TEST PIT 2 - Location: 50-feet east of TP-1 toe of slope (see -Plan)
Depth (ft.)
Soil Type
Description
0.0
- 3.0
SM
Grey/brown silty gravelly SAND (loose dense, moist) (Till fill)
3.0
- 7.0
SM/GM
Brn silty sandy Gravel to Gravelly SAND(loose, moist) (Fill)
7.0
-12.0
SM
G ry w/ som e m ottling, silty SAN D (loose, m oist) (Fill)
12.0-15.0
SID
Brn F-M SAND (medium dense, moist)
Minor caving observed in clean sand
Minor seepage at 8-feet and 15-feet observed
TEST PIT 3 - Location: 60-feet east of TP-2 Toe of slope (see Plan)
Depth (ft.)
Soil Type
Description
0.0 - 3.0
SM
Grey/brown silty gravelly SAND (loose dense, moist) (Till fill)
3.0 - 8.0
SID
Brn gravelly SAND wl trace gravel (loose, moist) (Fill)
8.0 - 12.0
SM
Blue Grey silty gravelly SAND wl SILT (Loose, moist) (Fill)
12.0- 15.0
SM
Grey/brown mottled silty gravelly SAND (loose dense, moist)
w.Till)
Terminated at approximately 15-feet below existing ground surface
Caving observed
Minor groundwater seepage observed
Test Pi� Logs
Stonegate, Homes 29 Street
Page 2 of 2
TEST PIT 4 - Location: On skid road halfway up slope (see Plan)
Depth (ft.)
Soil Type
Description
0.0
- 0.5
Topsoil/Forest Duff
0.5
- 4.0
SIM
Grey/Brn silty gravelly SAND (loose to med. dense, moist) (Fill)
4.0
-5.0
SP
Relic topsoil
5.0
-7.5
SP
Brn gravelly SAND w/ trace silt (medium Dense, moist)
Terminated at approximately 7Y2 feet below existing ground surface
Significant caving observed in upper 4-feet
No groundwater seepage observed
on: December 1, 2005 Logged by: KWG
-"Vd
TEST PIT LOGS
BRITT RESIDENTIAL SITE LOT 7
SW 297,1h STREET
FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON
TEST PIT 5 — Location: Toe of slope NW corner of Lot 7 (See Plan)
Depth
(ft.)
Soil Tvoe
Description
0.0
0.5
SM
Sparse Grass and topsoil
0.5-
2.5
SM
Bm silty SAND (med. Dense, moist)(Fill)
2.5
6.5
SM
Dk. Brn/black silty gravelly SAND w/dimensional lumber(Fill)
6.5-
8.0
ML
Gray/brn Mottled clayey SILT (hard, moist)
8.0-
9.5
ML
Grey SILT (hard, moist) (Lacustrine)
Minor seepage and caving above 6.0 feet
TEST PIT 6 - Location: About 10 feet above toe of slope, center (see Plan)
Depth (ft.)
Soil Tyi2e
Descrjp�on
0.0 - 2.0
SM
Grey/brown silty gravelly SAND (loose dense, moist) (Till fill)
2.0 - 6.0
SM/GM
Brn silty sandy Gravel to Gravelly SAND(loose, moist) (Fill)
6.0 -11.0
SM
Gry wl some mottling, silty SAND (loose, moist) (Fill)
11.0-13.5
SID
Brn F-M SAND (medium dense, moist)
Minor caving observed in lower sand
Minor seepage at 8-feet observed
TEST PIT 7 - Location: 15 ft above toe of slope, SE corner (see Plan)
Depth
(ft.)
Soil Type
Description
0.0 -
3.0
SM
Grey/brown silty gravelly SAND (loose dense, moist) (Till till)
3.0 -
7.0
SID
Brn gravelly SAND w/ trace gravel (loose, moist) (Fill)
7.0 -
11.0
SM
Blue Grey silty gravelly SAND wl SILT (Loose, moist) (Fill)
11.0-
14.0
SM
Grey/brown mottled silty gravelly SAND (loose dense, moist)
w.Till)
Terminated at approximately 15-feet below existing ground surface
Caving observed
Minor groundwater seepage observed
on: Jan 1014 Logged by: RH
A
B
c
D
E
IF
2
CONSTRUCTION
ENTRANCE SEE �JCZ
I`--
Lu
Lu
C'4
V)
2! MIN WOTH VARIES PER ARCH PLAN (157 MIN)
L - - - - - (MIM) - - - -- _ 2%0 -
260 -
3
2 L la,
7111
F—,
M::Y, T
VFI.
2 ' ACP OVER FIRM UNEILDING
G NATIVE SUBGRADE OR AS OTHERWISE EXISTING V
INDICATED PER ARCHITECT
4
5
6
6' PVC 0 SL=O.OlFr/VT
(MIN) (TYP)
RETAINING WALL BY 6- PVC 0 SL=O-DIFT/FT
OTHERS LINDER (MIN) (TYP)
SEPARATE PERMIT.
D
x
min IT
210
law
EX'G DRAINAGE AND
UTIUTY EASEMENT
-01 OF
—APPROXIMATE LOCA
PIP� OUTFALL W--2KO
A;FA,4LX4XC WTH.
12;! OLA '6,-8' QUARRY SPALL.
A
PPROXIMATE
CONSTRUCTION/CLEARINS UMITS.
NO CLEARING BEYOND PROPERTY
LINES OR WITHIN SEPTIC
DRAINFIO-D AREAS WITHOUT
APPROVAL (rep)
MTEHM" TANK:
AMA-2.018 TANK TOP=220�5
TANK BOTTOM=214.5
MAIN (FE-2*.&t
1-72' DIA. TANKS @ 45'
N N LF, SEE DETAIL 2/C3.
RETAINING W U. BY APPROXIMATE LOCARON OF
OTHERSIUNDER SILT FENCE. ACTUAL
SEPARATE PERMIT. LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED
IN FIELD AS CONSTRUCTION
PROGRESSES SEE Z/C2 (T(P)
GARAKE F111-1W.9 k k
APPROXIMATE �-IMW-0 ROOF MANS 10
STOCKPILE
LOCA 4m SIM MTEM W14' PW
TION (TYP)
OIL-MIM/FT (MIN)
OR CPVC 0 SL-0.01flM (MIN)
TRENCH DRAIN=252.80 N
SLOPE TO DR�N I . x . (rtp)
x
%
GRAPHIC SCALE 7N, E)(0 ORNPIAGE AND
UTIUrY EASEMENI
I -W AOL
L
F -jolmon--i
W FM fL
I inch - 10
DRIVEWAY SECTION SCALE : NTS 0
SITE STATISTICS
LOT AREA - 10.00 SOFT OR 0 23 ACRES
CLEARED/WORK AREA =10,083 SOFT
FUTURE BUILDING AREA - 2.010 SOFT
PROPOSED DRIVEWAY = 1,370 SOFT
7
Q)
CL
(5
Z�y C)
LZ
CL
R L)
0
-j
>
2s
z
0
UJI LLJ
L) Lu
Lu
W >:
< cj
(L
X ry
X LILI
m x 0
uj
LL-
SmEr TITLE:
CIVIL
GRADING 8, DRAINAGE
PLAN
CALL 48 HOURS BEFORE YOU DIG C-1
'1-800-424-5555
SECTION 6 TOWNSHIP 21 RANGE 04 E WM.