The URL can be used to link to this page

2008, 12-03 Permit App: 08004505 Garage Addition w Project Ir 08004505 Inv: 1 Application Date: 12/03/2008 Page 1 of 2 THIS IS NOT A PERMIT Penalties will be assessed for commencing work without a permit Project Information: ar,. n u. . . ....;t w� ... ...re ,. ... ,_ Permit Use: GAR ADD Contact: INTEGRITY REMODELING Address: P.O.BOX 8556 C-S-Z: SPOKANE,WA 99209 Setbacks:Front Left: Right: Rear: Phone: (509)455-4395 Group Name: Project Name: Plat Key: Name: Range District: Sout Parcel Number: 35243.0855 Block: Lot: SiteAddress: 5916 E 10TH AVE Owner:Name: FIFIELD,SHAWN A Address: 5916 E 10TH AVE Location::CSV SPOKANE,WA 99212 Zoning: R-3 SF Res District Water District: 100 SPO CO WATER DIST#3A Hold: Area: 10,125 Sq Ft Width: 0 Depth: 0 Right Of Way(ft): 0 Nbr of Bldgs: 0 Nbr of Dwellings: 0 Review Information: .,, Review Flood Plain Released By: Originally Released: 12/03/2008 By: mturbak Building Plan Review Released By: Originally Released: 11/17/2008 By: tmelbourn Septic Sys Review Released By: Originally Released: 11/14/2008 By: LHALSEY Landuse/Zoning/HE Conditions Released By: Originally Released: 11/18/2008 By: mpalaniuk Permits: Ott.__a _ Operator: JD Printed By: MT Print Date: 12/03/2008 f Project Number: 08004505 Inv: 1 Application Date: 12/03/2008 Page 2 of 2 THIS IS NOT A PERMIT Penalties will be assessed for commencing work without a permit Building Permit Contractor: INTEGRITY REMODELING Firm: TODD KUBICEK-INTEGRITY RM Address: PO BOX 8556 Phone: (509)455-4395 SPOKANE,WA 99203 This Application: Total Project: Description Grp Type Notes Sq Ft Valuation Sq Ft Valuation GARAGE U-1 VB 114 $2,166.00 114 $2,166.00 Totals: 114 $2,166.00 114 $2,166.00 Item Description Units Unit Desc Fee Amount RESIDENTIAL PERMIT FEE 1 SELECT $83.25 WSBC SURCHARGE 1 SELECT $4.50 SF PLNS RVW<7999 SQ FT 1 SELECT $33.30 Permit Total Fees: $121.05 Flood Plain Contractor: OWNER Firm: OWNER Phone: (000)000-0000 Item Description Units Unit Desc Fee Amount FLOOD PLAIN PERMIT 1 NUMBER OF $50.00 Permit Total Fees: $50.00 GARAGE ADDITION ONLY 6 X 19= 144 SQ FT OF NON-LIVING SPACE-FLOOD RESISTANCE NOT REQUIRED BUILD TO MATCH CURRENT BUILDING LINES FOR CURRENT GARAGE-ABOVE BFE-STORMDRAIN AT BFE IN STREET-CANNOT CONVERT TO LIVING SPACE-D.GRIFFITH BETTMAN'S ADDITION- LOTS 7 THROUGH 18 OF BLOCK 8;AND LOTS 9, 10, 15 AND 16 OF BLOCK 5 HAVE BEEN PULLED OUT OF THE FLOOD PLAIN. SEE PLAT FILE. Payment Summary• „,, , x ..... _.. Permit Type Fee Amount Invoice Amount Amount Paid Amount Owing Building Permit $121.05 $121.05 $0.00 $121.05 Flood Plain $50.00 $50.00 $0.00 $50.00 $171.05 $171.05 $0.00 $171.05 Disclaimer: Submittal of this application certifies the owner(or person(s)authorized by the owner)has both examined and finds the information contained within to be true and correct,and agrees that all provisions of laws and/or regulations governing this type of work will be complied with. Subsequent issuance of a permit shall not be construed to be a permit for,or an approval of,any violation of any of the provisions of the code or of any other state or local laws or ordinances. Signature: Operator: JD Printed By: MT Print Date: 12/03/2008 an Cf ,� CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY (For Staff Use Only) poane Community Development Department DATE SUBMITTED'_ RECEIVED BY: � �J Current Planning a Division 1`J 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 FILE No./NAME: Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Tel: (509) 921-1000 Fax: (509) 921-1008 CURRENT PLANNING FEE: RlanningCa sRokanevalleV.orq RECEIVEDENGINEERING FEE: °111.); Nov DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 2 5 200a FLOODPLAIN SPOKANE VALLEY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PART I —APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT INFORMATION:() aro��nY �� APPLICANT: T 1r t yam' / J MAILING ADDRESS: O.O. "x 855 ZAP: tj ZO CITY: J r Y.1- t STATE: //f FAX Y Y� �-2,L (CELL) -7-,l e✓/g (zS PHONE: (HOMEIVNORK) SIS S_��5 (Fax) - Please Cirde NOTE: IF APPLICANT IS NOT THE OWNER,INCLUDE WRITTEN OWNER AUTHORIZATION FROM THE LEGAL OWNER BELOW: OWNER INFORMATION: / c�� LEGAL OWNER: fA , r;t MAILING ADDRESS: S-Rte F. /aZIP: 71-2-12- r�-e�/ c STATE: 6-'4c' `, CITY: Z"- (CELL) , J 7d— a 0YIY PHONE:(HOMEIWORK} FAX) Pease Cirde 3 o-6-70,) PART 11 — SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS All Floodplain Permit Applications shall contain the following required information. If required and not submitted, the application will be returned to the applicant as incomplete: El Three (3) to-scale (minimum scale is 1 inch =20 feet) site plans showing the nature, location, dimensions and elevation of the property and identifying the portion of the property located within the designated floodplain, existing or proposed structures, location of proposed fill, location of storage of materials, and the location of drainage facilities. El Proposed elevation in relation to mean sea level of the lowest floor including basement of all structures Proposed elevation in relation to mean sea level for any structure that has been flood-proofed. Ei For non-residential construction only, certification by a registered professional engineer or architect that flood-proofing methods for any non-residential structures meet the flood-proofing criteria of Section 5.06.08.2 of the City's Floodplain Ordinance. El Written description if applicable describing the extent to which a watercourse will be altered or relocated as a result of the proposed development. No Rise Certification. Version 2 04-05 1 Iii■ ii■ d0L:E0 80 9Z.E:i■ 11/25/2@08 17:21 5096880037 SV PERMIT CENTERFR PAGE 01/05 Spo ar' 4 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY (For Staff Use Only) Permit Center DATE SUBMITTED: RECEIVED BY: j1Valley 11703 East Sprague Ave., Suite B-3 ri Ill � � addSpokane Valley, WA 99206 FILE ND./NAME: • Tel: (509) 688-0197 (oi- j Fax: (509) 688-0037 planningOsookanevalley.org FEE: FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION (svMc 2130) PART I—APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT INFORMATIONp: APPLICANT: �h rt y v, 4 r '- • / q / / 511 MAILING ADDRESS: /d. S o/r 5-5"6 CITY: f p•it/4•^ STATE: 1J4 ZIP: '7;1.263 PHONE:(HOME/WORK) `l C-1)•T 5 (FAA)_. Z(4/ —82.2 Z (CELL) L(l —/ "— Please Circle NOTE:IF APPLICANT IS NOT THE OWNER,INCLUDE WRITTEN OWNER AUTHORIZATION,PART IV,FROM THE LEGAL OWNER. OWNER INFORMATION: ftiAw� �f fi 1,fLEGAL OWNER: y� MAILING ADDRESS: JI/6 L 701-4 CITY: 41".7STATE: 14,44 STATE: rC 2 r 2 PHONE:(HOME/WORK) 9`,C—d 7 D 3 (FAX) (CI i.i) 57 Yj Please circle PART II—SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Check box to indicate that required information has been provided All Floodplain Permit Applications shall contain the following required information. If required and not submitted, the application will be returned to the applicant as incomplete: • Three(3)to-scale (minimum scale is 1 inch=20 feet)site plans showing the nature, location,dimensions and elevation of the property and identifying the portion of the property located within the designated floodplain, existing or proposed structures, location of proposed fill, location of storage of materials, and the location of drainage facilities. O Proposed elevation in relation to mean sea level of the lowest floor including basement of all structures. E Proposed elevation in relation to mean sea level for any structure that has been flood-proofed 0 For non-residential construction only, certification by a registered professional engineer or architect that flood-proofing methods for any non-residential structures meet the flood-proofing criteria of.Section 5.06.08.2 of the City's Floodplain Ordinance. O Written description if applicable describing the extent to which a watercourse will be altered or relocated as a result of the proposed development. Effective October 28,2007 Page 1 of 5 C:\Documents and Settings\nnturbak\Desktop\Floodplain Dev Permit App eff 10-28-07.doc 11/25/2008 17:21 5096880037 SV PERMIT CENTERFR PAGE 02/05 • • PART III-PROJECT INFORMATION PARCEL NUMBER(S)OF SITE: 3J tp STREET ADDRESS OF SITE(if any): I(P I 111 Ave.- SIZE Ue.-SIZE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY(square feet):n EXISTING ZONE CLASSIFICATION(S): A LIST PREVIOUS LAND USE ACTIONS INVOLVING THIS PROPERTY: "—' Areas of Special Concern: Pursuant to Section 5.06.13 of the Spokane Valley FIoodplain Ordinance,the following areas shall not be covered by impervious surfaces or fill unless an engineering study prepared by a professional engineering licensed in the State of Washington is completed that shows no impact to the ability of the floodplain to infiltrate, store and release floodwaters.Please check the box if your property is located in one(I)of these areas: ❑ Chester Creek(downstream of Mohawk Road) ❑ Saltese Creek(all areas of ponding and infiltration) ❑ Forker(south of the intersection of Forker Road and Progress Road) Central Park(west of Park Road) ❑ Glenrose(west of Carnahan Road and south of 8'h Avenue) DESCRIPTION OF WORK: 1. Proposed Development Descriptions(check boxes that apply): ❑ New Construction ❑ Alteration&Repair ❑ Stream Alteration ❑ Manufactured/Modular.Housing ❑ Road,Culvert,Utilities 179 Other-Describe: 461 C d' .-'d" a y,c�� 2. Types of Construction(check boxes that apply): / ❑ New or Existing Residential: square feet 122 Addition: // V square feet ❑ Accessory Structure: square feet ❑ Renovation: ❑ Interior ❑ Exterior ❑ Temporary ❑ New Non-Residential ❑ Repair ❑ Utility Installation ❑ Other-Describe: For Alterations,Additions or Improvements to an Existing Structure: If the cost of the proposed construction equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value substantial improvement requirements shall apply. Please answer the following questions: a. What is the estimated market value of the existing structure?:$ 2 ce,,Dop b. What is the estimated cost of the proposed construction?:$ G, Soo Effective October 28,2007 Page 2 of 5 C:1Documents and Settings Unturbak\Desktop\Floodplain Dev Permit App eff 10-28-07.doc 11/25/20 5 17:21 5096880037 SV PERMIT CENTERFR PAGE 03/05 f � 3. Filling&Grading(check boxes that apply): ❑ Filling ❑ Excavation ❑ Cubic Yards to be Removed: cubic yards ❑ Cubic Yards to be Placed: cubic yards ASSOCIATED APPLICATIONS: This pe 't is being applied for in conjunction with one or more of the following(check boxes): Residentia ommerci wilding Perna ❑ Grading Permit ❑ Land Division Application ❑ Critical Areas Permit ❑ Shore me Substantial Development Permit ❑ Other-Describe: PART IV-LEGAL OWNER SIGNATURE (Signature of legal owner or representative as authorized by legal owner) 4{ e.K , (print name) SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE ABOVE RESPONSES ARE MADE TRUTHFULLY AND TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. I FURTHER SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT I AM THE OWNER OF RECORD OF THE AREA PROPOSED FOR THE ABOVE-IDENTIFIED LAND USE ACTION, OR, IF NOT THE OWNER, ATTACHED HEREWITH IS WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE OWNER AUTHORIZING MY ACTIONS ON HIS/IfER BEHALF. It is hereby agreed that the City of Spokane Valley, its boards, officers, employees and agents shall be saved, indemnified and held harmless from all liabilities imposed by law by reason of injury to or death of any person(s) or damage to any property, including without limitation, liability for trespass, nuisance or inverse condemnation, which may arise out of the work covered by this permit,and does agree to defend the City, its officers,employees and agents against any claim or action asserting such liability. Accepting this permit or starting any work hereunder shall constitute acceptance and agreement to all conditions and requirements of this permit and the ordinance and specifications authorizing issuance of such permit. rf 1 i/-2 6- o� (Signature) (Date) NOTARY (For Part IV above) STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss: COUNTY OF SPOKANE ) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this a (y T ' day ofd -i ,20o V ```•\\\""t ti t l l l' �� Oft air , 4FjAL •'g501"'�h'�/L 'f �~ •CIT 4\% 4°16 NOT• •Y SIGNATURE • - y Notary Public in and for the State of Washington 0" 7 % A&e'•� ._ Residing at: (dcO z- - .47 �,% �% �`9'1 ;\ �O� My appointment expires:• `t' — r,', \` vi Effective October 28,2007 Page 3 of 5 C:\Documents and Settings\mturbak\Desktop\Floodplain Dev Permit App eff I0-28-07.doc PART III — PROJECT INFORMATION PARCEL NUMBER(S) OF SITE: STREET ADDRESS OF SITE (if any): SIZE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY(square feet): EXISTING ZONE CLASSIFICATION(S): LIST PREVIOUS LAND USE ACTIONS INVOLVING THIS PROPERTY: nn Areas of Special Concern: Pursuant to Section 5.06.13 eof vthe Spokane surfaces oalley FFloodpl in Ordinance, the following areas shall not be covered by engineering study prepared by a professional engineering licensed in the State of Washington is completed that shows no impact to the ability of the floodplain to infiltrate, store and release floodwaters. Please check the box if your property is located in one of these areas: ❑ Chester Creek (downstream of Mohawk Road) ❑ Saltese Creek (all areas of ponding and infiltration) ❑ Forker (south of the intersection of Forker Road and Progress Road) El Central Park (west of Park Road) ❑ Glenrose (west of Carnahan Road and south of 8`" Avenue) DESCRIPTION OF WORK: 1. Proposed Development Descriptions (check boxes that apply): ❑ New Construction ❑ Alteration & Repair ❑ Stream Alteration ❑ Road, Culvert, Utilities Manufactured/Modular Housing ❑ � 1,,,, 1 Other - Describe: Aid 6 .�° �'` �'. °�' r,i%rd-J ;i Z„ Types of Construction (check boxes that apply): ❑ New or Existing Residential: square feet /I 1 square feet Er Addition: square feet ❑ Accessory Structure: ❑ Renovation: Interior ❑ Exterior ❑ ❑ Temporary ❑ New Non-Residential ❑ Repair ❑ Utility Installation ❑ Other - Describe: For Alterations, Additions or Improvements to an Existing Structure: If the cost of the proposed construction equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value substantial improvement requirements shall apply. Please answer the following questions: ZL�}t a. What is the estimated market value of the existing strut ure?: $ b. What is the estimated cost of the proposed construction?:$ Version 2 04-05 2 Z.d d0.:80 80 9Z AoN 11/25/2008 17:21 5096880037 SV PERMIT CENTERFR PAGE 05/05 PART VI—DEPARTMENT SIGN-OFF&APPROVAL City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department: As the Floodplain Administrator for the City of Spokane Valley,I certify the following has been reviewed and approved by me: The`Building Under Construction"elevation certificate has been reviewed and approved: ❑ Structure elevated BFE+ 1 foot ❑ Structure built with waterproofed materials to the flood-protected elevation or more r �••�,: • i /3JO6 Kathy McC1 ,- -.' Community D ye •pment Director Date The"Finished Construction"elevation certificate has been ,20 . It has been reviewed❑ returned for more information on ,20 ; ❑approved on ,20 ; Kathy McClung,sap,Community Development Director Date PLEASE NOTE: THIS PERMIT SHALL EXPIRE WITH THE ISSUED BUILDING PERMIT OR IF THERE IS NO BUILDING PERMIT WITHIN TWELVE (12) MONTHS OF THE DATE OF ISSUANCE IF ACTIONS AUTHORIZED UNDER THE PERMIT ARE NOT SUBSTANTIALLY IN-PROGRESS. EXTENSIONS OF APPROVAL MAY BE SOUGHT IF SUBSTANTIAL PROGESS HAS TAKEN PLACE. (sctiv e (..d(11+ice (19 )( I q 144 642. Kalil- 11\61 ,3 e- I tree -five, tip --F vera red ki �C� `n YV cci-� (',t.tyro l f loco i �C �lkres Y VVI ), df- Q rE - 3 Zii d ra_l `01 NA) acYLvort- (+6 CeiCte& Effective October 28,2007 . Pagc 5 of 5 C:\Docurnents and Settings\inturbak\Desktop\Floodplain Dev Permit App eff 10-28-07.doc 3. Filling & Grading (check boxes that apply): ❑ Filling ❑ Grading ❑ Cubic Yards to be Removed: cubic yards ❑ Cubic Yards to be Placed: cubic yards ASSOCIATED APPLICATIONS: This permit is being applied for in conjunction with one or more of the following (check boxes): �Residenti ommerci Building Permit;.i ❑ Grading Permit 0 Land Division Application ❑ Critical Areas Permit ❑ Shoreline Substantial Development Permit ❑ Other - Describe: PART IV - LEGAL OWNER SIGNATURE (Signature of legal owner or representative as authorized by legal owner). 4e X,-L-e,e , (print name) SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE ABOVE RESPONSES ARE MADE TRUTHFULLY AND TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. I FURTHER SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT I AM THE OWNER OF RECORD OF THE AREA PROPOSED FOR THE ABOVE IDENTIFIED LAND USE ACTION, OR, IF NOT THE OWNER, ATTACHED HEREWITH IS WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE OWNER AUTHORIZING MY ACTIONS ON HIS/HER BEHALF. It is hereby agreed that the City of Spokane Valley, its boards, officers, employees and agents shall be saved, indemnified and held harmless from all liabilities imposed by law by reason of injury to or death of any person(s) or damage to any property, including without limitation, liability for trespass, nuisuance or inverse condemnation, which may arise out of the work covered by this permit, and does agree to defend the City, its officers, employees and agents against any claim or action asserting such liability. Accepting this permit or starting any work hereunder shall constitute acceptance and agreement to all conditions and requirements of this permit and the ordinance and specifications authorizing issuance of such permit. --7/2/ //- 2..)---- e8 (Signature) (Date) NOTARY (For Part IV above) STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss: COUNTY OF SPOKANE ) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this day of , 20 NOTARY SEAL NOTARY SIGNATURE Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Residing at: My appointment expires: Version 2 04-05 3 C'd d l L:EO 90 9Z ^*N 11/25/2008 :7:21 5096880037 SV PERMIT CENTERFR PAGE 04/05 • PART V—CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY-TO BE COMPLETED BY THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Community Number: 530-342 Panel Number: Flood Zone: Flood Zone Depth No.: Base Flood Elevation at Site: Abaci) per i s GYM VC S' COfl+5 -i Required Top of the Lower Floor Elevation: Q 14( - • If the structure is to be flood-proofed,the required flood-proofing elevation is: Elevation Certificate Required: ❑ Yes 21 No re N`:KL- ¶. "No Rise"Verification Required: (Numbered A Zone) ❑ Yes pitNo Conditions of Approval: In addition to those listed above and below, please refer to attached conditions of approval if applicable. 1. Required Elevation of the"top of the next higher floor"shall be (AE)feet M.S.L. 2. Required Elevation of the"top of the next higher floor"shall be (AO)feet M.S.L 3. Required elevation of flood resistant materials,utilities,etc.or flood-proofing construction for non-residential structures(the flood protected elevation)shall be feet M.S.L. 4. A`Building Under Construction"elevation certificate ❑ shall llt. shall not be completed and submitted to the City for review and approval prior to any vertical construction. A "Finished Construction" elevation certificate ❑ shall 14f shall not be completed and submitted to the City for review and approval prior to human occupancy or final inspection of on-site building(s), whichever comes first. NO HUMAN OCCUPANCY OR FINAT., INSPECTION SHALL BE GRANTED PRIOR TO THE SUBMITTAL AND APPROVAL OF THE"FINISHED CONSTRUCTION"CERTIFICATION. Effective October 28,2007 Page 4(4'5 C:\Documents and Settings\mturbak\DesktopWFloodplain Dev Permit App eff 10-28-07.doc 1, f � David N. Randall, Civil Engineer 521 W. Cameron Road �.� Spangle, Washington 99031 Ph/Fax: (509) 245-3402 Cell: (509) 951-7411 June 26, 2008 City of Spokane Valley Permit Center 11703 E. Sprague Avenue, Suite B-3 Spokane Valley, Washington 99206 Attn: Mike Turbak, Senior Permit Specialist Re: 5918 E. 11th Avenue, Spokane Valley, Washington — Flood Plain Requirements for Boris Romanchuk. Mike, The following information has been prepared in response to email comments received from you on June 16, 2008. As noted within the email correspondence, the FEMA FIRM maps covering the site referenced above do not establish a Base Flood Elevation. On June 25, 2008, I met with Brenda Sims of Spokane County Stormwater. After some research of the files, Brenda was not able to come up with any historical records of public complaints of flooding within the area. In the many years she has worked in the Stormwater Department, she does not recall any problems associated with flooding. Brenda did recall a flood study that was prepared by CH2MHiIl in October 20, 1996 for the Central Park Drainage Basin. A copy of the study is attached to the back of this report. Table 1 within the report indicates that a total basin 100-yr stormwater flow rate at 11th and Dickey would be 117.8 cfs. Based upon contours in the area (see attached map), a cross section of the drainage channel was prepared (refer to the attached cross section drawing). The average slope along the channel alignment within the vicinity of the proposed home is 1.04%. Channel shape data was placed into Flow Master (see attached calculations). A Manning's Roughness Coefficient of 0.08 was utilized for"Flood Plains with Light Brush and Trees (summer)". The depth of flow was varied in Flow Master until the flow rate equaled that noted above. The resulting depth of flow was 0.86 feet and the width of the flow was 255 feet. This calculated flow depth is noted on the attached cross section of the channel. As can be seen from the cross section, the storm flow level of 2002.86 comes close to reaching the top of the curb at the west side of the cul-de-sac where the elevation was measured to be 2003.0. For the purposes of this report it is assumed that 100-yr flood event would reach the top of the curb at this point. RECEIVED BY CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY JUN 2 7 2000 PE'', F� BY ftb" Based upon the above discussion, the 100-yr Base Flood Elevation at the cul-de-sac of 11th Avenue will be conservatively assumed to be the top of the existing curb at the west side of the cul-de-sac with an elevation of 2003.0. A survey of the proposed home resulted in a Finished Floor Elevation of 2018.3, or 15.3 feet above the 100-yr Base Flood Elevation, placing the proposed home well out of the flood plain. With the information supplied within this report, I am requesting that the City of Spokane Valley approve exemption of the proposed structure from all flood plain requirements. I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any questions please give me a call. Sincerely, DJ/ 12....LX David Randall, P.E. Rgyo wast'; i; z 26984 c� F0/STERE'p EXPIRES 7/4/08 i NMI Engineers 11111111111 Planners CKMHIll Economists RECEIVED ® Scientists • October 20 , 1986 • OCT ;�86 • s 14 0 0 9.D o Gounty Engineering I Mr. Robert Turner, County Engineer Spokane County Engineers Office N. 811 Jefferson `.' Spokane, WA 99260 Dear Mr. Turner: Subject: Central Park Drainage Investigation - Final Report This letter report summarizes the work that was conducted during the final phase of analysis of the Central Park Drain- age Basin. BACKGROUND Initial analyses of the Central Park drainage problems com- menced in July of 1980. The results of those original anal- yses are presented in a Summary Report to Spokane County, dated November 10 , 1983. The November 1983 report was pre- pared as the first step of continuing the Central Park study. The purpose of continuing the investigation was three fold: 1 . To evaluate several storm runoff conditions associated with projected ultimate development in the basin. Pre- vious analyses had addressed only existing levels of development. 2. To evaluate runoff conditions associated with a snowmelt event. Previous analyses had addressed only rainfall events. 3. To work with a committee of Central Park residents to identify and evaluate runoff control alternatives that would be both technically and financially feasible. 1984 Throughout 1984 , hydrologic analyses of various combinations of Central Park subbasins were conducted for a variety of runoff conditions presented in Tables 1 and 2 and summarized below: CH2M HILL Spokane Office. West 601 Riverside Ave.,Suite 1240,Spokane,Washington 99201 509.747.2000 ' no SW OE ill MI IN MI ill MI Mil III MI MI MI a Et It V Table 1 CENTRAL PARK RAINFALL RUNOFF SUMMARY f FUTURE DEVELOPMENT Contributing 10 year 25 year 50 year 100 year Area Flow Volume Flow Volume Flow Volume Flow Volume Total Basin to 47.0 cfs 1,096,000 72.4 cfs 1,669,000 95.7 cfs 2,148,000 117.8 cfs 2,603,000 11th & Dickey @ 17th hr cf @ 17th hr cf @ 17th hr cf @ 17th hr cf Basins 8 & 9 to 34.7 cfs 309,000 54.2 cfs 484,000 68.7 cfs 615,000 80.8 cfs 725,000 11th & Dickey @ 12.5 hr cf @ 12.5 hr cf @ 12.5 hr cf @ 12.5 hr cf Basins 1-7, 10 & 11 44.2 cfs 786,000 68.1 cfs 1,185,000 90.1 cfs 1,533,000 111.3 cfs 1,878,000 to 12th & Eastern @ 17th hr cf @ 17th hr cf @ 17th hr cf @ 17th hr cf Basins 1-6 to 44.0 cfs 531,000 68.4 cfs 808,000 92.6 cfs 1,064,000 114.5 cfs 1,305,000 Equestrian Area @ 13th hr cf @ 13th hr cf @ 13th hr cf @ 13th hr cf Basins 7-11 to 38.4 cfs 582,000 59.5 cfs 887,000 75.2 cfs 1,116,000 B8.6 cfs 1,336,000 11th & Dickey @ 12.5 hr cf @ 12.5 hr cf @ 12.5 hr cf @ 12.5 hr cf /SPJSC/s lig lin 11111 111 III III Mit 1111 MOW SIR Siii mom sma WAR Man Mam noiti _moti ---4 Table 2 RUNOFF SUMMARY - FUTURE DEVELOPMENT CENTRAL PARK BASIN RAINSNOWMELT • CONTRIBUTING . 50 100 yr 25 yr 100 yr AREA Flow Vol. Flow Vol . yr }� FloA Vol. Flow Vol. Total 95. 7 cfs 2,148 , 392 117 . 8 cfs 2 ,602 ,705 110 . 3 cfs 5,024 ,950 166 . 7 cfs 7 , 604 , 540 Basin @ 17th hr C.F. @ 17th hr . C.F. @ 12th hr C.F. @ 12th hr C.F. d Partial is Basin to 90 . 1 cfs 1, 533, 493 111. 3 cfs 1 , 837 , 853 83 .7 cfs 3 , 520 ,035 133. 9 cfs 5, 298 , 970 [ 12th & @ 17th hr C.F. @ 17th hr C.F. @ 13th hr C.F. @ 13th hr C.F. Eastern Basin' s 8 & 9 to 68. 7 cfs 614 , 899 80 . 8 cfs 724 , 852 52 . 8 cfs 1,504 ,914 79 . 4 cfs 2 , 305, 571 11th & @ 12. 5 hr C.F. @ 12. 5 hr C.F. @ 9th hr C.F. @ 9th hr C.F. Dickey . Basin' s 1 thru 6 92 . 6 cfs 1, 063, 924 114 . 5 cfs 1, 305 , 382 77 . 6 cfs 2 ,623,478 118 . 3 cfs 3 , 970 ,443 1 , to Eques- @ 13th hr C.F. @ 13th hr C.F. @ 9th hr C.F. @ 9th hr. C.F. H trian Area Basin 11 4 . 2 cfs 48 , 573 6 . 0 cfs 69 , 390 5. 9 cfs 194 , 914 9 . 8 cfs 324 , 934 i only @ 16th hr. C.F. @ 16th hr C.F. @ 12th hr C.F. @ 12th hr C.F. • I , J.I 1 li <1 1 TT o he }� .it I It Q.35ct�. ,: C1-1(59) 8- AYEf I Ca.;7 I I— 10 . Tc. v.BhY. I 1p io- �� , -fit o.oh-( r"---a_u.0 4).Tc. 3.8 hr•• 11 Tt 3.58 h r. - j Q IL;( ) Qc� �3T�aIGh il 1 T� /She. CD' 1 i 4 TtO.4h� t � . , 1 ® x(10 1 t T� (.o8hr Tom. o.gkc. \� C. -1(6,6) / Tt o.o(0hc. t O-��- 1. Tc, 1.1 hr. . Tc, 1.811<- O p Tt o.ohc t o.o hr• 0 ( 0.. Tom" 0.4 hr. f t 0.0 Elf. LEi.iQ.oSE \ ; 4Y LEC- EI-1 D1. 041.08 BAST N ? DI A1N,AL ROUTE CH(59) , clRoUE-ID CONDITION COMFOSITE X59): 3ASEt7 ON GOUNT`( C PaEI-kENS1vE (ALAI.! ., Tc.. TIME of coNGE 4TRATIc:N Tt. TRAVEL TIME • i9 CEPT .A. RL pAl2- P l 1ACle. BASIN FU a-E- I CKMHI LL I J . i Mr. Robert Turner Page 2 October 20 , 1986 1 S14009.D0 1 i 1 I o 10 yr, 25 yr, 50 yr, and 100 yr rainfall events I for projected future levels of development ! o 25 yr and 100 yr snowmelt events , I Central Park Citizens Advisory Committee meetings conducted during 1984 were devoted primarily to discussing the hydro- logic characteristics of the basin and the possible impacts of severe runoff events. By the end of 1984 the Committee was ready to consider hypothetical flood control alternatives . I A report was prepared and submitted to the Committee at the December 17 , 1984 advisory meeting. This report considered I ; several conceptual runoff control alternatives intended to address a 50 year return frequency rainfall event assuming projected future level of development. Three alternatives were considered, and they were estimated to range in cost from $600 ,000 to $825 ,000 . The discussion at the meeting led to consideration of several variations to the alterna- tives which were presented. A field investigation was then conducted to evaluate the feasibility of using open channel flow for a portion of the control system. The results were a presented in a Citizens Committee meeting on January 14, I 1985. !. { 1985 I Several more committee meetings were held during the spring and summer of 1985 . They primarily addressed financial and institutional considerations for implementing runoff control facilities within the basin. The committee established sev- eral criteria which would be used to evaluate runoff control Ii: alternatives : o Multiple use; i.e. recreation potential o Funding for improvements by new development o Phased development o Aesthetically pleasing o Minimal O&M costs ii`. o Use of existing drainageways as much as possible o Coordination with proposed sewerage plans j o Coordination with proposed 100-yr flood plain o Evaluate only the 50-yr rainfall event but consider the impact of the 100-yr rainfall event o Attempt to intercept flow as much as possible near 1 its source I I s i' I Mr. Robert Turner Page 3 October 20 , 1986 S14009.D0 o Accept the flooding that could be generated by existing development without attempting to control It was decided to divide Central Park Basin into two major areas. The area, comprised by Subbasins 7 through 11 , flows directly to the 11th Avenue and Dickey Roadavicinity. Further analysis would concentrate on only this are through 6 would ultimately be controlled in upstream areas and would, therefore, not impact the general vicinity of and DickeyRoad. This assumption was predicated 11th Avenue by the predominantly undeveloped nature of Subbasins 1-6 and I: by the fact that peak runoff from the area will lag substan- tially behind peak runoff from Subbasins 7-11 . Based on the foregoing criteria a generalized analysis • approach was developed and agreed upon: . i Step 1 - Estimate the volume of existing storage at I 11th and Dickey. Step 2 - Estimate the peak rate of flow that will pass Dickey after existing storage is exceeded. Step 3 - Evaluate the downstream impact of flow passing Dickey Road. Step 4 - Estimate the amount of additional storage that would be needed to accommodate the additional flow generated by future development, while � . :. permitting previous flow to continue passing Dickey Road. Step 5 - Evaluate how to provide the additional storage. ;: Using very approximate existing topographic maps, the 50 year runoff event for Subbasins 7 through 11 was analyzed. d The results were presented in a written summary at the II . ':, September 9 , 1985 Citizens Advisory Committee meeting. It ,l!+ ' `'' was pointed out that the results were extremely approximate 'I) because of the lack of more detailed topographic mapping. %! The Committee requested that steps be taken to refine analysis. In response, field surveys were conducted and a i more accurate topographic map was prepared. i. iI ,,: 1 I Mr. Robert Turner Page 4 October 20 , 1986 I S14009.D0 1986 Using the more detailed map, the approximate 1985 analysis was re-computed. The primary conclusions that resulted from the analysis are as follows: Existing 50-year Rainfall Event; Subbasins 7-11 1 . The peak rate of flow that would overtop Dickey Road would be about 29 cfs. 2. The maximum water surface elevation occurring during the peak flow at 11th-Avenue and Dickey Road intersec- tions would be 2001 . 15. The road surface elevation is 2000. 85 . 3 . The peak flow would remain confined within the 11th Avenue curb lines west of Dickey Road as long as the existing culvert was not obstructed. 4 . The ditch, extending northerly from the west end of 11th Avenue, has sufficient capacity to transmit the peak flow rate if the ditch is not blocked with debris. 5 . The swale on the north side of the. 10th Avenue cul-de-sac does not have sufficient hydraulic capacity and one or more homes might be damaged by the flow in this vicinity. f_ry. 6. There appears to be sufficient area northwest of the :-_ '`,;...r'.. .rte. 10th Avenue cul-de-sac that the flow will disperse and ultimately drain to the existing gravel quarry near I 8th and Carnahan. Additional topographic information is needed to confirm this. 7. The estimated limits of inundation east of Dickey Road 1 do not appear to directly impact any adjacent residences. 8 . The existing 15 inch culvert on the north side of 11th Avenue significantly reduces the amount of flow that would otherwise overtop Dickey Road. The culvert needs to have a controlled inlet device installed to prevent floatable debris from plugging the pipe. Ii r" Future, 50-year Rainfall Event; Subbasins 7-11 1 . Provisions will be needed to regulate the discharge across Dickey Road to the 29 cfs computed for the existing level of development. jii;tflr a a I Mr. Robert Turner Page 5 1986 October 20 , S14009 .D0 2. The water surface elevation east of Dickey Road would reach approximately 2002. 3 . This would require some type of diking arrangement along the east side of Dickey ywayad and along the south side of 11th Avenue rig 4 . An alternative to the dike type of control would be to excavate some of the tarea 120,00'Oeast cubiof Dclfeet, of storageckey to obtain an ��additional 110 ,000 to volume. 5 . There ulo be a possibility of reducing storage require- ments ts oror lowering the eC�eonsurfacwellse eThistwouldion trequire Dickey Road by installing lnJ investigations.further geotechnical Groundwater Injection The technical literature was researched in an attempt to identify a simple, practical field test that could be used to accurately predict the capacywf a �thethe mechanicalntional drywell and to correlate the predictedcapacity properties of the native soil. consequence, such a test has not been developed. a prototype test permeability I procedure was developed to measure in situ soil p a at a depth comparable to toCOonverventionalt the fieldryweltestPresults formula was hypothesized Lastly, thee "Hazen to theoretical drywell capacity. Lastly, sze z ) and Relationship" between soil effective grain10 permeability (K) was assumed. All of this informationewwas summarized in a detailed report to Spokane County, April 11 , 1986 . During July of 1986 , seven 6-inch diameter injection wells AppendixccoA ce with were installed in Central Park deported accordance wit the recommendations of the April and sieve analyses for the boring logs , injection rates, t these wells. A review of the test dtatshohat showed ththat emosteof the soils samples were so .fl grained particle size (D10) was indeterminate. A number of addition- al mechanical properties ofecheon samples.es were There omwutedoandvi- d �i compared with the fieldnJ resents the tabulated soils ous correlation. Appendix B P data and plots of that drelationshiptest between theinjection wellrates . 11 Lastly, the theoretical equivalent geometry and a Type 2 drywell was used to compute drywell capacities: II 0 . Mr. Robert Turner Page 6 October 20 , 1986 S14009.D0 Test Well Projected Injection Equivalent Type 2 Test Well Rate Drywell Capacity (cf/min) cf/day cfs Number 700 . 26 22 1 11.50 22,700 2 0. 65 1 ,300 . 02 3 0.00 0 0 4 6. 70 13 , 200 . 15 5 0. 22 400 0 6 1. 12 2 ,200 . 03 7 0 . 12 200 0 It appears that the theoretical formula used to compute the equivalent drywell capacity may produce results that are somewhat low. Installation and injection testing of drywells ‘,,,---in� -''in the immediate vicinity of several of the test wells would permit refinement of the theoretical formula. The resulting empirical formula would be a very good tool for predicting drywell capacity based on test well injection rates. Also, statistical analyses of the interrelationships between some of the soils test parameters and the injection rates might produce a formula for predicting drywell capacity directly from the soils parameters without the need for injection testing. The Hazen Relationship is inadequate for the purpose. Based on the analyses conducted so far it can only be con- cluded that conventional drywells could not effectively dis- pose of enough storm water runoff in the lower reaches of Central Park to significantly reduce potential flooding im- pacts. Further testing could alter this conclusion. Also, I deep, small diameter injection wells that actually penetrate to the level of the aquifer would offer coniderably grear flow capacity than conventional drywells. This option, how- 1 ever, would need to be closely evaluated to ensure proper aquifer water quality protection. I SUMMARY During the six years spanned by the Central Park Drainage Investigations a great deal has been accomplished: 1 o The drainage basin and subbasins were defined. o Hydrologic and hydraulic parameters were deter- mined. 1 1 I a Mr. Robert Turner Page 7 October 20 , 1986 S14009.D0 o Runoff hydrographs were developed for a wide range of rainfall and snowmelt events. o A citizens advisory committee was formed. o Many meetings were held with the committee to ex- plain the runoff problems and explore possible solutions. o A flood control philosophy was established by the committee. o Several site specific runoff control options were evaluated. o Initial steps were taken to develop an innovative approach to possible runoff disposal by groundwater injection. The Citizens Advisory Committee was instrumental in identifying local issues and concerns; establishing locally acceptable hydrologic analysis criteria; evaluating runoff control concepts; and formulating general policies for drainage control implementation by the residents of Central Park. At times progress towards a basin runoff control plan seemed intermittent and elusive , yet the process wound inexorably towards identification and evaluation of solutions to the runoff problems. That this was even possible is a tribute to the perserverance of the entire team. We are grateful to have been a part of it. Sinc ely, / 1 Jam s S. Correll, P.E. Spo ane Area Manager Attachments /SPJSC/c Pi A Y 1 ( fi r r iM1 T. ,rs f 'r4 ir+ '..I \ iF F-, ''''g....0..:::.,,,,..til I'r r ] r l`' r f t t. t .,.� I wm g `r^ :f -.,.r TN:'.!?1I rd i +J ,y.-.. A '- ` Is3tt : : x glvr ' L I C S :l d�rr� �e ;4ti rS 7, I't .-. °a i It i a ? ' r: -f . 1 Imo;"�ra 1 9� 1 f.+r. of 7rY �r ( r I' � -. o° a � � trr e r z1;:�xr• r{'TXft�O iSF,I s rq,`+Ix'!z' 'Rr ,' vA,k t., l > �i Lt.,y,_ 1 'oJp t''as,�'r ,�� V i . •� � r(�' x t r_tr ti x F �I ,� ��i �� c •t �i''1 v;., 3'''7,` �� }y>r � a(4, e°�f � 1 1 r i"` :s Ij ��r y (v LY r r R'� .'i r .Fy t N.,.-i.' 1 ,-4,yv Y r I :.,•,.,,,, F :4( I,Y Y ; t j !t Y ...;, ..'....'5.;•!'.h R P Wi f'I b� Ir', tit 1 •'r,,:'' tt`. I� y'�` '�3 .t T' Jt'° .'. I ,,.L._:„„..;,,,,...,.,,,,,,,:r =7:.;;;t:.-1:. rQ -.'...6.4'7:'-',...„'.44:- u � % Tjz� - I sl-;'� Y s 7 v {� y } I I , C 4� 'F. fir-^r S .,:cr.-",44:t17..r I r 5 o f �m v .1 3 le) . -G�� ''.;;;;;P::':.:". �"t,.ab�t� ,( yp�„ �� G s ' � 3�-- ' •. �. ` .' r �' 4: r ka A h 'fir' .1 1 . �� F �rr �' �i �r�s!�r t v b t f '�` i w l'7r.ti w 1 - 3 tom. �,E I t_ cili•tiki$:•: " 4 :,..71.,„,,,,,..,,,,,t.14„',4,-,,',.?5,t.vCe rSz.. 1 :t I� ..;\.A t yG a 't„ y "Y"+sY.s Yh s •mii k& zi (1x I t livfl i? '-+r c.. ti Y i '' r lH t � F ai�t. �I 4 '• isa .• I 0'z . D^4+t �`M' ^.4+h,'y— 'Y�� \\ ., r . S -.i ihr, t .4y }r1 i 17 t� 1, rl r , .�>, i'; "'f`�4 zW Y'a"'1 rr X , f,+( 4 +� �i 41 „V �7 1_. I f ..y r 4 i'I t '.9 u rrj 1 1}'� �" y i;;��yy {r' � C 4' r °a�'A".rl �' F ' t Ww '�rsc. hii "'�`t .( Y'i t ' ; K r i••-,., j ri "r,i... 1,4 ,,. .,,-:::,,...:,,:74. 4..7.4.7,17,77,,, '„ ._,.. •tl�•�' i�r K' r '�: •'' . ; '' ''N. ��, k , .'''''''':''' .:1' „1.1th ,AUEf II I 1 S + y ! 1 ."� t s `�o ry'ic'� w ........,!:::,,,i':,„1.4,..,:,,..4--1,."..1-t, t, -.».�� Ir , [� a 'S'' ". '' s . 4''; w d' O•., F' ti 4-..! 1¢ 7.. f`S.•. 7' d'... ):t I h, Ui. .,.,7,;'4.:1...,:,',.,:,1,,,•..i, x 44 ? : }t4. i� ' id�f ? CS`4t F'. (a� r 4' u'b I®�.. 4 tJ r h t P v 17 F 11 aF'' • Dt I s 'P • N - tl` i t :V '. a �e -0 7'3� 01:::IkTP �r 1A ee,44:"?.'-11...4.,, ,t :'l �Kvy- n" tkt, r'�Cl " x .t r 1 r s'4 trn XJ t : F.. ti ,la"+ !._ . A ..� r '4i,! ,.- ^j:.ra c 'G> j V:t ''':::''.-44,..,1'2';5' , _ry ,9. .:4•‘.1',/..,dh I ' + 9 P 4. ° ,. .r 1 �r ' t dIOPAggVt -y" > 'J +z 14,.®�' �•r P t.jr. 'u'eA't 7,1J -i q'A a , I .c ' �e: x a" i. 1 Sr ' KEII •WAGE r,/� . � ,;' '' - ". ' ;" ; .r ,h ' -. RCII3 M ANT ' ,-. `7 �i { l'' t i 1 : 'D'r4*._z ? r.Y :.. .' zS ,,- {Y A r 1 L i L . as { °o k'. 's,'.'1.,7,-7.,:',1;,,,. r _ a� r .i'S 3 '=.,p ',AFF-'. s .'D�k' '�AAy . li..r' r I� ,I �y r • r= deer s kINPM1 Y #.� ( it�i �.`"�i r 4ny `. 1 rp .sra. q .r xt W ''1-1.:-,:::':?-:;.::::: - h ♦r, P ��w z �sai{n t 1 aw &$ �, t Y , 'zy - a g p�• G z.. 4 °/ '. ,,r f I r i .'.'.,..;,';!.1... r. ) fi i" Y' >i o ,,, u ¢� r 7"' :ttt1 .,.cwt ,-;; rF r z' .';C Kic k l- �1 ) , 9 ' r�{ .ir .( ��g,��.'n 4,...r.,,,......„... f (,N'r.� p is °� "; t' 4.. n I :yT„'L', -.I� f to '.',!!..4.':.;:.:'..'7,1'.;';'.''''l � 4"1 4 ? 'LT ; 6° r�t r� �' tl •�Y"("'� r h V �a t, its S r•, 1„7t-i5•s,' 1Ji:,tLy�.e<i�i r c., 4 F L• ' i',.'1"*.:" e !...:7-7.7-7'.:,:,..t,--%-,-;,;.!::14:;-,',,,„:, , M1.1'r ' S "'tT'," �� nir� vs �k1� � t. � '43�ey�'i •Jt :r":'''''''';!'-' C,t_. :a > l - 1>aC � 1 ^r7{z d a"" r .:,•!;4,1,,,0:-.°ti` •.;o-7�,y.r Ce' ,4.tr"''?£h 1 F'sT r 6 wt,. s�. b y r 7 a,t7 .:.W , r F3ro- d ° _Ls �,. i..'' .. .. �. 4E�, w. c\ N' R,4 ). $ o�WAs ��'/� tA N 1.. 4,46984, 0 '100 200 400 7/4/08 f �fS /sTE�p�� SCALE: 1" = 200' ON AL a60 EXPIRES CHANNEL ALIGNMENT AND 5' CONTOURS David N. Randall, Civil Engineer WITH CROSS SECTION LOCATION 521 W. Cameron Road, Spangle, Washington 99031 BORIS ROMANCHUK Phone: (509) 245-3402 Cell: (509) 951- 411 5918 E. 11th AVENUE, SPOKANE VALLEY r \ 2040 i I I I 2030 .. L \ - 1 — ! — I i \ PROPO§ED HOME FIN' ISH FLOOR ,ELEV = 2018.30 I / I i /I I 2020 \ i ( ` . \ 1i j I 117.8 icfs100- I EXISTING 11th AVE. FLOODI ELEV, = 20yr0)2.86 / t I CUL-DE-SAC 2010 - LEV002:5 - — -�- — - - - - - TOP 0-�=-XCURB ! j. • ELEV 2003.0 _____/I I I 2000 - — — — � -- - '- -- -- - �- --- - -400' -300' -200' -100' 0' +100' +200' +300' +400' N. Rq - 0Ha i CHANNEL CROSS SECTION LOOKING DOWNSTREAM o' �,°F Wgsti HORIZ. SCALE: 1" = 100', VERT. SCALE: 1" = 10' +-� ! "O vi ,i Z A 1 0° ate, FCI2.ST984E9 \��, ss/0NAl. .-67201 EXPIRES 7/4/08 David N. Randall, Civil Engineer DRAINAGE CHANNEL CROSS SECTION CENTRAL PARK DRAINAGE AT PROPOSED HOME SITE 521 W. Cameron Road, Spangle, Washington 99031 FOR BORIS ROMANCHUK Phone: (509) 245-3402 Cell: (509) 951-7411 5918 E. 11th AVENUE, SPOKANE VALLEY t f a Boris Romanchuk Worksheet for Irregular Channel Project Description Project File c:\romanchuk\drainage.fm2 Worksheet Romanchuk Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Discharge Input Data Channel Slope 0.010400 ft/ft Water Surface Elevation 2,002.86 ft Elevation range: 2,002.00 ft to 2,033.80 ft. Station (ft) Elevation (ft) Start Station End Station Roughness -400.00 2,033.80 -400.00 400.00 0.080 -382.00 2,030.00 -363.00 2,025.00 -334.00 2,020.00 -291.00 2,015.00 -263.00 2,010.00 -237.00 2,003.00 . 0.00 2,002.00 181.00 2,005.00 230.00 2,010.00 271.00 2,015.00 319.00 2,020.00 348.00 2,025.00 400.00 2,030.00 Results • Wtd. Mannings Coefficient 0.080 Discharge 117.92 cfs Flow Area 109.44 ft2 Wetted Perimeter 255.12 ft Top Width 255.11 ft Height 0.86 ft 0 N. RqN Critical Depth 2,002.52 ft oN��OF WAsy D,j, Critical Slope 0.145843 ft/ft , rl Velocity 1.08 ft/s nv ,— %'t Velocity Head 0.02 ft ,o i Specific Energy 2,002.88 ft 9 2?984 p =, Froude Number 0.29 \ IST �, Flow is subcritical. SiONAL E 26/194 EXPIRES 7/4/08 FlowMaster v5.17 06/26/08 09:52:1616 PM Haestad Methods,Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury,CT 06708 (203)755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Page 3 of 4 To: Permit Center Cc: Mike Turbak; Attanasio, Richard/PDX; Plaskett, Joe/PDX; Busko, Doug/SPK Subject: RE: RE SUBMITTAL- 08001913 - 5918 E 11TH AVE -JULY 16 POSTING To whom it may concern: The vertical datum information submitted for application#08001913 on July 15, 2008, has been received and reviewed. The application is now complete and the formal review process has begun. Please do not hesitate to contact me with questions/comments. Paul Seilo CH2M HILL 2020 SW Fourth Avenue, 3rd Floor Portland, OR 97201 Tel: (503)736-4012 From: Seilo, Paul/PDX Sent: Tuesday,July 08, 2008 2:47 PM To: 'Permit Center' Cc: 'Mike Turbak'; Attanasio, Richard/PDX; Plaskett, Joe/PDX Subject: RE: RE SUBMITTAL- 08001913 - 5918 E 11TH AVE -JULY 2 POSTING The additional information submitted for application #08001913 is sufficient for the purpose of determining whether or not to issue a floodplain development permit pending one additional piece of information. The National Flood Insurance Program has established guidelines for determining base flood elevations in "A" Zones (FEMA 256: MANAGING FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT IN ZONE A AREAS -A GUIDE FOR OBTAINING AND DEVELOPING BASE FLOOD ELEVATIONS), and the information submitted in the application submittal conforms to the proper methodology. However, a vertical datum for any of the topographic information submitted by the applicant is not clear. If the applicant could provide that information we would be able to verify that his analysis is consistent. Upon submittal of the vertical datum, the application can be deemed complete which starts the formal review process. Please do not hesitate to contact me with comments or questions. Paul Seilo, AICP Land Use Planner CH2M HILL 2020 SW Fourth Avenue, 3rd Floor Portland, OR 97201 Tel: (503) 736-4012 From: Mike Turbak [mailto:MTurbak@spokanevalley.org] On Behalf Of Permit Center Sent: Wednesday,July 02, 2008 12:04 PM To: Seilo, Paul/PDX Subject: RE SUBMITTAL- 08001913 - 5918 E 11TH AVE -JULY 2 POSTING Hi Paul, I just posted re-submittal documents we received on 6/27/2008 for this project to the ftp site. Please contact us with any questions or concerns. Thanks for your help, 11/19/2008 i y Page 4 of 4 Mike Turbak Senior Permit Specialist City of Spokane Valley Permit Center 11703 E. Sprague Avenue, Suite B-3 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 mturbakspokanevallev.orq 509.688.0035 (Direct) 509.688.0037(Fax) 11/19/2008 rtpr eb 1.1 td ,Jg,:Lip S I EVE JOHNSON (509) 921 -0080 p. 1 R602.10.6.2 Alternate braced wall panel adjacent to a The tie-down devices shall be an er�bedded- door or window opening.Alternate braced wall panels full-length outer studs of each paneL Tne clear strapinstalled i accordanceshll with the mann- visions in accordance with one of the following pro- span of the header between the inner studs of each facture? recommendations.in lcor.Tne panels shall ma u- visions are also permitted to replace each 4 feet(1219 panel shall be not less than 6 feet(1829 mm)and directly on which is con- be mm) of braced wall panel as required by Section not more than 18 feet(5486 mm)in length.A strap support supported directly the entire ae length foundation the braced on- R602.10.4 for use adjacent to a window or door opening with an uplift capacity of not less than 1000 tine us The roes the en ire shall beg reinforced with not all with a full-length header: pounds(4448 N)shall fasten the header to the side lessinthan fou No.4 bar top and bottom. of the inner studs opposite the sheathing. One 1. In one-story buildings, each panel shall have a anchor bolt not less than sit-inch-diameter (16 Where the continuous foundation is required to length of not less than 16 inches(406 mm)and a mm) and installed in accordance with Section have a depth greater than 12 inches(305 mm),a height of not snore than 10 feet(3048 mm).Each R403.1.6 shall be installed in the center of each sill minimum 12-inch-by-12-inch (305 mm by 305 panel shall be sheathed on one face with a single !ham'.The surds at each end of the panel shall have mm)continuous footing or turned down slab edge layer of ct sal minimum-trig nails (10 mm) a tie-down device fastened to the foundation with is permitted at door openings in the braced wall wood structural panel sheathing nailed with an uplift capacity of not less than 4,200 pounds line_This continuous footing or turned down slab common or galvanized box nails in accordance (18 683 N). edge shall be reinforced with not less than one No. with sheathing Bth R60 shall d up wood structural Where apanel is located on one side of the open- 4 bar top and bottom.This reinforcement shall be or glued-laminated rand shalhbe nailed einn lapped.not less than 15 inches(381 mm)with the or glued-]aminated header and shall be in ing,the header shall extend between the inside face reinforcement required in the accordance with Figure R602.10.6.2. Use of a of the first full-length stud of the panel and the bear- tion o cemt directlygunder the continuousnwall line. founda- built-up header consisting of at least two 2 x 12s ing studs at the other end of the opening.A strap and fastened in accordance with Table R602.3(1) with an uplift capacity of not less than 1000 pounds 2. In the first story of two-story buildings,each wall shall be permitted. A spacer. if used, shall be (4448 N) shall fasten the header to the bearing panel shall be braced in accordance with Item 1 placed on the side of the built-up beam opposite studs.The bearing studs shall also have a tie-down above,except that each panel shall have a length of the wood structural panel sheathing.The header device fastened to the foundation with an uplift not less than 24 inches(610 mm). shall extend between the inside faces of the first capacity of not less than 1000 pounds(4448 N). OF R 1DOUBLE PORTAL FRAME(TWO BRACEDE ► WALL PANELS) fEXTENT OF HEADER • SINGLE PORTAL FRAME(ONE BRACED WALL PANEL) 1 _ iL (' MIN 3 X 1125' NET HEADER Y i • 1F{ :}, .•:; .. <. 6'TO 18 -__1 � „` i''; � \� _ TYPICAL PORTAL;_ „ t,I; FASTEN TOP PLATE TO HEADER WITH TWO / FRAME ;Jt.• �- -r' P 1000 LB ROWS OF 160 SINKER NAILS AT 3'O.C.TYP. STRAP CONSTRUCTION -1•I ;�1000 LB STRAP OPPOSITE SHEATHING _ �- FOR A PANEL SPUCE ` .f'� (IF NEcI)ED),PANEL "t ,r; U. FASTEN SHEATHING TO HEADER WITH 8D COMMON OR EDGDSDHALLEL , :.I f1 GALVANIZED BOX NAILS IN 3'GRID PAI I ti-IN AS SHOWN AND BLOCKED.AND ALL OCCUR _.I �. MAX. 1 r 3'0.C.IN ALL FRAMING (STUDS.BLOCKING,AND SILLS)TY?. WITHIN 24'OF MID- ••I HEIGHT ', HEIGHT ONE ROW OF J �' 10' • _.i .. � MIN.WIDTH=1li FOR ONE STORY STRUCTURES TYP.SHEATHING-TO „, 1' ..- MIN.WIDTH=24"FOR USE IN THE FIRST OF TWO FRAMING NAIUNG IS j - ' STORY STRUCTURES REQUIRED. - .� 1F ZX4 BLOCKING IS -- .L, I �'�MIN.2x4 FRAMING MIN. USED,THE2X4'SMUST -1 .' CC _ DOUBLE _ BE NAILED TOGETHER 3J8'MIN. RAL PANEL WOOD 2x4 POST WTTFi 316E SINKERS STRUCTURAL SHEATHING •• .- -�� y MIN.4200 LB TIE DOWN DEVICE(EMBEDDED INTO { • . .r +w� ItfMSN.10001B LL CONCRETE AND NAI[FD 1NT0 FRAMING)_ � TIE DOWN ..1.,; :—:14-:4,. . SEE SECTION w #4- DEVICEI - [../..: 't: - _�- R602.10.62 R.,,ic,.iok atr�r � � �� ... Y._�';Pi,.:'>i- -:`,:-2�.a RE- lit To t' BOTT.7M of FOLr.vl ..(r-ions MIA v :°: (_ , �.`;: i a. FF:ti=. %Ira. FIGURE R602.10.62 • ALTERNATE BRACED WALL PANEL ADJACENT TO A DOOR OR WINDOW OPENING 200G INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE® 140 i y • SITE PLAN STREET,ALLEY OR ADJOINING LOT(Circle One) > 14 75- Lot Width ► ii I 1 A 1 Rear Property line 1 i _ i i 1 v� I IH ii i i H i 1 0 I I O j � '� cu i i ;)d-. 1 \ tli U I i �/ � - ,, 1 '1.-'4‹ I '- I o 8 1 2a` i C7 i N 1 `7 2 I i p. o i ', O ' j a w i r� j . jO bEn O i V' 1 / 36 n i i r4• W i i CD • j i C F+ i• i Dwelling A!tti fri4,c 4 tYi I � , I D H 11 tn 1 1 ii PLANNING DEPT. AP` - I ' i c`r� I �� i BY. I Front Property Line Z `'t 33 i SIDEWALK —li 12_ Planting Strip Apr 6s.a. 4, Street .yA fre This site plan may be used for garages, additions,- fences or other i structures. Please provide dimensions from existing buildings to property lines, as well as dimensions of all structures, existing and Zoning: Building: new. 1 FENCE CERTIFICATE REQUIRED?YES ❑ NO C Commercial 0 Residential El Site Address: Owner: , 41 ft el .37011i -) •••••• 9 L y 71 81 I. 11 411 'I ) • • 69F i(>z0 ovioc otcrbE7` t 'tIU'JL.47r°N ://5'Od (,' !F c:�r 1 i M, /Ve,c(A9riAREo, 1 1 1 IF��" oA Y T wsEs. 1 1. a ! E Q u(VA tial/T 1 R _,1, .TNLeQ I,v r7' A't ('/.3bop" ! 1 1Z (IYI^' p I I • •� � j • i ��r°fitc�.c I �, 9AVLIEA 1 i i I I I i . • I e‘,..rctei °% C�sti ,--•,, •) -) 'I 3 / 1 Ja�6�L ( L /I I2 ti 1.LCa Jra01t . Gr',..SNCc( .� `I �,� r0&3<. 'Z U For City Use Only PLUS Project Number 0 6& _ CITY OF Project Address poanek1 i 40000 \Tjjjr0 11703E Sprague Ave Suite B-3 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.688.0036 ♦ Fax: 509.688.0037♦ permitcenter@spokanevalley.org As part of our on-going commitment to customer service theuinitial ial techn caL application rethe review process of oiew . If for project application, we are providing you with a TARGET DATE for any reason we cannot meet this date,we will contact you with a revised target date. is ( ^' G�� \� `e Your application review TARGET DATE J'� The TARGET DATE is the date we estimate your project application will have had its initial technical review. It is not the date for approval or permit issuance. Tips for a Smoother Project Application Review i= Submit complete, accurate plans and documents. Extra time may be required for re-submittals as project application reviewers work on multiple applications and it may be several days before they can look at your new or revised information. Designate a specific contact person to communicate with the City. While the person designated as the applicant v�of Id bet person with Me choice Cir tycan e entibbe e Chang d,pone individualdwith the expertise,for dealing with reviewer comments f Call staff regarding the status of your project only aftdate,target lease date elshown at the top f uo the page. havn't heard from usAlthough you should he contacted on or by the targetp by your target date. Staff may contact you before the target date if the initial review is complete. By following this procedure,you will save time and allow the reviewers to complete the work more expeditiously. Steps in the Permit Process 1. Counter Complete. Your application has submittedr en accepted as cunter moete.havehis beenapproved for deferrede ans ail of the required documents, as indicated on your Pre-Application Checklist have been submittal.This does not prevent technical staff from requesting additional information as a result of their technical review. on is viewable d free 2. Quality Check. The next step in the process staff from completing k to makeg the technure that hcalre�izv�e l once it is started. Whene from substantive flaws that would prevent technical this step is complete, your application will be routed to the appropriate staff and remain in their review queue until it comes up for review. ted to com iance 3. Technical Compliance. Once an application nicah staffis mayincludepnultiple r ly comlete. it is �uewers.tYouishould bestaff ocontacled by review. Depending on the type of project, to phone, fax,email, or mail by your TARGET DATE once the initial technical compliance review is complete. ny 4. Permit Issuance. When the technical compliance of the application of the anldation routetst to complete,Perinitincluding CenteraWhensubsequent sections submittals, each reviewer will approve their section contact the of the application are received, a Permit Specialistwill rss he pandlication person specifiedon application for permit pick-up. Informatioegardinbfees and preconsruction meetings (if required) will be provided by the Permit Specialist at that time. WHITE—APPLICANT PINK—BUILDING FILE REV 91C �,d d t t:EO 90 9Z AoN 591%EA 0t1lhAve - Google Maps Page 1 of 1 GoLsAddress 5914 E 10th Ave ` Address is approximate Maps • Save trees.Go green! Download Google Maps on your phone at google.com/gmm y � c m http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&h1=en&geocode=&q=5916+E+10th+Ave,+Spokane,... 11/19/2008 4 4 •1 •r - • • . • • " • - , ,... --.---- kk. _ ... . :., . ‘..• '4 .4- ' •.4. 4 • • '1 P' ` 4 ' 4 , • 44, 4 ,, , .4. • . * . . .. ...,.'.- : . ,, . , .., ...:..,-,._,,,.:::„..,..:!!........::.,..,,,....,,,,,::::,,,,,...,.,,......,..,• -- , ._ . . „...,,,,..:,:....,,,,,,.,,, • .... .., . .. . •.. .. .„,.- -.: -T.„.. ,.„. **Iv:.,.... , ' ' .44''''' 11 illiii° • . .... .... ...,..... ,,.„,,,.. . - --. ... - . ,. ... .... ..„ .....,„,..',, ,.. .• . ,.. ,...,..„... ......, . :.:,. ... . . ,,,,, .., . ... 4,. .. , ,..... . - 'A''4444,..''''..44'.•'.,.4•••..4.4.*'',.:.It.'..111*;041'4.?:4-;-'il,',4'..4'''''',4','::::'....•,,•'-;141irri,441iNCV;4/4,*4.14411144.44.1i,?••:,•••.,'" ••- ,..,.:4•4':4-.4,,•4•4,•• '•4"..,•••-4:'.4'44444 ,.• , ' •• , ••••••'•'''''',4i4v:!,•• ..'••'''''.47,744;44•."'." ,',....-, . ' . •-i.49°Y,,,,,,'' '''-'": .'' ....._-_- ,..*`--- . 7, 4144 i ii_, F trfii& Sg ,,,1,.. .1 ' ''''',-4--''''''''''.. '''''b' . *,..7.:**,.. -, , . , e q;In . i a i kkR M1 '" 114 k 4 01:1 I 111 hal 1':':;"....' ,' - .: _� -44 u4 ` . - 4 ,„ i;ci,,,,:,,,,,,I, ,..:,.. 47 j . Y 1 9 a iti T s b$ 3e . 3'4 hl u: MapOptix 5.;Interface Page 1 of 1 Tools PI PRISM _ i Nano= ------ -------__ 9th1 L 1.--J- ---,-----r---1-1 1 1r- dr— ------- 1 -- --- - -- --- -- ------ t IP -- ___ t I -I 1 1 1 -- uer/Ado I r__------T—r— \ I 6_.... I — I c Gy Gf Spokane Vaticry — I _____1111111111MM ___ i..._ I a 0 , • 1 -- 4 . --1----i-th- , - _ ,It ZO ER1 , 1 i I', ......_ -__ . r- X , 1 --1-----L-h-t- t t L I r1—, ',01004ffl.F= C4 slow," 'I kr - -'"x- la wit ta tt c/ / r III 1 MI -wir Iv if 11 r M 11111.01021111ffisommum..1 El , Tabular Results .... , . 1 ,4 41) 1 J7t 1 Query Results Ai - 7, — 0 44 1 I . , ', ,,` Parcel ID Parcels (1 -1 of 1 Record) Parcel ID Site Address ACO A KIN http://sirius/mox52/index.cfm?action—mox52_if Prism&screenHeight=608&screenWidth=11... 11/19/2008 3 It- ' c 46 ,, r ayr •' 5.. rw a: �." 3, ., mkt 1 yy • 1