Loading...
1120 OLYMPIC AVE.PDF11111111111111 12437 1120 OLYMPIC AVE PROJECT REVIEW CHECKLIST popL,Q,,.JECT NAME: �/LL/i9771.5 PLAN CHECK #: PROJECT ADDRESS: /107C3 RECEIPT DATE: �'JQ�J� EVIEW D Ulf-(rntial/Da e) PLAN ATER W .:.:_. :CfJMMENTS..; FIRE BLDG : SEWER SIRE ENG.` Setbacks/Variance/Setback Adjustment X. 2 Conditional Use Permits ADB Requirements {. » .:..:.3,.. Other Zoning Requirements Under round Wiring Required Lot Slope 15% x' SEPA Environmental Checklist/Hydraulics Permit' Tree Cutting Plan v:.M1 Plat/Subdivision Requirements Le ai Description Verification Quit Claim/Street Dedications Easements - Public/Privatet4�r: Engineering Storm Drain Review Fee 13 En i eering 2.2 Inspection Fee 1'S Drainage Plan On -Site Setback - Top of Bank, Stream, Water Courses q'6 Setback - Storm Drain Line Open Ditch - Existing" 3 18; Culvert Required Culvert Size Shoulder Drainage/Shale Open Runoff' }< 21 Catch Basin Required 22 23. Driveway Slope & Vehicle Access =Xx` Sidewalk Required Curb & Gutter Required p*Lv:v' Curb Cut For Driveway Required © " `.%`` """' ""'` ' ' "Y`"'`" :26 Street Paving Required s:':,;. • .{ 27 Right -Of -Way Construction Permit Required 14e> `ti`, ;`rt. 28. Street Name Sign Require 1"M : 29 Other Signing Required ►, r ` 30 Bond Required For Public improvements a'> "' ' ' ' ` ...... 31 FEMA Map Check/Water Table ti,; ;, 32 Side Sewer Availability:y;:l' `" > 33 Calculate Sewer Connect on Fee If No LID # Create Street File t' ..: :34 �. ' ' : ; >. 35 Existing Water Main Size Water Meter Size Service Line Size ;.;.'. { "r%'k .'rti ': 38 Water Meter Charge Required ": Hydrant Required :40 Hydrant Size Existing'`" ` "; Fire Line Charge Required - Sprinkler 42. Street Cut ,Miscellaneousk Reviewed By: FIRE PLANNING ENGINEERING PUBLIC WORKS r-- FILE:DATA123/PROJCKLS.SFN ,. 1� V it 0 Vf 1, u I 1 H u 1 J 1 21 2 22 - 3 23 , 4 24 5 25 6 26 7 27 8 28 RW PERMIT 0 DATE ISSUED RECEIPT # 9 29 10 30' 11 31 12 32 13 PAID RECEIPT # DATE 33 SS PERMIT 0'0 DATE ISSUEDRECEIPT l2p2so 14 PAID $ RECEIPT # DATE 34 15 35 16 36 17 37 METER SIZE PAID s 7.68 DATE RECEIPT 18 38 19 39 20 40 IIto Nvr ri CITYCOPY <e9 O!>(Mme- g AV�N Ut%i N N�16�'� C.�+t,GUI,�'lIDNS Di G' 9�•0 �N�i• l�P�W- 101. , A A%'fUAj- OVK, N T t 23 to Mt�x• ��. HI l�l0 5 MaUH►+�''Y A� �ftZAU(S r �i� �G• 24-�Z� -3�, �t�W �•�: -5g P�6�h w -?l U� WCN Tim / WhOV11V Its �.J I vP�i Ito �'�� I 1 , D�•5 � I I1 •D APPROV D 6V 91.5 GAf. 107•0 '• � �Ilo to WIVeWAY � �AwtJlt� N ; I A 9b• ° r3 yl W I IAMB Co ' T N �=Ne4 ego _ NIANNOr-G Oj,2 89p.19y July 14, 1995 CITY OF EDMONDS LAURA M. HALL MAYOR 250 - 5TH AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-0220 • FAX (206) 771-0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering Mailed 7/14/95 Cliff Marston 23226 N.E. 64th Redmond, WA 98053 SUBJECT: Engineering Requirements for Greg Williams SFR- Plan Ck # 95-108, 1120 Olympic Ave Dear Cliff: The Engineering Division has completed initial review of the subject permit application and the following items need to be resolved before we can complete our review: • Grading quantities were calculated at 570 cy. A SEPA permit will be required. • Driveway slope exceeds the 14% maximum allowed by the code. Reduce driveway slope to meet the City, Code. If the slope cannot be reduced, a driveway slope waiver request must be submitted with sufficient justification for City Engineer approval. The driveway slope can be waived up to, but not to exceed 20%. • Storm detention system not shown on the drawing. System to connect to existing catch basin in the private road. Provide invert elevations for the catch basins. • Minimum driveway width must be 10 feet. Indicate width on the drawing. • Impervious surface area calculations total 3,242 sf. When the revisions/corrections are completed, please submit four (4) sets of revised plans to the Permit Coordinator. If there are any questions, please call me at 771-0220. Sincerely, dw.lw� x2aeXH144q,27—�1 Addison L. Chris -man IV Engineering Inspector ALC/sf c: Sharon Nolan, Permit Coordinator Ric Shimono, Archite 136 63.-/0 gkln PLCK5108.DOC Fr-6 3 / • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities international — Hekinan, Japan .. _.,eb Q CITY OF EDMOND ,vso �890 ,91 AUG � 1 1995 Address of Construction: /P- 0 6 Property Legal Description (Include all, easements): Owner and/or Contractor: I N 1% ` J State License No. •z J Single Family ❑ Multi -Family (No.''of Units ❑ Commercial k' A. s .►4. r uE� SIDE SEWER PERMIT PERMIT 1'\32 8710 , )1 � n (1 %S t- c Co ,,• 4,m c a-y r- / Building Permit No. Invasion into City Right -of -Way: No. ❑ Yes RW Construction Permit No. Cross other Private Property: B"No ❑ Yes Attach legal description and copy of recorded easement I certify that..? have read and shall .comply with all city requirements as indicated on the back of the Permit Card. * CALL DIAL -A -DIG (1-800=424-5555) BEFORE -,ANY EXCAVATION I OFFICE,. USE ONLY, * FOR INSPECTION CALL 771-MM, PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. Permit Fee: C) Issued By ,p Trunk Charge: '9—S. 00 Date Issued: o 31-9-S Assessment Fee: Receipt No.: 202-S0 Lid No.: Partial Inspection: Date Initial Comments Reason Rejected: a Date Initial Final Inspection Approved: DatA?2 6v Initial _ ** PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOB SITE ** White Copy: File Green Copy: Inspector Buff Copy: Applicant - Revised 3'90 Side Sewer Drawing The City of Edmonds EASEMENT No_ ____________________________________________ NEW CONSTRUCTION,,k REPAIRS Fl LID NO ................... ASMT, NO. .................. 3.7 OWNER.............................................................................. ................. CONTRACTOR .................................................................................... PERMIT NO. . ...... LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT NO. - .................................... BLOCK NO. .................................... JOB ADDRESS JA ... ;�P .... ............. _�--Lx -------- ke ............. ------------------ .................................................................................................................................. ------------ NAMEOF ADDITION .................................................................................... -------- — ....................... 10 30 4 D L, L L PWW-0001-1 1175 (REVA 1/78) 4VC Approved: DATEZ Z ........... By ... . ........................................... ID m The City of Edmonds Water Service Drawing EASEMENTNO . ............................................ NEW CONSTRUCTION REPAIRS ❑ LID NO ................... .ASMT. NO..................... OWNER .... ILLIp►.M.S.............................................................. CONTRACTOREOM:_BLOG:.Co;/M.!P-.MOV.NTA1N._!;P!iTPERMIT NO.9-Zr..P.+` + JOB ADDRESS ....1..2.......�.Ly_M_P.tG......AVE....... LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT NO ....................................... BLOCK NO. .............._...._. ............... .................................................................................................................................................................. 160 P5.1. P.E. I I L, I I I I I PWW•0001.11/75 (REV.11178) NAME OF ADDITION ..: .......................... ........................................... $RASS SPLICE P. fbLe 2 2, 1 22 . 36� 35 I I r-� 22 . 36� 35 I I r-� L I � ..................................... p 3oF 1'GePoeg Approved: 'FAQTwL 1/22 f 23196 DATE ......�.IZ'9� ............... By 9... ►120 GUIMPIC \ " AN. / DETENTION WORKSHEET . JPps P, C ?Crc H Bta51N tENTION PIPE ;LENGTH CO�rrROl CATCH (YENT ) 1' MIN 2' MAX COVER r ovTLaT col�rraoL' 1 M1� = iSLOPE. s 4' i To OUTLET (N PRAP OR RUNOFF SP READ ER) _- SYSTEM CROSS SECTION 'SEE PAGE 3 FOR OUTLET CONTROL. DETAIL FRO►+ . O Lrr L ET CONTROL WASHED GRAVE 2' , ' . fo" DEEP. A"-('" SPALLS ( IL CCU^L) ,-Z: 2' r 3" DEEP, %,- CRUSHED ROCK R1RIRAP 0UTb,ET ,_OUTFLOW TRENCH, MIN 10' LONG, TOP 4 A' PERF PIPE �D BE LEVEL FROM oLrT-.ET CONTRAL 4" PERF P1PE WITH CAPS RUNOFF SPREADER OUTLET STANDARD DRAINAGE PLAN DETENTION SYSTEM for `I�%��1�0.w�S P•e��e��.,,_� location 1" plan by 21 Z phone date DESIGN DATA System Imperm Pipe Pipe Orifice Number Area Diam Length Diameter 3�0o NOTES 1 forlprebackfillganvision O dfinal inspections. 2. Responsibility for operation and maintenance of drainage systems on private property is the resDonsiallity of the property owner(s). accumulated in the storage pipe must be flushed out and removed from catch basins to allow proper operation. The outlet control must kept open - g��JJ` - 174-0 2 0 w �C rC� 19g 11Z Page 9 of 9 CITY OF EDMONDS �T-k i am M lr7 dn ',&/, 14.25 -re9 a>MN- AV04 R E? to 4, a' Ne" A -%LA, � .14-T. MAY" OM. H-f- ll&.51 10, A PPrOVED BY PLANNING am lix I To vmc A Ll w �j A(d rr mlwrwa, --- TI(N <0 ge / \N 0 4�2 Alk Mg Wri IT c 0 u W E R A IM PLANNING DATA SITE ADDRESS:1/2!2 DLYM 1°i G i DATE: ZONING:_05-12- PLAN CHK#: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: cJ al�,p SETBACKS: Required Setbacks: Front:IZI-- Left Side: ig Right Side: L-o Rear:-Z S-" Actual Setbacks: � 2� Front: Left Side:Right Side: ' lS' Rear: lLyo CORNER LOT N o LEGAL NONCONFORMING LAND USE DETERMINATION ISSUED d--o--r &zw� LOT COVERAGE: 'fawx Maximum Allowed: / a )Actual: Lot) BUILDING HEIGHT: / Maximum Allowed: l a 5 C?� / Actual Height: 12,3.,4o, SUBDIVISION: CRITICAL AREAS #: 25 -Z::4�3 SEPA DETERMINATION: NOf a�G?�► LOT AREA: /2T19 OTHER: Plan Review By: DETENTION WORKSHEET . J1,PFR C >TC ri BASIN CptSrnDt CATCH DETENTION PIPE :LENGTH "AS, ►A4x LAVER —} _ / /I% SLO?E� I I SYSTEM CROSS SECTION SEE PAGE 3 FOR OUTLET CONTROL_ DETAIL. OLrrLGT ' Cov4TR00' . 1 � 4" TO OUTLET (N PRAP OR RUNOFF SPREA.DER) .- 21 . 2a DQP, 4� b° SPALLL (*ILW0V^L) e 2... 2' . V DEEP, !Q"- CRUs► rzo FOLK OLITLET CONTROL RIPRAP OU LET I< WA.S"ED GFANEL OUTFLOW M TRENCH, IN 10' LONG. TOP I. 4" PERF PIPE TL O OS EVEL FRDM C.ONTRDL � ♦" PERF PIPE WITH CAPS RUNOFF SPREADER OUTLET STANDARD DRAINAGE PLAN DETENTION SYSTEM for V % I 0.tiwS F.Est C:\e__ C- in locationT� _ s plan by phone date_. r DESIGN DATA System Imperm Pipe Pipe Orifice Number Area Diam Length Diameter NOTES 1. Call Engineering Division (771-3202) for prebackfill and final inspections. 2. Responsibility for operation and maintenance of drainage systems on private property is the responsibility of the property owner(s). Material accumulated in the storage pipe must be flushed out and removed from catch. basins to allow proper operation. The outlet control.orifice must be kept open-a.tr, 4 VED .i ,V0,11001,11k' .- J CITY OF EDMONDS r/vnr.� 0 of 0 R,�G�1V AUG p �� City of Edmonds 8-2-95 Community Services Department 250 5th. Avenue N. Edmonds, Wa. 98020 ATTN: Sharon Nolan Subject: Williams Residential Building Permit # 95-108 Dear Sharon: Attached please find building plan revisions as well as additional information pertaining to grading, drainage and driveway gradients for my proposed residence. Ric Shimono, my architect, has made the revisions requested by the City of Edmonds, based upon a very helpful clarifying conversation with Jeanine Graf. My civil engineer, Eric Tietze, has prepared information pertaining to grading, drainage and driveway access as requested by the Engineering Division, in particular, Lyle Chrisman. I am informed that Mr. Tietze and Mr. Chrisman discussed the grading calculations associated with this project and that, through recalculation and redesign, the cubic yard total is now less than 500 cubic yards. —� I will need to request a waiver on the driveway gradient- Mr. Tietze has calculated the proposed driveway gradient as 20% or less. I have redesigned the proposed structure twice now in response to other concerns such as critical area slope setbacks on the east property line and 2/1 slope limitations on the west property line. I am constrained from moving the structure further south because of slope conditions. In other words, I am stuck. Moving the structure to its present location has reduced the total horizontal run of the potential driveway length. I am also unable to reduce the garage floor lower than now proposed for a variety of architectual as well as geometric design reasons. Therefore, I request that the waiver be granted. I will design the driveway to reduce the gradient as much as possible below 20 t traction. also Furthermore,ate some there will sill be room e of architectual surfacing treatment to improve for a level parking area west of the proposed driveway within 80' of the house which could be used during seriously inclement conditions. Finally, I note that. the 3 50' access road which serves this lot as well as four existing homes is probably in excess of the minimum driveway gradient standard for portions of its length. STREET FILE I believe these submittals respond to the City's previous review comments. Please let me know as soon as possible if any additional information is needed or if there are any questions. I am hopeful of receiving a building permit soon in order to complete the foundation work before the wet season arrives. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, Greg �illiams 542-8034 DETENTION WORKSHEET . JP9 =R C.�TCi1 COKrRpt CATGM SHIN DETENTION PIPE �-'5"Crfo TH eAS� �YENT ) VER % SLOPE+ SYSTEM CROSS SECTION aSEE PAGE 3 FOR OUTLET CONTROL. DETAIL L FROM OLTLET CO NT RO L OUTLET CO t jTROL� r 4'AP OR RUNOFF . SPREADER .- 21 s a :011 � • 4� %' SPALLS (MUG~-) �.2 2' ,c 3" DEEP, 3(t'- CRUSHED ROCK W^5"ED 6:uVEL TRENCH,MIN10' LONG. 1 f0Lrr17I-0V4 ToP 4 A* PERF PIPE TD 8E t-EVEL FROM OVT�eT COtyTRDL 4" PERF PIPE WITH CAPS RUNOFF SPREADER OUTLET 1 STANDARD DRAINAGE PLAN DETENTION SYSTEM for location � plan by phone date DESIGN DATA System Imperm Pipe Pipe Number Area Diam Length Orifice Diameter NOTES 1. forlprebackfill9Division and final inspections. 2. Responsibility for operation and maintenance of drainage systems on private property is the resDonsiallity of the property owner(s). accumulated in the storage pipe must be flushed out and removed from catch basins to allow proper operation. The outlet control.orificemust be kept open at i h/ Ci(j�/A1�,1•,. �R ,�.�1.U.�::'. -1 PERMIT APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS To: Applicant , From: Lyle Chrisman, Engineering inspector Owner. i/1j ��I,i1�> Plan Check No• Address: ��� t�t}t�.1o1// /�tJt�- Date:L ✓`�� After review of the subject permit application, the following requirements must be met: 1. Construction hours are: WEEKDAYS — 7:00 A.M,40:00 P.IVLWEEKENDS/HOLIDAYS -10:00 A.Me6:00 P.M. 2. A separate RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT is required for all work on public property. (ECDC 1&60) w 3. Truck haul route plan must be submitted and approved prior to permit issuance. 4. Buildedowner is responsible for containing all temporary runoff and erosion control on site. (ECDC 1830.030d) S. NO WORK SHALL BE DONE WITHIN 15 FEET OF STREAMS OR 10 FEET FROM ANY CLOSED DRAINAGE FACI.TTY. BUILDERIOWNER LS RESPONSIBLE FOR IDENTIFYING CONDITIONS ON THE DRAWING. (ECDC 1830.50G) 6. FILTER FABRIC FENCE SHALL BE INSTALLED AND INSPECTED PRIOR TO CLEARING AND CONSTRUCTION. (ECDC 1830) 7. INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIRED ON STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM, TIGEM INES AND CATCH BASIN INSTALLATION. INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIRED PRIOR TO BACKFUIMG. (ECDC 1830) 8. Repair or replace all defective existing curb, gutter and sidewalk adjaccid to the property. If an intersection is involved, a handicap tamp maybe required. Contractor shall meet with the City Eng'rncering staffto determine the c t d of repair prior to issuance of the permit. (ECDC 1&90) 9. Driveway slope shall not exceed 14% without a waiver. Every attempt should be made to keep the slope below 14%. Waiver granted to (ECDC IM060D) !ApoGt d k\Z50 ecz?*�;7 10. Driveways must be paved from Properq► line to City RIGHT-OF-WAY. A separate permit is required. (ECDC 18A0.060C) 11. INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIRED ON DRIVEWAYS AND SIDEWALES PRIOR TO AND AFTER POURING. (ECDC 1830) 12. No btuning of construction refuse without a permit from the Firer Departm wt 13. Connection to City water system is required. There is a separate charge for the water meter. (ECDC 7.20) 14. A back water valve is required if downstairs plumbing is below the elevation of upstream manhole. (ECDC 7�0) 15. Water and sewer main lines should be separated by 10 fed minimum. (ECDC I&10) 1 16. Comaxtion to the City sanitary system is required. A separate required. LIDfI _ Fees paid: Yes No Chargt.� (ECDC luny. ; 17. Underground wiring is required on all new construction, and for additions, alterations, and eepaus that exceed S0% of the total assessed value of the structure. (ECDC 1890) 18. A FINAL ENGINEERING INSPECTION IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE BUILDING DIVISION GRANTING OCCUPANCY OF THE BUILDING OR STRUCTURE. (ECDC 1890) ip�j�, "�Ao�s sc� y� s1wt,F�- PP-DOT rPET FILE :.b2 0 • m v Av s ?3 `4 4 Z Lc.z� —150 I'll-V +L$h Z.Z— Id qq q' 3 i�uJ1� 1pD. S S.sY,Z3 .5 x23 L//.s- s'A,ZZ 9 -1.5-. -L� Ea Z Z3 : 1(0(. d �r�lxZ3 : st -38.8 flab, Yo �1ZG,$ qq I `O/'2- Z7 -� qq //Zog�yMPl� 4ve 10v5 (29 5 .sx, to = 5S T -7 - 5+-7 x 10 = 12 •G✓ Z— 2�\ I s" -► to A- 5 1oo, S 04, -4: 0 lc9J.5' l� �q2 %� E��Tto►J = • `-''i N4, 7 S ,ove 4 z2 �; S X I d,=.` -7 ?0cc%8s IG� 8� s n z� �� r,S STREET M LE SUBMITTAL CONTENTS: C7 cpY SINGLE FAMILY BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION FOR GREG WILLIAMS A: LETTER SUMMARIZING PROJECT AND PROPERTY HISTORY JUN 3 B: VICINITY MAP, BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION C: CRITICAL AREA CHECKLIST AND CITY CRITICAL AREA BUFFER VARIANCE APPROVALS D: GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR SOILS, SLOPE STABILITY, STRUCTURE AND DRAINAGE E: THIRD PARTY PEER REVIEW APPROVAL OF GEOTECHNICAL REPORT F: WORKING DRAWINGS CONTAINING ITEMS 5, 6, 7 AND 8 OF RESIDENTIAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS HANDOUT Memorandum To: City of Edmonds Building Official 6-28-95 From: Greg Williams Subject: Single Family Building Application -Lot B 5-95-40 Address 1120 Olympic Avenue Tax Account Number: 5489-000-0909 Project Proposal and History: The project proposal is to construct a two story single family residence of 2350 square feet on the subject property. The lot was recently part of an approved BLA (5-95-40) and was also the recipient of an approved Critical Area buffer variance. The lot itself is 12029 square feet and has received approval of a building pad area plan which meets all city of Edmonds zoning and setback criteria. The building pad area within which the. residence will be constructed is essentially flat. It is bound on the western perimeter by a retaining wall. To the east is another retaining wall and a slope which occurs to the southeast. A single family residence of a family member occurs to the north and a well demarcated ravine/swale occurs at the .southern extremity of the lot. None of the building activity will effect the southeasterly or southerly slope conditions. The westerly retaining wall is not considered appropriate as a structural element of this project. Approximately one half of this wall is proposed to be cutdown and replaced with a 2 to 1 slope condition, thus eliminating this wall as a structural factor. The neighbor abutting to the west who joined in the BLA is supportive of this action in order to improve the aesthetics of his backyard and eliminate a possible future problem due to the questionable structural integrity of this wall. The only other area that will be subject to soil disturbance, other than for the construction of house foundations, will be the rockery at the northwest corner of the lot. A driveway will be constructed at this point. The gradient of this driveway will meet city of Edmonds gradient regulations. The height of the residence will be below the level of the foundation of the residence located at the top of the slope to the east. Therefore, there is no possibility of any view blockage to any adjacent residence. Boundary Line Adjustment: A Boundary Line Adjustment was approved for this and two adjoining lots in early June and recorded two weeks ago (5-95-40). Ann Bullis of the Edmonds Planning Division processed this case and has several technical documents and surveys in her file. Critical Area Checklist and Buffer Variance: The building pad is located within the standard buffer setback for a slope condition which, at the upper reaches of the slope, exceeds 40%. A specific survey was done, together with geotechnical reports, third party reviews, site plan reviews and review of other technical submittals. The original building plan was redesigned to conform to the city of Edmonds Critical Area buffer variance requirements. Approval of the current proposed siting of the structure was provided on June 8th. by Kirk Vinish of the Edmonds Planning Division. Copies of pertinent documents are in his variance file. Geotechnical Report and Peer Review Approval: A complete geotechnical report was prepared by Associated Earth Sciences. This report addressed the concerns identified by the city and is attached hereto. Hong West engineers were retained by the city to provide a third party review of this report. They have approved the report. Their letter is also attached. I want to discuss one portion of the geotechnical report which is no longer applicable. During the course of responding to the Critical Area variance conditions, a decision was made to move the propose structure several feet from the toe of the southeasterly slope, a ` portion of which was designated as a critical area. The house plans were redesigned in order to meet the stipulated setback from the 40% slope conditions. These changes were made after the geotechnical report was concluded. The original geotechnical report anticipated construction at and perhaps into the slope toe. Several recommendations were made in the report which relate to this possibility. However, the building foundation has been moved away from this toe and those portions of the report that relate to this issue are no longer germane. Utilities: Several conversations have occurred with various city staff concerning utility issues. To the best of my current knowledge, water will have to be obtained from Olympic Avenue and be place in the access and utility easement serving the property. At least one other resident on this easement obtains water in this location. A sewer main and sewer easement traverse the southerly 20 feet of the subject lot. I have been advised that connections could be made westerly of the sewer manhole located on the property. PUD staff have already visited the site and made recommendations concerning the location of necessary electrical service which would also be provided via the existing utility and access easement. Washington Natural Gas has affirmed the feasibility of gas service and has provided an estimated cost. Drainage is proposed to be provided in two ways. Roof and other impervious surface drainage would be provided for via the existing drainage system which is both piped and open ditch along the northerly side of the access easement. A good portion of the natural runoff from the property already is directed toward this route. Foundation drains and other natural drainage which occurs from rainfall and below surface transfer would continue to be directed toward the second drainage swale at the southwestern corner of the property. Drainage naturally is directed toward this corner from approximately half of the lot. The adjacent property owner to the west desires to maintain this natural drainage condition as much as possible. A portion of his property is part of the existing drainage swale. The southerly half of this property will be left largely in its natural condition. Thus, water which may be naturally permeating the existing southeast slope and swale would continue to do so after the construction of the residence. Cable and telephone would be provided on the existing utility easement as they are for current residences on this easement. A locator service will be retained to establish the locations of the various utility services which may traverse the utility easement before any trenching work is proposed. Neighbor Involvement: All of the immediate residents and several others ( approximately 30 parties) were notified during the BLA process. Additionally, we have me,A with all adjoining property owners and informed them of our plans, provided technical drawings and have committed to keeping them informed. The resident immediately adjoining to the west participated in the BLA. Additionally all parties utilizing the access and utilities easement have signed a document which allowed this property and the Frisch residence to join the existing access and maintenance agreement which applies to the access easement. Some have requested to join with us when trenching occurs on the easement in order to replace or relocate their own water lines. All have indicated an interest in joining in a collective improvement of the access road surface. Others have indicated an interest in obtaining underground power and perhaps natural gas. We have agreed to coordinate neighborhood meetings to develop a comprehensive, equitably shared improvement plan for the easement once the extent of our trenching requirements are finalized. Contact Parties: i TV) — Greg Williams: owner-542-8034 FAX 743-i993 Cliff Marston: general contractor-868-9498 mobile-999-5282-FAX 868-2507 Ric Shimono: architect-821-4203 FAX 820-1513 NOTICE THIS SKETCH IS FURNISHED BY FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY AS _ ' A'COURTESY ONLY, AND IS NOT A PART OF ANY TITLE COMMITMENT OR POLICY OF'TITLE INSURANCE THIS SKETCH IS FURNISHED SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE 'OF ASSISTING IN LOCATING THE PREMISES AND DOES NOT PURPORT TO SHOW ALL HIGH— WAYS, ROADS OR EASEMENTS AFFECTING THE PROPERTY. NO RELIANCE.. SHOULD BE PLACED UPON THIS SKETCH FOR THE LOCATION OR DIMENSIONS OF THE PROPERTY AND NO LIABILITY IS ASSUMED FOR THE CORRECTNESS I THEREOF. �—�P 8-8 82 — — 3 /0 /4 21 .c LT 2 N ARBO VIE ES TES 4 9 _JN1718 SC/23 4 65 B Ti. /0/pVIEWLAND WAY � — /2 // /0 9 B 7 198th S.W. (VIEWLAND WAY) (7 5) NOR HVIEW STATES - 7247) 3 I ` s — --�—j =`k I 4' iGK 3gg 2 / -- — /9 010 (0 8D 6 (7 5/) JA C. ,r I a 5 27 G4 G � Z. I 1 78o(oDI (003¢99 , th ST S.W. LT / 4' 6 7 87111 ON9 2 3 (60771 LQ i �l �`` I °� A WA ERS cz — `� 28 — �, -� _ _ : _ — A �I pt I o3 I I p4 APLArW00 Oz ' L� i /7 /6 /5 /a J 8l00 0329 21 09010 Ob' /9 or f`Vy — — 67//Zoo2.901 i , s VISTA WAY /3 oz I I 5 L'(2 L"f — — — �— - 20 z • 4 5 /2 TA ,,-3 4 21 J 7 I 10 C� I �}� �'(3 1 t i i CL ` 3 I 6 NOR( ., CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING DIVISION PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF A PROPOSED LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT FILE #. S-9540 APPLICANT Marion Frisch PROPERTY LOCATION 1152 Viewland Way, 1118.& 1120 Olympic Avenue PROJECT DESCRIPTION A lot line adiustment to eliminate a structure encroachment onto an adjacent prouertv:'and a lot line adiustment to reconfigure the lot line to follow natural topography. A. ANALYSIS OF DESIGN: 1. Number Of Lots Involved: 3 2. Lot Area: a. Minimum lot area required for RS-12 zone: 12,000 sq.ft. b. Lot area of each lot: Lot A: existing: Lot B: existing: Parcel D: existing: Lot A: proposed: Lot B: proposed: Parcel D: proposed: c. Lot width of each lot measured from the mid -point of the side lot lines: Lot A: existing: Lot B: existing: Parcel D: existing: Lot A: proposed Lot B: proposed: Parcel D: proposed: d. Number of corner lots: None of the lots will be corner lots. 14,026 sq.ft. 13,202 sq.ft. 16,356 sq.ft. 15,641 sq.ft. 12,029 sq.ft. 15,727 sq.ft. 80 ft. 80 ft. 94 ft. 80 ft. 80 ft. 94 ft. 3. Topographical Consideration: Lots A and B have 7'-8' retaining walls with slopes of approximately 251/6-45%. 4. Fine Lot Determination: All three lots are currently flag lots and will remain flag lots with the proposed lot line changes. 5. Zoning Ordinance: The lots are zoned RS-12. The proposal meets the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposal reduces the nonconformity of the existing structure on Lot A. 6. Comprehensive Plan: The proposal meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. 7. Comments: Related subdivision files S-25-63 and S-40-68. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: 1. SEPA Determination: Exempt from SEPA. 2. Shoreline Master Program: Exempt From Shoreline Master Program. 3. Critical Area Determination: CA-95-3 Study Required: Applicant has been informed and understands that requiements of the Critical Areas Ordinance must be met regarding the steep slope on Lot B prior to its proposed development. The proposed lot line adjustments will not affect this possible Critical Area or its Buffer. C. REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS AND DEDICATIONS: None for lotline adjustment. D. DECISION: Approved: I have reviewed the application for lot line adjustment pursuant to Chapters 20.75 and 20.95 of the Edmonds Community Development Code Ann Bullis, Planning Division Date Reviewed by Current Planning Supervisor: I concur: I do not concur: Comments: RECONSIDERATION OF DECISION A request for reconsideration or clarification of this decision may be made by filling a letter with the Planning Department within ten (10) days of the posting of this notice (see posting date below). THE RIGHT TO APPEAL This decision may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner. In this case, a written letter must be submitted to the Planning Department within ten (10) days of the posting of this notice (see posting date below). City of Edmonds att. Planning Division 'Civic Center 250 5th Avenue North Edmonds, Washington, 98020 DATE POSTED: 1" =�50P: Z V g 3 I 01 C '°711 -- E og�� a- N �- -P 7 FOR 10 r+ 3J° ?S4' 28"w —N 34°3b' 36" w 19 R A .4o be c�Qdod o UW • t9 din „-t- RQ- ba.r and Cap Loval I-SauQr•IaM E Assoc �v�h o.51 FFt.. 80.01 N89°',-34' 28" W S>.r_inJ qq _A 9, v 15 Four)! y?.' aiam. F3bar cirri Crap, , a.mpod Lov 1 l - 5auatland EAS tJor-th o.09P+. t Ea'5+ 0- W F' - AUTHORIZED FOR RECORDING CITY OF EDMONDS PLAN ENG dO- PAGE 2_ OF 9— Enur,d_/? - b.r p¢nd Cap 12 O � �OQV(aI-Souar),anc-II Z �jov� 0.64 PORT 1 Cal O'F -T R ACT 19 , P U G ET SOU N IJ M,/-\C H i N E R Y 0 E PC ►' li:: 1 \l E i AC F-' E -TRACT S Vol. 5 P 4Z Sno, Co. n +hQ C��� o j C d mond (M M-3 01 Nailing 234MMIghwayS Pb. fts ]? Edmonds, WA 9E010 Lrwmow, WA mw EyftfNq &° . SSOCIA ES, INC. c�*'C` RL LJ►�c � � EXHIBIT _ -�N L OQO�oe w New Legal Descriptions Frisch/Thompson BLA Lot B The East 80 feet of the West 440 feet of the South half of Tract 19, Puget 9 Machinery Depot 5 Acre Tracts, according to the plat thereof recorded in V Plats, page 47, records of Snohomish County, Washington Except the following described parcel: Beginning at the Northwest corner of the above described parcel; thence South 89degrees34'28" East along the North line thereof, a distance of 65.76 feet to a point that is 14.25 feet West of the Northeast corner of the above described parcel; thence South 00degreesI 1'16" East, parallel with the East line of the above described parcel, a distance of 25.89 feet; thence North 89degrees34'28" West, parallel with the North line of the above described parcel, a distance of 54.80 feet; thence North 34degrees35'36" West, a distance of 19.40 feet to the West line of the above described parcel,; thence North 00degreesI 1'16" West along said West line, a distance of 10.00 feet to the point of Beginning. AND TOGETHER WITH a portion of the following described parcel (Parcel D of Short Plat S-40-68) : the East 220 feet of the West 440 feet of the South half of Tract 19, Puget Sound Machinery Depot, 5 Acre Tracts, according to the plat thereof recorded in -Volume 5 of Plats, page 47, records of Snohomish County, Washington; Except the East 80 feet thereof; and Except that portion lying west of the following described Line: beginning at the Northwest corner of the South half of Lot 19; Thence South 89degrees34'28" East along the North line of the South half of said Lot 19; distance of 256 feet to the true point of . beginning; Thence South 3degrees34'12" East a distance of 165.42 feet to an intersection with the South line of said Lot 19 and the terminus of said line, a portion of which is described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast corner of the above described parcel; thence South 00degrees 11' 16" East along the East line thereof, a distance of 50.00 feet; thence North 25degrees26'27" West, a distance of 19.75 feet; thence North 47degrees48'49" West, a distance of 13.86 feet; thence North 00degrees 11' 16" West, parallel with said East line, a distance of 23.00 feet to the North line of the above described parcel; thence South 89degrees34'28" East along said North line, a distance of 18.66 feet to the point of Beginning. Containing an area 629 square feet more or less. TOGETHER WITH an easement for road and utility purposes 20 feet in width, the center line of which is described as: Al. ITHOFUZFD MC , ,f Ct?RUNIG CITY OF FDMOh1DS 3-9-as I Beginning at a point 10 feet South of the Northwest corner of the South one-half of Tract 19, Plat of Puget Sound Machinery Depot 5 Acre Tracts, records of Snohomish County, Washington; thence east parallel to the North line 341.34 feet; SUBJECT TO an easement for road and utility purposes 10 feet in width, the centerline of which is described as: Beginning at a point 5 feet South and .341.34 East of the Northwest corner of the South one-half of Tract 19, Plat of Puget Sound machinery Depot 5 Acre Tracts, records of Snohomish County, Washington; thence East parallel to the North line 18.66 feet. OQ� of w tl €� b� y• 7. � � 4j� page 2 of Lot B 1`'�:c u��,.��`'� R�-Iz96 3 - 9 -95 AUTHORIZED FOR RECORDW-3 ClW Off' EDMOND'S PI.AN Eru OF T Aj va •. i ins;ti�.� • t 1't"•riT�s. ,,r 1`)• -n fi 0�.`�i+����t•�8ti.� r � N 's A �°i:ik:�, Sr'#'�-ry� .�?i!.•. +, '^�. 199 NO �= Critical. Areas Checklist '_ :. ,.... ...�.. -77 .. PLANN,iivu DEPT.' try ite Information (Se. h - ;..,.. ►. - . ` • ' • �.. . oPO9mP y/bydro1Y/vegetation I. Site A 360' east of Olympic Avenue 2- NOW ty Tax Acoonat-Number.- 5489-000-019-0909 3. AFpmimate Side. Sin (acres or sgme.feet): 13,200 square feet l� 4. Is this sae Cmety developed? X Jes; no. If yes; how is site d aev4ed? urban yard -garden/lawn/retaining walls. 5. Desc dU the general sae topography. Check all that apply. 80% Flat: lesslthan 5-(eet elmtio_a�change over entire site. Rollinslopes on site ge7glly less than t5% (a vertical rise of Meet over a dof 6&feet). lOX I�iU sl �� Y � pit t • OVIU o than 15% and less than XM ( a vatical rise fof 10-feet over d'atance of 33 to-664d). _� Ste; , grades of great.than 0% present on site (a vaticai rise of 10-feet over a F ioahl d'astanoe of lesss t . _ ,,.,.:r,��u. �►;�; 4i 334feet)_ �w:,x+� ads ��tx;�uc; �c; 1_ 0X 0ther(please 'd e):`The"eas.tet y boundry is- slopedfbeyond-. the<_`retaining -- wall.., After.: ietai' in s`wall, a�T Tench occurs of- 5-15' . then }rises 'to . ad. _..:.: 6. Site Qom oia resit''" w I,;�& � Y 7. Side w..�s.+�i aa�.�.l e. crgyLM/ M/a�r• ^�' XD3Q �Np!Wn. 1 NoPpftWhai — t s) of theyeal�'t� { �.F`f "•.,* ...'.�-.• .r.bJ.A�. F ' di .- - `_ per'' r � � ' . �•"5 � rw Q, r,��j �: r-t S. She is in tYG M{IVY 7►"PIS �%� ar.1..w•MI �.,� r i ... �%�� �OOdp1aW - No• ��m off Waiet'��CN�AO'^'F'������'. . 9. Site cotlta6 i iG Je ri� round? No for as arat _�. aaoss°ttie g�+� wrfaod � . ".. 94 am �_ -, 7.4 10. Sue is plri y, .f+a,ested � 7 ��:;- � ,�a.��'�) . � �s �r L .ti'� .:."wv +ham !�_f• ;IE V i - 2 ' f urban landsaped (1=wnshn bs CtC)1'q-..With natural `gegetatttothe �t s: i 1—�viot�wetland , : a -`'±'_. r ..., , , .. � ,•'4 -`�i. g--+;�";t•+XY'`nL'J'l. - . y r + '''�L.�y,r,,.x' �`.- FYI -�, h.a � ... .' ♦. '�.-£yt7'iL '�,i.1i f.::�wwrd%i►wrwrA� N•:,,t �"> 1,� :'•. . , ' • �> },4 !liL.l� • V 3� �i.LNJN.tuk .ne�,. ..��.. .i ' s n r 1_ - .•Y ♦ -�....2^is"�il• _.-�sG'•"`^'i,i^ - wr ais,s Ste is ZAOOd: Q 7. •1 mylvP MVElFt il���•. r .�91�L A A;G'gtical:,7+ra�siavratory or C.A:'nmp iodiates�Citiad llnamd ' rSite witfiid designated iearth wbsideroe laadd�de 6��d•? A1 } , desigaated'.cn !bG'• y SassitonC Atra�' - - - : s -,I w E'ER :• ATI 'N' ' • � :�.: • :''?`:� . 't�� : `�: ,y �,. D -Rr ��.. fit. �•.-:,•• _ .[�b'.c �•. •` City of Edmonds Critical Areas Determination Applicant: Marion Frisch & Greg Williams Determination #: CA-95-003 Project Name: Permit Number: Site Location: 360' east of Olympic Av. Property Tax Acct #: 5489-000-0909 Project Description: non -project specific A site inspection of the property has revealed a steep slope which may be as steep or steeper than 30% and there is more than 20 feet of vertical elevation gain. Based on the above findings, it is determined that there is potential for critical areas on or adjacent to the site. A Critical Areas Study is required to delineate the boundaries of the potential critical area, its buffers and setbacks. A licensed surveyor must create a topographic map of the site which indicates all areas which slope 30% or more and have a vertical gain of 20 feet or more within the 30% slopes. The map must also show the location of the buffer associated Nvith the steep slope. If the property owner wishes to apply for a specific development permit which they feel would not impact the Critical Areas located on the site, they may submit their proposal to the Planning Department for review. If the Planning Department finds that the proposed development permit will not adversely impact a Critical Area or its buffers, a conditional waiver may be issued on a project by project basis. Kirk Vinish ��''�y�-G� January 20, 1995 Name Signature Date 8g�.lq C5- May 16, 1995 CITY OF EDMONDS 250 - 5TH AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-0220 • FAX (206) 771-0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works • Planning . Parks and Recreation • Engineering Greg Williams 23816 Timberlane Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Critical Area Study Peer Review Dear Mr. Williams: LAURA M. HALL MAYOR Enclosed is a copy of the peer review of the Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AES) geotechnical report. Please request AES to adopt the summary findings in the HongWest & Associates, Inc. report. Once these findings are satisfactorily adopted into the AES report, we will consider the Critical Area Study to be complete and you may proceed to request building permits. Sincerely, JV, /J, Kirk J. Vinish Project Planner Encl. • Incorporated August 11, 1890 0 Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan 890.l99 June 8, 1995 CITY OF EDMONDS 250 - 5TH AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-0220 • FAX (206) 771-0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering Greg Williams 21816 Timberlane Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Critical Area Study, Dear Mr. Williams: LAURA M. HALL MAYOR Thank you for providing our office with a survey of the slopes adjacent to your project. The information contained on the survey addresses the recommendations of Hong West and Associates and the study requirements for the critical area. If you have any additional questions on this matter please contact me at: 771-0220. Sincerely, Kirk J. Vinish Project Planner • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION, GEOLOGIC HAZARDS AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT s WILLIAMS RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Av PREPARED FOR Greg Williams PROJECT NO. G95069A MAY 1995 ASSOCIATED 42MEARTH SCIENCES, INC 911 - 5th Avenue, Suite 100, Kirkland, WA 98033 (206) 827-7701 FAX (206) 827-5424 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION, GEOLOGIC HAZARDS AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT WILLIAMS RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 1152 VIEWLAND WAY EDMONDS, WASHINGTON May 3, 1995 Project No. G95069A I. PROJECT AND SITE CONDITIONS 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration, geologic hazards and geotechnical engineering study for the proposed Williams residential project. The proposed building location and approximate locations of the explorations accomplished for this study are presented on the Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 1. In the event that any changes in the nature, design or location of the, structure are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report should be reviewed and modified, or verified, as necessary. 1.1 Purpose and Scope The purpose of this study was to provide subsurface data to be utilized in the design and development of the above mentioned project. Our study included a review of a geologic map of the area and the City of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance, drilling exploration borings, excavating hand -dug holes and performing geologic studies to assess the type, thickness, distribution and physical properties of the subsurface sediments and shallow ground water conditions. Engineering studies were conducted to address slope stability issues and determine the type of suitable foundation, allowable foundation soil bearing pressures, anticipated foundation settlements, retaining wall lateral pressures, floor support recommendations, drainage considerations and erosion considerations. This report summarizes our current field work and offers development recommendations based on our present understanding of the project. 1.2 Authorization Written authorization to proceed with.this study was granted by Mr. Greg Williams. Our study was accomplished in general accordance with our proposal dated March 27, 1995. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Mr. Williams and his agents, for specific application to this project. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been performed in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering and engineering geology practices in effect in this area at the time our report was prepared. No other warranty, expressed or implied is made. It must be understood that no recommendations or engineering design can yield a guarantee of stable slopes. Our observations, findings, and opinions are a means to identify and reduce the inherent risks to the owner. 2.0 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION This report was completed with an understanding of the project based on an undated, conceptual site plan prepared by Ric Shimono Architects and subsequent telephone discussions with Mr. Greg Williams. The conceptual site plan contained some topographic lines. Present plans call for construction of a 2-story wood -frame house with crawlspace floor and an attached garage. It is our understanding that the elevation of the main floor will be near the existing grade of the proposed building area. The structure location shown on Figure 1 differs from the noted conceptual plan in that the house is moved about 5 feet to the east to provide space for a walkway around the northwest portion of the house. By shifting the house eastward, a short (less than 4 feet high) retaining wall may be necessary along the southeast portion of the house. The garage will utilize a slab -on -grade floor. Vehicular access to the property will be from the northwest. The contractor also plans to reduce the height of an existing concrete retaining wall along the western property line in order to permanently regrade this area to a 2H:1 V (Horizontal: Vertical) inclination. The property was situated immediately south of an existing residence on the adjacent property at 1152 Viewland Way, in Edmonds, Washington. Existing residences also bordered the east, west and south property margins. The proposed building area within the approximate 80 foot wide (east -west) by, 140 foot long (north -south) property was nearly level and was located at the - . toe of a westerly -facing slope. The eastern property line was located along the face of the approximate 24 foot high slope. The slope was at an approximate 2H:1 V (Horizontal: Vertical) inclination west of the eastern property line and at a 1H:1V inclination east of the eastern property line. The residence east of the subject property was located approximately 5 feet from the top of the 1H:1V slope. The western portion of the proposed building area was supported laterally by an approximate 10 foot high, reportedly 25 to 30 year old concrete retaining wall. Apparently, no documentation was available regarding the design or construction of the wall. Based on a shallow, hand dug excavation completed for this study at the base of the wall, the wall foundation did not extend beyond the face of the wall. Three tieback bolts and plates were observed along the face of the wall which tilted slightly outward (to the west) 2 to 4 degrees. One hairline crack was observed on the exposed face of the wall. Also, the wall did not show any significant displacement vertically or horizontally. Another retaining wall. was located to the northeast of the proposed building site. Although a detailed review of the second wall was not in our scope of services, the wall was noted to be functioning as it was designed to function. Vegetation on the site consisted primarily of grass in the proposed building area and a thick cover of blackberry vines on the slope east of the building site. A few evergreen and deciduous trees were observed in the southern portion of the property. A small group of cedar trees was located near the base of the western retaining wall. Horsetail plants (commonly found in areas 2 of seeping ground water) were also present near the base of the western retaining wall and near the toe of the eastern slope. No ground water seepages were observed in the area of the eastern slope. A small area of pooled surface water was observed slightly down slope (west) from the southern end of the western retaining wall. However, no signs of a drain pipe in this area were noted. The pooled water appeared to eventually drain into the neighbor's small landscape .pond. An approximate 25 foot wide sanitary sewer easement occupied the southern portion of the property. 3.0 EXPLORATION PROGRAM Our field study included drilling a series of exploration borings, excavating two hand -dug exploration holes and conducting a geologic reconnaissance to gain information about the site. The various types of sediments as well as their depths where characteristics of the sediments changed are indicated on the exploration logs presented in the Appendix. The depths indicated on the logs where conditions changed may represent gradational variations between sediment types in the field. If changes occurred between sample intervals in our borings, they were interpreted. Our explorations were approximately located in the field by measuring from known site features shown on the aforementioned site plan. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the 4 exploration borings and the 2 hand excavated holes completed for this study. The number, location, and depth of the explorations were completed within site and budgetary constraints. Because of the nature of exploratory work below ground, extrapolation of subsurface conditions between field explorations is necessary. It should be noted that differing subsurface conditions may sometimes be present due to the random nature of deposition and the alteration of topography by past grading and/or filling. The nature and extent of any variations between the field explorations may not become fully evident until construction. If variations are observed at that time, it may be necessary to re-evaluate specific recommendations in this report and make appropriate changes. 3.1 Exploration BorinLs The exploration borings were completed by advancing a 2-1/4 inch inside -diameter, hollow -stem auger with a portable drill rig. During the drilling process, samples were obtained at 2.5 foot depth intervals. The borings were continuously observed and logged by a geologist from our firm. The exploration logs presented in the Appendix are based on the field logs, drilling action, and inspection of the samples secured. Disturbed but representative samples were obtained by using the Standard Penetration Test procedure in accordance with ASTM:D 1586. This test and sampling method consists of driving a standard 2 inch outside -diameter split barrel sampler a distance of 18 inches into the soil with a 140 pound hammer free -falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows for each 6 inch interval is recorded and the number of blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches is known as the Standard Penetration Resistance ("N") or blow count. If a total of 50 blows is recorded within one 6 inch interval, the blow count is recorded as 50 blows for the number of inches of penetration. The resistance, or N-value, provides a measure of the relative density of granular soils or the relative consistency of cohesive soils; these values are plotted on the attached boring logs. The samples obtained from the split barrel sampler were classified in the field and representative portions placed in water -tight containers. The samples were then transported to our laboratory for further visual classification and laboratory testing, as necessary. 3.2 Hand -Dug Exploration Holes Since the eastern slope was not easily accessed by the portable drill rig, two hand dug exploration holes were accomplished in this area. The hand -dug exploration holes were excavated with a post hole digger and soils exposed in the bottoms of the exploration holes were evaluated for relative density using a steel soils probe. 4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Subsurface conditions on the parcel were inferred from the field explorations accomplished for this study, visual reconnaissance of the site, review of a geologic map of the area and review of topography provided on the previously mentioned conceptual site plan. As shown on the field logs, the exploration holes generally encountered loose to medium dense fill materials overlying - natural deposits of medium dense to dense natural sands. Loose, colluvial soils were encountered in the hand -dug holes located on the face of the eastern slope. The following section presents more detailed subsurface soil information organized from the upper (youngest) to the lower (oldest) sediment .types. 4.1 Stratigraphy Fill Fill soil (material not naturally placed) was encountered in exploration boring EB-1 from the ground surface to approximately 9-1/2 feet deep and in EB-3 from the ground surface to 4-1/2 feet deep. As noted on the exploration logs, the fill consisted of loose to medium dense, moist, blackish brown to gray, silty, fine to medium sand with some coarse sand, gravel, and occasional organics. These materials appeared to vary in both composition and depth between the two exploration borings. Since the density, thickness and composition of the fill materials were found to be variable, the in -place fill is considered unsuitable for structural support of the new home. The fill is believed to have resulted from regrading the site -and installing the western retaining wall to create a relatively level yard area for an adjacent house. Colluvium The materials encountered in the upper portions of EB-2, EH-1 and EH-2 has been interpreted as colluvium. Colluvium is commonly encountered on slopes and is typically formed by the long-term, downslope movement of small amounts of soil. Over a long period of time this material accumulates to form a layer of soil which may be thicker near the base of the slope. The majority of colluvial soil probably formed after the area was deglaciated but prior to being naturally re -vegetated. The upper sample from 2-1/2 to 4 feet in EB-2 encountered moist, gray, silty, fine to coarse sand with some gravel and trace charcoal pieces. This sample was being driven on a rock and was probably in a medium dense condition rather than the dense condition shown on the exploration boring log. The two hand -dug exploration holes, EH-1 and EH-2, were excavated on the face of the eastern slope to determine the condition of the relatively shallow soils in this area. EH-1 was .located near the bottom of the slope and encountered 3 feet of loose, wet becoming saturated with depth, black to tan, silty, fine to medium sand with some gravel and minor organics. EH-2 was excavated upslope from EH-1, on the eastern property line, and encountered 3 feet of loose, moist, brown, silty, fine to medium sand. with some gravel -and organics. Recessional Outwash _ Recessional outwash was encountered beneath the fill and colluvial materials, and at the surface in EB-4, where fill materials were absent. These sediments consisted for the most part of medium dense, wet to saturated, gray, gravelly fine to coarse sand. with some silt to silty, fine to medium sand with some coarse sand and gravel. This material was approximately 2-1/2 feet thick in EB-1 and EB-2 and 4-1/2 to 5 feet thick in EB-3 and EB-4. The hand -dug exploration holes penetrated 6 inches to 1 foot into Recessional outwash deposits. This material has been interpreted as recessional outwash sediments deposited in glacial meltwater streams. The streams originated from the front of the northerly retreating, Vashon-age glacier after its occupation of the region approximately 10,000 years ago. Advance Outwash Underlying the recessional sediments in EB-3 and EB-4 was a very dense, wet to saturated, gray, fine to medium sand with trace silt to a gravelly, fine to coarse sand. In EB-2 this material consisted of dense, wet, gray, silty, fine to medium sand with some coarse sand and gravel. Although in a very dense condition in EB-1, based on the blow count data, no sample of the material was recovered in the lower sample interval. We have interpreted the dense to very dense sediments as Vashon-age advance outwash. Advance outwash is formed by the deposition of sediment from meltwater streams emanating from the front of an advancing glacier. The sediments were subsequently overridden by the southerly advancing glacier (approximately 3,000 feet thick in this area) which accounts for its current dense condition. We reviewed the Preliminary Surficial Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and West Quadrangles, Snohomish and King Counties, Washington which was prepared by Mackey Smith 5 - in 1975. This map showed the subject area mapped as Vashon age lodgement till. Although we did not encounter till sediments, the map did show both recessional and advance outwash sediments in the general vicinity which would be more consistent with our findings. 4- 4.2 Hydrolosy Ground water seepage was encountered in all of our exploration holes at the time of our field study with the exception of the upper hand -dug hole (EH-2). The three exploration borings located in the proposed building area (EB-1 through EB-3) were temporarily left open for several hours to allow a static water level to develop. The ground water seepages in EB-4 and EH-1 were measured immediately upon completion of the holes. The depths of the ground water levels were measured at approximately 10-1/2 feet in EB-1, 6-1/2 feet in EB-3, 1-1/2 feet in EB-2, 3 feet in EB-4 and 3 feet in EH-1. The ground water encountered in the explorations probably represents the water table within the coarser grained outwash sediments. The water table may represent a "perched" condition which forms when surface water infiltrates down through relatively permeable or loose soil during wet periods of the year and is slowed by a finer grained sediment. Seepages may also occur at random depths and locations in unsupervised or non -uniform fills. It should be noted that fluctuations in the level of the ground water may occur due to the time of the year and variations in rainfall. 6 May 3, 1995 Project No. G95069A H. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 5.0 INTRODUCTION Our exploration indicates that, from a geotechnical standpoint, the parcel is suitable for the proposed development provided the recommendations contained herein are properly followed. The building area contains up to 10 feet of loose, moist to wet fill soil which is not considered suitable for foundation support of the proposed residence. Therefore, the foundation loads will need to be extended through the fill material to the underlying medium dense, natural soils. During a meeting on April 19, 1995 at AESI's office, Mr. Williams and his builder were presented with several options for deepening the foundation system, including pile supported foundations,. and chose a foundation system consisting of rock trenches. Recommendations in this report will address rock trench footing support only. The client considers the existing western retaining wall to be undesirable and plans to have the wall height substantially reduced in order to regrade the western property margin to a 2H:1V inclination. We anticipate that much of the wall backfill will be removed during the regrading and rock trench construction process. Recommendations for rock trenches are presented in section 7.0. 6.0 SITE PREPARATION Site preparation of the planned building area should include removal of all vegetation and topsoil. Partial demolition of the western retaining wall should be completed to a point where the remainder of the wall can be covered with a 2H:1 V regraded slope, along the western property margin, as desired. Fill placed on the outside of the remaining west wall will need to be compacted in 8 inch thick horizontal lifts to a minimum of 92 percent of ASTM:D 1557 to provide side support of the trenches. A short, cut slope of less than 4 feet may be necessary to construct the southeast portion of the foundation. In our opinion, stable construction slopes should be the responsibility of the contractor and should be determined during construction. For estimating purposes, however, we anticipate that temporary, unsupported cut slopes in the colluvium can be made at a maximum slope of 1.5H:IV. If ground water is encountered in the cut, the slope may need to be flattened to remain stable. As is typical with earthwork operations, some sloughing and raveling may occur and cut slopes may have to be adjusted in the field. In addition, WISHA/OSHA regulations should be followed at all times. 7 I_ 7.0 FOUNDATIONS Because the fill is considered too deep to economically extend the footings down to suitable bearing and the client does not wish to remove the fill or utilize a pile foundation, rock trenches extended down to the medium dense, natural sediments are recommended for foundation support. The trenches should have a minimum width of 4 feet and be excavated down to the medium dense natural soils. Trenches on the west side of the house should be 5 feet wide. Although the exploration holes did not cave, the fill material is in a loose condition and the excavated trenches may cave before being filled. Therefore, the actual trench width may be greater than specified to achieve a 4 or 5 foot wide trench throughout. It would be appropriate to backfill and compact the trenches as the excavation proceeds to reduce the amount of caving. The use of a larger, track -mounted backhoe will greatly speed trench excavation over the use of a conventional, rubber -tired backhoe In order to reduce disturbance of the bearing soils exposed in the trench, it is strongly recommended that the teeth of the backhoe bucket be covered with a digging plate. To determine when suitable bearing has been achieved and to verify proper rock placement, the geotechnical engineer/engineering geologist must be present on a full-time basis during footing trench excavation and backfill. A pump may be required to control seepage so that the bearing level can be visually determined. Although'we do not recommend that the trenches be left open overnight, seepages entering the excavation on an overnight basis must be removed prior to commencing trench excavation the following day. Although medium dense, natural sediments were encountered near the surface in EB-2, we recommend that the eastern footing area be excavated a minimum of 1 foot into the saturated zone to help intercept some of the underlying ground water. The rock trench excavations should all be connected and the bottoms sloped to a common low point to allow for positive drainage. A rigid pvc pipe should be stubbed into the rock trench in the area of the low point to provide an exit for the collected ground water. After the bearing stratum has been reached, the trench should be immediately backfilled as the trench work proceeds. We recommend the use of "railroad ballast" or 2 to 4 inch size crushed rock for backfill. The crushed rock must be tamped into place to achieve a tightly -packed mass that is firm and non -yielding; this may be done with the bucket of the backhoe. itself. Staging areas should be maintained so that the rock is not contaminated by mud prior to placement in the trench. Equipment access to trench locations should also be maintained. Spread footings may then be used for building support when centered over properly constructed rock trenches that bear on medium dense natural sediments. Masonry fireplaces are settlement sensitive and should be supported by rock trenches as well. Footings which bear on approved rock trenches may be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) including both dead. and live loads. An increase of one-third may be used for short-term wind or seismic loading. However, all rock trenches must penetrate to the prescribed bearing stratum and no trenches should be founded in or above loose, organic, or existing fill soils. Because of the importance of having the footing centered over the four to five foot wide rock trench, it is very important to have the footing locations exactly located at the time the rock trenches are constructed. In addition, all footings must be centered over the trenches and have a minimum width of 14 inches for 1-story portions of the structure and 16 inches for 2-story portions. It should be noted that an imaginary 1H:1V line drawn down from the western edge of the western footing must not intersect the remaining old wall to the west to avoid foundation pressures influencing the wall. If the house is shifted 5 feet to the east and the.western property margin is regraded to a 2H:1 V inclination (resulting in a lower ground surface elevation along the western foundation area), as planned, then the old wall will probably not be affected. If a 1H:1V line from the western footing still intersects the old wall, then the elevation of the western footing will need to be lowered to avoid this situation. Anticipated settlement of footings founded on approved rock trenches should be on the order of 1 inch. However, disturbed material not removed from footing trenches prior to footing placement could result in increased settlements. All footing areas should be inspected by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. prior to placing concrete, to verify that the rock trenches are undisturbed and construction conforms with the recommendations contained in this report. Such inspections may be required by the governing municipality. Perimeter footing drains should be provided as discussed under the section on Drainage Considerations. 8.0 LATERAL WALL PRESSURES As mentioned earlier, a short (4 feet or less) retaining wall foundation will probably be utilized for support of the southeast portion of the house. The short retaining wall will also provide additional lateral support along the toe of the approximate 40 percent slope in this area. A retaining wall with a 2H:1V backfill slope which is free to yield laterally at least 0.1 percent of its height, may be designed using an equivalent fluid density equal to 50 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). A fully restrained, .horizontally backfilled rigid wall which cannot yield should be designed for an equivalent fluid of 85 pcf. If the height of the wall is increased so that the backslope is less than our assumptions, we should be notified to adjust our recommended values. The lateral pressures presented above are based on the conditions of a uniform backfill consisting of onsite, silty, fine to medium sand compacted to 90 percent of ASTM:D 1557. A higher degree of compaction is not.recommended as this will increase the pressure acting on the wall. Perimeter footing drains should be provided for the retaining wall as discussed under the section on Drainage Considerations. Retaining wall footings/keyways cast directly against undisturbed, medium dense to dense soils in a trench may be designed for passive resistance against lateral translation using an equivalent fluid equal to 350 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). The passive equivalent fluid pressure diagram begins at the top of the footing, however, total lateral resistance should be summed only over the depth of the actual key (truncated triangular diagram). This value applies only to footings/keyways where concrete is placed directly against the trench sidewalls without the use of forms. If footings are placed on grade and then backfilled, the top of the compacted backfill must be horizontal and extend outward from the footing for a minimum lateral distance equal to three times the height of the backfill, before tapering down to grade. With backfill placed 7 as discussed, footings may be designed for passive resistance against lateral translation using an equivalent fluid equal to 250 pcf and the truncated pressure diagram discussed above. Passive resistance values include a factor of safety equal to 3 in order to reduce the amount of movement necessary to generate passive resistance. The friction coefficient for footings cast directly on undisturbed, dense soils may be taken as 0.40. This is an ultimate value and does not include a safety factor. Since it will be difficult to excavate these soils without disturbance, the soil under the footings must be recompacted to 95 percent of the above mentioned standard for this value to apply. Retaining wall/footings placed on native, medium dense to dense, recessional or advance outwash soil should be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure equal to 2000 psf. 9.0 FLOOR SUPPORT To provide suitable support of the proposed slab -on -grade garage floor the upper 12 inches of exposed soils should be recompacted with a smooth -face vibratory roller to 90 percent of ASTM:D 1557. Any soft soils which develop during the recompaction process should be replaced with an 18 inch layer of compacted crushed rock. Once a firm, unyielding subgrade has been established, a capillary break layer consisting of 4 inches of washed pea gravel and a polyethylene plastic vapor barrier should be used under the floor to help prevent passage of water vapor through the floor. Based on American Concrete Institute recommendations, we suggest placing a two to three inch layer of clean sand over the vapor barrier to protect the barrier and to allow some moisture loss through the bottom of the slab to reduce warping in the curing process. Since the floors of the residence will be supported on the footings with a crawl space provided beneath the floors and above the subgrade, no floor support recommendations for the structure are required. I 10.0 DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS All perimeter footing walls should be provided with a drain at the footing elevation. Drains should consist of rigid, perforated, PVC pipe surrounded by washed pea gravel. The level of the perforations in the pipe should be set approximately 2 inches below the bottom of the footing and the drains should be constructed with sufficient gradient to allow gravity discharge away from the building. In addition, the short retaining wall should be lined with a minimum 12 inch thick washed gravel blanket provided over the full -height of the wall, and which ties into the .� footing drain for the wall. Roof and surface runoff should not discharge into the footing drain system but should be handled by a separate, rigid tightline drain. In planning, exterior grades adjacent to walls should be sloped downward away from the structure to achieve surface drainage when possible. 1 The rock trenches should be provided with an outlet drain that is in contact with the west wall rock trenches and is connected to the storm drain system. 10 - 11.0 EROSION CONSIDERATIONS To mitigate and reduce potential erosion and offske sediment transport, we recommend the following: 1) Earth working operations should proceed during the drier periods of the year. 2) All devices used to collect surface and ground water should be directed into a system which discharges into a City of Edmonds approved conveyance system. Uncontrolled discharge on the slope areas may promote erosion. 3) A silt fence should be placed along the western property line. 4) Soils which are to be reused around the site should be stored in such a manner as to reduce erosion. Protective measures may include, but are not necessarily limited to, covering with plastic sheeting, the use of low stock -piles in flat areas, or the use of hay bales/silt fences placed around the stockpile. 5) Areas stripped of natural vegetation during construction should be replanted as soon as possible or otherwise protected. 12.0 SLOPE STABILITY CONCERNS Based on the City of Edmonds,. Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) 2874, the property contains some small areas which meet the definitions for a geologic hazard area. The definition of a steep slope area, according to the CAO, consists of a 30 percent or greater slope over a rise of 10 feet. The eastern margin of the property included part of an existing steep slope which existed at an approximate 40 percent slope for a height of approximately 10 feet. The eastern slope continued upward another 14 feet at a steeper inclination past the east property line to an existing house. In general, most of the property has been modified by old cutting and filling activities. While onsite, no signs of soil movement or slope instability were observed on the slope located east of the proposed building area. The existing retaining walls on the site appeared to be functioning as designed with no signs of distress that would indicate slope instability. A few mature trees were located on the steep slope near the southeast property corner. These trees exhibited relatively straight trunks. The important findings of this study with respect to slope stability include the following: 1) The site is underlain by medium dense or dense sediments. These sediments possess relatively high strength characteristics. I2) Locally, the denser natural sediments are covered by natural colluvium and fill. These sediments. were of a loose to medium dense relative density and are either on the slope that is planned to be retained by the retaining wall on the eastern side of the house or in a relatively level area of the site. 11 3) Ground water noted during our explorations will be removed by the proposed developments as recommended in this report. Based on these findings and our knowledge of the .proposed project, it is our opinion that the proposed development should not increase the risk of slope movement, provided that the recommendations in this report are properly followed. Once the planned wall on the east side of the house is completed, the risk of local slope movement should be decreased, since the wall loads will be transferred into the denser sediments at the base of the retaining wall. Thus, it is our opinion that the completed project will have a low relative risk of movement as defined by current geotechnical engineering/engineering geology standards. Our recommendations for mitigation of the slope stability risks are listed below. 1) Ground cover vegetation should be maintained as much as possible. 2) Intercepted water from behind the walls should be collected and routed into the site storm drain system. 3) The planned retaining wall should be constructed in accordance with the recommendations in this report. Fill should not be placed on the slope. 4) Disturbed areas should be re -vegetated as soon as possible after construction. During construction, temporary drainage and erosion control measures should be implemented as needed to prevent sediment transport. 13.0 PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MONITORING We are available to provide additional geotechnical consultation as the project design develops and possibly changes from that upon which this report is based. We recommend that Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., perform a geotechnical review of the plans prior to final design completion. In this way, our earthwork and foundation recommendations may be properly interpreted and implemented in the design. We are also available to provide geotechnical engineering and monitoring services during construction. The integrity of the foundation depends on proper site preparation and construction procedures. In addition, engineering decisions may have to be made in the field in the event that variations in subsurface conditions become apparent. Construction monitoring services are not part of this current scope of work. If these services are desired, please let us know and we will prepare a cost proposal. - 12 We have enjoyed working with you on this study and are confident that these recommendations will aid in the successful completion of your project. If you should have any questions, or require further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Kirkland, Washington Scott R. Hannah, Senior Staff Geologist Ronald A. Parker, P.G. Principal SRH/Id G95069A.1 WP.4/1/95 Id 13 DEL G, wA' �c �O rQ 30698 9 w� �GISTER�' Gti� SI01VAL E� EXPIRES 12 / 11 / q� Michael G. Byers, P.E. Project Engineer EXISTING RETAINING WALL NORTH so ao SCALE IN FEET + EH-2 EH-1 • EB-2 E 0 EB-3 l PROPOSED RESIDENCE rEB- 1 DECK '4 EXISTING RETAINING WALL LEGEND EB-1 0 Approximate location of exploration boring EH-1 ■ Approximate location of hand, exploration pit NOTE HOUSE LOCATION SHIFTED V EAST FROM CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN, AS PER CLIENT. A&MASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN WILLIAMS RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EDMONDS, ' WASHINGTON G95069A 4/95 FIGURE 1 EXPLORATION BORING LOG Number EB-1 ui STANDARD PENETRATION SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION a W n. :D H RESISTANCE WW Q 0 ? a Blows/Foot < 10 20 30 40 Moist, brownish -black, silty, fine to medium SAND - j 7 with trace gravel. (Fill) _ 1 Very moist, brown and tan, silty, fine SAND with —5 _ T g some coarse sand, gravel, and minor organics. 1 Moist, dark brown, silty, fine to coarse SAND with - T 10 some gravel and occasional organics. (Fill) _ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wet to saturated, gray, gravelly, fine to coarse SAND 10 _ - 16� with some silt. (Recessional Outwash) - - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No recovery. —15 j 74 BOH@14' — 20 _ — 25 I -- 30 I Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by geologic Interpretations, engineering analysis, and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We will not accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Reviewed By Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Williams Residential Project 911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 Edmonds, Washington Kirkland, Washington 98033 Project No. G95069A Phone: 206-827-7701 April 1995 Fax: 206-827-5424 EXPLORATION BORING LOG Number E13-2 SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION H n. oQ J Z w (- =) t-- 0 < O STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE Blows/Foot 10 20 30 40 Moist to wet, gray, silty, fine to coarse SAND with some gravel and trace charcoal. Rock in sample tip. _ I 30/6" (Colluvium) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - -1 Wet, gray, silty, fine to medium SAND with some coarse sand and gravel. (Recessional Outwash) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- — 5 - T 25� Wet, gray, silty, fine to medium SAND with some coarse sand and gravel. (Advance Outwash) - _ — 10 33 A BOH @ 9' * Drive shoe glancing off a rock. — 15 — 20 — 25 — 30 I Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by geologic interpretations, engineering analysis, and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We will not accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Reviewed By Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Williams Residential Project 911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 Edmonds, Washington Kirkland, Washington 98033 Project No. G95069A _ Phone: 206-827-7701 Fax: 206-827-5424 April 1995 w I� r EXPLORATION BORING LOG Number EB-3 UJ STANDARD PENETRATION x z W RESISTANCE SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION W =O Q Blows/Foot o ch a� 10 20 30 40 FWet,kish brown -gray, silty, fine to medium SAND _ — 15 with some gravel, some organics in portion of sample. _ ---- ( llq--------------------------------------------------------------------- —5 Wet, brown, fine to coarse SAND with some gravel and i 1 trace silt. (Recessional Outwash) Saturated, gray, fine to medium SAND with trace silt. 27 (Recessional outwash) _ 1 Saturated, gray, fine to medium SAND with trace silt. 10 (Advance Outwash) _ I 50/6" BOH @ 11' 15 — 20 — 25 — 30 *:,,., .r thin wYnloratory hole. modified by geologic subsurface conditions depicted represent our ooaerveuuna o• .,o - - interpretations, engineering analysis, and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We will not accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Reviewed By t Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. 911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington 98033 Phone: 206-827-7701 Fax: 206-827-5424 Williams Residential ProJec Edmonds, Washington Project No. G95069A April 1995 Number EB-4 EXPLORATION BORING LOG Z STANDARD PENETRATION SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION 1=- -� W ZD F- RESISTANCE WW Q O Blows/Foot 0 10 20 30 40 Wet, gray, fine to coarse SAND with some gravel and _ 25 A trace silt. (Recessional Outwash) WD -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wet to saturated, gray, gravelly, fine to coarse SAND. — 5 T 1 50/3" BOH @ 6' WD = while drilling — 10 — 15 — 20 — 25 — 30 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by geologic interpretations, engineering analysis, and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We will not accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Reviewed By �jQN Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. 911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington 98033 Phone: 206-827-7701 Fax: 206-827-5424 Williams Residential Project Edmonds, Washington Project No. G95069A April 1995 M 2.5 5 7.5 Number EH-2 2.5 Number EH-1 5 7.5 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observation at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by geologic interpretation, engineering analysis, and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We will not accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. 911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington 98033 Phone: * 206-827-7701 Fax: 206-827-5424 Reviewed By 0 Williams Residential Project Edmonds, Washington Project No. G95069A April 1995 May 12, 1995 HWA Project No. 95080 City of Edmonds 250 5th Avenue North Edmonds, Washington, 98020 Attention: Mr. Kirk Vinish Subject: CRMcAL AREA STUDY - PEER REvIEw Williams Residence 1152 Viewland Way Edmonds, Washington SONG WEST & ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Hydrogeology Geoenvi ron mental Services Testing & Inspection p )Y4Y 995 T, Reference: Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazards, and Geotechnical Engineering Report, Williams Residential Project, 1152 Viewland Way, Edmonds, Washington, by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., May 3, 1995. Dear Mr. Vinish: In accordance with your request, Hong West & Associates, Inc. (HWA) has completed a 1 geotechnical peer review associated with the proposed additions to the south of an existing residence at 1152 Viewland Way in Edmonds, Washington. As part of this study, we visited the site and reviewed the consultant's methodology, conclusions, and recommendations as summarized in the report referenced above. Particular emphasis was placed on recommendations relating to the City of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance (Ord. No. 2874, rev. No. 3014). Authorization for this project was received from Mr. Kirk Vinish of the City of Edmonds on May 5, 1995. Methodology The City has requested we review the consultant's methodology and evaluate whether the subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, and analysis was sufficient to adequately address slope stability concerns, drainage characteristics, erosion potential, and to provide recommendations for site development. Based on our review of the consultant's report, it is our opinion that the subsurface investigation performed was adequate to characterize the soil and groundwater conditions across the site. Excavations were advanced to appropriate depths, in -situ tests were performed at frequent intervals, and stabilized groundwater levels were taken. In addition, the consultant reviewed and utilized appropriate geologic references. 19730-64th Avenue West Lynnwood, WA 98036-5904 Tel. 206-774-0106 Fax. 206-775-7506 May 12, 1995 HWA Project No. 95080 Apparently, laboratory testing was not performed. For a project of this size and scope, it is common for consultants to perform limited laboratory testing to determine index properties of soils. However, the absence of laboratory data for this project is compensated by the very close spacing of excavations, detailed soil descriptions in the excavation logs, and frequent in -situ testing. A review of the referenced report suggests that an appropriate level of geotechnical engineering analysis was performed in order to reach conclusions and present recommendations on site earthwork, foundation and retaining wall design, site drainage, and slope stability. However, with respect to slope stability, it is customary and appropriate to present cross -sections utilized in the analysis. It is our opinion that the consultant should present cross -sections which show soil stratigraphy, property lines, proposed and existing slopes, and proposed retaining walls, building foundations, and drains. Critical Areas Ordinance We have reviewed the City of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance and revisions. According to the ordinance, a Steep Slope Hazard is any slope with an inclination of 40 percent (2.5H:1V) or greater, measured over at least 10 feet of elevation change. For such slopes, a buffer of 50 feet is required. This buffer can be reduced to 10 feet if a Critical Area Study is prepared which indicates no adverse impacts from the proposed development. Building setbacks from the edge of the buffer must be a minimum of 15 feet. However, the Critical Area Study can waive these requirements (buffer and setback) if the steep slope is 20 feet or less in height. The City of Edmonds has requested HWA to determine whether the referenced report _ meets the requirements of a Critical Area Study. The consultant has identified an area along the eastern side of the property as a Steep Slope Hazard.. We feel the consultant has adequately addressed potential impacts of the proposed development on this slope. The consultant has clearly indicated that the stability of the slope will not be reduced due to the proposed development. The consultant has provided recommendations for groundwater and erosion control. Although the referenced report addresses potential impacts, it does not clearly define and locate the Steep Slope Hazard. Pages 2 and 11 of the report describe the slope, but are not consistent with respect to the height and location of the steep zone. The report should provide sufficient information to enable determination of the necessity or amount of setbacks. If the identified hazard will be mitigated with retaining walls, the proposed locations of these walls should be described and shown on a site plan. The Steep Slope Hazard should be identified on a site plan and on a cross-section. ., 1 95080RDOC 2 HONG WEST & ASSOCIATES, INc. MI May 12, 1995 HWA Project No. 95080 Summary It is our opinion that the referenced report meets the requirements of the City of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance for a Critical Area Study, with the exception of the following items: • The consultant should indicate the location of the identified Steep Slope Hazard on a site plan. • The consultant should present a cross-section showing proposed improvements, particularly related to Steep Slope Hazard mitigation, i.e. retaining walls and drains. The cross-section should show setback distances from the toe of the slope. It should be noted that the scope of services performed by HWA was limited to a site reconnaissance and review of the referenced document. Field studies and/or verification of calculations were not performed; accordingly, we can offer no assurances regarding the performance of the site. In addition, the services performed consist of professional opinions made in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions, or if we can be of further service, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, HONG WEST & ASSOCIATES, INC. o �31076 S;P +M CISTL'4�C EXPIRES 9 And er D Mare, P.E. Geotechnical Engineer ■, `� 95080RDOC 3 HGNG WEST & ASSOCIATES, INc. 01� CITY OF EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION OWNER NAME NAME OF BUSINESS ,u MAILING ADDRE6S ' Z -r o %, CITY ZIP TELEPHONE N MBER ;Jrii-L)NVu)L0 `I) - kU 3 NAMES 1 C �j 1. iti 1 4 fJ U ADD, 7S °C FT '• ZIP ITELEPHONE NUMBER a / lam. ) C-! t CITY * ZIP TELEPHONE STATE LICENSE N MBEP EXPIRATION DATE Legal bescription of Property - include all easements 0 J a t7 Property Tax Account Q (� a o (� V — 0 Parcel No. ��' o / ( r � ® NEW RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING ADDITION COMMERCIAL MECHANICAL APT. BLDG. REMODEL SIGN G FENCE REPAIR ®-111,M CYDS. I— FTSWIM DEMOLISH a N POOL IRTSSSTTTDDDVVVE NSSEQ HOT T B SPA GARAGE RETAINING WALL/ ROCKERY RENEWAL z OF (TYPE OF USE. BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN: iN NUMBEh NUMBER O CRITICAL C (, 1-,r . 1 C OF ' DWELLING AREAS toSTORIES 2, UNITS / NUMBER 0 DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE (ATTACH PLOT PLAN) ( .. � r r , ir a- 1� , r_ .... t , V,..,..- ZONE PERMIT �-/q NUMBER SS043+4- JOB % SUITE -APT a ADDRESS .EGAL UL5CHIPTION GHtGK SUBDIVISION NO LID NO -�s - ,0 ( 7 PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP TESCP Approved ❑ RW Permit Required ❑ EXISTING RE UIRED DEDICATION Street Use Permit Req'd ❑A PROPOSED fl/ Inspection Required Sidewalk Required ❑ METE SIZE LINE SIZE NO. OF FIXTURES PRV REOUIRED +� / Q /Z„r YES NO ❑ 3 REMARKST TrIFowmdAnorJ urn. Z 0 w QQ W--,netrtorl SL,>S IraS► �:nlit�} ()F_it]LF. NC.e-e—Lu— . REVIEWED BY SIGN AREA SEPA REVIEW ADB AD. ALLOWED f�PROPOSED COMPLETE 174 r �/ /%[+ $H RQ1,1NE N EXP. n 1 V / �" VARIANCE jb@ CU I / P l NIN6 gtkW BY 64TE O SETBACK — FEET _HEIGHT LOT VER GE_ Z FRONT SIDE REAR REMARK < a CHECKED BY TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION GOOF OCCUPANT GR aP SPECIALO&KIN O A {gyp C07( CUPANT OUIRED a/ YES 70 /l•� z's a LOAD REMARKS c7 PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 305 s J to Sra ut r'thc. s /5Ylp 01MAel6, In iw FINAL INSPECTION REQUIRED VALUATION 4- If2J U/ Xn= ►. h thi PLAN CHECK FEE :v � BUILDING HEAT SOURCE: A S GLAZING % PLUMBING Plan Check No. 57, MECHANICAL GRADINGIFILL This Permit covers work to be done on private property ONLY. Any construction on the public domain (curbs, sidewalks, driveways, marquees, etc.) will require separate permission. STATE SURCHARGE Permit Application: 180 Days Permit Limit: 1 Year • Provided Work Is Started Within 180 Days STORM DRAINAGE FEE ENG. INSPECTION FEE "Applicant, on behalf of his or her spouse, heirs, assigns and successors in interest, agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City of Edmonds, Washington, its officials, employees, and agents from any and all claims for damages of whatever nature, arising directly or Indirectly from the issuance of this permit. Issuance of this permit shall not be deemed to modify, waive or reduce any requirement of any city ordinance nor limit in any way the City's ability to enforce any ordinance provision." I h d II tl th t th PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT TOTAL AMOUNT DUE SZ I hereby acknowledge t at ave rea s Opp ca on, a e information gjvern � correct; and that I am the owner, or the duly ATTENTION APPLICATION APPROVAL authorized agent of the owner. I agree to comply with city and.. state laws reguhating construction; and in doing the work authoriz. THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES This application is not a permit until ed thereby, no pirson will be employed in violatlon of the Labor ONLY THE signed by the Building Official or his/her Code of the State of Washington relating to Workmen's Compensa• WORK NOTED Deputy; and fees are paid, and receipt is tion Insurance and RCW 18.27. INSPECTION acknowledged in space provided. SIGNATU E (OWNER OR AGENT) DATE SIGNED DEPARTMENT CITY OF OFF S ATURE DATE /9s- ' � •. EDMONDS ATTEt4f ION a; CALL FOR INSPECTION LEAs 5 V�Ey� IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE. UNTIL A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR 771 - 0220 ORIGINAL — File YELLOW — Inspector A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC CHAPTER 3. PF /I _a;1>/ ) PINK — Owner GOLD — Assessor f 890 - 19�)v City of Edmonds RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT Permit Number, n���_'�''� �3 Issue Date• ��(- f 9 A. Address or Vicinity of Construction: 1120 Olympic Ave (9601174 ) B. Type of Work (be specific): Install 1 1 /4" F. TP Main @ 189' + - S C/L Viewland Wy & 18'E to 30' C/L Olympic Av on Olympic Av C. Contractor: Washington Natural Gas Contact:-lKa_'amng Kingsbury Mailing Address: 1 127 75 Ct cW Fverott Phone: 356-7500 X7546 State License 11: 98203 Liability Insurance: Bond: S D. Building Permit 11 (if applicable): Side Sewer Permit 11(if applicable): E. ❑ Commercial ❑ Subdivision ❑ City Project ® Utility (PUD, GTE, WNG, CABLE, WATER) ❑ Multi -Family ❑ Single Family ❑ Other INSPECTOR: INSPECTOR: u1l„ k, 4A F. Pavement or Concrete Cut : Q Yes []No G. Size of Cut: 4 r x 2 H. Charge $ , APPLICANT TO READ AN46-1GN INDEMNITY. Applicant understands and by his signature to this application, agrees to hold the City of Edmonds harmless from injuries, damages, or claims of any kind or description whatsoever, foreseen or unforeseen, that may be made against the City of Edmonds, or any of its departments or employees, including or not limited to the defense of any legal proceedings including defense coats, and attorney fees by reason of granting this permit. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FOLLOWING THE FINAL INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE.,WOIW-,gSTIMATED RESTORATION FEES, WILL BE HELD UNTIL THE FINAL STREET PATCH IS COMPLETED BY CITY FORCES, ,W WHICH TIME A DEBIT OR CREDIT WILL BE PROCESSED FOR '1SSUANCE TO THE APPLICANT. Construction drawing of proposed work required with permit application. A 24 hour notice is required for inspection; Please call the Engineering Division, 771-0220. Work and material is to be inspected during progress and at completidn. Restoration is to be in accordance with City Codes. Street shall be kept clean at all times. Traffic Control and Public Safety shall be in accordance with City regulations as required by the City Engineer. All street cut ditches shall be patched with asphalt or City approved material prior to the end of the working day; NO EXCEPTIONS. I have read the above statements and understand the permit requirements and the pink copy of the permit will be available on site at all times nspect o purposes. r Date: - - Slgnatu e: 19 o (C ractor or Agent) CALL DIAL -A -DIG PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK FOR CITY -°'USE _ONLY ,.'- IU NO WORK SHALL BEGIN PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE Eng. Div. 1994 FIELD INSPECTION NOTES (Fund 111 - Route copy to Street Dept.) Comments: Diagram; 1 CONTRACTOR CALLED FOR INSPECTION ❑ YES- ❑ NO Partial Work Inspection by P.W.: Work Disapproved By: Date: FINAL APPROVAL BY: Date: I r g .O � 1 ON-Ov1Mi�L - .�•- -- 'C0._ 0 `(�f'►` .AV� Wi'M t?-1 P 6NTUN15-- N c4. iy A i� ifts'( L) R*Tl j &1'-� Pef,AmN6 wAit, '?O a�, Wavw, 1 S i.-ro 1 v�f, To 2 *Nl va4- A,n N o 5?A" zA htpf� W�?( GpNS'(�UC(iD N ZGN� � X.PiZ6 MVOWAY 0"6f:,: q. INSTA1a, a"-4" cOsNO Ar MV&4y _ �-- IM�oUs PEA .I� 279Q- �9•f�• - _5• x r�U•, Gw- !50i�p N A uotNG� Wl Z • � i€ r + a r '° : �` � a q.�" R'iX��� 4*i' .�' �` � �S'e«F �<� .y..- -t ... ' �u loq.5-j 6, Z�� -r-t> M- ' \\� cA-P 1 \ \4Q ! , 00-rA►N►N& WA►,w / ✓i j � j I _%rp, iM�N-r 1 t ` - ioN o 1ve \{ f u SLAW tGCJVBjZ- w � . i I I ► i � � t � � � � 32q- z I ' I poi � " A Vol Ni/i DRAM. Q�L CAS / PTV OMIT COUN, ER I I p w,-0„ L IY WaVLNI M910 PDAWk Sf/N,N6TIO4. L NLdR a 4w-cuyf N Tll,A61 Nyy M s. 04L e0.1xIG7015 N �JIT M�OVII W,ly (INN) I roL r A! i liz. Cfj�� 7 a tIP * 19 OR NfLM LH wy d� eaoorncP>; xTxoLET ; � v Ewuxo �' z �w BR00 ,RE ST ST iP = ST Z YI01001 _ -- iA I VISTA bMl 1 VISTA W+ I t Y0M g ST. N W 14 an..e a < a zot SIERRA n 20, � r a GLEN if < ST c+ slum <� ` 24 p o:h rl t LEY x ST 1 Y y I ,a a ST G L ST 20 IIN * e ST ^ m 209TH PL 61Vr V r C- N I T-'Y MAP Dotes: The City of .Edmonds 1) Field locate all utilities. Call 1-800-424-5555 - 24 hours before digging. 2) Survey is not required 3) Maintain a minimum of 5' horizontal and 3' vertical clearance from all city utilities and appurtenances. 4) Cuts in paving are shown as'; f@ 5) ` I cuts in paving anticipated.. �� Er A QP MCTY-, K1S-r HaW E V e� tz , N L_Y `t-H E 1 O E ME✓lJ T r✓X I ITS -�� v,/ M c=r i 1 DESCRIPTION DATE I BY APP'D REVISIONS AS BUILT INFORMATION FE FITTER OR CONTRACTOR: FIELD REP OR SUPERVISOR: F DATE COMPLETE: 1PERCENT COMPLETE: E DESCRIPTION: (SIZE - LENGTH) L 2. D TYPE OF TEST: PRESSURE: TYPE OF TEST: PRESSURE: DATE ON: TIME ON: 1IDATE ON: TIME ON: DATE OFF: TIME OFF: I DATE OFF: TIME OFF: OP MAP: G O G PLAT: GaZ • CD �" Washington c'�ta'c'� 8x0S ...... +. 1/4 SEC: AVvbdv1cnb WCaTPN AREA: ? 1 PERMITS F-bMbT-1 IDS EMERG. SECTION NUMBERS : SEGMENT MAOP: PS1G PSIG E SYSTEM MAOP: PSIG PSK3 S I 11/411 PE- I P LIT M,,N, I ti XT IELt-1�1 N 112-0 a U-y M r I G AIy DWN. �/ ! I / ns/ s JOB CNKD: LJ� f� i� /� /��) DRAWING 121 4 ,PO' ACCESS EASEMENT 47 LF, 6" PK S - 12. 0-"ov �F� Et 4 EDGE OF EX PA V,C- NT '- REPlACf FX. YAR29 URA/N Wl TYPE ? CB 90 CB y 88 RE 87 8 /E 85 65 (CIA TCH E�` 4 " OU) SA WCUT 095ERVA T/ON PIPE (SEE DETAIL) EX. DRI VE /X..SHED ROCK � !,4? J14 » WRAP C hYA VE! EN77RE! r W r7l Fr! 7FR FABRIC 1' 112 n y ism.-. -vv- 1 od °4° o-do �°�o - po° 04 40 o 4 a 0° 4 °4q o 4 " R/G/D PVC PEiRFORA TEED P/,FF' fi'/m 93. 5' RIM ELEV - 94.5 fRAil9E AND COVER FRAME AND COVER V ._ 5 18 " D/A. 16 GA., AZ UM' CYP -- -- PIPE ENT OV1RFLow ELE 9 5 E .< � ; a j u •.I fE - 90 5 24 " D/A, 16 GA, AL UM: CYP TYPE f 90 5 ; ! Wl NEOPRENE GASKETS 1 �- NCJ 9 ✓ 2CJ "YY ' Vo a o T /E "- 9 1161 -- NOO'11 16 "GY 10.00 N89 34 28 GY \ oo�_� -- --- 1 25 �° p ° ° 4 p ° 6 " D/A. FL OW Rt 577CTOR_�' i r` DETENTION PIPE 26 L F 1 TACh' REV 88. 7 °� °o ©o a° CON7ROL DEV7Cf ° d EDGE OF DRIVE 2R/f7CC D/A. TACK ElE1/ 99 02 � ,,� , OFTENT1ON SrSTEY N 4 95:16 "'W 19. 40 (ON EX PA 770 S7 E? � CONTROZ C16 (C8 �2) -f -- - - p p NO SCALE q (As >�ED „t� , SPIN L��4Dt/ 1 Dt TAIL TYPE 1 C6' E.k': 6 " `� .. . I CORNER OF HOUSE ...... • • O. 8 1-91 '� NO SCALE FIZ 7Z R FABRIC VA TERA! ..... ,N -141 DRIVE EX ROCI�'El? r e USE STAPI_ ES OR l /�'E RrNG'S ' . ........ 94 96 98 " S 22. 77v 70 ATTACH WRE TO N89 94 28 "GY 54 80 1081 EX ROCA-ER rAD 100 Ear' ; FTA!/i/rl'✓O' t�t',aL! TO', REMAIN 91:1.4' .'.'.'.'.'.' '40.... ' ' • .... JJ !F 4" PVC, S - 12. 47' N .. (p .... 100 /V47'48'49 "GY 1986 ..... ....... ...... :....... CO ,�`•�, /E 1 100 3 NMAN '�Y/ 2 TO "o 011Af'RY S ALL ,� 12')( 2 * T 10o CB ,02 (CONTROL CATCH BASIN) TYPE 1 CB RE 99. 5 ............. .2/ ZF 4" PVC, S - 2. 09' © CO ,¢e4, /E 100. 5 �o R mu VE E/X. ... 114 N25'2627"W 19.75 ROCf�'ERY '.....'." .. � NEr' ROCKERY �� ... \ IE 90 5 (A!Z) 26 !F, 24 A! UMW CHIP, 76 GA, /E 96. 0 \ FX R00rZ-Rr \ Nth% .' „ kill / LF, 18 DIA 5 TUB EA. END, S - 1 O,�' L TO RI -MAIN ,�Q A TIC 1V U/1%DEf'i I7�OU,SL� BY Br" 14 GA CORNEA OF HOUSE `� ` \ Ff ELEV 101. 5 \ D( GYrRE F,aBPIC 1,9 LE; TRRENCH DRAIN (!A r FZA T� 8a O °' °`' ENTRY FF ELEV 99. 5 \ OR F nU�+r_ RE 92.3 �-� ,HALL NOT �'E FL.� T IE 91. 7 (I-RENCH & 4' OUT1 \ GARAGE \ ` O 116 PRO l//DE �3/'4 " TO 1.5 " C8 ,�3 \ -- ' �-�--- HUB EZEV 100 0 / � WASHED O'RA kEZ SACfc'FIL! TrPE 1 CB ' 11V TRENCH AND ON BOTH WEDGE OF" ROOF ! `-- S/DES OF Fr! TER FENCE- vE` 94 5 _ �-- � �' 7OE G�� S1. r�PF _ FABRrC U/V T/-/C SUI?FACE IE 9G? 78 (,24';� REMO!/E OR CUT E,k; / /O�? 0 � CO 1 (C!EANOUT TYP,) /E" 935 (4 ;' 2 EA) RE TA/N/NG t�ALL 6ElOt� FF ELEI/ 102.5 IE 100. 5 FINISHED GRADE: ( MAIN FLOOR 48 1 4" P K .5' - 8 NOI ..- IN,''TALL SIL T �"ENC'"' ALONG ST" PROP i�'' LINE`; EDGE OF HOUSE- / � 6 "MIN TO{�' 102..5 �- - - --� 34 LF, 4" PVC, S - 2.0,,, 2„ BY 4' WOOD POSTS, STANDARD OR BETTER 88 3 NEW 3' ROCKEf7Y� NEW OEClf' �© CO ,3, 1E 97.5 TOE- OF S! OPE ! 10J ,5 1 MEW 6'" 51DZ SEDER NORTH � HUB ELEY 96.1 GRAPHIC SCALE 86 0 5 10 20 30 1" = lo' 150 4'** PVC PERT PIPLC�z F� ss MH CAST /R'ON FRAME AND co UER NOTE: C©YFFr' h1UST RE Z OCA'ARLE" FTC DRAIN 17GH7Z /NE TO ��PREADER 8�� 1 N89'34 28 "W 80 01 0L95Z_R 1�''�'' TiON PIPE . 94 06 100 102 NO ,SCALE 86 88 90 92 98 104 106 108 110 112 114 116 o. �Of A,� 195 frREW5ED PER ary ..- r�rarr-anr-t ,�i A v I lnf- Ali/1') r/-)D 4 1 A T) /� � ..� rITY RFi�%FLI/ 1/8" RwsE - t/2" Wm- &Y..WOER 1 ocwc. cL 5 (.�1 1" 2" RAMP LE77ERS 12 " D/ JOINT PACK " 100 96 ••••• 94 92 90 88 CORNER OF HOUSE AL T. • 57L r ENCE PO.� TS 123.5 CO #(12, /E 99. 8 �-- 88. 97 PC vc E! 88. 06 PT/C ElEV 95.94 2" BY 2" BY 14 GA WRE FABRIC OR E0&AL BURY 807-7M OF 6 ' UAX F/L TER /VA TERIAZ IN 8 " BY 12 " TRENCH FIZ TER FABRIC 2 " B )/ 4 ' 1 000 POSTS, UA �R/A! STANDARD OR BETTER A! T 57EEZ FENCE POSTS SIL T FFNCF DETAIL NO SCALE GARAGE ELEtV 99 5 DRIIVEWA Y' CENTERLINF 101?OFILE ,5 f 115.9 ACCEPTABLE TIGHTLINE MATERIAL° N-12 ADS WATER SERVICE INSPECTIONS Sch 4Q PVC" EI�1'�INC::i��Ail`�G GDP 35 (ASTM o3034) REQUIRED. CALL 771-0235 M S ILL D ESIDRE'N'CE G m CAI I INA G E P L A 6N' 100 98 96 94 92 90 88 O O 9 t t 121 5N AVENUE NCH SUITE 205 EU Ct=, WA 98020 206-771-6212 FAX 206-775-0236