Loading...
1158 A AVE S.PDFiiiiiiiiiiii9989 1158 A AVE S ADDRESS: / TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL NUMBER: BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE): ql COVENANTS (RECORDED) CRITICAL AREAS Tg , _,'9 DETERMINATION: ❑ Conditional Waiver ❑ Study Required Waiver DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S: DRAINAGE PLAN DATED: PARKING AGREEMENTS DA' EASEMENT(S) RECORDED FOR: PERMITS (OTHER): PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED: q I Z,P1 D q SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED: '(21 ZZI D 4 SEWER LID FEE $: LID #: SHORT PLAT FILE: � 9 CD Le 2) LOT E BLOCK: I SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DA' SIDE SEWER PERMITS) #: GEOTECH REPORT DATED: STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT #: WATER METER TAP CARD DATED: II ,^, OTHER: K dW Z� DOZ U/ L:\TEMP\DST's\Forms\Street File Checklist.doc . ./fie 5 - S FIL RETURN UKN NAIVIt & ADDRESS CitV'i# Edmonds C -Cle 77 PGS 121 AVenue --Edm6n&, WA 080-b-, Pie ase�-printj4a 1t. -W ,Ytypre information Docuftlent-*10 ..... Reference NUm*S"')..of'ielated documents: Additional Reference #s* on page_ Grantor(s) (Last, First, and.MidcRb lnitia!), Additional Grantors on page Grantee(s) (Last, First, and Middle Witial) OF= ..... ... Additional Grantees on page ........... Legal Description (abbreviated form: i.e, lot, block, plat of secffion; township range, quarter/quarter) -7- -SAA .. ...... Compfe*erfegql on page Assessor's Property Tax P.a*.rcel/Account Numb Additional Pafdei The Auditor/Recorder will rely on the information provided on this 14orm. responsibility for the accuracy.of the indexing information is that of the ; * C!R,C�u melit preparer. " STATEMENT ON ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS propeityAddress: 1158 A Avenue South Edmonds, Washington I, egi1.Deicriy.4on:•-'_Lot, 5 and Lot E in Block 7 of Yost's First F,dditi� to th*e -Ci-tv of Edmonds, 'according to the Plat thereof filed •in Vol �tine'9 ­af Plats at Page (s) 6, records of Snohoutlsh Courit :%Tashi=in •.EXCEPT the North 35 feet thereof Assessor's Parcel'Number:'619400700500 I have read the ixquirements for -accessory dwelling units contained in Chapter 20.21 of the Edmonds Commtiiuty DeveloEment Code..(ECDC) and understand that an accessory dwelling unit as defined in ECDC.Section 11.Q5.015-js pro ' ed until an Accessory Dwelling Unit Permit is approved. I also understand that an Accessory Dvtyellin& it ermit cannot b proved unless all the criteria in Chapter 20.21 are,met, and- t)►e 4 ary items aze tted, includntg an affidavit of occupancy and a cvvetianldo'bel ' - i (he Snoho County regarding the regulations. imposed on Accessory.,Dwellin* Property Owner -Signature: Property Owner Name (printed): _rzakpntative of Estate of Gabriell bwi r-Rob Veit Date: 01.06..2006 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) } COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH) _. ............ I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument and acknowledge it to be his/her free aiid viilunt8ry act for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument. Notary's pressure seals must be smudg_ec), Signature of Notary Public: Residing at: My Appointment Expires: THIS DOCUMENT MUST BE RECORDED wrm THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY AUDITOR.: •. oiTYofiCLERK- 4rE N0 . 0935 URNr /2006 _I1 ereby certify, that the above is the true signature, resp�ctivety:acknowledged in my presence of lVlr.:lurgeta. Mayhoff, born on 4`�' of november 1956 in Traunstein, .•.-residih4.'a'tg5716-•.UnterschleiRheim, SOdliche Ingolst0dter Stralle 40, Grmarty, pexgonallftriown.to -me. Munich' the-'.'(----af- ne 2006 t y` (Dr. Hansj6rg Heller, notary) r- STATEMENT ON ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS Property Address: 1158 A Avenue South Edmonds, Washington Legal Description: Lot 5 and Lot E in Block 7 of .Yost's First Addition to the City of Edmonds, according to the Plat thereof filed in Volume 8 of Plats at*Page(sY6, records of, -Snohomish County, -Washington, EXCEPT the North 35-feet thereof Assessor's Parcel Number: 619 400700500 I have read the requirements for accessory dwelling units contained in Chapter 20.21 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) and understand that an accessory dwelling unit as defined in ECDC Section 21.05.015 is pr7 7ed until an Accessory Dwelling Unit Permit is approved. I also understand that an Accessory Dwelling nit ermit cannot criteria in Chapter 20.21 are met, and all then a ary items are affidavit of occupancy and a covenant to be fil i the Snohoi regulations imposed on Accessory Dwelling U Property Owner -Signature: Property Owner Name (printed): Juergen of Estate -of Gabriell Date: 01 .0 6:. 20 0 6 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) t ed unless all the including. an ty regarding the tative I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument and acknowledge it to be his/her free and voluntary act -for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument. -Notary's pressure seals must be smudged, Datt& Signature of Notary Public: Residing at: My Appointment Expires: THIS DOCUMENT MUST BE RECORDED WITH THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY AUDITOR ;s C,;Y CLERK ol 1I1 M AVENUE NO. URNr H 0935 /2006 I hereby certify, that the above is the true signature, respectively acknowledged in my presence of Mr. Jurgen Mayhoff, born on 4th of november 1956 in Traunstein, residing at 85716'Unterschleiflheim, Sudliche Ingolstadter Strage 40, Germany, personally known to me. Munich, the 1st of June2006 10 �r Dr. Hansjbrg Heller, notary) PLANNING DATA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STREET FILE Name: Date: :�t Site Address: Cj �� � ��rn si- Plan Check #: _O-U Z Project Description: ✓"�i2 C� G� G� — fo SFP-) Reduced Site Plan Provide C.(Y ES NO) Zoning: Map Page: 'S3 Corner Lot: ES NO) Flag Lot: (YES 0 Critical Areas Determination #: ❑ Study Required Waiver SEPA Determination: ;B4xempt ❑ Needed (for over 500 cubic yards of grading) ❑ Fee. ❑ Checklist ❑ APO List with notarized form Required Setbacks Street: Zo Side: 5 i Side: / 2{� e S l tvr S . W Actual Setbacks AZ —SiMe e; St Side: � i Side: (� / � I �enr:� � / GAe �► ❑ Detached Structures: ❑ Rocked ❑ Fenc /Trellises: ❑ a indows/Projecting Modulation: ❑ airs/Deck: Buildin Height Datum Point: ' w,e,-w '10( I VI $l Wa��.— Datum Elevation: /Op? Z Maximum Height Allowed: f r Zq . -3 5 i Actual Height: t�CZI Jam, Other Parking Required: 2 Parking Provided: 2+ Lot Area: I I Z Maximum Lot Coverage: 35% Proposed: Q o►,s� ro-le-r-ed �of Lot Coverage Calculations: 3G �x HZ! I x 31 I x = 2� 8 = Z�I"• 5 0 ~` e- ADU Created: (YES / O) 15.�Z 3W I ;* -1 30" f� O�LGIG l S rn. Subdivision: 3v V 2-:7 o Legal Nonconforming Land Use Determination Issued: (YES / O) Comments -. . . E� 0W-- 'Q, Plan Review By: Planning Data Form 04-11-06.doc STANDARD OWNER , DETENTION SYS TEM' WORKSHEET (5000 SF OR LESS A DRE88: CALC. BY: \ % PHONE; DATE: IMPERVIOUS SUFACE AREA PIPE DIA. 24 PIPE LENGTH 2`� ORIFICE FOOTING DRAINS SHALL NOT BE CONNECTED TO DETENTION SYSTEM LOCKING LID (TYPa r RIM ELEV. IM ELEV, FINISHED GRADE TIOHTLIN {+----- DETENTION PIPE LENGTH �{ so Min, alserance I cone, orm op of RIM ELEV ---- 0-5%TO1.0%SLOPE UPPER CATCH BASIN ELEV, g1f.S J ICONTROLCB ,2'X2'X12• DEEP CI (4"4 - QUARRY SPALL8 OR EQUAL) FROM CONTROL IPRAP OUTLET U---, T Sf'RF.� I)D A.. TIZ F�J vi NV. ELEV. UTLST CONTROL e° IN. RIFICE ,NTROL CATCH BASIN ---MIN. W COVER SHALL BE PERPENDICULAR TO SPREADER TRENCH— PERF. PIPE SHALL BE LEVEL 8 CAPPED AT ENDS, Ff SPREADER TRENCH INV. eLHV. _ CONTROLCB TRENOH SHALL BE LINED WITH MIRARI ✓I, ON TOP WASHED DRAIN ROCK NOTES 1, CALL ENGINEERING DIVISION (771-0220 EXT,1328) 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR A TIGHTLINE AND DETENTION SYSTEM INSPECTION BEFORE BACKFILLING AND FOR FINAL INSPECTIONS, 2, Responsibility for operation and maintenance of drainage systems on private property Is the responsibility of the property owner, Material scoumulated In the storage pipe must be flushed out and removed from catch baslne to allow proper operation. The outlet control orifice must be kept open at all times. CITY STORM! CONVEYANCE SYSTEM 1:10 M �---SPREADER TRENCH M- SHALL BE A MIN. OP 10' LONG AND PERPENDICULAR TO CONTROL CB.. ECEIVED :LOPIXNT SERVICES CTR. clvY nF Fmmnmnc /_. Z-4Y I Table 1 — Detention Pipe Sizes I Imperviotis Surface Required Area Sq. Ft. Vol Cu Ft 2000 50 2500 - 62 3000 75 3500 87 4000 100 4500 112 5000 125 Pipe Diameter W, 18- 24" 3(r 40 28 16 10 50- 35 20 13 60 42 24 15 < . Required Pipe 70 49 28 18 length in feet 80 56 32 21 90 63 36 23 100 70 40 25 *NOTE Use the next highest surface area to determine detention sue if calculated impervious surface area is greater than U2 the value between numbers- (.e., 2280 use 25W) Table 2 — Outlet Orifice Sizes Impervious Swf" - Area Sq- Ft Outlet Office Diameter (Inches) 2000-2999 5!$ 3000.3999 314 4000-5009 V8 Table 3 — Rectangular Catch Basin Requirements Detention Maoc Sine Catch Basin pipecfim7mftr knockout Two <� 18' 20- Type i, CB 15 - 18'to 24' 28' Type 0-, CB 16 . 24' to 36' 36' Type H. CB 19 19 (487 Basin) 3Ci to 4r 42' Type H. CB 19 19 (54- Basin) - Rerrdbxced Concrete (fight-av ) - Non4ekddrted Concrete (t ht-oi vway) - Atumat¢ted Steel - Aluminum 16 GA or better -CMP Asphaft Cooled - W12 ADS HDPE (Mew 7 cover nxpdr+ed under paved areas) water tight - PVC SDR 35, ASTAM3, 034 or better - Rimed PVC pipe, ASTM D-2444 - DucSde iron pipe Class 50 -rebtanes system: - N-12 ADS (Smooth Wall) - W -SUR 35, ASiMD-3034, or bier - Hancor F-810 &UNGR1l 1A IDOUTS1Drainr age tables E21 pj�-Celve® Me ' op)wemr sE C,a7g` "Jr�DMON SS CTR. C Pilchuck Contractors, Inc. Job # 106139280 °nv4 Sept 27, 2004 Sheet 1 Of 1 Rob Inglis 'tea:' OV3HV )MOM .avow avow/ aV3HV a3SO13 1H91a d33H KEEP RIGHT �j .APPROVED AS NOTED BY ENGINEERING LU ate: Q LEGEND 0 28" TRAFFIC CONE © WORK AREA TRAFFIC FLOW TO FLAGGER NSIGNAL LIGHT RWORK VEHICLE SIGN LOCATION 4 Notes: 1. All signs and spacing to conform to the MUTCD and City of Edmonds Traffic Control specs. 2. Channelizing devices are 28" traffic cones. 4. All signs are 48" x 48" B/O unless otherwise specified.. 5. Alert affected residents and businesses 6. 1 Flagger will control alternating one lane traffic. 7. Work area will be 110' N of C/L of Elm St SW & 21' E of A Ave S. 8. Maintain two 11' lanes. WORK AREA 3' x 5' IN GRASS SHOULDER CHANNELIZATION DEVICE SPACING MPH TAPER TANGENT 50/70 40 80 35/45 30 60 25/30 20 40 RIGHT LANE CLOSED AHEAD .L-F 19' 19' '. USE MAXIMUM SPACE ROAD T NARROWS AVAILABLE FOR SIGNS ELM ST ROAD WORK —< ANEA0 Sao �3Q I S 6406 i 'riPo3 1%. P8 5/�"187'S 1997 r low I9K}4 a 0 ELM fei"4 %" 2T,4" S i985 . #1f7 l a P' e Q �ssis'w f ii %as 'k 1971 tot u Q ' i 4b8 Rf Z O 14y� 5 I ,� N7 J -agar+ a - r"z i 1997 a ► n G� 4 3'Po7'�Ir i97S �arw-a ROL` OIL. `#V'S7- va 20N1 tali M ftwo: lil N r� '"m :7 -7) g164Q66 ht :IIs enams2/map_fle%gas/PlaVtif/ 164066.ti Pa e 1 of 1 _......_I..._........_._s....._._....._.....—-..._.._..q......._....._....__...._........_......__._..._.._...._._...._......_._..._._............._......._.__..._...._.._...__.........-.......__..._...__....------......__._..._.._....._........................--._.._._...__........._--—....__......__._......__..._........__.....--._...._...._..._............_.........._..._..._._._.._.._....._s_.__.................. 4' CA I I I I i 5 S'290'N 199, �' v 5 8 290 N tea! �---- Q d i 997 '-' � � ►q�z �p a a i IL F- 631 �- j [tog N � o 3 ,z LM ST ��� . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... ........ �.1:lCc v'¢.�•-a :at;^...:.+- .i.''rCc N"'!+-...9^Gc:'l."1.'23'.C' �:' '�F.".„•cy^\ , w..ti�i�':• ' iY't` i'^':...J_' :.r.`"C� R'G:-vr...!;�, _:-. -o xv,.rr�,�ur� <t,,,=r i.nw., :n� . . . . . . . . . . . CITY- OF EDMO4V=1'1`WASHiHG.T0N DEPARTMENtQi BUILDINGS BUILDING PERMIT Applicant hereby certifies that a plot, Plan, drawings, and.sufficient details to indicate the intention to fulill all requirements of this code are attached hereto. Application iherby made for permit to do the. following 'work: ................ .. ------ - ------ . ............ z ---------- ................................................................. eall- ...... * ... ........ ....... . ................................................................... ............................................................... .................................. ........................................................................ at....... ......... i ..... .......... ............................ ; ......................... . ......... (Street number or lot and block numbers) 1. Building dimensions arc..... 41 .................... x ........ ............................... 2. Lot dimensions arc...../A4 .................. x .......... _ZP..!2 ....................... 3. Building will be..._-_... f ...............stories in height. 4. Number of basements ...... ------ z5. Occupancy of building will be .......... .... 4�- --------------- ..................... e lot 6. Building will adjoining line. C? f from nearest adjoining ot Inc. 7. Owner' ........ ...... . ... ............................................................. 8. Owners Address ........................................................................................................... 9. Builder ......................... ................................ ............................................ ........................ 10. Builder's Address ........ ...... �..:: ............ ... /,n 11. Architect or en, :40 ................ s 6 Zft 0 0 &� 11,11-2! Z; .5 a. P,3 1 , 0:2 Z.� 0 P* 4 D 0 C14. 0 .0 04 0 z b.od PL4 0 5�2 0 %A Z An >" h Cf) i C 0 � 0 tj: 0 E 2 z Estimated cost tA0,0...9 ... GroupNo . ....................... . ....................... Life of permit../.,( .... . ..................... dire J Applicant's Signat a"ns filed: Yes D No El caner r,�r agent) b ranted to do the work described hereon, according to tlic approved plans and specifications pertainin . . . . . . . . . . . Permission is hereby g 9-1h ��retol subject to compliance with the ordinances of the City of Edmonds. This copy is your receipt for the following 1. Building permit fee---------------------- 2. Sewer permit fee ............................................................ $ ...................................... 3. inspection and super -vision for . ...................................... $ ...................................... 4. Total ............................................................... ............................. ....... . .......... $ car Depart'men% dings PERMIT N? 415 of �A C Edmon "o 1. The,-bmlldiag peFmit fee which applicant pays when permit is issued shall be bxsed,on , cost. i cost of the prop-)sed structure, at the rate, of $1.00 for each�-, ,$1000.00 of" If thd�•actual cost of -the structqtre,when the estimated cost by more than 5%, applicant 2greas to pay additionaf1ea i:,-' of $2.00 for each ilooc`00 of such excess cost. 16's6ch-6vent no use Oii-lit^'sh-,til'befissued'uritil'su6Zd"an cy fee, io paid I ,.,2. Vlen"ef,a contra for construction' Is executed'for P.;iy structure costing more.th . an $1000.06 for wNA ' a licensed architect oz engineer, is not required by:. Iding. permit,,Ahall'be -ncc Tpacied -by th,�'116111diog C56*b1'ihe-0ty o(.Edifionds. the xpplicat,��for\z_bui N a copy-'of.the contract' and 0'" "of A— de6ild. c specii1caiiws 7 3. ,Prior to employing ar,y labor or cornx6ncing work, notify tiii,lndustrial Insurance Division of the-Depa-rilent of Labor and Industries, giving .26 adihati, bf,: 4- the pa�,.1firid ni, akb monthly reporti'of payrolls., Full, instfuctions.sbdald be obtained from the nearesE office.,of thf:, D, partment of Labor;'��4 r�I.W 'should be t'. ant4,16dustriis'. refs;.e- `"- - final payment,eut. the owner should obcai�.i­relvase from the general'contrncto'ro -ho'in'tluGse,,frait; all �sub-con�iiaolii_.turn x ould obtain' re quA-sted by the D*2rcmenr cf Lihcr and Industries. The above procid6ii;-are requirements Of. the State' Industiial ;nv,rance Act. CA FILE NO. itical Areas Checklist Z �, Site Information (soils/topography/hydrology/vegetation) 5 I. Site Address/Location: —f J) 2. Property Tax Account Number: 3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): 4. Is this site currently developed? yes; no. If yes; how is site developed? { -Use, 5. Describe the general site topography_ Check all that apply. Flat: less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site. Rolling: slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 66-feet). Hilly: slopes .present. on site of more than 15% and less than 30% ( a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet). Steep: grades of greater than 30% ,present on site (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of less than 33-feet). Other (please describe): 6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water. _ ; Approx. Depth: 7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: ; Approx. Depth: What season(s) of the year?, 8. Site is in the floodway_ 0()_ floodplain of a water course. 9. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are year- round? I�T ti Flows are seasonal? (What time of year? ). 10. Site is primarily: forested ; meadow ; shrubs ; mixed urban landscaped (lawn,shrubs etc) 11. Obvious wetland is present on site: For City Staff Use Only — 1. Site is Zoned? 2. SCS snapped soil type(s)? 61 %OMA~ ( !tj gr4 W L 0A PA C9'- i �m 3. Wetland inventory or C.A. map indicates wetland present on site? p 4: :-;Critical Areas inventory or C.A. map indicates Critical Area on site? 5.. 'Site within designated earth subsidence landslide hazard area? �►' p 6. ' _Site designated on the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Map? f4 .b .DETERMINATION " "STUDY REQUIRED WAIVER Reviewed by: Planner CONDITIONAL WAIVER &TIM 40 RA — aC 01104M 7W S aid .` a`n �,� �4• � f890 199 O City of Edmoln& Critica[Areas Checklist The Critical Areas Checklist .con.tained on this form is to be filled out by any person preparing a Development Permit Application for the City of Edmonds prior to hisAer submittal of a develo_oment permit to the City. The purpose of the Checklist is to enable City staff to determine whether any potential Critical Areas are or may be present on the subject property. The information needed to complete the Checklist should be easily available from observations of the site or data available .at City Ball (Critical Areas inventories, maps, or soil surveys). An applicant, or his/her representative, must fill out the checklist, sign and date it, -and submit it to the City. The City will review the checklist, make a precursory site visit, and make a determination of the subsequent steps necessary to complete a development permit application. Witha. signed copy of this form, the applicant should also submit a vicinity map or plot plan for individual lots of the parcel with enough detail that City staff can find and identify the subject parcel(s). In addition, the applicant shall include Other Pertinent information (e.g. site Plan, topography ,trap, etc.) or studies in conjunction with this Checklist to assist staff' in completing their preliminary assessment of the site. I have completed the attached Critical Area Checklist and attest that the answers provided are factual, to the best of my knowledge (fill out the appropriate column below). Owner / Applicant: Name Street Address Applicant Representative: Name Street Address City,'Sttaontte, ZIP. 1U�V�l/ ►�. - I Phone City, State, ZIP Phone Signatur Date Signature Date STREET FILE 0 '$7pEET FILE 11-5 � r,A�, AW._Y-lV_P_ Au�y FF, e)-T. , 5 I i � I I I N r i ale wl PvrMNr. I I I�I��NcrE I fL/ Y�R� Q APPLICATION The City of Edmonds for SIDE SEWER PERMIT EASEMENT NO_ ____________________________________________ 107-00350 NEW CONSTRUCTION ❑ REPAIRS ❑ LID NO_------------------IASMT. NO................... OWNER -------- ....Ardis- Alfrey-------------------------------- CONTRACTOR ................................................ ----------------------------•------ PERMIT NO. -------------------- JOB ADDRESS .....1158 "A" Avenue -------- ---------- uj _j u- W w CD LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT NO- -------------------------------------- BLOCK NO. .__.. .......................... NAMEOF ADDITION------------------------------------------------•--••-----............................................................ DYE TESTED ON SEWER - March 27, 1976 By Jim Jensen Approved: DATE............................................ By...................................................YUy a �;. '` Special Inspections �-• 'u' rt r , "' `:-"-Construction Materials Testing r Geotechnical Engineering Environmental Services Asbestos/lead Management ' Planning rt I r , t t :~ y `,thd ?�`• 'Atsurin' Stren th rSafEt 15 EARTH CONSULTING INCORPORATED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PETERSON RESIDENCE 1158 A Avenue South Edmonds, WA 98026 U rE" CTR. I GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PETERSON RESIDENCE 1158 A Avenue South Edmonds, WA 98026 July 29, 2008 Project No. S-80101 G PREPARED FOR Tom Peterson 1158 A Avenue South Edmonds, WA 98020 Earth Consulting, Inc. 1805 136th Place N.E. Suite 201 Bellevue, WA 98005 (425) 643-3780 Toll Free (888) 739 6670 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS S-80101 G PAGE INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................ 2 General............................................................................................................................ 2 ProjectDescription........................................................................................................ 2 Scopeof Services.......................................................................................................... 2 SITECONDITIONS.................................................................................................................... 3 Surface............................................................................................................................ 3 Subsurface..................................................................................................................... 3 Groundwater.................................................................................................................. 3 LaboratoryTesting........................................................................................................ 4 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................. 4 General........................................................................................................................... 4 Site Preparation and General Earthwork .................................................................... 4 Stripping......................................................................................................................... 4 StructuralFill................................................................................................................. 5 Foundations................................................................................................................... 5 Slab -on -Grade Floors.................................................................................................... 6 Seismic Design Considerations.................................................................................. 7 Excavationsand Slopes............................................................................................... 8 SiteDrainage.......:.................................................................:........................................ 8 Utility Support and Backfill.......................................................................................... 9 LIMITATIONS...........................................................................................................................10 AdditionalServices................................................................................................................10 ILLUSTRATIONS Plate 1 Plate 2 APPENDICES Appendix A Plate Al Vicinity Map Boring Location Plan Plates A2 through A5 Appendix B Plate LAB1 & LAB2 Field Exploration Legend Boring Logs Laboratory Test Results Particle Size Distribution Report EARTH CONSULTING INCORPORATED ❑ Environmental Services ❑ Geotechnical Engineering ❑ Construction Materials Testing ❑ Special Inspections July 29, 2008 Tom Peterson Residence 1158 A Avenue South Edmonds, WA 98026 Project No. S-80101 G Earth Consulting, Inc. Geoledwic.•al SeiViees Depadmenl Dear Mr. Peterson: Earth Consultants, Inc. (ECI) is pleased to submit our report titled "Geotechnical Engineering IStudy for 1158 A Avenue South Project located in Edmonds Washington." This report presents the results of our field exploration, selective laboratory tests, and engineering analyses. The purpose and scope of our study were outlined in our July 8, 2008, proposal i-number 704. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. If you have any questions, or if we can rbe of further assistance, please call. Respectfully submitted, EARTH CONSULTANTS, INC. 6)ames M. Jano Staff Engineer DAB/JMJ/JAW i EXPIRES: 12- •- 97 2-70 `S I o delWarriner, PE ng Engineer �'X•Zcz4 12 1805 136'h Place Northeast #201 - Bellevue, WA 98005 - (425) 643-3780 - Fax (425) 746-0860 ' eci@eci-mti.com - www.eci-mti.com I GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Peterson Residence 1158 A Avenue, South Edmonds, Washington S-80101 G INTRODUCTION ' General This report presents the results of the geotechnical engineering study completed by Earth Consultants, Inc. (ECI) for the construction project at the residence of Tom Peterson, 1158 A _ Avenue, South in Edmonds, Washington. The general location of the site is shown on the "Vicinity Map," Plate 1. The purpose of this study was to explore the subsurface conditions at the site and, based on the conditions encountered, to develop geotechnical engineering recommendations for constructing a 600 square foot addition to an existing single family residence. Project Description The subject property occupies approximately 0.25 acres and is situated on the northwest corner of A Avenue South and Elm Street in Edmonds. The property is bound on all sides by residential properties. The project involves the construction of an addition to an existing dwelling. The subject property is associated with Snohomish County Assessor's parcel number #00619400700500 located in Snohomish County, Washington. i At the time our study was performed, the site and exploration locations were approximately as shown on the "Test Pit Location Plan," Plate 2. If the above project criteria change or are incorrect, we should be consulted to review the recommendations contained in this report. In any case, ECI should be retained to perform a general review of the final design. Scope of Services We performed this study in general accordance with the scope of services outlined in our July 8, 2008, proposal. On this basis, our study addresses the following: • Three to five hand -dug potholes advanced in various locations on the site. All data obtained recorded in the field and referenced to pothole number. Soil is classified in the field logs in accordance with applicable ASTM standards and other standards, including, but not limited to, ASTM standard D2488. The classification for final logs is based on field information, results of laboratory tests and further inspection of samples in the Earth Consulting, Inc. Page 2 GEOTECHINCAL ENGINEERING STUDY S-80101G Peterson Residence July 29, 2008 laboratory by the Geotechnical Engineer preparing the report; A chart illustrating the soil classification criteria and the terminology and symbols used on the logs; • Identify the ASTM standards or other recognized standard sampling and test methods used; • Provide a plot plan giving approximate locations of potholes; • Provide sampling method used, date of start and finish, surface elevations, description of soil and thickness of each, and, where applicable, groundwater elevation and time when water reading was made. Note of the location of strata containing organic materials, wet materials or other inconsistencies that might affect engineering conclusions; • Description of the existing surface conditions and summarize the subsurface conditions; • Estimate potential variations in elevation and movements of subsurface water because of seasonal influence; • Report all laboratory determinations of soil properties; • Frost penetration problems will be considered; • Infiltration testing may be performed but soil characteristics will be the primary method for determining the stormwater design methods; SITE CONDITIONS Surface The site is developed to residential use, as are all adjacent properties. The surface slopes gently from the southeast, to the northwest. On site development includes a single family residence, a parking slab on the southwest corner, and well cared for landscaping consisting of a sidewalk, lawn, shrubbery and trees. The west side of the site fronts an alley. Subsurface The subsurface of the site was evaluated by advancing four hand auger borings (potholes) surrounding the proposed foundation footprint of the proposed structure. Plate 2 shows the locations of the soil borings. The borings were advanced with the use of a 4 inch inner diameter stainless steel bucket auger. Borings 1 and 4 penetrated the subsurface to five feet below the surface, Boring 2 to three and a half feet, and Boring 3- to four feet. A description of the field exploration methods is included in Appendix A. The following is a generalized description of the subsurface conditions encountered. Dense silty sand (SM using the Unified Soils Classification System) was encountered from the surface to one and a half feet below ground surface (bgs) at each sampling location. Well graded sand (SW/USCS) and rounded cobbles were encountered in the subsurface where investigated. Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered in the subsurface at time of our exploration (July 2008). Earth Consulting, Inc. Page 3 GEOTECHINCAL ENGINEERING STUDY S-80101G Peterson Residence July 29, 2008 Groundwater data was not researched as part of this project. The contractor should be aware that groundwater levels should not be considered static. Groundwater levels fluctuate depending on the season, amount of rainfall, surface water runoff, and other factors. Generally, the groundwater level is higher in the wetter winter months (typically October through May). Laboratory Testing Laboratory tests were conducted on representative soil samples to verify or modify the field soil classification and to evaluate the general physical properties and engineering characteristics of the soil encountered. Visual classifications were supplemented by grain - size analyses on representative samples. Moisture content tests were performed on all samples. The results of laboratory tests performed on specific samples are provided in Appendix B. It is important to note that these test results may not accurately represent the overall in -situ soil conditions. Our geotechnical engineering recommendations are based on our interpretation of these test results. ECI cannot be responsible for the interpretation of these data by others. In accordance with our Terms and Conditions, the soil samples for this project will be discarded following completion of this report, unless we are otherwise directed in writing. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Based on the subsurface conditions observed at the test pit locations, it is our opinion the proposed construction is feasible from a geotechnical engineering standpoint. The building foundations can be supported on conventional spread and continuous footings bearing on compacted native soil. Slab -on -grade floors should be supported on a minimum of 6 inches of structural fill or compacted native soil. Site Preparation and General Earthwork We anticipate the site earthwork will consist of installing erosion control measures; stripping the site; excavating the foundation; moisture conditioning and compacting the foundation subgrade; placing and backfilling the foundation with structural fill; installing underground utilities; backfilling and compacting utility trenches; and preparing the area for placement of a concrete slab -on -grade, if required. Stripping Prior to stripping, on -site erosion control measures consisting of silt fencing and surface water controls should be installed around the perimeter of the site, and catch basin socks should be installed in nearby catch basins. Earth Consulting, Inc. Page 4 1 GEOTECHINCAL ENGINEERING STUDY S-80101G Peterson Residence July 29, 2008 The building, paved areas and areas to receive structural fill should be stripped and cleared of surface vegetation, organic matter, existing pavements and other deleterious material. Based on the thickness of the topsoil and vegetation cover encountered at the exploration locations, we anticipate a typical stripping depth of approximately 4 inches. The actual stripping depth should be based on field observation at the time of construction. In no case should the stripped materials be used as structural fill or mixed with material to be used as structural fill. The stripped materials may be "wasted" on site in non-structural landscaping areas, or they should be exported. Existing utility pipes to be abandoned should be removed and, where underlying. future construction, the trench should be backfiiled with structural fill. Following the stripping operation and building overexcavation, the ground surface where structural fill, foundations, or slabs are to be placed should be observed by a representative of ECI. Structural Fill Structural fill is defined as compacted fill placed under buildings, roadways, slabs, pavements, or other load -bearing areas. Structural fill under floor slabs and footings should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of its laboratory maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D1557 (Modified Proctor). The fill materials should be placed at or near their optimum moisture content. Fill under pavements and walks should also be placed in horizontal lifts and compacted to 90 percent of the maximum dry density, except for the top 12 inches which should be placed in 6-inch loose lifts and compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density. Based on the results of our laboratory tests, at the time of our exploration, the site soils appeared. to be near their optimum moisture content, but may need to be moisture conditioned prior to use as structural fill. Based on observed conditions, the site soils consist of sand and gravelly sand with varying silt content. Soil with fines in excess of 5 percent is moisture sensitive, and compaction and grading will be difficult if the soil moisture varies significantly from its optimum level. Soils on site generally have a relatively high void ratio, so any import material should be sandy (USCS SW, SP or SM). For silty or clayey imported soils, measures should be taken to prevent subsidence due to fine soils migrating into the native sands. Foundations In our opinion, the proposed structure can be supported on. conventional spread and continuous footings bearing on compacted native soil. A representative of ECI should be on site to assess the extent of footing excavation. The excavation should extend a minimum of Earth Consulting, Inc. Page 5 GEOTECHINCAL ENGINEERING STUDY S-80101G Peterson Residence July 29, 2008 18 inches beyond the perimeter of the foundation element. In most cases, excavated soils may be placed as structural fill if the moisture content is appropriate. For foundations bearing as described above, an allowable soil bearing capacity of 1500 psf can be used for design. The allowable bearing capacity is limited to promote minimal differential settlement with respect to existing structures. A 1/3 increase in the above allowable soil bearing capacity can be assumed for short-term loading conditions as indicated in Chapter 16 of the Building Code. Continuous and individual spread footings should have minimum widths of 18 and 24 inches, respectively. ' Exterior foundation elements should be placed a minimum depth of 18 inches below final exterior grade. Interior spread foundations can be placed at a minimum depth of 12 inches below the top of slab except in unheated areas, where interior foundation elements should be founded at a minimum depth of 18 inches. Provided the foundations are placed in accordance with the recommendations contained in this report, we estimate total settlement of approximately 0.6 inches and differential settlement of approximately 0.4 inches. Most of the anticipated settlements should occur during construction as dead loads are applied. Lateral loads can be resisted by friction between the base of the foundation and the supporting soil and by passive soil pressure acting on the face of the buried portion of the foundation. Resistance to lateral loads from passive earth pressure can be calculated using an equivalent fluid with a unit weight of 300 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). To achieve adequate passive resistance, the foundations must be backfilled with structural fill. For frictional capacity, a coefficient of 0.30 can be used for foundations bearing on structural fill. These lateral resistance values are allowable values. Footing excavations should be observed by a representative of ECI prior to placing. forms. ECI should also observe areas where overexcavation is required to remove loose or unstable soils. Slab -on -Grade Floors Slab -on -grade floors should be supported on at least 1/2 foot of structural fill or compacted native soil. Loose or unstable subgrade soils should be stabilized prior to construction of the slab. The use of a geotextile and crushed rock can be considered for stabilizing the subgrade soils, if necessary. L A 4-inch drainage course consisting of a free -draining, poorly graded sand or gravel with less than 5 percent fines (percent passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve, based on the minus 3/4- inch fraction) should be placed below the slab. In areas where slab moisture is undesirable, a vapor barrier, such as a 6-mil plastic membrane, should be placed in accordance with current guidelines. Subgrade soils in slab -on -grade areas of the site should be observed by a representative of ECI prior to placing drainage course material. Earth Consulting, Inc. Page 6 GEOTECHINCAL ENGINEERING STUDY Peterson Residence Seismic Design Considerations S-80101 G July 29, 2008 Earthquakes occur in the Puget Lowland with regularity;. however, the majority of these events are of such low magnitude they are not detected without instruments. Large earthquakes do occur, as indicated by the 1949, 7.2 magnitude earthquake in the Olympia area and the 1965, 6.5 magnitude earthquake in the Midway area and the 2001, 6.8 magnitude earthquake in the Nisqually area. There are three potential geologic hazards associated with a strong motion seismic event at this site: ground rupture, liquefaction, and ground motion response. Ground Rupture The strongest earthquakes in the Puget Lowland are widespread, crustal and subcrustal events, generally resulting from subduction of the Juan de Fuca Plate. Two surface faulting features from these events have been identified in the region. These features are limited in area. Therefore, it is our opinion, that the risk of ground rupture at this site during a strong motion seismic event is negligible. Liquefaction Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which soils lose all shear strength for short periods of time during an earthquake. Groundshaking of sufficient duration results in the loss of grain -to - grain contact and rapid increase in pore water pressure, causing the soil to behave as a fluid. To have a potential for liquefaction, a soil must be cohesionless with a grain -size distribution of a specified range (generally sand and silt), it must be saturated, and it must be subject to sufficient magnitude and duration of groundshaking. The effects of liquefaction may be large total and/or differential settlement for structures founded on the liquefying soils. In our opinion, the liquefaction potential at this site is moderate. The liquefaction -induced settlements may be 2 to 3 inches, but would not occur uniformly across the site. Ground Motion Response The 2006 International Building Code (IBC) regulations contain a static force procedure and a dynamic force procedure for design -base shear calculations. Based on the encountered soil conditions, it is our opinion Site Class C, "Very Dense Soil Profile," as defined in Table 1615.1.1 of the IBC, should be used to characterize the site soils. In accordance with section 1615.1.2 of the IBC, site seismic coefficients are S1 = 0.4 and SS = 1.2. Earth Consulting, Inc. Page 7 GEOTECHINCAL ENGINEERING STUDY S-80101G Peterson Residence July 29, 2008 Excavations and Slopes The following information is provided solely as a service to our client. Under no circumstances should this information be interpreted to mean that ECI is assuming responsibility for construction site safety or the contractor's activities; such responsibility is not being implied and should not be inferred. In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local, state I!i (WISHA), and federal (OSHA) safety regulations. Based on the information obtained from our subsurface exploration, the soils would be classified as Type B by WISHA/OSHA. Temporary cuts greater than 4 feet in height in Type B soils should be sloped at an inclination of 1 H:1 V. An ECI representative should observe temporary excavations to verify soil and groundwater conditions and the soil type. If slopes of the above inclinations or flatter cannot be constructed, temporary shoring may be necessary. Shoring will help protect against slope or excavation collapse and will provide protection to workers in the excavation. If temporary shoring is required, we will be available to provide shoring design criteria. Site Drainage If seepage is encountered during construction, the bottom of the excavation should be sloped to one or more shallow sump pits. The collected water can then be pumped from these pits to a positive and permanent discharge point. Depending on the magnitude of such seepage, it may also be necessary to connect the sump pits by a system of connector trenches. The appropriate locations of subsurface drains, if needed, should be established during grading operations by ECI's representative, at which time the seepage areas, if present, may be more clearly defined. During construction, the site must be graded such that surface water is collected and tightlined to an appropriate drainage facility. Water must not be allowed to stand in areas where buildings, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Loose soil surfaces should be sealed by compacting the surface to reduce the potential of moisture infiltration. Final site grades must allow for drainage away from the building foundations: The ground should be sloped at a gradient of 3 percent for a distance of at least 10 feet away from the building. Footing drains should be installed around the perimeter of the building at or just below the invert of the footing, as shown on the "Typical Footing Subdrain Detail," Plate 3. Under no circumstances should roof downspout drain lines be connected to the footing drain system. Earth Consulting, Inc. Page 8 GEOTECHINCAL ENGINEERING STUDY S-80101G Peterson Residence July 29, 2008 Roof downspouts must be separately tightlined to discharge. Cleanouts should be installed at strategic locations to allow for periodic maintenance of the footing drain and downspout tightline systems. In conformance with the Washington Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual Table 3.8 and based on laboratory data presented in Appendix B of this report, a long-term design infiltration rate of 9 inches per hour is indicated. Utility Support and Backfill The site soils should generally provide adequate support for utilities. Where loose soils or unstable conditions are encountered, remedial measures, such as overexcavating soft soils or compacting subgrade soils exposed in the trench bottom, may be required. In addition, caving of trench walls should be anticipated in trench excavations in the loose soil or where seepage is encountered in the excavation. Utility trench backfill is a primary concern in reducing the potential for settlement along utility alignments, particularly in pavement areas. It is important that each section of utility line be adequately supported in. the bedding material. The material should be hand tamped to provide support around the pipe haunches. Fill should be carefully placed and hand tamped to approximately 12 inches above the crown of the pipe before heavy compaction equipment is brought into use. The remainder of the trench backfill should be placed in lifts having.a loose thickness of less than 12 inches. Native soils may be suitable for pipe bedding material, depending on utility -specific specifications. Earth Consulting, Inc. Page 9 GEOTECHINCAL ENGINEERING STUDY Peterson Residence 1 LIMITATIONS S-80101 G July 29, 2008 This geotechnical engineering study has been prepared for the exclusive use of Mr. Tom Peterson. This study was prepared for specific application to this project and in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the ' profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. We recommend that this geotechnical engineering study, in its entirety, be included in the project contract documents for the information of the ' contractor. Our recommendations and conclusions are based on the observed site conditions, selective laboratory testing and engineering analyses, the design information provided for us, and our experience and engineering judgment. The conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. No warranty is expressed or implied. The recommendations submitted in this report are based on the data obtained from the test pits. Soil and groundwater conditions between test pits may vary from those encountered. The nature and extent of variations between our exploratory locations may not become evident until construction. If variations do appear, ECI should be requested to reevaluate the recommendations of this report and to modify or verify them in writing prior to proceeding with the grading. Additional Services As the geotechnical engineer of record, ECI should be retained to perform a general review of the final design and specifications to verify that the earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in the design and in the construction specifications. ECI should also be retained to provide geotechnical engineering services during construction. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications, or recommendations and to allow design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. Earth Consulting, Inc. Page 10 .11 li'�f Tlr—• c -" {,t'icy��'•i'+ .M1971^-lu_fi!' 'iCPU"'.1 - jr-". '-"� wl., y. (�� ii �.f. � � - T rr r ,� :'r..r1.. i�� ,: `��' • :�; ?A� •n�ir�i,'C J- 5�� T-• mefi.y�i���� , �rtJ�,��� Cyj, o ' ,, i T i.1'`-.7a"{,, 'S�:: 7•�y.,Yt Ft�';µfi '�Iri �i� �_fi �;.; r 'V y,��'�d.�ii 1••. !�'rl,�'�1, � •�i8. �' t'S3 .4�(JI ". +R.14��..^�^^4.,rr , •f. p. rlrl�i.�1"�y-�s��� .•Pur r���}Y� _ +C �" i '�_ 5�~-y •7 e� ti..r_R...t. :;..f f��T tl r _ t� •r r' ;�r 'ft�'r 4Y --rT �q c1.iM if4 y.li* ,' .b }1 ' L ia,.. ' �� � p� c j r—�•-, ��4',1 • 1, fi "ta, NyO' �i�L,,�"'+"Y'i e�'' '�..� ..'(. '��T,.jj�jY'` r • * t 1 ��F 1 ��y�74��. +r , . �..(• p 61 i rya`` R ��-- L� { .t U �''1 Y ,,i- r TUI. ' •:'�`• ■■ � ,fir �� `` 1'� `��" �•.a�. 1:, .�..,^ .''��'��",'s'-,. �j' •� �yt, f;�, 1r�ekk''++r•�„i �I . _ 1� ��� ♦ f' • r' F" i k... . i , •r ' r "wa ya � � r jati ��•� ,y.9', � i y.�t �y f' r; � 1 �� � y� i 4i ' ate,• ` � Y. �/ l l t r }� - '��,��.,( re ,�.. �. �� �� +i ,'. � , f 1� Y I� Air.' ,�,t� �i..• �j�M±S" . USGS EDMONDS URBAN PHOTO, 2002 NORTH NOT TO SCALE ' EARTH CONSULTING INCORPORATED VICINITY MAP PETERSON SFR EDMONDS, WASHINGTON DRWN. JMJ PROJ. NO. 80101 CHKD. DATE 7/29/08 PLATE 1 APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION S-80101 G Earth Consultants, Inc. (ECI) performed the field exploration on July 14, 2008. Subsurface conditions at the site -were explored by advancing four hand auger soil borings ft.depths of 3.5 feet to 5.0 feet below existing grade. The borings were advanced by ECI staff with the use of a four inch inner diameter stainless steel bucket auger. Boring locations were selected based on information provided by the client. The locations and elevations of the borings should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. These approximate locations are shown on Plate 2. The field exploration was performed by a geologist from our firm who classified the soils encountered, maintained a log of each boring pit, obtained representative samples and I observed pertinent site features. The samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), which is presented on the "Legend," Plate Al. Representative soil samples were collected and returned to our laboratory for further Iexamination and testing. . Logs of the borings are presented on Plates A2 through A4. The final logs represent our interpretations of the field logs and the results of the laboratory examination and tests of field samples. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. In actuality, the transitions may be more gradual. LEGEND GEOTECHNICAL GENERAL NOTES SOIL PROPERTY SYMBOLS IN: Standard "N" penetration: Blows per foot of a 140 pound hammer falling 30" on a 2" O.D. SS. Qu: Unconfined compressive strength, tons/ft2 Qp: Penetrometer value, unconfined compressive strength, Ton/ft2 Qc: Cone Penetrometer value, unconfined compressive strength, pounds/in2 V: Vane value, ultimate shearing strength, lbs/ft2 iM: Water content, % LL: Liquid limit, % PI: Plasticity index, % ' D: Natural dry density, lbs/ft3 WT: Apparent groundwater level at time noted after completion. DRILLING AND SAMPLING SYMBOLS ISS: Split -Spoon - 1 3/8" I.D., 2" O.D., except where noted. - ST: Shelby Tube - 3" O.D., except where noted. AU: Auger Sample. DB: Diamond Bit. - CB: Carbide Bit. GS: Grab Sample. RELATIVE DENSITY AND CONSISTENCY CLASSIFICATION Non -Cohesive Soils Standard Penetration Cohesive Soils Standard Penetration I Resistance Resistance Very Loose <4 Very Soft <2 Loose 4-10 Soft 2-4 I Medium Dense 10-30 Firm (Medium Stiff) 4-8 Dense 30-50 Stiff 8-15 Very Dense >50 Very Stiff 15-30 Hard >30 IPARTICLE SIZE Boulders 8 in. + Coarse Sand 5 nun - 0.6 nun Silts 0.074 nun - 0.005 nim Cobbles 8 in. - 3 in. Medium Sand 0.6 min - 0.2 nun. Clays 0.005 min & Smaller Gravel 3 in. - 5 rr n Fine Sand 0.2 inm - 0.074 nun Boring Log Sheet of Project Name: Tom Peterson 1 1 Job No. Logged by: Date: Boring No.: S80101 G DAB 7/14/08 1 Excavation Contractor: Approx. Ground Surface Elevation: ECI Notes: o L o Surface Conditions: General w Q o U Notes (%) p a SM Silty Sand with Organics, Yellow -brown to Gray, moist, dense 1 SM Silty Sand, Yellow -brown to Gray, moist, dense SW Well Graded Sand with Cobbles, Yellow -brown, moist, dense 0 ° � 0 O 0 ° o 2 0 °a o p 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 p 0 a a o0 3 0 °o a p ° o °0 4 O p a a o °o °o t�— 0 ° 5 Boring Log Earth Consulting Incorporated Tom Peterson 1518 A Avenue, Edmonds, Washington a > Proj. No. S80101 G Dwn. Date Checked Date Plate Al Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessamy representative of ouiei U1IMa 01 U ��a �...� �u,,,,�, r• •� r�•• - - - --- - - — others of information presented on this log. Project Name: Sheet of Tom Peterson 1 1 Job No. Logged by: Date: Boring No.: S80101 G DAB 7/14/08 2 Excavation Contractor: Approx. Ground Surface Elevation: ECI Notes: General Notes W (%) o L n � cD to �, 2 _ o LL m to U o a rn Surface Conditions: SM Silty Sand with Organics, Yellow -brown to Gray, moist, dense y. SM Silty Sand, Yellow -brown to Gray, moist, dense o° SW Well Graded Sand with Cobbles, Yellow -brown, moist, dense p o 0 o ° ° o 0 0 2 0 0 ° °0 0 p o 0 o °o 0 o0 3 C, 0 0 t Boring Log Earth Consulting Incorporated Tom Peterson 1518 A Avenue, Edmonds, Washington Proj. No. S80101 G Dwn. Date Checked Date Plate A2 nuosurrace conamons cepicteo represent our ooservations at the time ana iocaoon or tnis expioratory nose, moaitiea oy engineering tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Boring Log Project Name: Sheet of Tom Peterson 1 1 Job No. Logged by: Date: Boring No.: S80101G DAB 7/14/08 3 Excavation Contractor: Approx. Ground Surface Elevation: ECI Notes: W L o = �, o Surface Conditions: General Notes ° �° a m E�" E u) E c9 cn rn cn y SM Silty Sand with Organics, Yellow -brown to Gray, moist, dense y SM Silty Sand, Yellow -brown to Gray, moist, dense 00 o SW Well Graded Sand with Cobbles, Yellow -brown, moist, dense o ° 2 o° o ° 0 ° °o °o ° 0 0 0 0° 3 °0 ° 0 o 4 i G Boring Log Earth Consulting Incorporated Tom Peterson 1518 A Avenue, Edmonds, Washington Proj. No. S80101 G FDwn. Date Checked Date Plate A3 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Boring Log Project Name: Sheet of Tom Peterson 1 1 Job No. Logged by: Date: Boring No.: S80101 G DAB 7/14/08 4 Excavation Contractor: Approx. Ground Surface Elevation: ECI Notes: General W o Lr- L a, a o a Surface Conditions: Notes (% m > N a °' LL m v En , (D ccCn 4. SM Silty Sand with Organics, Yellow -brown to Gray, moist, dense SM Silty Sand, Yellow -brown to Gray, moist, dense 00 SW Well Graded Sand with Cobbles, Yellow -brown, moist, dense p o 0 ao °a o 0 2 G°ao o�o p 0 aaa o� p oa 3 0 00 0 . o0 � 00 4 G O O 0 0 0 °o 0 5 Boring Log Earth Consulting Incorporated Tom Peterson 1518 A Avenue, Edmonds, Washington Proj. No. S80101 G Dwn. Date Checked Date Plate A4 UPI—Vu IUPI VOaIn UUI UU=I vauUiw ei I! It! Lillie ana location oT tnis exploratory nose, mooined by engineering tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. APPENDIX B LABORATORY TEST RESULTS S-80101 G 10a 90 80 70 x z 60 LL Z 50 W U W 40 a G i 30 20 10 0 Particle Size Distribution Report GRAIN SIZE - mm % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT I % CLAY USCS AASHTO PL LL 4.8 94.4 0.8 SP 82.2 1.3 SP SIEVE PERCENT FINER inches ❑ size 1.5" 100.0 3/4" 100.0 98.7 3/8" 98.8 92.0 GRAIN SIZE D60 0.770 1.05 D30 0.453 0.411 D10 0.290 0.230 COEFFICIENTS Cc 0.92 F 0.70 Cu 2.66 4.56 O Location: TP #3, 1.5 - 2' ❑ Location: TP #3, 5' SIEVE number PERCENT FINER ❑ size #4 95.2 83.5 #8 89.9 74.0 #16 78.7 62.2 #30 46.1 45.7 #50 11.1 17.3 #100 1.8 4.0 #200 0.8 1.3 0 Lab # 160 Poorly graded sand Natural Moisture: 3.2% ❑ Lab # 161 Poorly graded sand with gravel Natural Moisture: 4.1 % 10 Earth Consulting, Inc. client: Project: Peterson Residence Bellevue, Washington Project No.: 80101 Fioure LAB1 Particle Size Distribution Report C C'- 10 9 8 71 CL' Z 6( U- z 5( W U LL1 4C a 30 20 10 0 % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND 69.1 69.5 SIEVE inches size PERCENT FINER ❑ 3/4" 95.2 93.6 3/8" 85.8 82.3 SIZE D606 D304 D108 *8.156.41 IENTS Cc Cu o Location: TP #4, 1.5 - 2' ❑ Location: TP #4, 4' IIIfI1 % SILT 0/6 CLAY 6.4 USCS SP-SM AASHTO PL LL 3.9 SP SIEVE PERCENT FINER number O ❑ s ize #4 75.5 73.4 #8 66.2 65.9 #16 56.9 57.2 #30 43.4 43.9 #50 18.6 16.5 #100 8.7 5.8 #200 6.4 3.9 Earth Consulting, Inc. LCIient: t: Peterson Residence Bellevue, Washington t No.: 80101 O Lab # 162 Poorly graded sand with silt and gravel Natural Moisture: 4.2% ❑ Lab # 163 Poorly graded sand with gravel Natural Moisture: 4.1 % IN �. f: City of Edmonds Permit No: =Zno4- 0.2(r,� ''RIGHT-OF—WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT Issue Date: • 'D A. Address or Vicinity of Construction: B. T e of Work (be specific): *11 C�fx 1 1� S Tc%: NL'.(� C`�Cl S Y U I C; t+ @ l l C� �l C. Contractor:-1'•' Mailing Addres State License #: GI et+ mn 2Y J.C) o 1 11C Yu e�'` . O vl t..: Contact:i ill. !I C• w `'JtC -a- �l -�u k� Phone:�%o- may/ �' �a.'� %- C N L.4- SSI 01 M 1nt Liability Insurance: Bond: $ D. Building Permit # (if applicable): « Side Sewer Permit # (if applicable): E. ❑ Commercial ❑ Subdivision ❑ City Project ❑ EUC (PUD, VERIZON, PSE, AT& T, OVWD) ❑ Multi -Family O-Single Family ❑ Other ' INSPECTOR: F•---'PAVEMENT CUT: ES ❑ NO G. SIZE OF CUT X CONCRETE CUT: ❑.YES: ❑ NO t f• INDEMNI Y . Applicant understands by his/her -signature. t'o::this; application he/she holds tJze Ciiy �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 but not limited to the defense of any legal proceedings including defense costs 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 WORK. ESTIMATED RESTORATION FEES WILL BE. HELD UNTIL THE FINAL STREET PATCH IS COMPLETED BY CITY FORCES, AT WHICH TIME A DEBIT OR CREDIT WILL BE PROCESSED FOR ISSUANCE TO THE APPLICANT. Traffic control and public safety shall be in accordance with City regulations as required by the City Engineer. Every flagger ,must be trained as required by (WAC) 296-155-305 and must have certification verifying completion of the required training in their possession. ♦ Restoration is to be in accordance with City codes. All street -cut trench work shall be patched with asphalt or City - approved material prior to the end.of the workday - NO EXCEPTIONS. ♦ Three sets of construction drawings of proposed work are required with the permit application. CALL DIAL -A -DIG (1-800-424-5555) PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK I HAVE READ''THE ABOVE STATEMENTS AND UNDERSTAND THE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I MUST MAKE THE PINK COPY OF THE PERMIT AVAILABLE ON SITE AT ALL TIMES FOR INSPECTIONS . ,Signature: � .-���i�../V��..�_ C°1C_.. Date: 9. (Contractor or Agent) Approved by: �yt-�¢- 1`'f ,- Time Authorized': Void After _09Z-61. / CITY USE ONLY ,� Right-of-wayFee: /G�1�:`�f $ k ov ti tY �t " .T1 � .' st' . C i°'�r5 r TAY /'} t" G$tJ,�C: T• �. �` �r.l 6PYF'� T I r Nf T r ^ t N 5 P EC t `^"6' / PEC T 1 Ot-k A-.1 ► Al. I . f` UPON COMPLETION OF PERMITTED WORK, AN ENGINEERING FINAL 'INSPECTION IS REQUIRED PER CHAPTER 18.00 OF THE EDMONDS � COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE ':e 425-771-0220, Ext. 1326) FINAL APPROVAL OFPERMITTED WORK. ' DATE: :. ' In vector's Signature For uirements see Information handout. NO WO1tK SI-IALL 13E(:IN I'IZIOIt TO I'EI2Yl1"[' ISSUANCI? Or HEIGHT CALCS PROJECT ADDRESS / OWNERS: DATUM: LID IN SIDEWALK TOM PETERSON I ACROSS ELM ST. = 100.9' AppR0�0ED R� PLANNING 1158'A' AVENUE A. 99.0' CornerFlag _ R �23�0`l EDMONDS 98020 B. 98.0' Zone 41 Z �= C. 99.0' Re wired Actual - 425-218-9335 6 D. 101.5' Setbacks ._ 9 -•--j 2 11 Z PA:iuH N E?�rL r w_ 11, 397.5'_ 4 = 99.4' AVER Front S i 2 La 1��' c_ TAX No: 006 19400 700 500 99.4'+ 25 = 124.4' MAX Q 'I _ _ _ _ _ LEGAL: YOST 1 sT ADD TO E PLAT, 115.8' PROPOSED Rem BLK 007 D-00 LOT 5 Other. 2� / . ��c �� o LESS N 35 FT TGW LOT E nt shall repair/replace all damage xo H , BLK 7 LESS N 35 FT. or front& moments in'C• _ �DGt� o' P-AVIN .Way City standards that is caused OWNER/CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIB F �..--.. ll%O 16 LOT SIZE: 11,392.5 SOFT rs duri g the permitted project. Z osee a¢.a N of coa 1 ZONE: RS 6 12q. 5 5 A q, - • < SCOPE OF PROJECT: ADD 672 SO FT ATTACHED GARAGE EX. co&jr-. �LA13 N o DD 40 SO FT REAR PORCH 23 x 95' a 4 Wt. NOTICE REQ• EW DRIVEWAY FOR INSPECTION LOT COVERAGE: j- i zu EXISTING RES / PORCH: 1,379 SO FT NEW GARAGE: 672 SO FT ALL EXPOSE SURFACES TO - , _ N 2,051 SO FT BE COVER ED I FN 2 DAYS Z L d, i N- C 1�'e _14I l �' I PR�ve • °: ' GRADING: LESS THAN 30 YARDS -1 V— — — i— I o� i -v I , I I o Q IMPERVIOUS: 00 I X i a PRE 1977 717.5 sq ft R%M t� . 4 W. A'L I o I , '�"' 88. WALK a � � jb j 70 �iqvom ® 1045. SLAB o p� 1850. 2±a W 1 _ " i f!�� 1986 + 715. ADD/ EAVES �I + 616. COV. PORCH 46. BACK PORCH • Iwo s��os Cad�rl�d lsvto� . I� NOV 04 2008 +1377. 2008 + 638. DRIVE � o- 5 S� __j _ � 7 + 672. GARAGE . X —'X y X x +339.5 REAR PORCH I 32'- �" 3G'- o" �Zq• �3' •• ,i RESUB + 81.75 GAR. EAVES a t3=o" Iz�o - I� —� 1731.25 SILT OCT IM11, SINCE 1977 +2,808.5 SQ FIF —To Dl -TelMad pf �/JCE 1 TOTAL: 4 58.75 40.9% INF11,vM7wj 5 i�"E` L Ij� 2� 1 �I) BUILDING DEPARTAAEN - 3wK� CITY OF EDMONo + .300 S-10 cmi" 5T N p� 4>O►LS 9�Z h? ��•3•oe ADD F-a 7 Ce-2� ?-OL- co�vd�l �" t pi ezl.,�