Loading...
1316 12TH AVE N.PDF1111111111 618 1316 12TH AVE N i ADDRESS: TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL NUMBER: BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE): f�✓{S— ����% COVENANTS (RECORDED) CRITICAL AREAS:. ^� DETERMINATION: ❑ Conditional Waiver Study Required ❑ Waiver DISCRETIONARY PERMIT DRAINAGE PLAN DATED: PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED: EASEMENT(S) RECORDED FOR: PERMITS (OTHER): `7 / — 90 PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED: ql� —I/`5, SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED: ( lez % 7 SEWER LID FEE $: LID #: SHORT PLAT FILE: SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED: SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) GEOTECH REPORT DATED: STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT #: WATER METER TAP CARD DATED: OTHER LOT: BLOCK: L:\TEMP\DSTs\Forms\Street File Checklist.doc PLANNING DATA NAME: SITE ADDRESS: , /IZX AII DATE: . 7 z L i % ZONING: �S lZ PLAN CHK#: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: /V CORNER LOT Yes/No) FLAG LOT /U2 (Yes/No) SETBACKS: L,b�,, SoA Required Setbacks- Front: vS Left Side: ° Right Side: I b Rear: ZS Actual Setbacks: Front: too � Left Side: 16 Right Side: IQ' Rear: ZS� Street map checked for additional setback required? l - (Yes/No) LEGAL NONCONFORMING LAND'USE DETERMINATION ISSUED f (Y/N) LOT COVERAGE: , Maximum Allowed: �� Actual: BUILDING HEIGHT: / k Maximum Allowed: Z Actual Ha:— laff 25 5 Datum Point: Datum Elevation: A.D.U. CREATED?: SUBDIVISION: CRITICAL AREAS # q2- SEPA DETERMINATION: t X LOT AREA: 2 7 9 OTHER: Plan Review By: c:Udes\permiAAplandaLdoc 1-9Z5-�3- 7 PLANNING DATA SITE ADDRESS: /O 6 l24�-pr— j DATE: ZONING: 1&1?- PLAN CHK#: qs—I L3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: S--z SETBACKS: Required Setbacks: Front:�� Left Side:. 10 Right Side: t D Rear:Z'5— Actual Setbacks: Front: 2 5 Left Side: O Right Side: l Rear: CORNER LOT do LEGAL NONCONFORMING LAND USE DETERMINATION ISSUED LOT COVERAGE: L'54,� Maximum Allowed: Actual: BUILDING HEIGHT: Maximum Allowed: Actual Height: 5 SUBDIVISION: Lor ( S't `RR CRITICAL AREAS #: S��MNI— SEPA DETERMINA LOT AREA: 27. OTHER: Plan Review By: 0 • PLANNING DATA NAME: 5�-A SITE ADDRESS: 1 Z 1 - ViY J( W DATE: (Z /13 "9p (3t& - IZ^L,,,c.1V. ZONING: as-cz PLAN CHK#: 96- ZSZ PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Wati- OL m,,a SG,A, �, s�ae s(,oe olwc 4 ,,n54, - Z' 11 " c"�" i Ell ;a, L�vvf , a,. CORNER LOT Na (Yes/No) SETBACKS: Required Setbacks: Front: 25, Left Side: )0' Right Side: Rear: 2s Actual Setbacks: - N. sus 3 ' ,- r-p-.KA Front: Left Side: Right Side: Rear: Street map checked for additional setback required? ,o (Yes/No) LEGAL NONCONFORMING LAND USE DETERMINATION ISSUED N (Y/N) LOT COVERAGE: Maximum Allowed: Actual: NA- (nta ) BUILDING HEIGHT: Maximum Allowed: ZS' Actual Height: Datum Point: IVA Datum Elevation: NAI A.D.U. CREATED?: SUBDIVISION: S - I - 1316 /V, CRITICAL AREAS #: 96 _ 2-36 h - SEPA DETERMINATION: On FW'1, Mcp - 1 %3 LOT AREA: I Z15 OTHER: Plan Review By: Critical Areas Checklist' Site Information TF/rLP ,4 71W / Project Name: / KE L0) tN+�c 60 Zy 0.0. - ( D0160 Site Location: 1,3/ f/7 - %v�' /�� . Property Tax Account Number: Approximate Site Size (acres or square teet): Have you filled out a Critical Areas Checklist for a project on this site before? General Site Conditions �� , r,,W z a S 1. Has the site been cleared or logged? A? Date of most recent action: /,1C(/ Soils / Topography 2. In the Snohomish County Soil Survey, what is the mapped soil type(s)? /tD�,W C-,ea 3. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply.' Ze15- Flat: less than 5 feet elevation change over entire site. 5�4-:r-S 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 of horizontal distance.) Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on site. Comments r�DivL �a�OS rLr� Srz /ZdVeA,�z,;r- A-420 Hydrology/Vegetation 4. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: 5. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water. Pat' Approx. Depth: 6. Site is in the floodway )�v_ floodplain�D of a water course. 7. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? ` �lows are year-round?,/Flows are seasonal? 8. Site is primarily: forested; meadow ; shrubs ; mixed 9. Obvious wetland is present on site: ' .s5 10. Wetland inventory or map indicates wetland present on site.: 11. Critical Areas inventory or map indicates any Critical Area on site: For, City Use Only i�/'i't1 �,mnw+Ai+AM^�.�yl+,�-•3L.,.+�,+AStrM"'�a1n;.,iLrt�y-r�Y'y'+.�P•N}L'"rs%+'H''.u`azr^.1,��i�y,,.�cJ4Y�v✓v.°.t),F�iv�^Jl,+.l�if"`wv+`aLfl ' CITY OF EDMONDS SIDE 890 19 cz Address of Construction: Property Legal Description (Include all easements): EX,P leers 90DAys SEWER PERMIT PERMIT N_0 8739 •/Fi 1Y v J • - pin is WORKS DEPI Owne an`io Contr ca or%-► ��J�/1 1�C-� J State License Noo. L'� D Building Permit No. Xg—single Family ❑ Multi -Family (No. of Units ) ❑ Commercial ❑ Public I certi th t I aveave read an, as indicated dn the back of 11 Invasion into City Right -of -Way 4c, ❑ Yes RW Construction Permit No. Cross other Private Propertj Nl ❑ Yes Attach legal description and copy of recorded easement ly with all city requirements Dat * CALL DIAL -A -DIG (1-800-424-5555) BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION * I OFFICE USE ONLY * FOR INSPECTION CALL 771-OW, PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. Permit Fee: �/ Issued By Trunk Charge: �� Date Issued: `^c1/6-7 Assessment Fee: G Receipt No.: Lid No.: — Partial Inspection: Date Initial. Comments Reason Rejected: Date Initial Final Inspection Approved: Datea-�6 lnitial - ** PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOB SITE ** White Copy: File Green Copy: Inspector Buff Copy: Applicant Revised 3l90 The City of Edmonds Side Sewer Drawing EASEMENT NO . ............................................ NEW CONSTRUCTION � REPAIRS ❑ LID NO ................... ASMT. NO................... OWNER.......-•---•............................••------........_......------.........._...........--_. CONTRACTOR..__._........._.....-----...----.....----......_........---............_._._....._. PERMIT NO. --7.3..9. Tr•{ JOB ADDRESS ..�. .1. ._�..�- i_ '.------.. a� i PWW-0001-11175 (REV.11178) 1 0,:TA f,�-u 7- (� LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT NO ....................................... BLOCK NO. .................................... .................................................•-•-•--......................................................................................................... NAME OF ADDITION ..... M?3s ,� ' �► 3 � ���. ter, C . i r= �a w.<. � ►„ � ?o S.�.r Ella t� �E � D e cr p . C • i t= r a w..�. � l�"� "b S .�. c' r—A c.c_ DATE.... k............ Bye'./. ............................... 0 0 Water Service Drawing he City of Edmonds EASEMENT NO . ............................. ......... ..•--- NEW CONSTRUCTION Cg REPAIRS ❑ LID NO . .................. . ASMT. NO................... OWNER .......K. A!ZS.�r. OI�tST I ............................ CONTRACTOR.................................................................................... PERMIT NO. 50G2 0 JOB ADDRESS .... V3...G............... TK ..2..........N.0...................... LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT NO....................................... BLOCK NO. ................. .................. zNAME .................................................... :..................................................................................................... OF ADDITION ..:.....................................................•---.....-•--•-••-•-•-----...................................... 0 A x L oys o_ 131l0 12rN me _ IVA p 2S C/O Q (0 I — pSRAs3 SPi.:�GE, O IfcO P.s.1. C'.E, BRASS SPUCA /"c,oPAErt 22 Approved• Paa'rw- �=MA PWW-0001.11/75 (REV.11178) DATE .�l.i11�,.. ,, 995�........ By..� C ✓ ................................................ 0 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION 1316 -12`h AVENUE NORTH GARAGE ADDITION EDMONDS, WASHINGTON PREPARED FOR MR. JIM CUTTS NELSON,GEOTECHNICAL t N G A ASSOCIATES9 INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS ' Main Office Engineering -Geology Branch 17311 —135'" Avenue NE, A-500 437 East Penny Road Woodinville, WA 98072 Wenatchee, WA 98801 (425) 486-1669 FAX (425) 481-2510 (509) 665-7696 FAX (509) 665-7692 (425) 337-1669 Snohomish County I March 14, 2008 ' Mr. Jim Cutts 1316 — 12`h Ave North ' Edmonds, Washington 98020 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 1316 12`h Avenue North — Garage Addition ' Edmonds, Washington NGA File No. 782008 Dear Mr. Cutts: We are pleased to submit this report titled "Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation — 1316 121h Avenue ' North — Garage Addition — Edmonds, Washington." This report documents our surface and subsurface explorations within the site, and provides general recommendations for site development. Our services were completed in general accordance with the contract signed by Robin Kearsley on February 21, 2008. ' The property is located off the east side of 121h Avenue North at the end of a long paved driveway. The site includes moderate to steeply sloping ground down to an existing creek. This report addresses the proposed single stall garage addition on the north side of the existing residence. The new garage will be constructed along the top of a steep section of the slope. Stormwater is planned to be directed into an existing system. ' We monitored one geotechnical boring in the area of the proposed new garage addition, near the top of the steep slope. Our explorations encountered approximately ten feet of loose fill with debris, underlain by competent native soil at depth. ' We have concluded that the planned garage addition on this site should be feasible, from a geotechnical standpoint. We recommend that the garage foundations be supported on 2-inch diameter pin piles driven ' to refusal into the underlying native soil. The slab -on -grade could also be supported on pin piles, if future slab settlement and/or cracking could not be tolerated. If some settlement and cracking of the slab is acceptable, the slab could be floated on the existing fill. Geotechnical Engineering Suation 1316 121h Avenue North — Garage Addition March 14, 2008 NGA File No. 782008 Summary - Page 2 We appreciate the opportunity to provide service to you on this project. Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this report or require further information. Sincerely, NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Khaled M. Shawish, PE Principal Three Copies Submitted NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................... 1 SCOPE......................................................................................................................................................... 1 SITECONDITIONS.................................................................................................................................. 2 SURFACECONDITIONS.............................................................................................................................. 2 SUBSURFACECONDITIONS........................................................................................................................ 2 HYDROLOGICCONDITIONS....................................................................................................................... 3 SENSITIVE AREA EVALUATION........................................................................................................ 4 SEISMICHAZARD...................................................................................................................................... 4 EROSIONHAZARD..................................................................................................................................... 4 LANDSLIDE HAZARD/SLOPE STABILITY................................................................................................... 4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................... 5 GENERAL................................................................................................................................................... 5 EROSION CONTROL AND SLOPE PROTECTION........................................................................................... 6 TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT SLOPES.................................................................................................... 7 SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING........................................................................................................... 8 STRUCTURALFILL.................................................................................................................................... 8 FOUNDATIONS........................................................................................................................................... 9 SLABS-ON-GRADE.................................................................................................................................... 10 SITEDRAINAGE....................................................................................................................................... 11 USEOF THIS RERORT......................................................................................................................... 12 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 —Vicinity Map Figure 2 — Site Plan Figure 3 — Cross Section AW Figure 4 — Soil Classification Chart Figure 5 — Soil Boring Log NELSON GEOTECHN/CAL ASSOCIATES, INC. ' Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 1316 12th Avenue North — Garage Addition ' Edmonds, Washington I INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering evaluation of the proposed Cutts garage ' addition located at 1316 — 12t' Avenue North in Edmonds, Washington, as shown on the Vicinity Map in Figure 1. The purpose of this study is to explore and characterize the surface and subsurface conditions ' within the site, to provide an assessment of the site's geologic hazards, and to provide geotechnical engineering opinions and recommendations for the project. ' The residence, attached garage, and driveway are situated on a bench on a moderate to steep north facing ' slope. We understand that the existing residence is supported on piers extending through loose fill to competent native soil. This report addresses the proposed single stall garage addition on the north side of ' the existing residence. The new garage will be constructed along the top of a steep section of the slope. We understand that stormwater will be directed into an existing system. For our use in preparing. this report, we have been provided with an untitled, undated site plan sketch showing site topography, the ' existing residence and the proposed garage location. I. SCOPE The purpose of this study is to explore and characterize the site surface and subsurface conditions, to ' provide an assessment of the site's geologic hazards, and to provide our geotechnical opinions and recommendations for the project. Specifically, our scope of services includes the following: ' 1. Review soil and geologic maps of the area. 2. Explore the site subsurface soil and groundwater conditions with one geotechnical boring ' up to about 20 feet deep using a limited access drill rig. The drill rig was subcontracted by NGA. 3. Perform laboratory classification and analyses on selected soils samples obtained in the ' explorations, as necessary. 4. Provide recommendations for earthwork, including site preparation and grading. ' 5. Provide recommendations for slabs -on -grade and foundation support including pin piles, if necessary. 6. Provide recommendations for site drainage and erosion control. ' 7. Document the results of our explorations, findings, conclusions, and recommendations in a written geotechnical engineering report. NELSON GEOTECHN/CAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Etation 1316 121h Avenue North— Garage Addition Edmonds, Washington ' NGA File No. 782008 March 14, 2008 Page 2 SITE CONDITIONS ' Surface Conditions The property slopes gently to steeply down to the north. The residence is accessed via a driveway from 121h Avenue North. The building pad for the residence was constructed on moderately to steep sloping ' ground. On the north side of the residence there is a relatively level fill pad approximately 20 feet wide, and north of the level pad the site slopes steeply down towards an existing creek. We measured the slope ' inclination below the planned garage addition to be approximately 34 degrees (68 percent). The site is bordered to the north by Puget Drive (State Route 524), and to the east, south and west by residential iproperties. The site layout is shown on the Site Plan in Figure 2. ' The steep slope below the planned addition is sparsely vegetated, and is covered with leaves and concrete debris. The remainder of the slope is vegetated with mature evergreen and deciduous trees and salmonberry bushes. We did not observe significant signs of surficial movement or erosion on the slope. We did not encounter groundwater seepage emitting from the face of the slope during our February 22, ' 2008 site visit. The existing site conditions, site topography, and interpreted subsurface conditions, are presented as Cross Section A -A' in Figure 3. ' Subsurface Conditions Geology: The Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and Part of the Edmonds West Quadrangles, Washington by James P. Minard (USGS, 1983) was reviewed for this site. The site is mapped as advance outwash (Qva). The advance outwash deposits are described as mostly clean gray pebbly sand. The native materials encountered in our explorations at depth generally consisted of medium dense to dense fine to coarse sand with silt and trace gravel, which is generally consistent with the description of advance outwash. IExplorations: We visited the site on February 22, 2008 to explore the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions by drilling one exploratory boring using a limited access drill rig. The exploration was located near the top of the steep slope, in the vicinity of the proposed garage addition. The approximate location of our I exploration is indicated on the Site Plan in Figure 2. NELSON GEOTECHN/CAL ASSOCIATES, INC. ' Geotechnical Engineering Auation 1316 121' Avenue North — Garage Addition ' Edmonds, Washington NGA File No. 782008 March 14, 2008 Page 3 A geologist from Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc. (NGA) was present during the exploration, examined the soils and geologic conditions encountered, obtained samples of the different soil types, and maintained a log of the soil boring. A Standard Penetration Test (SPT) was performed on each of the samples during drilling to document soil density at depth. The SPT consists of driving a 2-inch outer - diameter, split -spoon sampler 18 inches using a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches is referred to as the "N" value and is presented on ' the boring logs. The N value is used to evaluate the strength and density of the deposit. ' The soils were visually classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System, presented in Figure 4. The log of our exploration is presented as Figure 5. The following paragraphs contain a brief description of the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploration. For a detailed description of the subsurface conditions, the soil boring log should be reviewed. Drilling was obstructed by debris and the boring was relocated three times before the successful boring ' was completed. The obstructions were encountered at depths of two to five feet in the first three attempts. Boring 1 encountered a surficial layer of loose silty fine to medium sand with gravel and debris, which was interpreted as fill, to a depth of ten feet. Underlying the fill, Boring 1 encountered loose dark brown silty sand with abundant organics and roots, which was interpreted as buried topsoil. Underlying the organic soil, Boring 1 encountered medium dense to dense sand with silt and gravel, which was interpreted as native outwash soil to the depth explored at 23.5 feet. IHydrologic Conditions Groundwater seepage was encountered in Boring 1 below a depth of approximately ten feet. Heaving sand conditions were encountered below about 20 feet. Heaving sand is generally a saturated sand formation that is under sufficient hydrostatic pressure to force the sand from the walls of the hole into the ' void space as a boring is being advanced through the material. In our opinion the groundwater on this site is probably related to base flow through sandy soils in the surrounding slopes to the drainage swale and I creek. INELSON GEOTECHN/CAL ASSOCIATES, INC. J Geotechnical Engineering *Uation ' 1316 121h Avenue North — Addition Garage Edmonds, Washington ' NGA File No. 782008 March 14, 2008 Page 4 ' SENSITIVE AREA EVALUATION ' Seismic Hazard We reviewed the 2006 International Building Code (IBC) for seismic site classification for this project. Since medium dense or better soils were generally encountered underlying the site at depth, the site ' conditions best fit the IBC description for Site Class D. ' Hazards associated with seismic activity include liquefaction potential and amplification of ground motion by soft deposits. Liquefaction is caused by a rise in pore pressures in a loose, fine sand deposit ' beneath the groundwater table. It is our opinion that the medium dense to dense sandy soils interpreted to underlie the site have a low potential for liquefaction or amplification of ground motion. The medium dense or better, native sandy glacial soils interpreted to form the core of the lower site slope ' are considered stable with respect to deep-seated slope failures. However, the overlying loose fill materials on the steep slopes have the potential for sloughing failures during seismic events as well as ' during periods of heavy rainfall and/or snowmelt. ' Erosion Hazard The criteria used for determination of erosion hazard include soil type, slope gradient, vegetation cover, and groundwater conditions. The erosion sensitivity is related to vegetative cover and the specific surface soil types, which are related to the underlying geologic soil units. The Soil Survey of Snohomish County Area, Washington, by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) was reviewed to determine the erosion hazard ' of the on -site soils. The site surface soils were classified using the SCS classification system as Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes, Alderwood-Everett gravelly sandy loam, 25 to ' 70 percent slopes. These units are listed as having a moderate erosion hazard. We anticipate that the surficial soils on the steeper portions of the slope would have moderate to high erosion potential if ' stripped of vegetation. Areas where vegetation is not disturbed should have a low to moderate hazard for erosion. ' Landslide Hazard/Slope Stability The criteria used for the evaluation of landslide hazards include soil type, slope gradient, and groundwater ' conditions. The slope below the planned garage addition had an inclination of approximately 34 degrees (68 percent). The vertical relief of the steepest portion of the slope below the existing residence is about ' NELSON GEOTECHN/CAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering *Uation 1316 12`h Avenue North — Garage Addition Edmonds, Washington ' NGA File No. 782008 March 14, 2008 Page 5 1 10 feet, with a total vertical relief across the site of about 70 feet. We did not observe evidence of ' significant slope instability during our investigation, such as deep-seated landsliding on this site. We also did not observe groundwater seepage or signs of sloughing on the slope at the time of our visit. The core of the slope is inferred to consist of competent native glacial soils. However, our exploration encountered a surficial layer of loose fill with debris in the area of the planned addition. Relatively ' shallow failures as well as surficial erosion are natural processes and should be expected on the slope, especially within the loose surficial fill. These processes could be limited through the maintenance of a ' vegetative cover and appropriate drainage systems. It is our opinion that while there is potential for erosion, soil creep, and shallow failures within the loose surficial soils on the steep slope; there is not a ' significant potential for deep-seated slope failure under current site conditions. Proper site grading and drainage as well as deep foundations as recommended in this report should help maintain current stability ' conditions. ' Conclusions and Recommendations General ' It is our opinion, from a geotechnical standpoint, that the site is compatible with the planned garage addition, provided that the recommendations in this report are incorporated into project plans. Our soil explorations within the site indicated that the site is underlain by a surficial layer of loose undocumented fill and debris to a depth of about ten feet. The loose fill is underlain by competent native ' soils at depth. We recommend a deep foundation system be used for support of the planned garage addition. Two-inch pin piles driven to refusal into the underlying competent native soils should provide ' adequate support for the planned garage addition. Detailed recommendations for foundation support and pin pile design can be found in the Foundations and Pin Piles subsections within this report, ' respectively. ' The slab -on -grade could also be supported on pin piles, if future slab settlement and/or cracking could not be tolerated. If some settlement, cracking, and maintenance are acceptable, the slab could be floated on ' the undocumented fill. More detailed recommendations are provided in the Slabs -On -Grade subsection of this report. ' NELSON GEOTECHN/CAL ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 ' Geotechnical Engineering* uation 1316 121h Avenue North — Garage Addition t Edmonds, Washington NGA File No. 782008 March 14, 2008 Page 6 The surficial soils encountered on this site are considered moisture -sensitive and will disturb easily when ' wet. To lessen the potential impacts of construction and to reduce cost overruns and delays, we recommend that construction take place during the drier summer months if possible. If construction takes place during the rainy months, additional expenses and delays should be expected. Additional expenses ' could include additional erosion control and temporary drainage measures, placement of a blanket of rock spalls in construction access areas, and the use of all-weather material for fills. 1 The site slopes should be protected from erosion. Stormwater runoff should be collected into permanent ' catch basins or yard drains and.routed away from the site slopes. Stormwater should either be directed into an existing storm drain or routed down to the bottom of the slope via tightline pipes. Specific ' recommendations for erosion control are presented in the Erosion Control subsection of this report. Under no circumstances, should water be allowed to flow over or concentrate on the site slopes, both ' during construction and after construction has been completed. The area above the slope should be graded such that water is routed away from the slope. Erosion Control and Slope Protection The on -site soils can have a moderate to severe potential for erosion, depending on how the site is graded and how water is allowed to concentrate. Best Management Practices (BMPs) should be used to control ' erosion. Areas disturbed during construction should be protected from erosion. Erosion control measures may include diverting surface water away from the stripped areas. Silt fences or straw bales should be erected to prevent muddy water from flowing over the site slopes. Disturbed areas should be replanted ' with vegetation at the end of construction. The vegetation should be maintained until it is established. Final grading should incorporate appropriate erosion control measures to route stormwater runoff away ' from the top of slope and to appropriate discharge locations. ' Runoff generated within the site, including roof downspouts, yard areas, and hard surfaces should be collected into catch basins and yard drains and tightlined into an approved stormwater management ' system. Under no circumstances should runoff be allowed to flow over the slope either during construction or after construction has been completed. INELSON GEOTECHN/CAL ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 ' Geotechnical Engineering Aluation 1316 121h Avenue North — Garage Addition Edmonds, Washington NGA File No. 782008 March 14, 2008 Page 7 Vegetation on the slopes should be maintained and not be disturbed. We recommend that additional ground cover -type vegetation be incorporated into project plans along the slope in the areas outside the ' residence. Landscaping improvements on the slope, as well as future.tree thinning or removal should be subject to a specific plan approved by the City of Edmonds. Yard waste, grass clippings, or any waste material should not be cast over the slope or piled above the slope. Stockpiled materials should not be placed on or near the slope. Temporary and Permanent Slopes ' In general, cut -slope stability is a function of many factors, including the type and consistency of.soils, depth of the cut, surcharge loads adjacent to the excavation, length of time a cut remains open, and the presence of surface or groundwater. It is exceedingly difficult under these variable conditions to estimate a stable, temporary, cut slope angle. Therefore, it should be the responsibility of the contractor to maintain safe slope configurations since he is continuously at the job site, able to observe the nature and condition of the cut slopes, and able to monitor the subsurface materials and groundwater conditions ' encountered. The following information is provided solely for the benefit of the owner and other design consultants and should not be construed to imply that Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc. assumes responsibility for job ' site safety. Job site safety is the sole responsibility of the project contractor. For planning purposes, we recommend that temporary cuts in the on -site material, including the existing ' fill and loose/soft native soil, be no steeper than 2.0 Horizontal to 1 Vertical (2.OH:1 V). If groundwater or loose soils are encountered, we would expect that flatter inclinations would be necessary. We ' recommend that cut slopes be protected from erosion. Erosion control measures may include covering cut slopes with plastic sheeting and diverting surface runoff away from the top of cut slopes. We do not ' recommend vertical slopes for cuts deeper than four feet, if worker access is necessary. We recommend that cut slope heights and 'inclinations conform to appropriate OSHA/WISHA regulations. ' We recommend that the final sloe inclinations for structural fill and the native soils be no steeper than P P ' 2H:1V. However, flatter inclinations may be necessary if silt is exposed in permanent cut slopes. Final ' NELSON GEOTECHN/CAL ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 Geotechnical Engineering Ruation • 1316 121h Avenue North — Garage Addition Edmonds, Washington NGA File No. 782008 March 14, 2008 Page 8 slopes should be vegetated and covered with straw or jute netting. The vegetation should be maintained until it is established. Site Preparation and Grading Once erosion control measures are in place, site preparation should consist of stripping any topsoil to expose granular material in foundation, slab -on -grade, and pavement areas. The stripped material should be hauled off site or stockpiled away from site slopes. Undocumented fill underlies the project area and significant excavation of loose materials and debris may not be practical due to limited construction access and slope conditions. Accordingly, most of the fill will probably remain in place. If the planned garage slab will be supported on pin piles, then minimal subgrade preparation should be necessary. However, if the slab will be floated on the fill material, we recommend over -excavating a minimum of 18 inches of fill and replacing it with clean rock spalls to reduce the potential for cracking and settlement. Alternatively, the undocumented fill could be compacted and left in place in the slab or pavement subgrade if more risk of settlement and cracking is acceptable. If significant surface water flow is encountered during construction, this flow should be diverted around areas to be developed and the exposed subgrade maintained in a semi -dry condition. Surface water should also be diverted away from Ithe steep slope. As mentioned earlier, the site soils are considered moisture -sensitive and will disturb when wet. We therefore recommend that construction take place in the summer during periods of extended dry weather, and suspended during periods of rainfall. If work is to take place in the wetter part of the year, care should be taken during site preparation not to disturb the native soils. This can be accomplished by utilizing large excavators equipped with smooth buckets and wide tracks to complete earthwork, and diverting surface and groundwater flow away from the prepared subgrades. Also, construction traffic should not be allowed on the exposed subgrade. A blanket of rock spalls should be used in construction access areas. The thickness of this rock spall layer should be based on subgrade performance at the time of construction. For planning purposes, we recommend a minimum one -foot thick layer of rock spalls. Structural Fill General: Fill placed beneath foundations, slabs, pavement, or other settlement -sensitive structures should be placed as structural fill. Structural fill, by definition, is placed in accordance with prescribed NELSON GEOTECHN/CAL ASSOCIATES, INC. tGeotechnical Engineering Ruation 1316 12`h Avenue North — Garage Addition Edmonds, Washington NGA File No. 782008 March 14, 2008 Page 9 ' methods and standards and is monitored b an experienced eotechnical professional or soils technician. Y P g ' Field monitoring procedures would include the performance of a representative number of in -place density tests to document the attainment of the desired degree of relative compaction. The area to receive ' the fill should be suitably prepared as described in the Site Preparation and Grading subsection of this report, prior to beginning fill placement. tMaterials: Structural fill should consist of a good quality, granular soil, free of organics and other deleterious material and be well graded to a maximum size of about three inches. All-weather fill should contain no more than five -percent fines (soil finer than U.S. No. 200 sieve, based on that fraction passing the U.S. 3/4-inch sieve). The use of on -site soils as structural fill may be feasible, but will be dependent on the moisture content of the material at the time of construction. Most of the on -site soils will be very difficult to compact to structural fill specifications in wet conditions. We should be retained to evaluate 1 proposed structural fill materials prior to construction. Fill Placement: Following subgrade preparation, placement of structural fill may proceed. All ' backfilling should be accomplished in uniform lifts up to eight inches thick. Each lift should be spread evenly and be thoroughly compacted prior to placement of subsequent lifts. All structural fill should be ' compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of its maximum dry density. Maximum dry density, in this report, refers to that density as determined by the ASTM D-1557 Compaction Test procedure. The moisture content of the soils to be compacted should be within about two percent of optimum so that a readily compactable condition exists. It may be necessary to over -excavate and remove wet soils in cases where ' drying to a compactable condition is not feasible. All compaction should be accomplished by equipment of a type and size sufficient to attain the desired degree of compaction. Foundations Pin Piles: Due to the loose undocumented fill materials and the steep slope in the planned garage addition area, we recommend that the planned addition be supported on two-inch diameter pin piles extending to competent native soils below the fill. Our explorations encountered debris in the fill and there is a possibility that the debris may obstruct some piles. There should be contingencies in the budget and design for additional/relocated piles to replace piles that may be obstructed by debris in the fill. We also recommend that excavation equipment be available on site during pile installation in case shallow obstructions could be removed from the planned pile locations. NELSON GEOTECHN/CAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Etuation 1316 12`h Avenue North — Garage Addition ' Edmonds, Washington NGA File No. 782008 March 14, 2008 Page 10 For two-inch pipe piles driven to refusal using a hand-held, 90-pound jackhammer, we recommend a ' design axial compression capacity of two tons for each pile. The refusal criterion for this pile and hammer size is defined as less than one inch of movement during 60 seconds of continuous driving. We recommend using extra strong (Schedule 80) steel pipe for the two-inch diameter pipe piles. We should ' be retained to review final plans, monitor pile installation, and evaluate pile refusal. ' Final pile depths should be expected to vary somewhat and will depend on the depth of the loose material, water table, and the nature of the underlying competent soils. Based on our understanding of site soil ' conditions, we estimate that the pin piles may advance between 20 and 30 feet below existing ground surface before the recommended refusal criterion is met. The pin piles should penetrate a minimum of 10 ' feet into the native competent soil in order to develop the design capacity. Piles that do not meet this minimum embedment criterion should be rejected, and replacement piles should be driven after consulting with the structural engineer on new pile locations. Obstructed piles should be relocated or ' additional piles driven after consultin&with your structural engineer. ' Due to the relatively small slenderness ratio of pin piles, maintaining pin pile confinement and lateral support is essential to preventing pile buckling. Pin piles should not stick above finished ground surface ' and should be suitably embedded in the footings. ' Vertically driven pin piles do not provide meaningful lateral capacity. However, battered piles can provide a lateral resistance component. The structural engineer should determine the degree of batter, and ' the number and locations of battered piles. We recommend that the battered piles be embedded a minimum of six inches into the foundation concrete and that sufficient steel reinforcement be placed ' around the piles to ensure a good connection to the foundation. Due to the rigid pile support, friction between the foundation and subgrade soil should not be considered as resisting lateral pressures on this ' structure. ' Slabs -on -Grade The planned concrete garage slab should be supported on pin piles if cracking and settlement cannot be ' tolerated for this project. For slabs founded on pin piles, minimal subgrade preparation should be necessary. However, if the slab is not supported on piles, we recommend that at least 18 inches of the loose fill material be removed and replaced with 2 to 4-inch rock spalls to reduce the potential for ' NELSON GEOTECHN/CAL ASSOCIA TES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Eouation 1316 121h Avenue North — Garage Addition ' Edmonds, Washington NGA File No. 782008 March 14, 2008 Page 11 cracking and settlement. Alternatively, the undocumented fill could be compacted and left in place in the ' slab subgrade if more risk of settlement and cracking is acceptable. We recommend that all floor slabs be underlain by at least six inches of free -draining sand or gravel for ' use as a capillary break. We recommend that the capillary break be hydraulically connected to the footing drain system to allow free drainage from under the slab. A suitable vapor barrier, such as heavy plastic ' sheeting (6-mil minimum), should be placed over the capillary break material. An additional 2-inch-thick layer of moist sand may be used to cover the vapor barrier. This moist sand layer may be used to protect ' the vapor barrier membrane and to aid in curing the concrete. ' Site Drainage Surface Drainage ' Water should not be allowed to collect in any areas where footings, slabs or pavements are to be constructed. Final site grades should allow for drainage away from the structures and away from the site ' slopes. All surface water should be collected by permanent catch basins and drain lines and be discharged to an approved stormwater management system. The collected water should be either directed into a ' permanent storm drain in the street or routed to the bottom of the slope via tightline pipes. Surface drains should be maintained separately and not be interconnected with foundation or wall drains. rSubsurface Drainage If groundwater seepage is encountered or if excessive rainfall occurs during construction, we recommend ' that the contractor slope the bottom of the excavations and direct the water to ditches and small sump pits. The collected water can then be pumped to a suitable discharge point away from the slope. 1 We recommend using footing drains around the planned garage addition. Footing drains should be installed at least one foot below planned finished floor elevation. The drains should consist of a minimum 4-inch-diameter, rigid, slotted or perforated, PVC pipe surrounded by free -draining material ' wrapped in a filter fabric. The top foot of soil should consist of low permeability soil placed over plastic sheeting or building paper to minimize surface water or fines migration into the footing drain. Footing ' drains should discharge into tightlines leading to an appropriate collection and discharge point with NELSON GEOTECHN/CAC ASSOCIATES, INC. ' Geotechnical Engineering Etuation • 1316 12`h Avenue North — Garage Addition ' Edmonds, Washington NGA File No. 782008 March 14, 2008 Page 12 convenient cleanouts to prolong the useful life of the drains. Roof drains should not be connected to wall ' or footing drains. USE OF THIS RERORT ' This Report has been prepared for Mr. Jim Cutts and his agents for use in the planning and design of the planned garage addition on this site only. The scope of our work does not include services related to ' construction safety precautions and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractors' methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, except as specifically described in our letter. There are ' possible variations in subsurface conditions between the explorations and also with time. Our report, conclusions, and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of subsurface conditions. A ' contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in the budget and schedule. ' We recommend that NGA be retained to provide monitoring and consultation services during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the ' explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether* not retaining wall and foundation support ' installation complies with our recommendations. We should be contacted a minimum of one week prior to construction activities. ' All people who own or occupy homes on or near hillsides should realize that landslide movements are always a possibility. The landowner should periodically inspect the slope, especially after a winter storm. ' If distress is evident, a geotechnical engineer should 'be contacted for advice on remedial/preventative measures. The probability that landsliding will occur is substantially reduced by the proper maintenance ' of drainage control measures at the site (the runoff from the roofs should be led to an approved discharge point), along with the recommendations for a shoring wall presented in this report. Therefore, the homeowner should take responsibility for performing such maintenance. Consequently, we recommend that a copy of our report be provided to any future homeowners of the property if the home is sold. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been performed in accordance ' with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in effect in this area at the time this report was NELSON GEOTECHN/CAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Eluation • 1316 121h Avenue North — Garage Addition Edmonds, Washington NGA File No. 782008 March 14, 2008 Page 13 prepared. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Our observations, findings, and opinions are a means to identify and reduce the inherent risks to the owner. cos NELSON GEOTECHN/CAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Eaaluation 1316 121h Avenue North — Garage Addition Edmonds, Washington NGA File No. 782008 March 14, 2008 Page 14 We appreciate the opportunity to provide service to you on this project. If you have any questions or require further information, please call. Sincerely, NELSON GEOTECHN/CAL ASSOCIATES, INC. aw�'� PA)O\-W Anna Jordan Staff Geologist Michael D. Rundquist, PE Senior Engineer AJJ:MDR:pkw Five Figures Attached CC: Mr. Robin Kearsley with Kearsley Homes — Four Copies NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. low VICINITY MAP N Not to Scale 1-1 `(U1ap bit , ,2©a9 t!��A�iT $ c�F Tgl' Atlas,r Edmonds, WA Project Number NELSON GEOTECHNICAL No. Date Revision By I CK 782008 Cutts Garage Addition NGA ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 2/26/08 Original SSW MDR Vicinity Map GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS Figure 1 17311-135th Ave. NE, A-500 Snohomish County (425) 337-1669 0 Woodinville, WA 98072 Wenatchee/Chelan (509) 665-7696 Q (425) 486-1669 / Fax 481-2510 viww,nelsongeotech.com (� 7 s Quo Steep el Approximate top Downslope of slope Steep � B_1 Downslope I Q Proposed • Addition Existing House LEGEND Property line B-1 Number and approximate location of boring A AI Approximate location 0 40 80 L� of cross-section Scale: 1 inch = 40 feet Reference: Site Plan based on a undated plan, titled "Cutts Project," prepared by Robin Kearsley. Io N Project Number NELSON GEOTECHNICAL No. Date Revision By CK Cutts Garage Addition NGA ASSOCIATES, INC. N 782�08 g 1 3/3/08 Original JRW MDR o Site Plan GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS Figure 2 17311-1351h Av NE, A4W Snohomish County(425) 337-1669 WooAimdlb, WA 96072 Wens -/Chef—(5W)665.7696 < (425) 488-1669 / F. 461-251. — n=n.-.. com (� 7 M 0 A A' �! v m' oo 0 rQ c O 00 Cr South m 40 Approximate Location of n Proposed Garage o U Addition y G) o co 30 B-1 = rn D a) , M D a °� 5 D o .. 0 33 34° Undocumented Fil 20 w _�_ with Debris ti m Z co _> Q Medium Dense, gym= Z y Q 24 Brown sand with silt (Native Soil) N o Z 10 m m r 2 a to O 3a m p Z z n� N -1 O ) 4 M N m Ur o n 0 �x 4..- zZ 3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 n > a r Distance (feet) North 40 30 ce 10 n Z Exploration 0 v Boring Designation B-1 z3 o 23 <-- SPT N-value CD Groundwater Level 23 iu fA During Exploration 23 NOTES: c 23 1) Stratigraphic conditions are interpolated between Geologic Contact => ? — —? the explorations. Actual conditions may vary. (approximate) 2) Elevations are approximate. 3 � n 1 X Reference: Cross Section is based on field measurements using a hand-held clinometer and 100-ft tape measure. 1 2008v82008 Cutts\CS.dwg .1 1 1 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM GROUP MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP NAME SYMBOL CLEAN GW WELL -GRADED, FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL COARSE- GRAVEL GRAVEL GP POORLY -GRADED GRAVEL GRAINED MORE THAN 50 % GRAVEL GM SILTY GRAVEL OF COARSE FRACTION RETAINED ON SOILS NO.4 SIEVE WITH FINES GC CLAYEY GRAVEL SAND CLEAN SW WELL -GRADED SAND, FINE TO COARSE SAND SAND SP POORLY GRADED SAND MORE THAN 50 % RETAINED ON MORE THAN 50 % NO. 200 SIEVE OF COARSE FRACTION SAND SM SILTY SAND PASSES NO. 4 SIEVE SC WITH FINES CLAYEY SAND FINE - SILT AND CLAY ML SILT INORGANIC GRAINED LIQUID LIMIT CL CLAY LESS THAN 50 % SOILS ORGANIC OL ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CLAY SILT AND CLAY MH SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, ELASTIC SILT INORGANIC MORE THAN 50 % PASSES LIQUID LIMIT CH CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FLAT CLAY NO. 200 SIEVE 50 % OR MORE ORGANIC OH ORGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC SILT HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT NOTES: 1) Field classification is based on visual SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS: examination of soil in general accordance with ASTM D 2488-93. Dry - Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch 2) Soil classification using laboratory tests is based on ASTM D 2488-93. Moist - Damp, but no visible water. 3) Descriptions of soil density or Wet - Visible free water or saturated, consistency are based on usually soil is obtained from interpretation of blowcount data, below water table visual appearance of soils, and/or test data. Project Number ELSON GEOTECHNICAL No. Date Revision By CK 782008 Cutts Garage Addition Soil Classification Chart ASSOCIATES INC. �NGA GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS 1 3/3/08 Original JRW MDR A Figure 4 17311-135M Av NE, AfAO Snohomish County 337-1669 Woodimdle, WA 98072 Wanatrlhs./Ch.1.n (509) 78&Z756 (425) 486-1669 / Far 481-2510 '= nslsonpsotsoh.wm BORING LOG - B-1 Ipproximate Ground Surface Elevation: 130 Ft Soil Profile Sample Data Penetration Resistance (Blows/foot - 0) y Piezometer 10 20 30 40 50 50+ Installation - Description t a o 3 a o - L- .2 m Ground Water Data Moisture Content a o f m O `E° o a (Percent - ■) o (Depth in Feet) C9 U J o 10 20 30 40 50 50+ m J rown to gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel and 7 debris (loose, moist) (FILL) SM SM 5 T. SM 33 ' S 5 — SM 1fi i — — — — — — — — — — — Dark brown, silty fine sand with abundant organics and �.. `_ . — 10 ........ ....... _ 10 trace roots (loose, moist to wet) SM 10 rown to gray fine to medium sand with silt (medium ense, moist) SM15 ...................... 15 -NO RECOVERY 24 Brown to gray fine to coarse sand with silt and trace gravel (dense, wet) T — 20 ..... 20 Heaving sand at 20 feet SM 34 Boring terminated below existing grade at 23.5 feet on 2/22/08. Groundwater seepage was encountered below 10.0 feet during drilling. 25 25 LEGEND ❑ Solid PVC Pipe ❑ Concrete M Moisture Content 0 Slotted PVC Pipe ;7] Bentonite A Atterberg Limits Depth Driven and Amount Recovered G Grain -size Analysis with 2-inch O.D. Split -Spoon Sampler o Monument/ Cap � Native Soil DS Direct Shear to Piezometer PP Pocket Penetrometer Readings, tons/ft Depth Driven and Amount Recovered * Liquid Limit ❑ Silica Sand p Sample Pushed with 3-inch Shelby Tube Sampler + Plastic Limit 1 Water Level T Triaxial NOTE: Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgement. 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. Project Number NELSON GEOTECHNICAL No. Date Revision By CK 782008 Cutts Garage Addition ty�p ASSOCIATES, INC. Boring Log GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS 17311-135th Aw NE, A5W Snohomish County (425) 337-1669 Woodimille, WA 98072 Wenetche./CWh (509)78a2756 (425)486.16691Fe.481-2510 www n.lso p.0 e4.com 1 3/3108 Original JRW MDR Figure 5 Page 1 of 1 T 9 La, �� off- � • ro PLANNING DATA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STREET FILE Name: J 1 IM C LAJ+�p — GLd A (fI*6Y) Date: 0:;-• 11 . y0 Og Site Address: ( 9,5 ((p 12- H A VO NOI' rl-- Plan Check #: BLD - ?i0 D g• 00 5 ?> Project Description: GLA4 12! X 2-9' T D e X. a fret e-„ (y+ n g I e story) m no r 'd.¢. e.. Reduced Site Plan Provided: ES NO) Zoning: —• j I -- Map Page: 1/ cj Tcorner Lot: (YES / NO Flag Lot: (YES / NO Critical Areas Determination #: Gg-A•. 199Z.. 0 21�- 7 7T55'I ,Da Ord ` Study Required f�$'$•5 ❑ Waiver G)tw 47WQG t N GPE CgMOMA Iwc-h a,nd SEPA Determination: z Q Exempt NJA ❑ Needed(MVA DOS 6 G ay GUI + 5 d 5 ff11 ro pose f 1,E76tAe4 Wi9910) Re wired Setbac s St t: 2 Si ' 0 Si\dNe ' 0 -11 ear y s. Actual Selbacks Street: Side: 19 Side: +T Rear: ' yO 1 Betached-Structurft • Reekertes • ReWnnrg-Walls • Femms • Tfre#+ses • Arb6rS Bay Windows • Prejeeting atation • Suers • Covered Deck Covered Porch • Eaves Ghimney • use • Uncovered Unenclosed <30' Deck • Porch •Patio Parking Required: 'Y Parking Provided: L4 ; 9 a rag e,. Lot Area: Lot Coverage: 1 •�. Lot Coverage j0t1j9* YVt&UA -fWDr 2"Z 4 dL&14 Calculations: t 4r 9 a n 9 e- 37 T V d CGS > 1 Bui/din Hei ht Datum Point: (j Datum Elevation: 7jyC, . �•�. Maximum Height: ?,51 Actual Height: oew add ADU Created: (YES /O Subdivision: /0, -• 1 5 -- 1 — 19 gg Legal Nonconforming Land Use Determination Issued: (YES / NO) a lot iV1"A� Other . g••2vs (i: 23b D '• ZA D v�iru 92� aGbA6Lt Sri dg v FS 1 V t 0 V- pfX N 6-P C- l &N%V anti 1095rJ.J , Plan �- --- ,view By: 8'uuQPlaanR� ormoT1 �A I0 d CP( all+los, NELSON GIEOTECHNICAL III AsSOCiATES. 1`NC;. NGI A GEO?ECHNICAL ENGINEERS &. GEOLOGISTS Main Office: En9ineering-Geo1gV.j ranch 17311-'1.35'" Abenue.'NE, A-500 437.East:Penny Road Abodinville,.VVX98072 Wenatchee -WA 98801 (425j'48Cr1669,: FAX (425) 48.1=2510 (509) 665=7696 • FAX (509) 665-7692 (425) 333-1669`Snoh&nish County b1414 mom March 16, 2008 pm3e, - Oft ' ESIJ Mr. Jim Cutts UF$ py MAY 22 2008 1316 — 12`h Avenue North B W& EDMONDSE T Edmonds, Washington 98020 Supplemental Letter for Four -Inch Diameter Pin Piles 1316 12`h Avenue North — Garage Addition Edmonds, Washington - NGA File No. 782008 Dear Mr. Cutts: This letter presents our supplemental opinions and recommendations for foundations for the planned garage addition at 1316 — 121h Avenue North in Edmonds, Washington. We prepared a geotechnical engineering report for this project dated March 14, 2008. That report noted undocumented fill materials and debris underlying the planned garage addition and provided recommendations for two-inch diameter pin pile support for the structure. In subsequent discussions with your general contractor and structural engineer, a four -inch diameter pin pile supported foundation has been proposed to reduce number of piles and thus reduce the potential for encountering obstructions on the debris in the undocumented fill. We recommend that the four -inch diameter pin piles be driven to refusal using a dynamic hammer with a minimum energy rating of 1,100 ft-lb. per blow. The refusal criteria is defined as less than one -inch of pile advancement during 15 seconds of continuous driving at a rate of 550 blows per minute or higher with this hammer. For this pile and hammer size, we recommend a design capacity of eight tons for each pile driven to refusal. We should be retained to review final plans, monitor pile installation, and evaluate pile refusal. The above design capacity is based on theoretical numerical pile driving analysis. If higher pile capacities or alternative pile installation methods are proposed, we recommend that a minimum of two pile load tests be performed to verify the design values. We recommend that the piles be loaded to at least 200 percent of the design capacity, and that we be retained s i a factor of M iu v'a'w safety of 2.0 could be used to reduce the ultimate capacity achi ved rom e . + est< ,�_at'"A.Idesign MAY 2 8 2008 EECE Supplemental Letter for Four -Inch Diameter Pin Piles • 1316 12`h Avenue North — Garage Addition Edmonds, Washington NGA File No. 782008 May 16, 2008 Page 2 capacity. Actual pile load test procedure could be discussed with the contractor at the time of testing. We do not recommend using a design capacity of more than 10 tons for 4-inch pin piles, regardless of the outcome of the pile load test. Final pile depths should be expected to vary somewhat and will depend on the depth of the loose material, water table, and the nature of the underlying competent soils. Based on our understanding of site soil conditions, we estimate that the pin piles may be advanced to between 20 and 30 feet below existing ground surface before the recommended refusal criterion is met. The pin piles should penetrate a minimum of 10 feet into the native competent soil in order to develop the design capacity. Piles that do not meet this minimum embedment criterion should be rejected, and replacement piles should be driven .after consulting with the structural engineer on new pile locations. Obstructed piles should. be relocated or additional piles driven after consulting with your structural engineer. Due to the relatively small slenderness ratio of pin piles, maintaining pin pile confinement and lateral support is essential to preventing pile buckling. Pin piles should not stick above finished ground surface and should be suitably embedded in the footings. Vertically driven pin piles do not provide meaningful lateral capacity. However, battered piles can provide a lateral resistance component. The structural engineer should determine the degree of batter, and the number and locations of battered piles. We recommend that the battered piles be embedded a minimum of six inches into the foundation concrete and that sufficient steel reinforcement be placed around the piles to ensure a good connection to the foundation. Due to the rigid pile support, friction between the foundation and subgrade soil should not be considered as resisting lateral pressures on this structure. Our explorations encountered debris in the fill and there is a possibility that the debris may obstruct some piles. There should be contingencies in the budget and design for additional/relocated piles to replace piles that may be obstructed by debris in the fill. We also recommend that excavation equipment be available on site during pile installation in case shallow obstructions could be removed from the planned pile locations. NELSON GEOTECHN/CAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Supplemental Letter for Four -Inch Diameter Pm'Piles • 1316 121h Avenue North — Garage Addition Edmonds, Washington NGA File No. 782008 May 16, 2008 Page 3 Use of This Letter This letter has been prepared for Mr. Jim Cutts and his agents for use in the planning and design of the garage addition on this site only. The scope of our work does not include services related to construction safety precautions and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractors' methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. There are possible variations in subsurface conditions between the explorations and also with time. Our letter, previous report, conclusions, and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of subsurface conditions. A contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in the budget and schedule. . We- recommend that --NGA be retained to -provide monitoring and consultation services during - construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether or not earthwork activities comply with contract plans and specifications. We should be contacted a minimum of one week prior to construction activities and could attend pre -construction meetings if requested. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been performed in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in effect in this area at the time this letter was prepared. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Our observations, findings, and opinions are a means to identify and reduce the inherent risks to the owner. .•. NELSON GEO TECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Supplemental Letter for Four -Inch Diameter Pin Piles 1316 12`h Avenue North — Garage Addition Edmonds, Washington NGA File No. 782008 May 16, 2008 Page 4 We appreciate the opportunity to provide service to you on this project. If you have any questions or require further information, please call. Sincerely, NELSON GEOTECHN/CAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Michael D. Rundquist, PE Senior Engineer MDR:pkw cc: Mr. Robin Kearsley with Kearsley Homes — Four Copies NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Ihc.1890 0 10, CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: wwwdedmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering November 25"', 2008 James and Diane Cutts 1316 12thAvenue N Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: BLD2008-0053 Application for Addition Dear James and Diane Cutts; GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR On 11/19/08 the City received a letter from the applicant on this project, Mr. Robin Kearsley, withdrawing the application. If you wish to have your application materials and plans returned please immediately inform our offices. The application materials and plans will be destroyed 10 days from the date of this letter on 12/5/08. If you decided to pursue this permit application in the future you shall be required to submit a complete application under current codes and pay new plan review and permit fees. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sin c el ; a in Senior Permit Coordinator GoPy • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister City - Hekinan, Japan OCT-05-95 WED 19:25 KEARSLEY CONSTRUCTION 206 742 5888 P.01 October 5, 1995 Ann Bullis Planning Division Fax 771-4221 STREET FILE City of Edmonds 250 5th Ave. Edmonds, WA 98206 Re. 1312, 1314 & 1316 12th Ave. North Dear Ann Rullic, In regard& to your letter dated October 2, 199S, I (net %ith John Bissell today to disou&s the issues in your letter. We discovered the short plat was recorded with two site plans. It should have been recorded with the site plan from Columbia Land Survey and not Lovell Sauerland's Preliminary Short Subdivision Map. The survey by Columbia and all legate in the recorded short plat reflect actual "as built" as per site conditions. Also, Ste site plans for the above addresses (in the building permit applications) arc as per actual site conditions and as per recorded short plat %%ith the exception of the contours of the property which arc the original wntvun £rvm Lpmll Saucrland which we were requested to use. The RED lines that you draw came from the Lovell Saueriand's Preliminary Short Subdivision Map. I think this reap was only uDeattt to be used as the prelirnanary plan for preliminary approval. We also discussed the street vacation and I am waiting fbr infbrmatlon from John as to what you.w(ll tuned. Mike Rand sent some information the last time you requested it, ' Since the site Maas on file show the correct property dimensions, setbacks and height information, I truss( the permits for 1314 & 131612th Ave. North can still proceed so that we can start the foundations as soon as possible. I have taUd to Jim Eaton, the soils engineer about providing a letter to you in case the weather is questionable. Thank tau for your cooperation, y, l ' Robia K ley Kearsley Construction J 6631 Norma Beach Road • Edmonds, Washingtou 98026 • TelRax (206) 742-5888 Wa. State Contractors No. KEARSCDl18N8 r 890.1991 October 2, 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 Robin Kearsley Kearsley Construction & Development Co. 6631 Norma Beach Road Edmonds, WA 98026 RE: 1312, 1314, & 1316 12th Avenue North S-1-88 and ST-1-84 ;' Dear Mr. Kearsley: LAURA M. HALL MAYOR After discussing with you at the counter the additional easement required for access to Lot 2, 1 reviewed your application for building permit's on Lots 1 & 2. In researching past files it was found that the Street Vacation ST-1-84 was never completed. During application for a building permit on Lot 3, Michael Rand was contacted regarding the remaining information needed from him before the Street Vacation could be brought before City Council for final approval. We are still awaiting this information and would like to see this matter come to a close as I am sure you would as well. Please submirthe required 8-1/2"x 14" map of the proposed vacation/easement and change the contact agency in the conditions of the Native Growth Protection Easement on the face of the map. Once received, we will submit it to City Council for final approval. Also during application review it was found that the location of the access easement on the approved civil plans for subdivision improvements is not as legally described and approved under subdivision (S-1-88). A survey prepared by Columbia Land Survey & Engineering in 1993 places the actual location of the easement approximately 10 feet south of its approved location. The subdivision documents must be corrected to reflect the accurate location of the access easement. This requires that Subdivision. File S-1-88 be reopened and that it be reviewed with the correct legal descriptions and map location through a public hearing, and be re -recorded. Since the City Engineering Department approved the placement of the access easement at this location, the City will waive the subdivision application fee, however, you are responsible for providing the City with a revised map and legal descriptions for the access easement, lots and native growth protection easement. During our discussion at the counter regarding access to Lot 2 across Lot 1, it was determined that you would need to do a Lot Line Adjustment to correct this matter. Since the subdivision must be reopened and new map and legal descriptions submitted, the proposed easement to Lot 2 may be included as part of the revised documents. Once you have submitted the revised subdivision documents, John Bissell, Associate Planner, will be . processing the subdivision. Please direct your questions regarding the subdivision documents to Mr. Bissell. Currently there is an issued building permit for Lot 3 and building permit applications under review for Lots 1 and 2. The site plans on file for structures on all three lots must be revised showing the correct property dimensions, access easement location, setbacks, and height information. Review of the building • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan • 0 permit applications (#95-162, #95-163) will continue once all revised application corrections are submitted. Sincerely, ,,; 0d&- Ann Bullis Planning Division cc: John Bissell, Associate Planner Jeannine Graf, Building Official Rob Chave, Planning Manager Jim Walker, City Engineer Jeff Wilson, Current Planning Supervisor �OJECT REVIEW CHECKLIST, v PROJECT NAME: L-PLAN CHECK #: 9s i(a3 PROJECT ADDRESS: /Cn� , o?- RECEIPT DATE: REVIEW D BY: ( nitial/Da e) PLAN. WATER COMMENTS FIRE ' ;.BLDG.; SEWER. STREET ENG.:.. Setbacks/Variance/Setback Adjustment :..:>.:..:w Conditional Use Permit ..>2 ADB Requirements Other Zoning Requirements Underground Wiring Required ,. • r :.,.:.,; q �S 5 Lot Slope 15% g SEPA Environmental Checklist/Hydraulics Permit :: ;7; Tree Cutting Plan.:;.'.' ..`, - g Plat/Subdivision Requirements Le ai Description Verification 5— _ '° ;X>;0 Quit Claim/Street Dedications Easements - Public/Private Engineering Storm Drain Review Fee En ineerin 2.2 Inspection Fee4<:<; Drainage Plan On -Site Setback - Top of Bank. Stream, Water Courses Setback -.Storm Drain Line Open Ditch - Existing Culvert Required ?.A w t.r max:: (7L:.ert Size 20„1 Shoulder Drainage/Shale Open Runoff 2 l. Catch Basin Required 22 Driveway Slope & Vehicle Access. p A{<r< ::................ 23 Sidewalk Required v .:.:::::.: ;:.v:::.:,#.:>::.::.:,:::::::::;. Curb & Gutter Required wa s / Curb Cut For Driveway Required tid Street Paving Required '`` "` Right -Of -Way Construction Permit Required o 28 Street Name Sign Required °>29 Other Signing Required Bond Required For Public Im rovements o `�•;:` '`.�v:>: 4 ": A` "'p£,f;f$ FEMA Map Check/Water Table Side Sewer Availability Y-Y4 Y--/- Calculate Sewer Connection Fee If No LID # / Create Street File.;.; .;:34 Existing Water Main Si z ; 36 Water Meter Service Line Size �� >r ryv. 1M. 7600" fF; `38. Water Meter Charge Required Hydrant Required 41:: Hydrant Size Existing: <} : y r < x Fire Line Charge Required - Sprinkler Street Cut ;.:r,f.v fi `r zoo >->-� >>: 43 Miscellaneous -MINN., Reviewed By: FIRE �Q �� PLANNING ENGINEERING PUBLIC WORKS FILE:DATA123/PROJCKLS.SFN n.c V V.h U UI' LUHIAUJJ 21 2 22 3 23 r 4 _ 24 5 25 6 26 7 27 8 9 28 29 RW PERMIT 0 GATE ISSUEDRECEIPT # 10 ' S s 30 11 31 12 32 13 PAID RECEIPT DATE 33 SS PERMIT #a 7.3 DATE ISSU D lP RECEIPT Z-07-5 14 PAID $ RECEIPT # DATE 34 15 35 16 36 17 37 11 METER SIZE��� �� PAID $ �J �DATE3� RECEIPT 22 18 38 19 39 20 40 To: From: -� Ar IT APPLICATION REQUIREMENT* Applicant - We Chrisman, Engineering Inspector Owner. Plan Check No: gy /3 Address:_ / to / ,¢l//l—ir/- Datr-,&�%� After review of the subject permit application, the following requirements must be met: 1. Construction hours are: WEEKDAYS — 7:00 A.NL-10:00 PALWEEKENDSIHOLIDAYS —10:00 A1VL-6:00 P.NL 2. A separate RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT is required for all work on public property. (ECDC 1&60) 3. Truck haul route plan must be submitted and approved prior to permit' 4. Buildedowner is responsible for containing all temporary nuroffand erosion control on site. (ECDC 1830.030d) 5. NO WORK SHALL BE DONE WITHIN 15 FEET OF STREAMS OR 10 FEET FROM ANY CLOSED DRAINAGE FACUM Y. BU'MER/OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR IDENTIFYING CONDITIONS ON THE DRAWING. (ECDC 1&30-VG) 6. FILTER FABRIC FENCE SHALL BE INSTALLED AND INSPECTED PRIOR TO CLEARING AND CONSTRUCTION (ECDC 1830) 7. INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIRED ON STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, TIGHTTLINES AND CATCH BASIN INSTALLATION. INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIRED PRIORTO BACKFI LMG. (ECDC 1830) & Repair or replace all defective existing curb, gutter and sidewalk add to the property. if an intersection is involved, a handicap ramp may. be roquhtd. Contractor shall meet with the City Engineering staffto determine the extent of repair prior to issuance of the permit.. (ECDC 1&90) 9. Driveway slope shall not exceed 14% without a warm. -Every attempt should be made to keep the slope below 14% Waiver granted to __ % (ECDC 1&80.060D) 10. Driveways must be paved from property line to City RIGHT-OF-WAY. A separate permit is required, (ECDC IUO.060C) IL DWECTIONS ARE REQUIRED ON DRIVEWAYS AND SIDEWALiGS PRIOR TO AND AFTER POURING. Q=C 1830) M No bumiog ofoorrstruction refuse without a permit from the Fire Department. — 13. Connection to City water system is required. Them is a separate charge for the water meter. (ECDC 7.20) 14. A bade water valve is required if downstairs plumb'wg is below the elevatroa of upstream manhole. (ECDC 7.0) 15. Water and sewer main lines should be separated by 10 feet mmimum. (F,CDC I&I0) 4 16- Connection to the City sanitary system is required. A separate=nw- 1 _ � _ Fees paid: Yes No Chargam%(ECDC 18.10} ; 17. UndeWound wiring is required on all new construction, and for additions alterations, and repairs that exceed 50% of tine total assessed value of the structure. (ECDC m90) 18. A FINAL ENGINEERING INSPECTION IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE BUILDING DMSION GRANTING OCCUPANCY OFTH E BUILDING OR STRUCTURE. (ECDC 1&90) /g. *O /AW /�'I. Pxt~t�Qttmr , n • W 0 IA F H F W W W W W W in NI IA coo of O O CI �C4a aaa N A A CI MC4 • I 1 U /3/6, /z �,Iv F Aj. j,2' ^ Z LO/ZXt =5 a 3� Z. �/y4x 3( � r53,3 cy 23�� 3y\ Z 3 9 2= x3g =I52 54 xe Zv Sw 9s =r01-AL.o v0eLl \ 3 � 0 -4 3F��A_e_ X - May 12, 1993 Mr. Michael Rand 2318 North 44th Street Seattle, Washington 98103 Re: Three Lots Off 12th Avenue N., Edmonds Dear Mr. Rand: �M-77 MILE RECEIVED SEP 1 5 1995 PERMIT COUNTER You are preparing plans and documents to submit for building permits on three homes within the City of Edmonds. I have been aware of the project for a year or more and I have advised you of the need to test drill the building sites as part of the design process. Recently you authorized me to explore subgrade conditions and to make recommendations for foundation design. This report describes the investigative procedure, the soil conditions, and the significance of those conditions as they relate to structural foundation design for the three homes. Introduction Page five of this report is a partial, reduced copy of the March 6, 1993, survey by Columbia Land Surveying and Engineering. The underground utilities are in place and the private dead-end street is completed except for the surface asphaltic cement that will be laid over existing ATB. Plans for the three houses are being finalized as this report is in progress. You pointed out the approximate ground locations of the footprints and described grading plans for each lot. Lot 1 will have a garage directly east of the end of the access street and the house will step up to the south to accommodate existing terrain. Lot 2 will have a daylight basement and will fall entirely below existing grade. Lot 3 will have a garage basement along with the north (downslope) side and will have crawlspace south of the basement. As part of the road and utility work you have done, you enhanced stability of the site with the installation of underground drains and drainage blankets. Prior to that the soft, saturated surface condition precluded access to any type of wheeled construction equipment. JAMES EATON, PE GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES (206) 682-6942 Box 126 • Hobart, WA 98025 Mr. Michael Rand Page 2 May 12, 1993 Subsurface Conditions As a routine part of this investigation, I referred to Department of Natural Resources Geologic Map, GM-14, Preliminary Surficial Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and Edmonds West Quadrangles. Snohomish and King Counties. Washington. That publication shows that the project area is underlain from the highest to lowest site elevations by a "formation" of dense sand known as the Esperance sand. That map designation is consistent with surface and subsurface evidence. From the lower reaches of the test borings, it appears that there is a gradational contact below the sand and the deep soil is silt hardpan. The issuance of water in the form of springs along the creek and the creek bank a considerable distance to the south is a natural consequence of the permeable/impermeable soil relationship. Natural gravity processes, including landsliding and stream cutting, produced the natural topography. Natural terrain has been modified with construction of houses along the highbank south of your property and with grading and fill placement below. The dense sand and/or hardpan known to underly all three lots is highly stable with respect to any type of hypothetical earthslide, erosion, or liquefaction; it has extraordinarily high bearing strength. Slide debris, colluvium, topsoil, and fill that appear to have maximum combined thickness in the range of 5 to 6 yards are less dependable and generally inferior to the deep undisturbed materials with respect to engineering properties. Test borings were made at locations shown on page five. These were drilled using truck - mounted, hollow auger equipment with standard penetration sampling apparatus. Logs of the borings are presented on pages six to nine. The numbers shown in parentheses are the penetration resistances for six-inch increments. Test drilling was done following a time of rain. After completion of drilling but before the holes were backfilled, groundwater observations were made. Given sufficient time, surface and near -surface seepage would probably have filled the boreholes to the ground surface. For purposes of this investigation, it would be more accurate to consider the depth to saturation between 7 and 17 feet, roughly paralleling the dense or hard undisturbed surface. It appears that your drainage efforts were highly effective at desaturating the upper two yards or so. Mr. Michael Rand Page 3 May 12, 1993 Conclusions and Recommendations In my opinion, all three lots are underlain by stable soil at reasonable and practical depths to permit development as you propose. Barring some type of human act of gross carelessness, I see no foreseeable risk to any of your proposed homes from above. Your road, the improvements beneath the road, and the drains you have installed all have had stabilizing effects with respect to gravity movements beneath or below the homesites. By implementing the recommendations herein, the homes will be dependent only on soils that are believed to have a high degree of stability. The least favorable condition is at Lot 1 and the most favorable is at Lot 3. Pile foundations will be required for Lots 1 and 2 and a modified deep footing foundation is advised for Lot 3. There will be a substantial setup cost for foundation installation on Lot 1; you may find it cost-effective to apply the recommendations of Lot 1 to Lots 2 and 3. Augercast piles are recommended on Lot 1. These will develop axial capacities from friction and tip bearing in hard or highly dense native soil. For design purposes, I recommend that all piles penetrate into dense or hard soil at least 5 feet, that each pile be a minimum of 16 inches in diameter, that each be inspected at the time of installation to verify compliance, and that allowable axial loads of 25 tons be assumed for all. I will coordinate with the structural engineer about other details. The Lot 2 house could be founded on augercast piles according to the criteria above or on driven needle piles. Depending on the diameter and procedure, axial allowable capacities for needle piles would be in the range of 2 to 2-1/2 tons. If it appears that needle piles are opted, I will coordinate about design particulars. On Lot 3, it will be possible to trench north -south running trenches into dense or hard soil and to promptly fill the trenches with concrete; each trench would be at least 18 inches wide. The spacing would be dictated by structural economy. The slurry trenches could be viewed as either improved soil on which spread footings are to be poured or as uniquely shaped deep footings. Implementation should include inspection to verify deep bearing. Of course, piles are another option. Properly filtered footing drains and full -height permeable backfill will be required on all three houses. If there is a requirement for structural engineering of retaining walls, I will develop design parameters later. Mr. Michael Rand Page 4 May 12, 1993 Please provide me with copies of all plansheets that incorporate recommendations of this report. Yours very truly, "--? J�s Eaton, P.E. 32-7671 Six copies submitted JE/mer/701 )P of WAS&/. C, v 11917 j Os/ GISTEQg��G�C ONA%�- EXPIRES1A - 24' - S' TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY FOR ROBIN KEARSLEY +atom line C U R v E 0 A T A aanite" aamser IIM LAIELI RA01ue 1 .MOLT 1 CHORDS 1 Cw,ewa. 1 TAMCICMT I ARC LEM. • 1 ••0,2e 1 e•Se••2` 1 71.e1 s 60*:7:: -• 1 3e1.•4 I 7a, ae 0aa IIM 1, , ••0:2e 1 12.17.17- 1 fA.2S 1 8 71••7••1-• 1 •7.0! 1 a•. a 1d C I ••0.2e 1 11••O's7- 1 el.a2 1 6 e2••e••e-• 1 •s.O. 1 e1.77 '! 'O• atom. ••I.•w 4 .rl~ around Oellaw tel-P4W eontoue IIM LABEL 1 ! e9 Alt Iia 1 O`87.1••a`CS o••e Contour IIM i ranee S•R. 524 10, -as R i iaaa 01, stake Rn 1 MATtvE •aWTH ntln steelCa1a • 1 C2SEMENI� I I a■. - !O-at • -aver � y stream ,•�► }' I ?0 t 26.3e2 a0.ft. Q 22.417 •0.ft. Y rt. 1 • �a . 220.40 3 2 o i ' r $$_� wl� ts� • 1 $M / used.�C-- • N' • • a unl1 t eonewt• N■•e a wtow IncI M.GowilbGallia • a•e.v1nn• :2S.37aln MI N• .0 u• •C uaad Q wla d aaonalt • • Ita eol lee tow y i s 22S. I - Oaww•nl J\V' ilnHOAD eravn 4 easement �'•ont1o�Mt1 wl. p R 1 PC. are w • 223.62 —t ■ :1 , Y :1 ■ J; C' RTIrtcATE Qi j ■ • .a•a I ow,ede n1.• a a1. " i t • • ■ 2 i 2,1• t• ■ • ■ tlex.e tM ra7 •7 OIr•ealan In Q t e!•3a' r•euat the of ■ 4 .Sa Aet at tn• r•OIw•t ,1 • . 1 • 0 10 20 .O ,as 0. Relff~f/ O i. roo ssi ■ it ■ O it at�44 w ■ ::. 04 _ a 0 b t• spa i, zcc NE 1/ es•t •s - •' et• •s - _' � e e!•sa•se- t:so !•90.01 lS,n7 Boring 1 0' - Variable gray fine and very fine sandy silt with occasional gravel (fill) 2.5' (8) (8) (8) Silty fine to medium sand with gravel 7.5' (2) (2) (4) Grades less silty 17.5' (6) (10) Brown slightly silty fine to medium sand (17) 22.5' (5) (11) (17) 24' - Completed May 4, 1993. Groundwater (short-term observation) 17 feet. Boring 2 0' - Variable brown and gray mixture of silt and sand with gravel 2.5' (8) (10) (12) 7.5' (6) (12) Mostly sand (18) g1± 12.5' (10) (17) Brown fine and very fine sand (31) 17.5' (16) (29) (50/5-1/2) 19, - Completed May 4, 1993. Groundwater (short-term observation) 5 feet. This is believed to represent surface saturation. True water table estimated at 16 feet. 0' - 2.5' (2) (5) (7) 7.5' (3) (3) 8' (3) 12.5' (6) (8) (12) 17.5' (3) (6) (7) 0 • Boring 3 Variable brown and gray silt -sand mixture. Brown fine and very fine sand Groundwater entering hole from about 11-11T Clask of gray silt in otherwise clean brown sand 22.5' (7) (17) (27) 27.5' (15) (27) 28' (31) Brown horizontally layered silt 29' - Completed May 4, 1993. Groundwater estimated at 11 feet. Boring 4 0' - Highly variable silt -sand -gravel 2.5' (2) (5) (5) 7.5' (2) Brown fine to medium sand' (3) (7) 12.5' (12) (22) (24) 17.5' (9) (23) (34) Silty stringers 22.5' (18) (30) (36) 24' - Completed May 4, 1993. Groundwater estimated at 7 feet. f 31t� Alt /k/ RECEIVED 0 C T 2 4 1995 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING DIVISION PERMIT COUNTER CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR BUILDING PERMIT PLAN CHECK # 95-163 Single -Family Residence Property Address: 1316 12th Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington Tax Account #: 5489 000 025 0505 Lot 1 of File S-1-88 Property Owner: Robin Kearsley, Kearsley Construction & Development During plan review of the above project, it was found that the recorded map and legal descriptions for file S-1-88 are inaccurate, and a new map and legal descriptions must be recorded with the Snohomish County Auditor. The owner states in his letter dated October 5, 1995 that the site plan for the subject project reflects the correct property dimensions, setbacks, easement locations, and topography for height calculation. Based on this information, the subject building permit is hereby approved for issuance by the Planning Division with the following condition: The corrected map and legal descriptions shall be submitted, reviewed and approved by the Planning Division then recorded at the owner's expense with the Snohomish County Auditor prior to framing inspection approval on the residence. Until the City of Edmonds approves a correct map and legal descriptions, and they are officially recorded with the Snohomish County Auditor, it is hereby agreed and understood that the property owner shall start any and all work at his own risk. I, Robin Kearsley of Kearsley Construction, property owner of the subject property have read and agi Signed STATE OF WASHINGTON) COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH) ss: Date: 1b 23 On this day personally appeared before me Robin Kearsley-, to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he signed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses -and -purposes therein mentioned. Given under my hand and official seal this ;93 day of 00 ba'y 19 . IANJ(jT�io� ssiotiF�A 4 1t11 *? NO-TARY cn .0, 9L1cb Notary Public qh and for the State pf Washington residing at CITY OF EDMONDS PERMIT °"E �'NUMBER �,,,�' 5(���� CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION OWNER NAME NAME OF BUSINESS JOB SUITE•APTn / ADDRESS Uf /,J .r j1S16 0�,Z1 Io L DESCRIPTION CHECK LEGALDES SUBDIVISION NO LID NO W MAILING ADDRESS LoT 11 l W r t i ��4� TESCP Approved Oo PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP CITY ZIP 'OlJ�� 1 TELEPHONE NUMBER • iOLe -rfTV - 'E%ISTING. REQUIRED DEDICATION RW Permit Required O Street Use Permit Req'd 0 PRO, �.r POSEDInspection �?f U "Y't L �� � � Required '-• NAME r •".Er Sitlewalk Requiretl •r METER SIZE / E SIZE NO. OF FIXTURES PRV REQUIRED W Q w ADDRESS if "� .YESNO ❑ 3 U imp (� i�'r" 1 L"w„ �� / r�/' REMARKS Q CIT : ZIP TELEPHONE NUMBER 7 r ' , ✓ W Z NAME �f �% `� % %cj J. /r.f /.�• G{,J/pl�i� IG'rlw/��}f '%7 W io AV Lac^ ( d /,'.iif7Yf, a cc O ADDRESS / ENGINEERING MEMO DATED REVIEWED BY CITY ZIP :' TELEPHONE NUM Z FIRE MEMO DATED REVIEWED BY W U f L STATE LICENSE NUMBER EXPIRATION DATE ¢ 1 J r I SIGN AREA SEPA REVIEW AD NO. Legal Description of Property - include all easements ALLOWED COMPLETE EXEMPT / M� Z O Lam— D�_.. j _�lL� , it/�r , '�UU 4�PROPOSED N/ SHO E INEa N 7r S (lTA E /� �'� �S EXP VARIANCE CU P NI VIEW BY A AT • !'»�n:1 o SETBACK — FEET HEIGHT LOT CO ERAG Z w FRONT SIDE REAR ' i 10 ") V a wi Property Tar Account Parcel No. .5"f'—000MV; 00; V RMARKS a � NEW RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING DR ADDITION COMMERCIAL MECHANICAL APT. BLDG. REMODEL SIGN G FENCE CHECKED BY TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION } CODE (/ OCCUPANT GRO`i� REPAIR CYDS. L_x,FT) %/Jf/ - ;/� �1 SWIM POOL DEMOLISH WOODSINSERTTOVE HOT T B SPA PECIAL REOUIRED INSPECTOR AA9A �/�• � OCCUPANT LOAD GARAGE RETAINING WALL/ r RENEWAL YES REMARKS L,Cj"o ROCKERY C7 0 (TYPE OF USE. BUSINESS OR cTIVITY) EXPLAIN: PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 305 Z o L-0 /-I DS �/����� ��� /��� �� �• � �/� Q. m NUMBER NUMBER OF CRITICAL0 OF LNG NUMBERAREAS Opt% I�y ` �Tf+�� pC m0 STORIES UNITS -' DESCRIB WORK TO BE DONE (ATTACH PLOT PLAN) 11&6AJ SN -L FINAL INSPECTION REQUIRED VALUATION FEE PLAN CHECK FEE i 4 7L: BUILDING HEAT SOURCE: GLAZING tl/p PLUMBING Plan Check No. `�- MECHANICAL This Permit covers work to be done on private property ONLY. GRADINGIFILL Any construction on the public domain (curbs, sidewalks, driveways, marquees, etc.) will require separate permission. STATE SURCHARGE Permit Application: 180 Days �t Permit Limit: 1 Year - Provided Work Is Started Within 180 Days STORM DRAINAGE FEE "Applicant, on behalf of his or her spouse, heirs, assigns and ENG. INSPECTION FEE 30 ,n successors in interest, agrees to indemnify, defend and hold J harmless the City of Edmonds, Washington, its officials, i employees, and agents from any and all claims for damages of whatever nature, arising directly or indirectly from the issuance PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT (. 4 of this permit. Issuance of this permit shall not be deemed to modify, waive or reduce any requirement of any city ordinance i nor limit in any way the City's ability to enforce any ordinance TOTAL AMOUNT DUE � M ` ..I provision." I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application; that the ATTENTION APPLICATION APPROVAL information given is correct; and that I am the owner, or the duly authorized agent of the owner. I agree to comply with city and THIS PERMIT ThIS application is not a permit until state laws regulating construction; and in doing the work authoriz• AUTHORIZES THE signed by the Building Official or his/her ed thereby, no person will be employed in violation of the Labor ONLY Code of the State of Washington relating to Workmen's Compensa- WORK NOTED Deputy; and fees are paid, and receipt is tion Ins6ranoe and RCW 18.27. INSPECTION acknowledged in space provided. SIGNAT E 10 R OR AGENTI JDATE SIGNED/DEPARTMENT '� CITY OF I L'S S NATURE DATE � 9'" EDMONDS I 2( — � `" CALL FOR AEL€ASED•. DATE ATTENTION INSPECTION IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR 1 ORIGINAL — File YELLOW— Inspector .. 120Ow 771 A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC CHAPTER 3. PINK — Owner GOLD — Assessor 211-2- 90 di IECCIVED SEP 1 5 1995 MMIT COUNTER kopy 7-15 LOT ;-z, r-r - &v ilk 12 -rt)W Af2oqNU-'> 1,4, Mid VAVM 23o.b8 oo, IT6 C9. 10,1(, JIV- AVE# V;o ov� ol O ACCEPIABLE TIG T INE TfRiAL N ADS WATER SERVICE] SPECT104- ,-,'Sc 40 Pvc 1�4DR 35 (AST-M D303 1) REQUIRED.(i?l -7714235. wt CITY OF EDMONDS ZOE _ PERMIT =+yr t ZONE I Z,NUMBER � f '�-�� �! CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION JOB' SUITE/APT rt 1 ADDRESS 1), OWNER NAME/NAME OF BUSINESS ( / / ��s�� � ��� T �� /cJ/C_/ � ,..� � �� : LEGAL DESCRIPTION CHECK SUBDIVISION NO. LID NO. w MAILING ADDRESS PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP. EXISTING REQUIRED DEDICATION TESCP Approved ❑ RW Permit Required ❑ Street Use Permit Req'0 ❑ CITY 1 ZIP EO, )17 /V 6 S wA , -D , ! ��! TELEPHONE NUMBER �� „� ` _�• '7c,J,,`,� ! (, 1 PROPOSED Inspection Required ❑ Sidewalk Required ❑ NAME /� /C METER SIZE LINE SIZE NO. OF IXTURES PRV REOUIRED YES ❑ NO 0 3 W ADDRESS xQ� cr REMARKS Z w < CITY ZIP TELEPHONE NUMBER p z 0 U, NAME (1 ADDRESS ENGINEERING MEMO DATED REVIEWED BY O U 1` FCITY ZIP TELEPHONE NUMBER Z rl FIRE MEMO DATED REVIEWED BY Ucc w LL STATE LICENSE NUMBER/ DAT O-564) 1115 e Q129 k Ale) G./'1 � l VARIANCE OR CU ADB N SHORELINE rt Legal Description of Property - include all easements-- SEPA REVIEW COMPLETE I EXEMPT SIGN AREA ALLOWED I PROPOSED _ HEIGHT ALLOWED PROPOSED/ Z S -' oz (� / /�} / S ^(� EX P i 2. wLOT COVERAGE REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT.) PROPOSED SETBACKS (FT.) p ALLOWED PROPOSED tp i i FRONT SIDE REAR FRONT L/R SIDE REAR I r �: % _ : •i Io C �F z g Lu Property � Tax Account. �}j� ( j� / � 0 � � o LOT AREA �Pt NNIry G VIEW BY R k D E —7 a Parcel No. y 1. ;^'j `t �I fiS�>J /(? (J�/ ? Z T REMARKS NEW RESIDENTIAL PLUMBINGIMECH COMPLIANCE OR a ��y(I CHANGE OF USE e" j ADDITION COMMERCIAL APT. BLDG. REMODEL SIGN CHECKED BY TYPE OF C N�T�iUCT10N CO OCCUPA GROUP GRADING ❑ FENCE REPAIR CVDS. ( X —FT) ,,vv11 WOODSTOVE SWIM POOL DEMOLISH ❑ INSERT HOT TUB/SPA 1:1YES SPECIAL INSPECTOR AREA OCCUPANT REOUIRED AD GARAGE RETAINING WALL/ CARPORT RENEWAL REMARKS PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 108 Z 13 L) ROCKERY (TYPE OF USE, BUSINESS EXPLAIN: ,A-AgTIVITY) i,..-� .. yL.� ..1 to NUMBER NUMBER OF CRITICAL w t I < o OF DWELLING AREAS O STORIES UNITS NUMBER ' LIgkh DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE (ATTAC PLOT PLAN) c� t� � ' V FINAL INSPECTION REQUIRED /^. /^� �► /)� VALUATION FEE PLAN CHECK FEE BUILDING /) HEAT SOURCE: GLAZING ./�J / ri PLUMBING Plan Check No. U MECHANICAL This Permit covers work to be dorle on private property ONLY. GRADINGIFILL Any construction on the public domain (curbs, sidewalks, STATE SURCHARGE driveways, marquees, etc.) will require separate permission. Permit Application: 180 Days Permit Limit: 1 Year - Provided Work is Started Within 189 Days STORM DRAINAGE FEE "Applicant, on behalf of his or her spouse, heirs, as,igns and ENG. INSPECTION FEE successors in interest, agrees to indemnify, defenil,and hold J harmless the City of Edmonds, Washington, its' offic als, s employees, and agents from any and all claims for damages of a whatever nature, arising directly or indirectly from the issuance x of this permit. Issuance of this permit shall not be deemed to PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT ° °x modify, waive or reduce any requirement of any city ordinance nor limit in any way the City's ability to enforce any ordinance TOTAL AMOUNT DUE provision." I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application; that the information -given is 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 THIS PERMIT state laws regulating construction; and in doing the work authoriz- AUTHORIZES This application is not a permit until ed thereby, no person will be employed in violation of the Labor ONLY THE signed by the Building Official or his/her Code of the 'ate of Washington relating to Workmen's Compensa- WORK NOTED Deputy; and fees are paid, and receipt is tion Ins anc no RCW 1 27.. INSPECTION acknowledged in space provided. SIGNATU E'IOW R OR AGEN I DATE SIGNED DEPARTMENT CITY OF OFWS� E ATEL EDMONDS ATTENTION CALL FOR Ege BY: �.`� D E u INSPECTION IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE 3 UNTIL A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR - File YELLOW Inspector O��O A1 771GINAL — — A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC SECTION 109 Owner GOLD jq—OwnerPINK — —Assessor a%r f 1' 'o,'� BUILDING O C T 2 2 1997 stl REETfIc., ! loll 40 � • -ASS F'. 100, 1.00, 100, Alt .N.. ;� I�I � - � I� � lirithl• .00 w `�., .0010 /( 06 ' r � / H i,ai a y i• I l �S } � i�w a-4e star ill, 11 I� 10 .41 e. s0' 30' • cu IrU CITY OF EDMOND 3Y pp� T. rR �Ilk Of w'sb ,4� v 1� t'•pQ , s p�ST��s.0 J4, CITY OF EDN',� !. DEPT. ENGiNEERM ,W41 D _ n 3Y\ ! DAT�j�_'lLZf �G _I Z- J 1• � T� � J :� U p h 0 h h 0 h0 h0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N 2.1' 1 \ 1 40•46,00 1 21 7.a ..11 F \\ \\ i W ►, j3 i i i �I S +, W N I-� � I I II I \w 11 '� I► I \ I I I I V I •s�'oo•Iw I, .1 2r3e.2e9 8 0�02 ze0 l i i ro I 228.42' I I I a I �+t9•.2?Y�.?"E _ 49 � � �7e• FAT L/Ti 12 SE'tiE,vT n ��cvTEo AV RaGER W. STRO,UG R.D.. W11-z./.4MS0A./ T, _ I tREET- FILE �2' N���ttt" ��Ivt,GS wrAmQ. SHORT SUBDIVISION FOR PUGET DEVELOPMENT IN NE 1/4 SECTION 24,T.27N,,R.3E.,W.M. EDMONDS , WASH I NGTON Lovell - Sauerland as Aeeoolatee, Inc. ENGINEERS 23I00 WOTH AVE. W. SURVEYORS • PLANNERS EDMONDS WA. 98020 • PHONE 175•1591 11,144 1 777 1 /2 - 7-e7 1274, R.381 1 "' ,:5.0/ 1 1839 1 v11f I 1.. '%, -➢ hihf- 109,71- 117 .............. IFECEIVIED SEP 15 1995 PAMIT COUNTER 'v-Q0pY , 2157 IT LOT F, I ILI fvAlt Y 70P-Al wa,0 fAld VAWM = 'Z bg r to Pi W4:W)WA- . ov� 0 14 .1 V ACCEPWL,E TIG TONE T61AL WATER SERVICE .1 N 2 ADS SPECTIONS, �sch 40 PVC ..CDR 35 (A§TM D303 REQUIRE -71-0235 fi� n 4-2 STREET FILE R c N�nvf: rxRujt�1aJ S P 1 5 1995 PE MIT COUNTER f r 2�S i o I.oT ( y I Ff rA4-I 0- l.sjL. alt AVE 1400 0r -04 -ACCEPTABLE TIGt-LTL NL' AT'ERIA� Sch 40 PVb y4S a loll s6R 35 (ASTM D303 �.' WATER SERVICHNSP ' 01_4�-� " cT, IONS. 1EQUIREU. "CALL77 0 ?, R 5 �, 53' 61z- 5S4 sm.vd .... . ... .... .. rz� STREET P`iLr APPROVED ooc %4 6 k-4 E Ji I '3r�e �a°``� �ue/V 1022do n 1 . c ; rI f z - i X, 0 I ,r 11 rEi ��,� �- i 5 ,. j ,, �"4 /� 5, o / �►'/ / - \ �� �% �./ . �� , ,/ � 1 ,,` '` /� / / / ., 5 P- \ t /11 : I ( \ "I--" % _,_1.111 "." - _ _ - P4>6 F--Ive \ ____ - 11-1 - - . I __ 1111 ,___ . �.___,___-1­____,________ I 09 . <-10 61' __111 " 11Z ' __.. 1 .47`i-_ i 1 . 31i� . �?11 r �e f �i , I R .4 0��. / - i -_-_� - -- - -- - - ': �-- _ ; /,/,/V Z/0.6/ fu ! �-� �•� ,2Z3 - 'L, _______ •__---._._• ________- \ —� �," l� - _ _ __ _ _ ' - ~ - 1 - - - -- - -- - -- - - - - " c iO �' �� / i 2pilp -. - - - - - - -- - - -- - -- -- 1 / � N _1. _ -- -- - - . . ; I " /I�/ ,/- _ _ _ --- • I1 / / - - - - - - ~ -- J - STd �� S- ZQ �0', j �'` - e/P - SAP `1/ ' i' 10 - -� ' _ - _� I - 1/ t 1,// '� -� - - - - - - - - _ - - �.� E.x . C—_� - . ---�-- �/ - ' t ...j I-) / it ", -_ -_ _.-1. '­ I',' q • / it \ I -- -- - � - �� ??o li) 11 Ica ► N/ / / '- -- -- - -- - Sd-'4,1Y� d - _ l \ • t1114 \ - S.AODL E .SE3 V {', ' TEE ;4! /,e ,EST,C 1CTO,e \ - : S, :l , +413, 6 4) _C7` / /�- ' m / / ��.5 EX ^ M•-l--j � -sZ.� 4, tea, 7,dc T- \ _ � _ / ,/�/ �,� 11 l 1 'UV ,j /,3. 0q I \ - \ TOP ap_6 B4 - f. C � 1 y17 i[,6CT/G / j '230 _ _! ` ()r �, - /Uk :1,5Q7� _ /60-pEJe / '�? C, fP /CL/�'B C. Q. / 1 1. L I \:I �. 5T,i70.5t.94'C,--�EElJ�. _ �. Y-- -_ =_-C >G � -�i:3CcI� �n s �3.�0 0,' L t i [Y - ----- - ------ -- Cl— �' � 4 ,y /z C / (FJ1�E� �� / h Z3� -�^ � 1 ',stir-1 5 l/0'-�o SS. ®/. �'� D v EX. CIO - / ' - G ;'' I S7t/ •3a34 , A(1 �(� .1 Q - . --� - _ - - r �� ...,h. Ai-.;: -J1 �t 1' ""'�"�""�"-' D� r A 4 r� - . . �1 ; .'y.(. �1 ';7 1 9 y / _. r - TOP � f9 74 7 %a /,oF ;' s : Nti ;M ,++,rw . t -.� EA'y - ' ' f _ ./X-/V 0/C _3'S ( 1.11 Cs . zoo �� `r . - - - ---.. - -- Sr.4. /,-6.8, &-,,5'kT - , -/ 7 -CLt / n I - I I ,z4.5 // a ;1 °` i 4 PVC �t�FC�E_A/C/ / �v =. � -= 4'Pt-C ROOFD,e,414J ( - -_ 11 / I.: t - _ _\o - . / J ' -- - -C a . I (5 - _ _ - - - - N � - -� - '��o � � / / � 1 � C. O . , . �� /e�L� I ,./ I / � - 1 I 4 7. ,S3 ' i r / C. 5 j_-/ � " - I---------- - --- - __ - 11 ----J-,e�_:�--,_ - . > 11 11-1 kk l BEN _j—. - � �� - 4) - -Cp-- ~~-----=-==f---= — —_.- - Z­�c _ - 76-RCEPr/ I 6� --=� - -R;-- � -,_.�-r-- �_f�-- .d - , - - i %, / -.- . *. - i _ _ -- -- --- ----- C . o --�- _ _ - ' _ i / / / . { .UF_j4'S3'.5&"tv z74. .33' ; `ate , --- /O ' O P/ VOTE Dle4l V.DCE ESA4 T TO BE ao , CO,UVEYEO U,Z-0X/ COMFY ET/O.L/ OF /.UTE,eCEPTO,P T,eE,vC4V Wk15T.E'UCT/Ot/ . �I �\ r� � 0 I � r \w � -r r,\ -r S /00 ' VC -------- - --- ---- -} .. _.............. M = /• /3,' 1 . ................... i i ! I :.:.:.:. .:.:.: .I.........!.. .. .... ; ' I ! .. . i' .. � . i' . t .. i. . .. ..1. }1 'ice 3 � i .; I-:- i.. . I.. i' I , 1. I'. d h i i 1 . R 1 i t . m I �:..;. ) , . . .......:. A 1 \ : ...............................,�............. �........................ . I © ... . p 23Q..... .:.:.:.:. i . . s., I . . . . ti�. } , i -� I....:-:., , I I (i. (.. . :�.Q I' i .. ?i.' i i , ..* . ,i. `�, : . 1 i .. .. rt� �'. . '. . �' . :4 i N . ... . n.. I i 1 - ................................... ...:...... i... . . I O. . : : : zz5: :.:.:.i.:.:.:.. .' .. , . ••+ . . . ...... .. i 1 I.. A ve. . 1 I a �. .. . :n1 .. 1i. .J ' i ,. ..!.. ..1.y . :Z%. i t - ... . . . . �' d .. '\• i•. :• .:. .:. .: i. .:. .:. .:. .:. .. . . . . . . . - _... ZZO : . . . :.:.:.:.:.:.:. ' . . - .. f y i. . .. ....... , , j .'`' . � •� " . iDlt!' ' Co:' f EC'F l�'vt'; FY,''�' ' I j `� -<� ,1 .I N� . .. I .. __. .: I ._ i . ' ... ... ... ... .. I i . I .. ..,.. ..I.. i . . �/.jK.QEQU) i ! ... ..I. . I i .. i.. '� x e9 O f .. .. f . i . SCE': I . : .. _ ................- . :............:...:..: . �'G .rj . . , . . .. ............... ............ - - i .. .. I I . y. . 1 .. I : - .. ... .I • a. . 134 D t oFt I...... 7 # ...... I' q l / I i / .. � � T IL ... i I i i• i P .: 7.: .... .. .ttr�,eEsr,�icxae'.... a. . . i . ... .I, i. 1 z A/ I nl Y i . / ;txJ U,cJD V I �CiCKt�c:1'CS . fl .... i ..:......... _.. .. . ' TO%' . z 7�7.7.3•. � � .. i j I' i . ... i i--­!`­:*:':OF' 7 I_: i I.. 1.11 .. ... i . ,i • 1 . . . i . a.' z �= uu.. Q �� I. i i. ... i 1. I.. t i I'. . 1 +� N i C: G j---- L....:,:.. 1 . .. 1 . 1 r � s i o i' . I t ... ... ... ... I ...:.:.:...:.: : . :` 1 1 ...........................i..................... _..................... .. '7 . . .......1.......:......-.......................�.......:.......:............ D11 / ;, ; �RIVOTE EQC AD PROFILE - • - - -- BOCC.4,eDS' TO SE 6 " N B " i � . . , R0&isxl l 0 l�S7S� IV t " � ? / z, PI/E,(1/,4L. T,C'EATED• - o, ;� Ac o/uG 0C&(F'Y ---- 0'-----.--.-- -- - 041CKE.UED EDGE 1. dil . 'a N �1 iL 4� �(. ` ti'yr� I _ -' r� A V VV ;+ . __, ;' Q _ - e "A w,l. co�fP'r. DEPTH, Ce-455 B " A51c'M4LT/C CCu/C,eE7Z5 • I . ; N:, ' h I - - � --, , _ — 2"tl'L/ COt-fP'T 0.6P,rAj C,e4ISA/ ED SU,eA,,4CavG T01c' CIO I ,.'�i • 0 0 V s �, r 6� U(; T• ZXe/VE • `� ez. e-az4) W � ki ti) IS/i'c' 3 v, .z ,. . O./ co ro CO,t. FETE /[-- - ----- 4',c-!/.U. CGit-1/PT• D&-TN, C,eUS/JED SU,eF,4C/.t./G Q4SE Ck�Vwl: . ; A44/,u ST• I <'.u0TE : v,e 4VEL BASE, CC,4SS 'B','A4,4 K OE ,eE4 D !�'UD /4,ra' Ili , I I --- _\ l Z:j., \ ' SO/L CO.UD/T/CLU.) 1 . 5, c_'�JCEeY(�lS,ec`�C7.i 21ZL"S7 8W. 7-)`P1ff4L ,eOADWA Y SECT1.01-1 • e .u. T. S. ) QUA, " 151''Pl_I.. Mb4G i<F I L l _ 1 » klis IV r q't 'too n_ D `-E3 ul 'A r- 9 i i !� y ht (�. 14I'x it !), l u u II ,,et.')C,L' E,ey D�c74/L ►tstarirl■ (1) Ilan catagorlea Shall tllcludat Two-"* rocks 0W to 600 p°u1,1a), 13" !m least dtm.nalon; Three -sun rocks (®o0 to 1200 pcunda), 16" in least dl- tlereluoy atvd tout -men rocks (15U0 co 2200 pounds), 16" to least dt- asnaion. ►"r-cra rocks a1:a11 Le ,.a.J for botrom course ruck to all ... .e.:anl of-"�_le ! 1s t�„t_►- a .. __ __ -- a (2) The rock material shall ba se nearly rectangular as pnaaible. No clans rM ll be ureJ .+hick doer mt extend through the wall. T11• rock material shall be hard, sound, durable rrul [rsa Iron watherad portions, ue.rs, crack., other dafecte. The rock density shall be a aloina m of 160 pounds per cubic toot. The retaining wall shill be started by excavating a trench, not lass than Nx (6) Inches or earn than one (1) foot In depth below subgrsda to exeew class eactloaa or below for exlatiag ground lovel in embanl®ent sections. r. lock selection and plac•msnt &hall be such that there will be \ minimum voids and, in the expooed lace of this wall, 00 open voids over elx (i) lnehu across In any direction. The final course R shall have a continuous appearance sad N placed to alalmlt• rroaton o[ tM beckftll materi►1• The larger rocks shall be placed at the bur of the rockeq ro that the wall will be stable and have e l Stahl• appearance. This rocks shall be placed in a sooner such 1, that longttudl,ul axle of the rock •hall be at right angler or perpen- IL dicular to the rockery lace. The rocks shall have all inclining O faces sloping to the Dack oI the rockety. loch couur of rock• shall b• coated ad tightly and evanly as possible no the course beneath. After setting each course of rock• all voids between kD the sotto •lull be chinks! on the Mtk with Quarry rock to el!- N. astute soy wail w[liclant to peer a 2-loch ♦Qwre proles. (/� This wall ►ackllll shall c000lat of Quarry, spells with a maximum 'J else a! [out (1) lnehu Sad • a!nlsrum sine of twu (2) lnchea. This aaterlal ■hell Dr placed to as night (e) loch ■lair•n thicknss• between the entire wail and the cut of fill >v Urirl. The backflll tsatetial shall be placed is lltta Was eltvetton approxlaaNly etx (g) Inches below the top o[ each course of rocks am they ere placed, until the uppermost coupe la placed. Any backlill material on the boating surface of one rock course rMll be removed before setting the next course. When a sidewalk Is to be built over a rock retaining wall, the top of the wall shall be ■aaled and levoleC with a cap coemtructsd of caseat concrete, Clans "C" in accordance with tb• ■pplic*ble provisions o[ gsetlon 6-02 0l the standard Specllleatlona, but with reduced water coutont resulting In clump of not over two (T) lnchee. LID, OLYMP/C AMNONY NO. J4.3S4, offJt r IY 14W G1 iOEN/IYG IS D/Rfi^, r rr at D R � /GT R ADC S LY Y L oC �T -- ONC O16C t� GK t IJ vie/ecC e E UNIT P „-_�_�._ TOP OfM,4Tf EL. 0/9.70 DOL CAPAC/iY �` r - -- . CNA/N, 2 8 p e •...... 6,H/,Y SLACK WNfJY 6ATCl '.' ', — " SIIDC IS DOWN AND = ��------ OyfRfCOW &. 01'7, 7.3 WILDfD TO fRAMC 1- yy.-tt T-- -- `T~ ' ) 1 .' VICIVITY ��-�1=� >� - , _ =r G,u4 SC.4C.E . `{ I : ;. . ,. 1." 4 i ' a.. T, 1,, j G E, J E,eAL ,DOTES ) k' � /' "�tt . r 1. LOCATION OF EXISTIHO UTILITIES A:'1:. j;:PfiOvFwENTS 8110WH AR' 1 , 0 t. F_; ; , r CCMfNT WN;,t`Tf, APPRO:(THATE ONLY AND IT S11ALL 67, THL Rt. 11�1,1)ILITY OF THE 1 CLAJ58 COHTSUCTOR TO DETERMINE THE ZXACr I.O4ATI0){(S) OF ALL 1' � ,.-, U(ZL.TTIE9 A110 IHPROVENENTB TO AVLI'J p,.:�t%« �a UISTUI{BANCE. t 'Zy .,f. L. .. }' •'' �'• ; I `o 2 . ALL CONSTRUCTION SILAL L C01:1-QnM i,o ,III STA irAAD �`l'� �a V' �f BPECIFICATION9 FOR MUNICIPAL FVBL;1., h:,apB ,RUCTION" 1 P1"1 tL�. + . b - 'p ;'e•'• ,•o ��yr� //•� AND STANDARD PLANS AS ADOVrED BY THE '.IT,' C1 kDHOND4, AND ri , , j, �: I * � , D.-' - V/ • d . ; • •O.o • r4o' '0 ANY REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISHED AT Ciry HLAaanCS ON 2NIS • I :o., t s-,- -" .: : O:-O...o.':, PLAT. -, •.O` •'if, e . () ., od .o•.,.0 _ '9 *t 5? T11E CY:Y Z. 1 ' i y;Q'o . ... a'.': `• n'•" 3. ALL COt{STRVCTTON IS SUBJECT '.0 THE iNypgr�•.!N • e r ° OF YDMO11D9 A11D THE CO1tTR,%('TOR SHALL, N;..I•'ryi ",IA CITY OF HIS �11 �__ °,J o f n SCNEDULB IN SOPFICIENT TINS TO PERHi'p II Syj �:TGN PRIOR TO 4' , ;`...`';'., 1j:} ° ° ! c ° AND DURItIC T}SE NOOK. �/_ " • 1. ALL NOOK NITHIH TliN PLAT AM[ CITY RI;,11 0'C W/Y BHALL IlE1. '''! ' - SUBJECT TO Tits INdpECTI01{ OF TH Et{, j;;'I:an. A �t 5. THE COIITRACTOR SHALL 138 R1:;. C::SIi,1 L n,-.. O;'?AINTNt7 ALL f' VEerICAL (EVE 3 PERMITS FOR ROAO AND UTILITY CDN.•i IUCTICt{, ' �arQ. 0�60 7O ETA 2fGD) 6. PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN TEHFCR).W otDl; -I.i•aTI.11 tJLL1tCTIOH e YACILITIES TO INSURE SEDINE;:7-L.ADEN '. ,1Tr 1 i-,i ?r" AOT ENTER THE NATURAL DRAINAGE SYSTEM. THESE rkCI«Sv ZF;1 l.:;ST BE IH , . OPERATION PRIOR TO CL,aaRT):C :.lIG aF.DI}:], AND SATLSfACTORILY HAINTATHED UNTIT COHST::C 'pi ;tt I9 CO'IdPLETII ,I AND THE POTENTIAL OF ON -SITE ERUS.�)H HAL :ASSCD. • `' 7. ALL STORM SEWER PIPE SHALL DE CORRUGATE4 A'' TAL ld 0)1; ,.' GALVANIZED AND ASPILALT COATED TREATMENT 1 Olt BETTER, J. .i CORRUGATED ALd1HINUM PIPE, 12 GA., 7" X 1" CORR' (OR PVC ASTH D-JO]f) EXCEPT DY"IENTION PIPE OR AS NOTED. . '`' , . B. ROAD RESTORATION SHALL 88 PER CITY OF EDMONDS STANDARfkI: . , 9. ALL ROOF DRAINS SHALL BE CONHLCTED TO ATOM DRAINAGE sY�Tex. ' / 10. ALL ROOF DRAIN STUBS SHALL BE HARKED WITH 2"Xi" P06� I.11; I'•1t.i ttr't1 I SHONI11Q DEPTH AHD HARKED "DRAIN". ' '�__--� IT - 11 I r 7 '�— _ �. 1'' .. .. 5 1 ,`+111 J-< t�, rr _ I/I• - • t:, :. 11. ALI. CATCH OASIHS TO RAVE LOC,<IHG LIDS. - .. "`' 1,11' -::I iLtl 1 -V .V1.. ' I`ll u 1 1- ,111 - •-.. _--- � . - .1, . ... ., c: 1 II:_ °j� lil ,1 r , r" 41 dill 1i- .! ••o�/4,,OC,(_ . ° . • sill] — /t//,E'4ri 14O F/CTE,e F40,e/C ::. 13 - — 3 "PE"e".. ."vC I OPtt1E�DtVELOPER / JACK E MARTIN ' �W 401 PINE STREET , EDMONDS, WA. 98020 . �p PHONE: 774-3639 ' pj 7-REUCA4 1 V (u.TS.) I •...' I wtjl . M . , e-E64L Z?ESGE'/F'T/0AJ .. , _ .. . .. . , , t.. ( ' . THAT PORTION OF TRACT 25; PUGET SOUND MAOTINERY DEPOT' - -. ,DOTE: ,r'oU.u4,4774,v &.54,E.- 7C. SX,IOULo FIVE ACRE TR�.CT5, ACCORDING TO THE • PLAT THEREOF I. ' PAGE 47, RECORDS." OF ' 6E VE,e/F/EU •BY ,SO/C.S FAG"UEEe DUE RECORDED IN VOLUME 5 OF PLATS, TO WET so/C CO.vO/T/0c-15 .o.uO SOA4E SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHII,GTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLWWS! ; . . Fie-L BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID TRACT i , . ,4,eE4S- --=__=- — 25, 330 FEET WEST OF THE NORTiiEJ`ST CORNER; 'rI'HF;t10E WE5T,': I, a; - ---- 1 i 275 FEET; THENCE- SOUTH 330 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF{' ' , * , SAID TRACT 25; THENCE EAST, 2'15 FEET; THENCE NORTH, '330 ;''` ''` • , FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; • i� • ,.( k::,' t .'. : . , . ,r ' EXCEPT ANY PORTION THEREOF LYING WITHIN SR�524. , J - ) . .>• ' I /, r� . • �� �� . ' &F-E . I . . ', , . ! APPROVED FOR C�SNSTRUCTION . � .7 k; .,f ` I „ ,' ,` ''. t t' DATE . . . BY �",�',e'F. PVC O.P,4/,U P.''E ,t4Y 1 '. M/N. B��'ErJ O. GAS/G u Ec k;'.:uEE� t -- - .48E co uJMa TEO 01-1AN116 .. O 48" .u. ,�.cJi'iCly P/� EXC,�l14T/a . CAaP " ,- 3�.. .., J. . C E ,w I CMP . GO.,57 e"PVC _ _ r J 1. flow' _. �- y ZI ,.4Z - - - /N.f�. _ _ _ . , , DEVELOPMENT PLAN , ( i ` - f� P e OCAT/D CI :; I J A N S L -9� .'' ;> SEE C A,U O L F 0� L /,U T t•' "P TG E , Nq O G NT' j� .�' CL EAR l NCC �; I'O(1TF4LL. gF A `�Clti� ; o-o 1'>rlyc'tr .DEVELOPMENT {' :,;;',l� ET �' 4' f0 -- - - a.,.••"r..r•�•�1 •w war rr .......++..++.r ra a.r::''ti..r 1 ; . TY10f 9- CATCH CASIN h >s� � r..�.� � ... -- - - - - --- . , 1,� Cl/T HOL C - z ' DIA. N O t • 4 T. N �. � ' W t+.a: � M a 2 ; 4 SECTION 1. �. IN NE F fVEI� AU6L' rC � 11 ' IN lZ 15 PM A! 1 t D ,. . WELD ro CMP CAOM /YOTL`:.ILL .filYL PA,fTtf AN o � ,,++11.. �ii' : � ;,tJ lV rJ N l ., . o. • •.. .t er..• o •... f AL�'/4/Y St l f f GUT D r ,� f M tf JUR l' S EDM OND IZIrV AND IDAA60 W1,, Y'HAIT .dN,t1 t,t+ I i :. ;," TXfAT/HfNI Ott /7 C � s Al i �•�� amiseo. ,ear/ra« 1 ICU. 6/�5, r A4' a� C A %%7fr (/1yAJ' N N a �'t t . "' ; ' �I ti ���,}..m///q ;. �NGINE�gS SURV�YCz�tiB ",I,.., . ,' 'f:% .. . "fk'4 :, M7 1 ,',,. I,� .', 'y_.•• f fin. 1 1 1 f i i � I, ) 1K P O l7N0 A. • �d02 f( . _ ��i � -� 231�6' �001h A\/ENUS ;1�V: �bM S, jiM ,. ,�. C1. Z. ' • I e 1 ' / . ik..,." I'.'• , 1 i ' : ' 1 DFIAYM CHECKED DATE F.B. � SCALE ' ` t.. ?TLE 0 1* r . , 3 -..,. 11 1 tii t ; NTt� z r . ��t. {1:E �d/}T�'�Y, zFi,'/ w �" � ,��M . -i . / � �y '_ ��1 p p 7a . scs r � ; � jai 1 , I,# f,, . ' ) I • I -1} ,/ ► r M /"C,C t t.+7 r,�/ .� - .1 �a /1'9�'t /` S� - LxJ / ' r . . ._ - _L. .-....__:.i........... - -- - br.er+.•1.0- ...�r.i.lr.wm""e . .+gar 'I . J , ., f,t�C0i, 4,11' TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY' 'FOR ROBIN KEARSLEY LEGEND -----W------ ex. water line -----S------ ex. sanitary sewer line -----G------ ex. gas line -----SD----- ex. storm sewer -----P------ ex. under ground power -----T------ ex. telephone 100 ex. contour line .... 100..... proposed contour, line -x-x-x-x-x-x ex. fence CB catch basin MH - manhole LS - landscaped area CW - concrete walk a found rebar 0 found pipe set tack in lead plug f' H set 2"x2" line stake X concrete monument in steel case ❑ WATER POWER 0 SEWER , DEC 3 0 1993 PERMIT COUNTER Field traverse methods used. Equipment used for measuring: Lietz SDM3E 5 second theodolite and electronic distance measuring unit, standard prism and calibrated chain, HP 110 portable plus PC used in the field as a data collector and for calculations. Map drawn from calculations using: MTI software, HP 150 PC, and HP Dr aftpro Plotter. ' SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE This map correctly represents a survey made by me or under my direction in conformance with the requirements of the Survey Recording Act at the request o f��-�-1 in _ 3 Thomas D. Reisdorff 10 f Sp.RF�sO titi� I cc 9 t7679 O ' F...:TE�F. J �hr411 LINO EXPIRES ?J27/ 3 — iw } o C U R V E D A T,A LABEL .RADIUS 1 ANGLE i CHORD 1 CHD.BRG• 1 TANGENT I ARC LEN. ,• A 1 440.28 1 9° 56' 42" 1 76.58 1 S 60039' 41"W 1 ,,38. 44 1 76.68 B 1 440.28 1 120 17' 17" 1 94,25 1 S 710 47' 41".W 47.39 94.43 •1 �,LO'� I C 1 440.26 1 1 1 ° 40' 57" 1 89. 62 1 S 83046' 48" W 1 45 . 04 1 69.77 L I N E T A B L E LABEL1 BEARING 1 DISTANCE a r SCALE 1" - 2 0 0 0' a t S 53° 23' 44" W 1 24 . 65 _ �� r6 2 3 � _ i �_ [ice Q - - r ' i i r � �• i . ` I , Sch S R 524 0 5297 Lf) A I y t Via• u3)6 r r \ I l Cable "------c. �7 i ' "i .k • �� 4 • rf. :t Y} Area ��� \A,• , 1tf x:}/� ' I� � 1l . ' { (y) - I� __ .�`_ h_ • •• ,.... 22' •i t As rR• .r t v t - 59.77 NATIVE I 2. 1 `-"-'6C �: . '�. i,-, �i' • _ I" Ii- '>I11;••.v, GROWTH I _. I: _ , •sM i23 ----. I �,:. PROTECTION —� •'� ._- ;- / �, •/ • _ .�� q = EASEMENT ' 16 - l `��_ 1 24. - - ^ �, s - - - - .119f{1 a, I I e X . — - -- ; _ y -� , "" ' 1_P� r nl; r . 1` ' i ;1 1, ` , • /` 00I i �• • • • • ' •j •—3 0 " s t o r _ _-- / 5 `_-t`. __.- ..3=--z-_`t `•., — ` • . • 1 ( • I I , ^. + sewer ---... 1 �_ zrtrt;YT �,- ,�. j L 2 OLj _ 1 �_'�L �1E_ I PF,� • ii ' �� i , R � ' i } r, . � r r ` ~ -- I ' s�L1I710IlCS Tanp.. I 1 �i';4',%1q� �1; 1 •�, + '{ l ? • ! '} i 0,6 Jf j'� // : l n •N • • •'ra,,L-ate • 1 • • • y^,71( I } ' .Y d:., 1 -s.--t I e a m..-- ! '/,� °- I/ ..� A • _ _.`.� i1 , .'' �f• • rsnaaa� • R,� A•� r,i r V c j i, , , . • t f r F.dMondr' * , -1 27,933 sq . f t . r� » .!' ,� i � ,•. ! P`�i�. `'' �„�, IHt¢n 20 I Z k'r 26,362 sq.ft. O,q" �. 22, 6 17 sq . f t� O W, 'VICINITY MAP r i m MH, 1 = - —. 1 �. (n fl" 220.40 12 �N , x� 3 --� ' O G) 0 K \ OI i U) (� -- I I� �'-� �� corner°;� zl �� 226 NE y ��//�� o >} sect s on S - _ l�/ O I I(jj I 1 4 3 x 1 2zQ �I�- i 224- —01 ZZ.i3 ► 24-2.7 concret curb & gutter, ZEi O O!� rim drain MH ® rim CB aspha 1 t ,� 0 1 = 225.4 pavement 3 225.57 i ,t z AE1 set k nai 1 � easement + p rim CB N li on 1 i ne 225 62 set k na i 1 ---4, ® Z�U x I 2 Z40 1� �2! Ir1 x 3 d ,xx i , i� x xco I k r x ! x` , 2 x Q' S 8903' 58" E x SCALE IN FEET 47.53 , ' x/ , 0 10 20 40 x cn o /� O }( o x x -l" aq (�� x o �o` Z qb I, x 2 66 ----------------- I0, . m I' x `� NE 1 /4 , NE 1 /4 24-27-3{ Iw c if )K S ;, � GULUM131A LAND SURVEY S 83 53' 58" E S 89° 53' 58" E 2 S 89053' 58" E ,' , 280 330 89.25 9( 01 95.02�" 6O5 3 JOB NO. 93191LAC64,1_1 '+ .. BUILDING SETBACKS AND NATIVE GROWTH PROTECTION EASEMENTS CR i P T --------------------------------------------- ------------------ LEGAL DES IOfJ 'JAI AL k ------ Structures, and obstructions (including but not 1 i m i ted t t<, p ,� ��.,.. k t That Or t i Crl o N P f tract 25 , Puget _Jounce Mach i m r , Depot outbuildings, seor ove.•';angs beyond eighteen inches) are prohibited beyond the :,. F i ve Acre i�: act, , accord l I-lg t0 the p i dt ther eo F' bu i 1 di ng setback 1 i ne , and within 25--year f i ood p 1 a i ns (i f applicable), 1 i cab 1 e) , and ��` rk.t,;;, 1/1 within the Native Growth and Easements) as shown. ® m drecorded in volume 5 of plats, page 47, recor'°d_3 ��f /� (/.�. T N ( � & E N V 1 N E E R I N G Dedication of a Native Growth Protection Easement (NGPE) conveys es the public Sf lOhom i Sh C;�Unty , Wash 1 ngtOn , deSCr 1 bed as f O 1 1 Ot��- �J a beneficial interest in the land within the easement. This interest include_ Beginning a,� a point On the north 1 1ne Of Sai25 the preser- vation of native vegetation for all purposes that benefit thet���, 330 feet tJer3t Of the northeast Corner; thence West public health, safety and welfare, including control of surface water and ® erosion, maintenance of slope stability, visual and aural buffering, and 275 feet; thence South 330 feet to the South 1 if o-P z14 protection of plants and animal habitat. The NGPE imposes upon all present and said tract 25; thence East 275 feet; thence Ho-th jJ0 %% Q future owners and occupies of land subject to the easement the obligation, -feet to the point Of beginning; X '_ PHONE: — 3 enforceable on behalf f of I.he"public by Snohomish County, to leave undisturbed EXCEPT any ,port i on thereof lying within SR 524.tY' i all trees and other vege•..at' on within :,he easemr_-•;)t.. The vegetation within th,� easement may not be cut, fill, 1 1 , removed or, damaged w i tho,_t Y Snoh m covered by / ' V •.express permission from Snohom ; �h Count; which permission must be obtained 1', writing from the Snohomish County Building and Land Development Division or, its A 0n/��successor agency. VVv (-�- Before beginning and during the course of any grading, building construction, 1;' � 1/4, NE 1/4, NE 1/4 24-27-3 or other development activity on a lot subject to the NGPE, the common boundary , between the easement and the area of development activity must be fenced or,�, • otherwise marked to the satisfaction of Snohomish County. ''' .•{ 7 1 K; k 1 k it �