Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
15911 74TH PL W.PDF
15911 74T H P L W ADDRESS: TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL NUMBER: BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE): COVENANTS (RECORDED) FOR: '2-o0 7036s# CRITICAL AREAS : C'I- 2-&V Z. - 600 DETERMINATION: ❑ Conditional Waiver Study Required ❑ Waiver DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S: DRAINAGE PLAN DATED: l h 1 0 PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED: EASEMENT(S) RECORDED FOR: /✓R�w��e PERMITS (OTHER): PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED: W2- Z& SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED: � J SEWER LID FEE $: LID #: SHORT PLAT FILE: LOT: BLOCK: SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED: SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) #: GEOTECH REPORT DATED:l STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT #: FOR: WATER METER TAP CARD DATED: OTHER: LATEMP\DSTs\Forms\Street File Checklist.doc RETURN ADDRESS: City of Edmonds, City Clerk 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 F IN'�V'Mlp GS 0211M�IF;7 -p YIM151 CW��NIIGitlN COVENANT OF NOTIFICATION AND INDEMNIFICATION/HOLD HARMLESS Reference#: bLDZ01LA(Z3 Grantor(s): (1) U—ca SauvA S (2) CA (eet-q a 7r�c�� Additional on pg. Grantee(s): City of Edmonds _ Legal Description (abbreviated): Sec S Twn 2-7 Rng 0 Qtr 5\\/ OR Lot Block Plat Assessor's Tax Parcel ID#(s): (1) Ol%�i 3 3 ®f%0�z(O 2) Assessor's Tax Parcel ID# not yet assigned CITY OF EDMONDS APPROVED FOR RECORDING BY: DATE: 114aPAGE I OF Under the review procedures established pursuant to the State Building Code, incorporating amendments promulgated by the City of Edmonds, and as a prerequisite to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of a residential structure and attendant facilities, the undersigned OWNERS of property do hereby covenant, stipulate and promise as follows: i APPROVED FOR RECO ING: BY:_Y-5,. DATE:.713P5 PAGE-:-,' OF 1. Description of Subject Property. This covenant of notification and indemnification/hold harmless relates to a tract of land at the street address of /5'7 // %f�y PL • V z 15�tgp-1 oNl)s' (insert street address), Edmonds Snohomish County, Washington and legally described as: 'moo 2. Notification and Covenant of Notification. The above referenced site (hereinafter "subject site") lies within an area which has been identified by the City of Edmonds as having a potential for earth subsidence or landslide. hazard. The risks associated with development of the site have been evaluated by technical consultants and engineers engaged by the applicant as a part of the process to obtain a building permit for the subject site. The results of the consultant's reports and evaluations of the risks associated with development are contained in building permit file number (insert number) on file with the City of Edmonds Building Department. Conditions, limitations, or prohibitions on development may have been imposed in accordance with the recommendations of APPROVED FOR RECOIVG: BY: DATE: 2 13 1S PAGE 3 OF the consultants in the course of permit issuance. The conditions, limitations, or prohibitions may require ongoing maintenance on the part of any owner or lessee or may require modifications to the structures and earth stabilization matters in order to address future or anticipated changes in soil or other site conditions. The statements and conditions proposed by the OWNERS' geotechnical engineer, geologist, architect and/or structural engineer are hereby incorporated by reference from the contents of the file' as fully as if herein set forth. Any future purchaser, lessee, lender or any other person acquiring or seeking to acquire an interest in the property is put on notice of the existence of the content of the file and the City urges review of its contents. The file may be reviewed during normal business hours or copies obtained at the. Building Department, City of Edmonds, 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington 98020. 3. Indemnification and Hold Harmless. The undersigned OWNERS hereby waive any and all liability associated with development, stating that they have fully informed themselves of all risks associated with development of the property and do therefore waive and relinquish any and all causes of action against the City of Edmonds, its officers, agents and employees arising from and out of such development. In addition, the OWNERS on behalf of themselves, their successors in interest, heirs and assignees, do hereby promise to indemnify and hold harmless the City of Edmonds, its officers, agents and employees from any loss, claim, liability or damage of any kind or nature to persons or property either on or off the site resulting from or out of earth subsidence or landslide hazard, arising from or out of the issuance of any permit(s) authorizing development of the site, or occurring or APPROVED FOR RECORDING: BY:Y� DATE: ►3 1S PAGE �_ OF arising out of any false, misleading, or inaccurate information provided by the OWNERS, their employees, or professional consultants in the course of issuance of the building permit. 4. Insurance Requirement. In addition to any bonding which may be required during the course of development, the Community Services Director has/has not (strike one) specifically required the maintenance of an insurance policy for public liability coverage in the amount and for the time set forth below in order to provide for the financial responsibilities established through the indemnification and hold harmless agreement above: 5. Covenant to Touch and Concern the Land. This covenant of notification and indemnification/hold harmless touches and concerns the subject tract and shall run with the land; binding, obligating and/or inuring to the benefit of future owners, .heirs, successors and interests or any other person, or entity acquiring an interest in property, as their interest may appear. This provision shall not be interpreted to require a mortgagor or lender to indemnify the City except to the extent of their loss nor to obligate such persons to maintain the insurance above required. APPROVED FOR RECORDING: BY: VS DATE: Z1136 PAGE_ OF to this{h day of�IU G� OWNER(S) By: By:e I L By STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ` ) ss: COUNTY OF Sh Ol Xom t5h ) c�t I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that C-DReon raw signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be (his/her) free and voluntary act for the purposes mentioned in this instrument. DA +, , I?-O t 5 _ day of jar -- lee.. OQi��\g5� N F.�Atis - :� TA 9' �O NOTARY PUBLIC pUBOG M.y commission expires: — ILA' < <p '•. O1 .pro•: ,�O 110�OF WASN� L:\TEMP\BUILDING\MEADOw\COVENANT E VED FOR RECORDING: DATE:zi►a115 Lo- OF —U STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss: COUNTY OF S n 0 V10 M iSh I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that zxo LA So-unders signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be (his/her) free and voluntary act for the purposes mentioned in this instrument. 1 n,, ZO DATED this lY day of } -ttJ nA a.nz4 _ zu- Qua NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: 7)- H - ((D L:\TEMP\BUILDING\MEADOW\COVENANT STREET TILE F t:a y V MD SP Et CIAWNSP ECTION AND TESTING AGREEMENT Peamit#: bl eSt. 189° Project: rMiArJDEtE? 5 Sf�K Prior to issuance of a permit, this forme must be completed in its entirety and returned to the Ciity for approval. The completedform must have signatures of acknowkdgnteni by all parties. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBII.MES SnecinO Insoectioi Firm and'Special Inspectom: The Special Inspection firm of �' F.p tau P P10 vtTektPa-s+1 , o.1c , will perfo(in special inspection for the following types of work (separate forms must be submitted. if more than one firm is to be employed): G Site Excavation 4 Soil preparation/Compaction • Retaining Wall Construction • Pipe Pile Installation o Footing(Retaining Wall Drain Installation All individual inspectors to be employed on this project will be WABO certified for the type of work they are to inspect. If inspection is for work that is not covered by the WABO categories, or the inspector is not WA BO certified, a detailed resume of the inspector and firm must be submitted. The resume must show that the inspector and the firm are qualified by education and experience to perform the work and testing required by the project design and specifications. The work shall be inspected for conformance with the plans and specifications approved by the City. Revisions and addenda sheets will not be used for inspection, unless they have been approved by the City. Inspection records shall include: A daily record to be maintained on site, itemizing the inspections performed. Any nonconforming work shall be brought to the immediate attention of the contractor for resolution. .A weekly report shall be submitted to the City; detailing the inspections and testing performed, listing any nonconforming work and resolution of nonconforming items. A final report shall be submitted to the building department prior to the CertificEac of Occupancy being issued. 'this report will indicate that inspection and testing was completed in conformance with the approved plans, specifications and approved revisions or addenda Any unresolved discrepancies must be detailed in the final report. Cmutaextor: The contractor shall provid0 the special inspector or agency adequate notification of work requiring inspection. 11EDMSVFt4" VSlauildWMmdmts Mftmatim by C =kVnWaimt *ccizd ftwXcdan end testing aV=mW COE.da6/5/2014 The City approved plan and specifications must be made available, at the jobsite for the use of the special - inspector and the City inspector. The contractor shall maintain all daily inspection reports, on site, for review by all parties. The special inspection functions are considered to be in addition to the normal inspections performed by the City and the contractor is responsible for contacting the City to schedule regular inspections. No concrete shall be poured or other work covered until approval is given by the City inspector. Building Department: The building department shall review any revisions and addenda. The City inspector will monitor the special inspection functions for compliance with the agreement and the approved plans. The City inspector shall be responsible for approving various stages of construction to be covered and for work to proceed. Desitm Professionals: The architect and/or engineer will clearly indicate on the plans and specifications the specific types of special inspection required and shall include a schedule for inspection and testing. The architect and/or engineer will coordinate their revision and addenda process in such a way as to ensure that all required City approvals are' obtained, prior to work shown on the revisions being performed in the field. Owner: The project owner, or the architect or engineer acting as the owners agent, shall employ the special inspector or agency. ENFORCEMENT A failure of the special inspector or firm to perform in keeping with the requirements of the IBC, the approved plans and this document, may void this agreement and the Building Official's approval of the special inspector. In such a case a new special inspector and/or firm would need to be proposed for approval: A failure of the design and/or construction parties to perform in accordance with this agreement may result in a STOP WORK notice being posted on the project until nonconforming items have been resolved. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I have read and agree to'comply with the terms and conditions of this agreement. Owner: 1-0.ro�e Signature ��-'' Date Contractor: #III r Signature Dater- . i te;. /. Special Special Insp. Agency. ACCEPTED OR THE CITY OF EDMONDS BUILDING DEPT. By : Date: Date: if 1XMMSVR-DEPTFS-guildinglHandouts Inrormation by ChuckUnspectionstspecia) inspection and testing agreement COE.doc&S/2014 i (01 Grou li�� August 12, 2014 Northwest, Inc. Mr. Leroy Saunders C/o Mr. Laurey Tobiason Tobiason & Company, Inc. Seattle, WA.98166-4016 RECEIVED AUG 12 20* gNOWMNa DIVlND-111 Geotechnical Engineers. Geologists & Environmental Scientists G-3598 STREET FIL E Subject: Response to JoAnne Zulauf Questions Saunders SFR 15911 _74th Place W Edmonds, WA BLD20140317 Ref: I. Email dated August 6, 2014, from JoAnne Zulauf, City of Edmonds, to Laurey Tobiason. 2. Report titled, Critical Area Evaluation & Geotechnical Report, Proposed Single Family Residence, 15911 - 74' Place W, Edmonds, WA, dated February 25, 2014 by GEO Group Northwest, Inc. Dear Mr. Saunders and Mr. Tobiason, The following is our response to the questions from JoAnne Zulauf with the City of Edmonds to Mr. Tobiason. A. There is a typo on Page 8, last paragraph, of the above referenced geotechnical report that addresses surface water and sediment discharge to adjacent properties. The sentence should read: Management of stormwater, landscaping and mulching at the completion of the project will provide satisfactory permanent erosion control and the proposed development will not increase surface water discharge or sediment to adjacent properties beyond predevelopment conditions. The typo has been corrected in the report and the report has been revised and reissued. B. Page 9 under Mitigation #8 of the referenced geotechnical report states, "Vegetation on the steep east slope should be maintained in a naturalcondition and not be modified....". The proposed landscape plan shows new plantings in the southwest corner within the area of existing vegetation.. It is our professional opinion that the proposed plantings on the lower portion of the slope is acceptable as it will supplement the native vegetation and provide additional erosion 13240 NE 20th Street, Suite 10 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Phone 425/649-8757 Fax 425/649-8758 August 12, 2014 G-3598 Response to JoAnne Zulauf email questions Page 2 Saunder Residence, BLD20140317 control. We understand that the planting locations shown on the plan in this area are conceptual only. The proposed new plants will be 1-gallon size and are to be randomly placed, field designed, and will be placed to avoid existing beneficial vegetation. Additionally, eight 1" caliper Mountain Ash are shown near the toe of the slope. According to the project landscape architect, the Mountain Ash trees are of a medium to small scale, growing to a maximum height of about 30 feet with a 20 foot spread. The landscape plan will be modified and the new trees will not be planted immediately uphill from the garage and therefore will not create a hazard to the structure. Some removal of invasive non-native plants, such as blackberry vines is anticipated and is acceptable in the proposed planting area on the slope. C. The referenced geotechnical report recommended armoring the seep area at the northeastern corner of the site with 2" to 4" crushed rock underlain by geotextile filter fabric to mitigate erosion. The landscape plan shows new planting in this area. We understand a note will be added to the landscape plan indicating that no planting is to occur in the armored seep area, based on discussions with Mr. Tobiason. D. There is a note on the landscape plan in the 10 foot steep slope buffer and swale area, "Future vegetable garden/fruit tree orchard." We understand the note will be removed from the plan, based on discussions with Mr. Tobiason. Please contact us if there are any questions. Sincerely, GEO GROUP NORTHWEST, INC. Wade J. Lassey Engineering Geologist QGG-� .William Chang, P.E. Principal cc: Mr. Leroy Saunders \wAM CH w�Asyltic �3 201 <v' 9Fc/sTEPE° Nam' s` 10NAL "t\ GEO Group Northwest, Inc. ed Gea�.�' Wade J. L_asseY CRITICAL AREA EVALUATION & GEOTECHNICAL REPORT PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 15911- 74TH PLACE WEST EDMONDS, WA G-3598 Prepared For Mr. Leroy Saunders c/o. Mr. Laurey Tobiason Tobiason & Company, Inc. Seattle, WA 981664016 February 25, 2014 (Revised August 12, 2014) GEO GROUP NORTHWEST, INC. 13240 NE 20th Street, Suite 10 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Phone: (425) 649-8757 SiAEET FILE RESUB FEB 0 5 2015 BUILDING DEPAP,s T IENT CITY OF EDMONDS Geotechnical Engineers, Geologists Group Northwest, Inc • & Environmental Scientists February 25, 2014 (Revised 8/12/14) G-3598 Mr. Leroy Saunders c/o Mr. Laurey Tobiason Tobiason & Company, Inc. Seattle, WA 98166-4016 Subject: CRITICAL AREA EVALUATION & GEOTECHNicAL REPORT Proposed Single Family Residence 15911 - 74' Place West Edmonds, WA Dear Mr. Saunders and Mr. Tobiason, At your request, GEO Group Northwest, Inc., has prepared this report for the purpose of providing a critical area evaluation and geotechnical engineering report for the proposed construction of a single family residence in accordance with ECDC 23.40 and 23.80. The project site is located. within an area designated as the North Edmonds Earth Subsidence Landslide Hazard Area. Our work in preparing the report included review of the proposed site development plan provided, site reconnaissance, exploration of the site soils, review of files at the City of Edmonds for the neighboring properties and review of maps and documents related to North Edmonds Earth Subsidence Landslide Hazard Area, including: 1. "City of Edmonds Landslide Hazards Map, Figure 1," 1985, by GeoEngineers, Inc., based on the "Landslide Hazards Investigation, Meadowdale Area, Edmonds, Washington, 1979, by Roger Lowe Associates, Inc. 2 3. "Report of Geotechnical Consultation, Property Value Appraisals and Assessments, Meadowdale Landslide Area, Edmonds, Washington," 1985, by GeoEngineers, Inc. "North Edmonds Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Areas Summary Report, Edmonds, Washington," 2007, by Landau Associates. 13240 NE 20th Street, Suite 10 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Phone 425/649-8757 Fax 425/649-8758 February 25, 2014 (Revised 8/12/14) G-3598 Critical Area Evaluation & Geotechnical Report Page 2 Proposed SFR, 15911 - 74`' Place W, Edmonds SITE DESCRIPTION The subject lot is located at the north end of 74`s Place West at the dead-end of the street, north of the North Meadowdale Road, as illustrated on the Vicinity Map, Plate 1. The lot is identified as Snohomish County Parcel No. 00513300003201. The lot is 26,573 sf in size, slightly trapezoidal in shape, and measures approximately 228 feet east/west along the south property line and 120 feet north/south along the west property line, as illustrated on the Topographic Site Plan, Plate 2. The lot is bordered to the west by the undeveloped right-of-way of 74' Place West, to the north and south by residential developed properties, and to the east by a steep slope which appears to be the eastern margin of the North Edmonds Earth Subsidence Landslide Hazard Area. Topographically, the eastern quarter of the lot slopes steeply down to the west. The lot survey provided did not include elevations of the steep slope in the eastern portion of the site, however based on a previous topographic survey, dated May 12, 2004, obtained from the City file, the upper portion of the slope as having a gradient of 80 to 85 percent and the lower portion of the slope with a gradient of 50 percent. The lower portion of the slope appears to be collected slide debris (colluvium). Localized areas on the slope face appear to exceed 100 percent where the landslide scarp is exposed. The total height of the slope is estimated at about 100 feet. The middle portion of the lot is relatively flat and level and is bordered along the north property line by a 10 to 14 foot tall slope with a gradient of 38 to 50 percent that slopes down to the south. The western quarter of the lot slopes down westerly at a gradient of 36 to 56 percent with a slope height of about 22 feet at the northwest corner and about 20 feet at the southwest corner. Elevations on the survey range from 95 feet at the southwest comer to about 136 feet along the north property line. The elevation ofthe flat middle portion of the lot ranges from 116 feet to 121 feet. A surface exposure of groundwater seepage was observed at the toe of the slope in the northeastern corner of the middle portion of the lot, approximately as illustrated on the Topographic Site Plan, Plate 2. Water is also present on the slope face in the southeastern comer of the lot, most of which is being collected in a corrugated pipe near the southeast corner of the lot and a catchbasin located at toe of the slope and routed in a storm pipe located in a 10 foot wide storm sewer easement along the south property line. The site is serviced by public stormwater and sanitary sewer facilities. GEO Group Northwest, Inc. February 25, 2014 (Revised 8/12/14) G-3598 Critical Area Evaluation & Geotechnical Report Page.3 Proposed SFR, 15911 - 74`h Place W, Edmonds The middle and western portions of the lot have been cleared of vegetation (principally blackberries based on the remaining debris). The steep slope to the east is vegetated with brush, immature and mature Alder and Maple trees (predominant), and a few Maple and evergreen trees. PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT Based on the plans provided, a two-story wood framed home is proposed to be constructed in the middle flat portion of the lot, as illustrated on the Site Plan, Plate 3. The main floor has a planned finished floor elevation of 118 feet. An attached garage will located at the back of the home and an asphalt driveway is planned around the north side of the home off of 74' Place West. The house plan also includes a hot -tub near the southwest corner of the house and a water feature at the back entry to the house. A tiered ecology block wall is planned on the north side of the driveway to retain the cut required to construct the driveway. The planned height of the walls is 4 feet to 6 feet with 6 feet of separation between the walls. A new catchbasin and drainage swale is proposed between the house and toe of the slope to the east. The slope west of the house is proposed to be graded at 2H:IV. GEOLOGY & SOILS INVESTIGATION According to the area geologic maps the site soils are mapped near the contact of the Pre -Fraser Glaciation deposits identified as Transitional Beds (Qtb) and Olympia Gravel (Qog). Transitional beds are described as glacial and non -glacial deposits, consisting mostly of massive, thick or thin beds and laminae of medium to dark gray clay, silt and fine to very fine sand. The fine-grained sediment is described as having been deposited in lakes, some distance from the ice front, and in fluvial systems prior to the advance of the glacial ice. The Olympia Gravel is described as consisting of stratified, fluvial sand and gravel. The gravel is mostly pebble size and the unit is locally oxidized and weakly cemented so than it stands near vertically in fresh exposure. The Olympia gravel underlies the Transitional beds. Minard J. P., 1983, "Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and Part of the Edmonds West Quadrangles, Washington," U.S. Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Field Studies, Map MF-1541, Scale 1:24,000. GEO Group Northwest, Inc. February 25, 2014 (Revised 8/12/14) G-3598 Critical Area Evaluation & Geotechnical Report Page 4 Proposed SFR, 15911 - 74`' Place W, Edmonds Based on the Soil Survey of Snohomish County2, the site soil is mapped as Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes, which is described as consisting of moderately deep, moderately well drained gravelly to very gravelly sandy loam on till plains with a moderate water erosion potential. The unit consists of dark grayish brown to yellow brown, with a weak medium subangular blocky structure that overlies weakly cemented to compact glacial till (hard pan) at a depth of 20 to 40 inches. This soil description does not match the findings of our subsurface investigation. Subsurface Investigation Two borings were drilled to investigate the sites subsurface soil and groundwater conditions. The approximate boring locations are illustrated on the Topographic Site Plan, Plate 2. Boring B-1 was drilled to a depth of 56.5 feet at the east side of the lot and boring B-2 was drilled to a depth of 61.5 feet at the west side of the lot. Standard penetration tests were performed as the boring were advanced and soil samples collected. Soils encountered in boring B-1 principally consisted of very loose to medium dense silty sand with occasional gravel to a depth of 43 feet, underlain by very stiff to hard silt with some clay to the total depth of the boring. Soils encountered in boring B-2 principally consisted of loose to medium dense silty sand with some gravel to a depth of 34 feet, underlain by medium dense sand with some gravel and varying amounts of silt. Dense sand was encountered at a depth of 60 feet. A cross section with the borings and soil classifications is included on Plate 4. Please refer to the boring logs in Appendix A for more detail on the soil conditions encountered. Hydrology In Boring B-1 groundwater was measured at a depth of 4.25 feet. Soils below this depth'were saturated down to the silt at 43 feet. The water appears to be perched on top of the silt. In Boring B-2, groundwater was measured at a depth of 28.9 feet. A zone of oxidized red brown mottled sand was encountered below 16.5 feet indicating seasonal groundwater movement below that depth. There is evidence of groundwater seepage in the colluvium at the toe of the steep slope to the east and surface water was observed on the face of the slope, as indicated on the Site Plan, Plate 2. No seepage was observed on or below the slopes along the north property line or Z Soil Survey of Snohomish County Area Washington, 1983, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. GEO Group Northwest, Inc. February 25, 2014 (Revised 8/12/14) G-3598 Critical Area Evaluation & Geotechnical Report Page 5 Proposed SFR, 15911 - 74" Place W, Edmonds in the western portion of the site. GEOLOGIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT The -North Edmonds Earth Subsidence Landslide Hazard Area is described as a large, deep- seated, ancient landslide within the Meadowdale area that was previously identified as the Meadowdale Landslide Area. The landslide includes a massive down -set block of land (landslide mass) that extends from the steep bluffs at the eastern edge of the slide to Puget Sound. Large scale sliding was reported in 1947 and damaging.slides have been recorded since that time. In the past, development was limited due to the landslide hazard. Infrastructure was installed in 1984, under Local Improvement District (LID) No. 210, including public sanitary sewer, storm sewers and interceptor drains, which had the effect of lowering the groundwater levels within the slide area and lowering the risk to new development. Since 1988, residential development has been allowed under specific conditions, development guidelines and requirements, with the intent to limit risks for a property owner and the adjacent properties. Substantial landslide hazard risk exists within the North Edmonds Earth Subsidence Landslide Hazard Area. The landslide hazard risks are estimated to range from less than 10 percent probability of occurrence in 25 years to about 30 percent probability of occurrence in 25 years (GeoEngineers, 1985). The landslide hazard risk depends on regional and site -speck conditions, including topography, geology, surface water, groundwater, and vegetation conditions. The GeoEngineers Landslide Hazard Map (1984), indicates the project site is located within an area with four landslide hazard probability zones: 1. Western portion of site (4A30) Hazards from ground failure in previously failed material; slumps; with a 30 percent probability of occurrence during a 25-year period. 2. Toe of steep slope (2CO2, 4A10) Hazards from encroaching landslide materials and hazards from ground failure in previously failed material; debris avalanches and slumps; with a 2 to 10 percent probability of occurrence during a 25-year period. GEO Group Northwest, Inc. February 25, 2014 (Revised 8/12/14) G-3598 Critical Area Evaluation & Geotechnical Report Page 6 Proposed SFR, 15911 - 74'h Place W, Edmonds 3. Steep upper slope (2CO2, 3B02) Hazards from encroaching landslide materials and hazards from ground failure in material that has not previously failed; debris slides and debris avalanches; with a 2 percent probability of occurrence during a 25-year period. FII,E REViEW Files at the City of Edmonds were reviewed to identify previous grading, site development, history of unstable soils, landslides, erosion problems, and to review geotechnical and critical area study reports for the subject property and adjacent properties. Files reviewed included the property to the south at 15915 - 74`' Place West, the subject lot, and the property to the north at 7324 - 158"' Street SW. We found no reported active landslide activity, debris flows, mud flows, or erosion problems for the subject property, adjacent lots, or reported for the immediate vicinity of the project site. No topographic surveys were included in the files that would help identify historical site grading that may have occurred on the project site. The home to the south, 15915 - 74' Place West, was constructed in 2004 and the files included a geotechnical report, peer review letters and a final geotechnical construction monitoring letter. The final geotechnical construction monitoring letter indicates the home is supported on sixty- three 3-inch diameter pipe piles that were driven to depths of 31 feet to 53.5 feet. Two soil boring logs were included in the geotechnical information and medium dense to dense silty sand was encountered at a depth of about 25 feet and water was encountered at depths of 10.5 feet and 18 feet. The description of the site conditions and steep slope behind the house are similar to the project site conditions, with the exception that the denser soil was encountered at a shallower depth on the adjacent property. The home to the north at 7324 158' Street SW, was constructed in 1985. File records indicate the home was designed to be supported on a conventional spread footing foundation. According to the Snohomish County Assessor's website the home has a basement. The project site files included a geotechnical report by Dennis Bruce, P.E. (2001) for addresses 15911, 15915 and 15917. It appeared that the subsurface site investigation for the geotechnical GEO Group Northwest, Inc. February 25, 2014 (Revised 8/12/14) Critical Area Evaluation & Geotechnical Report Proposed SFR, 15911 - 74`h Place W, Edmonds G-3598 Page 7 report was performed on the neighboring lot to the south. The files also included supplemental geotechnical reports by Mr. Bruce (2005, 2006) for the subject lot, prepared for a site development plan that was not constructed. The files reviewed also included a Critical Areas Study by Wetland Resources (2002) for addresses 15911, 15915 and 15917. Wetlands were not identified on the subject lot. SLOPE EVALUATION & ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT Based on the site topography, our site investigation and the geologic and geotechnical studies that have been completed in the area, it is our opinion that the geometry of the property is. the result of the deep-seated movement of the North Edmonds landslide. The steep slope along the back of the lot appears to be part of the larger landslide scarp that defines the eastern margin of the North Edmonds Earth Subsidence Landslide Hazard Area. Potential landslide hazard risks for the site include reactivation and deep-seated movement of the larger landslide landmass. There is also the potential risk of slumps, debris flows, mud flows and debris avalanches from the steep slope in the eastern portion of the site. The home will be supported on a pile foundation, however the piles will not mitigate movement of the landmass and significant " structural damage should be expected if large-scale reactivation of the North Edmonds landslide should occur or should a mud flow, debris flow or debris avalanche impact the house. Recent ,slide activity in the area includes a debris flow that occurred in the winter of 2000 that demolished a residential carport at the north end of 75' Place West. Slope Stability Evaluation The slopes along the north property line and in the western portion of the lot appear to be stable and the risk of slumping, mud or debris flows appears to be minimal. Surficial slumping, debris flows and debris avalanches are possible on the steep slope to the east. The trunks of some of the trees on the slope are curved indicating soil creep of the surficial soil layer. Seismic activity or a 100-year storm event could increase the risk of slope failure and result in localized slumping, debris flows, mud flows or debris avalanches. The site is not located near the top of a bluff, so bluff retreat will not impact the site, with the exception of the accumulation of debris at the base of the slope. It is. our professional opinion, that construction and placement of the home will not negatively impact the stability of the slope over the estimated life of the structure and will not adversely impact neighboring properties. GEO Group Northwest, Inc. February 25, 2014 (Revised 8/12/14) Critical. Area Evaluation & Geotechnical Report Proposed SFR, 15911 - 74`h Place W, Edmonds Evaluation of Impact of Proposed Development on Steep Slope Areas G-3598 Page 8 The proposed construction of the house, driveway and proposed 2H:1V grading on the west side of the site will not decrease the stability of the slopes, the stability of adjacent properties, or adversely impact other critical areas. The proposed tiered ecology block walls along the north property line will have heights of up to 6 feet and will retain cuts. The temporary open cuts should have limited exposure time of 24 hours or less and the horizontal cut sections should be limited to 15 feet or less, as discussed in the ecology block wall section of this report. It is our opinion that the ecology block walls can be constructed without negatively impacting the stability of the slope or the stability of adjacent . properties, provided the recommendations contained herein are followed, including performing the work during the dry season, limiting the exposure time of the cut faces, installation of drainage and construction monitoring by the geotechnical engineer. Site Drainage & Erosion Evaluation Surface water coming off the steep slope to the east is being collected and routed to the stormwater sewer. A drainage swale is proposed between the house and toe of slope to collect seepage and route it to the stormwater system. Soil erosion was observed at a intermittent seep in the northeastern corner of the site. Armoring the soil in the seep area with 2-inch to 4-inch crushed rock, underlain by geotextile filter fabric, Mirafi 140N or equivalent, is recommended to mitigate soil erosion. We are not aware of any subsurface drainage facilities currently installed on the site. Subsurface footing drains are recommended around the perimeter of the house and at the base of retaining walls and ecology block walls. The site soil contains silt and exposed soils have a moderate to high water erosion potential on the slopes during storm events. Temporary erosion and sediment control measures should be installed during construction, as discussed in the Erosion Control section of this report. Management of stormwater, landscaping and mulching at the completion of the project will provide satisfactory permanent erosion control and the proposed development will not increase surface water discharge or sediment to adjacent properties beyond predevelopment conditions. GEO Group Northwest, Inc. . February 25, 2014 (Revised 8/12/14) Critical Area Evaluation & Geotechnical Report Proposed SFR, 15911 - 74`' Place W, Edmonds RECOMMENDED SETBACKS AND BUFFERS G-3598 Page 9 It is our opinion that the proposed 10 foot buffer from the toe of the slope to the east and 15 foot building setback from the buffer is acceptable provided the east wall of the garage is designed as a 6 foot tall catchment wall should slide debris impact the garage. N hTIGATION The geologic hazards can not be practically mitigated by design measures in the development of a single family residential lot, however the following measures are recommended: 1. Erosion control measures should be installed prior to the start of earthwork. 2. Earthwork to occur during the dry summer months. 3. The structure is to be pile supported. 4. The east wall of the garage should be designed as a catchment wall with a height of 6 feet above the finished grade. Windows should be excluded from the east wall of the garage in the event trees are carried with the slide debris. . 5. Temporary cuts should not exceed 1H:1V (Horizontal: Vertical), except for construction of the ecology block walls. Permanent cut and fill slopes should not exceed 2H:IV. 6. If changes are made to the final site development plans, the revised plan should be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer to verify that the plans conform to the geotechnical recommendations contained herein. 7. Temporary cuts, construction of retaining walls, ecology block walls, subsurface drainage, and the installation of piles should be inspected and monitored by the geotechnical engineer at the time of construction. Vegetation on the steep east slope should be maintained in a natural condition and not be modified, with the exception of the removal of dangerous trees as determined by a qualified arborist. SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS In accordance with the International Building Code (IBC) and ASCE Chapter 20, the site classification is Site Class D (stiff soil with 15 s N z50 in the top 100 feet), based on the soil conditions encountered. During a strong motion earthquake, the potential risk of liquefaction, GEO Group Northwest, Inc. February 25, 2014 (Revised 8/12/14) Critical Area Evaluation & Geotechnical Report Proposed SFR, 15911 - 74"i Place W, Edmonds lateral spreading and surface rupture is a low, based on the site conditions and subsurface G-3598 Page 10 conditions encountered. We are recommending the house be pile supported to mitigate impacts to the house resulting from potential settlements due to the loose condition of the site soil. No geotechnical. seismic mitigation measures are recommended, with the exception of the addition of design criteria for seismically induced dynamic soil loads on permanent concrete retaining walls. DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATIONS CATCHMENT WALL - EAST WALL OF GARAGE In the event that.a slide impacts the structure, we recommend the east wall of the garage be designed as a catchment wall to a height of 6 feet above the finished grade. The east garage wall should be designed to resist a lateral earth pressure imposed by an equivalent fluid unit weight of 35 pcf. Windows should be excluded from the east wall of the garage to prevent piercing of the windows in the event trees are carried with slide debris. HOT TUB AND WATER FEATURE From a geotechnical perspective, inclusion of the proposed hot tub and water feature should not impact the stability of the site. The hot tub and water feature should not drained onto the ground surface during maintenance. We recommend they be plumbed to drain to the sewer. The water feature should be lined with a welded seam geomembrane that drains to the storm sewer in the event of a leak. TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS The stability of temporary cut slopes is a function of many factors, including soil type, geometry, surcharge loads, amount of time the cut is open, and the presence of subsurface seepage. It is the responsibility of the contractor to maintain safe slope configurations. The excavation should be monitored by the geotechnical engineer. If groundwater seepage is encountered, excavation of cut slopes should be halted and the stability of the cut slope evaluated by the geotechnical engineer. GEO Group Northwest, Inc. February 25, 2014 (Revised 8/12/14) Critical Area Evaluation & Geotechnical Report Proposed SFR, 15911 - 74`' Place W, Edmonds G-3598 Page 11 Temporary cut slopes should not exceed 1H:IV, except when constructing the ecology block walls. If temporary cuts will not stand nearly vertical, then back sloping will be necessary. Permanent cut and fill slopes should be inclined no steeper than 2H:IV.. Permanent fill slopes and the slope along the west side of the house should be compacted during grading. Permanent slopes of 3H:1 V, or less, are recommended if slopes are to be mowed and maintained. EROSION CONTROL The site work should be performed during the dry summer months due to the moisture sensitive soils present at the site. Temporary erosion and sediment control measures, such as perimeter silt fencing, should be installed prior to the start of grading. A crushed rock construction entrance should be installed to mitigate the tracking of mud onto the street. During wet weather, exposed site soils should be covered with straw mulch or protected with plastic sheeting to mitigate erosion. Water runoff should be mitigated with the use of crushed rock check dams, hay bales, silt fencing and covering of exposed soil with plastic sheeting to reduce suspended sediment and velocity of storm water runoff. SUBGRADE PREPARATION Soils supporting ecology block walls, retaining walls, and the driveway should be grubbed and stripped of topsoil and soils containing wood or organic debris. Base soils should be firm and non -yielding. If loose or unsuitable soils are present we recommend the subgrade be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer. Compaction of the subgrade, or removal of the loose or unsuitable soil and replacement with compacted structural fill or crushed rock may be required. Placement of a geotextile to provide separation between the soil subgrade and structural fill or crushed rock, may be necessary. STRUCTURAL FILL Structural fill is defined as compacted engineered fill soil used to support building foundation loads, floor slabs, patios, porches, retaining walls, sidewalks, and pavements. Backfill behind CMU and other types of retaining walls, should also be compacted to structural fill specifications. During dry weather, any non -organic granular soil may be used as structural fill, provided the material is near the optimum moisture content for compaction purposes, and the material achieves GEO Group Northwest, Inc. February 25, 2014 (Revised 8/12/14) Critical Area Evaluation & Geotechnical Report Proposed SFR, 15911 - 74`' Place W, Edmonds G-3598 Page 12 the compaction specifications when compacted. During wet weather we recommend an imported pit run sand and gravel material with the following specifications: 1. Free draining, granular material, which contains no more than 5 percent fines (silt and clay -size particles passing the No. 200 mesh sieve); 2. Free of organic and other deleterious substances; 3. Maximum size of three -inches. Structural fill material should be placed and compacted at or near the material's optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is the water content in soil that enables the soil to be compacted to the highest dry density for a given compaction effort. If feasible, the site grading and earthwork should be performed during the dry summer months. Soils containing organics, debris and/or rubble should not be used as structural fill. ! . STRUCTURAL FILL COMPACTION SPECIFICATIONS Structural fill should be placed at. or near the material's optimum moisture content and be compacted in 10-inch thick lifts, or less. Structural fill supporting structural elements and the retained soil behind CMU type retaining walls should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the material's maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM Test Designation D-1557 (Modified Proctor), with the exception of the top 12-inches of the driveway which should be compacted to 95 percent. Structural fill within the street right-of-way and trench backfill above utilities should be compacted to the city or utility district specifications. GEO Group Northwest, Inc. February 25, 2014 (Revised 8/12/14) Critical Area Evaluation & Geotechnical Report Proposed SFR, 15911 - 74`" Place W, Edmonds FOUNDATIONS G-3598 Page 13 The structure should be supported on a deep foundation system consisting of either concrete pile or steel pipe piles based on the soil conditions. Augercast Concrete Piles The structure may be supported on concrete piles installed using the augercast method due to the groundwater conditions encountered. The augercast method uses a top -head driven auger drill that is suspended from a crane. The auger bit is advanced to the desired depth, the auger is then extracted and at the same time cement grout is pumped into the hole through the bottom of the auger. This method displaces groundwater in the hole as the grout is being pumped and results in an intact fmished concrete pile. Piles should be reinforced with steel cages (rebar cage, plus center bar) and should have a minimum diameter of 14 inches. The rebar cage should be centered in the hole and the center bar extend to the bottom of the pile. The number of piles, pile spacing, steel reinforcement, and grade beam requirements should be designed by the structural engineer. Pile tops (caps) should be tied together with grade beams to generate lateral resistance. The pile spacing and number of piles required will need to be designed by the structural engineer. The following recommended allowable design parameters assume that the pile caps are tied together with grade beams and the piles are adequately reinforced to resist shear loads. If lateral forces are to be resisted by the cantilever action of a pile group, then the piles should be structurally tied. together with a moment resisting frame or beams. The following table provides the allowable pile capacities that may be used for design. The pile design capacity calculations included a design safety factor (SF) of SF=3 and are based on the subsurface conditions encountered in Boring B-1 with a minimum embedment of 10 feet into the very stiff to hard silt below the depth of 43 feet (total pile length of 53 feet). When compared to the soil conditions encountered in Boring B-2, the conditions encountered in Boring B-1 had lower pile design values, so the following design values are based on Boring B-1. GEO Group Northwest, Inc. February 25, 2014 (Revised 8/12/14) G-3598 Critical Area Evaluation & Geotechnical Report Page 14 Proposed SFR, 15911 - 74`' Place W, Edmonds CONCRETE PILE FOUNDATION DESIGN CRITERIA Pile Diameter (inches) Pile Length (feet) Pile Embedment (feet Allowable Axial Loading (tons) Allowable Uplift. (tons) 14 53 10 17 8 16 53 10 23 11 18 53 10 29 14 24 53 l'0 52 26 No reduction in pile capacity is required if the pile spacing is at least three times the pile diameter. A one-third increase in the above allowable pile capacities can be used when considering short- term transitory wind or seismic loads.. We recommend lateral pile loads be resisted by using an allowable passive soil resistance of 350 pcf equivalent fluid pressure acting over twice the diameter of the pile. We estimate the maximum total post -construction settlement should be 1/4 inch or less, and the differential settlement across building width should be 1/4 inch or less. Pipe Piles The foundation may be supported on 3-inch or larger diameter steel pipe piles. Galvanized pipe is recommended for corrosion protection. Pile tops (caps) should be tied together with grade beams to generate lateral resistance. The pile spacing and number of piles required will need to be designed by the structural engineer. The'pipe piles should penetrate through the loose soils and be driven to refusal. Piles should be inspected by the geotechnical engineer refusal verified during installation. The following are the recommended allowable bearing capacity and refusal criteria for several pile sizes: GEO Group Northwest, Inc. February 25, 2014 (Revised 8/12/14) G-3598 Critical Area Evaluation & Geotechnical Report Page 15 Proposed SFR, 15911 - 74`h Place W, Edmonds Pipe pile Pile Hammer Hammer Refusal Criteria Allowable Diameter Saecification TYpe Weight (Seconds Per Inch) Vertical Capacity 3'inch Schedule 40 TB325* 850 lb 10 6 tons 4 inch Schedule 40 TB425* 1100 lb 10 10 tons, 6 inch Schedule 40 TB725* 2700 lb 10 15 tons (* Teledyne Hammer) Refusal criteria may be different for other hammer weights and manufactures and should be adjusted in the field, as required. By themselves, pipe piles generate minimal lateral capacity and no allowable uplift resistance. For uplift capacity we recommend installing helical anchors. Lateral forces should be resisted by the passive earth pressures acting on grade beams and the friction with the subgrade. Lateral forces may also be resisted with battered piles. To fully mobilize the passive pressure resistance, the grade beams must be poured "neat" against compacted fill. Our recommended allowable passive soil pressure for lateral resistance is 350 pcf equivalent fluid weight and a coefficient of friction of 0.35. For the pile supported foundation, we estimate the maximum total post - construction settlement should be 1/4 inch or less and the differential settlement across building width should be 1/4 inch or less. CONVENTIONAL CONCRETE RETAINING WALLS Geotechnical design criteria is provided in the event the project plans are revised to include conventional concrete retaining walls. Cantilever retaining walls free to rotate on top should be designed for an active lateral soil pressure. Active Earth Pressure Conventional reinforced concrete walls should be designed to resist the lateral earth pressure imposed by an equivalent fluid with a unit weight of 35 pcf for level backfill above the wall. Seismic Earth Pressure In addition to the above lateral soil pressure, a rectangular pressure of 6H should be added to the lateral soil pressure for permanent basement and retaining walls to account for seismically induced dynamic soil loads. GEO Group Northwest, Inc. February 25, 2014 (Revised 8/12/14) G-3598 Critical Area Evaluation & Geotechnical Report Page 16 Proposed SFR, 15911 - 74' Place W, Edmonds The above design values are based on the wall being fully drained. The design values do not include the effects of surcharges. For the sloped ground above the wall, a surcharge load equivalent to 50 percent of the soil height above the wall should be considered in addition to the above soil pressures. Traffic surcharges can be assumed to be equivalent to 2 feet of soils (soil unit weight = 130 pcf). Passive Earth Pressure and Base Friction The available passive earth pressure that can be mobilized to resist lateral forces may be assumed to be equal to 350 pcf equivalent fluid weight for the site soil and engineered structural backfill. The base friction that can be generated between concrete and soil or structural fill may be based on an assumed 0.35 friction coefficient. Retaining Wall Drainage A vertical drain mat, Miradrain 6000 or equivalent, may be used to facilitate retaining wall drainage, or the walls may be backfilled with a clean free -draining granular soil or clean crushed rock. If installing a vertical drain mat, the plastic core is placed against the wall with the filter fabric side facing the backfill. The drain mat should extend from the finished surface grade down to the base of the wall. The bottom of the drain mat should be bedded in the washed rock surrounding the footing drain, as illustrated on the Footing Drain Detail, Plate 5. Footing drains should outlet to the storm drain. The wall backfill should be compacted to 90 percent, or in accordance with the manufacture's recommendations, to prevent clogging of the geotextile filter fabric on the drain mat. SLAB -ON -GRADE FLOORS Based on the loose surficial soil conditions encountered in the borings we recommend slab -on - grade floors be structurally supported due to potential settlement caused by floor loads from counters, cabinets, refrigerators, etc. Floor slabs should be reinforced with steel reinforcement bar. Slab -on -grade floors should be placed on a capillary break to prevent wicking of moisture through the slab. The capillary break should consist of a minimum of six (6) inch thick free -draining layer of clean crushed rock (no minus fraction), such as 5/8-inch crushed rock, or gravel containing no more than five (5) percent fines passing the No. 4 (1/4-inch) sieve. To reduce water vapor GEO Group Northwest, Inc. February 25, 2014 (Revised 8/12/14) Critical Area Evaluation & Geotechnical Report Proposed SFR, 15911 - 74' Place W, Edmonds G-3598 Page 17 transmission through the slab we recommend installing a 10-mil reinforced vapor barrier, such as Moistoe by Fortifiber Corporation, between the capillary break and concrete floor slab. Two to four inches of sand may be placed over the membrane for protection during construction (optional). DRAINAGE Water should not be allowed to stand in areas where footings, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. During construction, loose surfaces should be sealed at night by compacting the surface to reduce moisture infiltration into the soils. Final site grades should allow for drainage away from the building. We suggest that the ground be sloped at a gradient of three (3) percent for a distance of at least ten feet away from the building except in areas that are to be paved. Final site grades and impervious areas should be designed to collect surface water into catch basins and be tight -lined for discharge into the storm drain system. If water seepage is encountered during excavation, the geotechnical engineer should evaluate the site conditions. Provided the excavation is stable, we recommend sloping the bottom of the excavation to one or more shallow sump pits, and pumping the water to the storm system or an appropriate discharge location. Footing Drains Subsurface footing drains should be installed around the perimeter of the foundation and behind retaining walls. Footing drains should consist of a four (4) inch minimum diameter, perforated, rigid drain pipe laid at or near the bottom of the footing with a gradient sufficient to generate flow. The drain should be bedded in washed drain rock and the drain rock protected from clogging with geotextile filter fabric, such as Mirafi 140N, or equivalent, as illustrated on the Footing Drain Detail, Plate 5. The drain rock should extend up to the base of the vertical drain mat, if a drain mat is installed. Footing drains should discharge the storm drain system. Roof, yard, and other drain lines should not be connected to the footing drain system. The footing drain should be separately tight -lined to the discharge point. We recommend that sufficient clean - outs .be installed to allow for periodic maintenance of the footing drains and roof down -spout tight -line systems. GEO Group Northwest, Inc. February 25; 2014 (Revised 8/12/14) Critical Area Evaluation & Geotechnical Report Proposed SIR, 15911 - 74' Place W, Edmonds G-3598 Page 18 Seep Soil erosion was observed at a intermittent seep in the northeastern corner of the site, approximately as illustrated on Plate 2. Armoring the seep area with 2-inch to 4-inch crushed rock, underlain by geotextile filter fabric, Mirafi 140N or equivalent, is recommended to mitigate soil erosion. ECOLOGY BLOCK WALLS Tiered ecology block walls are proposed along the north side of the driveway and are needed to limit the slope of the driveway. The ecology block walls (ECW's) are in an area with limited slope height of 10 to 22 feet and the walls will be facing cuts. It is our opinion that the proposed EBW's will not trigger or otherwise contribute to the existing landslide hazard or earth subsidence risk either on the site or in the earth subsidence or landslide hazard area. Both walls have a planned height of 4 feet to 6 feet. The walls will be separated by 6 feet, so the upper wall will not surcharge the lower wall. Geogrid reinforcement is not required. Blocks should be battered into the slope at 1H:6V. The base blocks should be embedded a minimum of 9 inches, or 3 inches for each foot of wall height for wall greater than 3 feet tall. Soil supporting the blocks should be firm to provide proper support. Loose or unsuitable base soil should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer, and may require replacement with crushed rock. A near vertical cut is desirable behind the walls provided the soils are firm, self standing and water seepage is not encountered. We recommend limiting the size of the exposed open cuts to a horizontal width of 15 feet or less and constructing the walls concurrently as the cut is made. Cuts should not be left unsupported more than 24 hours. Good drainage behind the wall is essential for stability. A footing drain should be installed at the base of the back of the walls consisting of a four -inch diameter perforated rigid PVC pipe bedded in free -draining ballast or crushed rock. The perforated drain should be directed to a positive and permanent discharge location at the end of the wall. A minimum 12 inch zone of free -draining angular crushed rock should be installed behind the wall concurrently as the wall is constructed. GEO Group Northwest, Inc. February 25, 2014 (Revised 8/12/14) G-3598 Critical Area Evaluation & Geotechnical Report Page 19 Proposed SFR, 15911 - 74`s Place W, Edmonds DRIVEWAY Pavement performance is strictly related to the condition of the underlying subgrade. If subgrade is inadequate, no matter what pavement section is constructed, settlement or movement of the subgrade will be reflected up through the asphalt -concrete surfacing. To avoid this, the subgrade should be compacted and proof -rolled with a loaded dump truck under the observation of the geotechnical engineer. Areas of soft, wet or unstable subgrade may require over -excavation and replacement with compacted structural fill or crushed rock. Subgrade stabilization recommendations should be provided by the geotechnical engineer based on an evaluation of the subgrade conditions. Pavement sections and design specifications for county or city roadways should follow their design standards. The pavement section should consider the traffic load, such as garbage trucks. For private parking areas and the driveway we recommend the pavement section consist of the following-. MINIMUM PAVEMENT SECTION (PRIVATE) HEAVY TRAFFIC AREAS Class "B" Asphalt Concrete (AC) 3-inches, over Crushed Rock Base (CRB) 6-inches, or Asphalt Treated Base (ATB) 3-inches LIGHT TRAFFIC Class "B" Asphalt Concrete (AC) 2-inches, over Crushed Rock Base (CRB) 4-inches, or Asphalt Treated Base (ATB) 2-inches CONSTRUCTION MONITORING During construction, GEO Group Northwest should provide geotechnical monitoring/inspection services.. This will allow us to confirm that the subsurface conditions are consistent with those described in this report and allow design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. It will also allow us to evaluate whether the GEO Group Northwest, Inc. February 25, 2014 (Revised 8/12/14) G-3598 Critical Area Evaluation & Geotechnical Report Page 20 Proposed SFR, 15911 - 74`h Place W, Edmonds geotechnical aspects of the construction activities conform to the contract plans, specifications, and geotechnical engineering recommendations. Geotechnical construction monitoring inspections should include: • Site excavation • Pile installation • Retaining walls • Structural fill placement and compaction • Footing drain installation • Subgrade preparation for the slab -on -grade floor and the driveway While on the site during construction, we will not direct or supervise the contractor or the contractor's work, nor will we be responsible for providing or reviewing on -site safety or dimensional measurements. We request that the contractor provide a minimum of 24 hours advance notice to perform inspections so that we can arrange to have personnel available. LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared for the specific application to the subject project. The findings and recommendations stated herein are based on our field observations,,the subsurface conditions encountered in our site exploration, our experience; and judgement. The recommendations are our professional opinion derived in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area and within the budget constraint. No warranty is expressed or implied. In the event that the site or soil conditions vary during site work, GEO Group Northwest, Inc., should be notified and the recommendations herein re-evaluated, and where necessary, be revised. GEO Group Northwest, Inc., should be retained to review the final design plans to confirm that the plans conform to the recommendations contained in this report. GEO Group Northwest, Inc. r February 25, 2014 (Revised 8/12/14) G-3598 Critical Area Evaluation & Geotechnical Report Page 21 Proposed SFR, 15911 - 74' Place W, Edmonds Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this report. S incerely, GEO GROUP NORTHWEST, INC. Wade J. Lassey Engineering Geologist William Chang, P.E. Principal \� C of W h OF Sy/ ti� tics tiQ' o w 2 T 20114GIs ONALa���\c' Attachments: Plate 1 - Vicinity Map Plate 2 - Topographic Site Plan Plate 3 - Site Plan Plate 4 - Cross Section A - A' Plate 5 - Footing Drain Detail Appendix A - USCS Soil Classification Legend and Boring Logs GEO Group Northwest, Inc. tWashi \o y� .Tod rem V�'ade J. t.assey ILLUSTRATIONS GEO Group Northwest, Inc. IAdapted from "The Thomas Guide," 2007. NDALE d fir 0 1000' 2000' Approximate Scale: 1 inch =1000 feet �C ; iDiaibi¢ ' 145 (N PL SW P� LCN< V SPACE ' • t L NDS .6UL nPEN`SPk i--59141 SW ;ti a. LO Q z, PL 165TH ; PL ¢' FIWOOD i _, Sw o M' Ni � t-1�-H' NO 1167TH i rnl�• VICINITY MAP Group Northwest, Inc. PROPOSED SAUNDERS RESIDENCE Geolecimicel Engineers, Geologists. a 15911- 74th PI West Environmental Scientists Edmonds, Washington SCALE As Shown DATE 2/21/14 MADE WJL CHKD WC I JOB NO. G-3598 I PLATE I 15WHSTREErtW. Q•u rr rc. ,. rwro 122 TOPOGRAPHIC & BOUNDARY SURVEY $ye KlJ►'.$ tatgo.ou.�em f. ! „11Cfp q+ A - �'w 11 ILL— '• \ . °�°moo - ^:�'r,� ,�� �: � ' b \ —�`'-� •� ESTIMATED SLOPE HEIGHT =100 FT o _ \ — d ESTIMATED GRADIENT \ •� \ LOWER SLOPE 50%, UPPER SLOPE 8485% OVER 100 % AT SCARP FACES. SEEP. • I +B-2 ass +B I STEEPSLOPE i SURFACE WATER FLOWING ON SLOPE FACE + w i E 'I umme i t7 if e ,w , r , a� LEGEND - era,c ,• , a• BORING NUMBER & 1Ow- B I APPROXIMATE LOCATION A A' PLATE 2 CROSS SECTION SITE PLAN 9GALE , 1' 10'-0' 0 10 20 A?� �� A� 16a 6Q S��Yj 1�f�` I 180• 1717 _1 GL I — — — — I 17a Sri 1 ►- ? sM YA G SM�9P�.s/r1 � Mtr / E�1�faFJ 14a 140' SM gt1�Ml. i2a / 12a 5P SM �W 1w SM 10a 41 . O / t1L w 60' n I BoRiae / h 6a B-2 7 fbp2�NG 0" 1a 20' 0a 4a 50' 6a 70r MY Ba 100, 11a 120' 19a 14a 15a HORIZONTAL DISTANCE: 1 inch =10 feet CROSS SECTON A - A' VERTICAL ELEVATION: 1 inch = 10 feet U=Group Northwest, Inc. PROPOSED SAUNDERS RESIDENCE I c. ■.. a 1S911- 74th PI West Edmonds, Washington SCAI,E As Shown DATE 200/14 MADE W1L CIIKD WC JOB NO. G-3598 PLATE 4 6"to 12"Relative Impermeable Cap GEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRIC (Miraft 140 N, or equivalent) WASHED DRAIN ROCK FOOTING DRAIN: ----- Minimum 4-inch diameter slotted or perforated rigid PVC pipe with positive gradient to discharge CO FOUNDATION WALL SLAB 1 Slope to drain * •:w, .;� '.:� izAPll1? �R£A is O C Q Q :. a a t a o: o O C) GRADE 8FAM .0 , Invert Pile NOT TO SCALE NOTES: 1.) Do not replace rigid PVC pipe with flexiible corrugated plastic pipe. 2.) Perforated or slotted PVC pipe should be tight jointed and laid with perforations or slots down, with positive gradient to discharge. 3.) Do not connect roof downspout drains to the footing drain lines. M Group Northwest, Inc. Geotechnicel Engineers, Geologists, A Environrnental Scientists TYPICAL FOOTING DRAIN PROPOSED SAUNDERS RESIDENCE 15911- 74th PI West Edmonds, Washington SCALE LNONE I DATE 2/20/14 1 MADE WJL I CHKD WC I JOB NO. G-3598 I PLATE 5 I APPENDIX A USCS SOIL CLASSIFICATION LEGEND BORING LOGS GEO Group Northwest, Inc. LEGEND OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND PENETRATION TEST UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (USCS) MAJOR DIVISION GROUP TYPICAL DESCRIPTION LABORATORY CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA SYMBOL I CLEAN GW WELL GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND Cu = (D60 / D10) greater than 4 GRAVELS MOXTURE, LITTLE OR NO FINES — DETERMINE Cc = (DW) / (D10' D60) between 1 and 3 PERCENTAGES OF GRAVELS QitBe or no POORLY GRADED GRAVELS, AND GRAVEL -SAND GRAVEL AND SAND (More Than Half fines) GP MIXTURES LITTLE OR NO FINES FROM GRAIN SIZE NOT MEETING ABOVE REQUIREMENTS COARSE- GRAINED SOILS Coarse Grains DISTRIBUTION ATTER13ERG LIMITS BELOW Larger Than No. 4 CURVE Sieve) DIRTY GM SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND -SILT MIXTURES "A' LINE GRAVELS CONTENT or PA LESS THAN 4 OF FINES CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVELSANDI:LAY ATTERSE.RG LIMITS ABOVE (with some EXCEEDS 12% fines) GC MIXTURES COARSE GRAINED "A' LINE SOILS ARE or P.I. MORE THAN 7 CLASSIFIED AS SANDS CLEAN yyy I WELL GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS. I FOLLOWS: ! Cu = (D80 f D10) greater than 6 . LITTLE OR NO FINES I Co = (per) / (p10' D60) between 1 3 SANDS and (More Than HaH Moro Than Half Coarse Grains (I the or no SF POORLY GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, < 5% Fine Grained: NOT MEETING ABOVE REQUIREMENTS Weight larger Smaller Than No. fines) LITTLE OR NO FINES GW GP SW SP Than No. 200 4 Sieve) . DIRTY SM SILTY SANDS, SAND -SILT MIXTURES ATTERBERG LIMITS BELOW 'A` LINE Sieve > 12% Fine Grained: SANDS GM, GC, SM, SC CONTENT OF with P.I. LESS THAN 4 FINES ATTERBERG UMrTS ABOVE (with some 5 to 12% Fine EXCEEDS 12% fines) SC CLAYEY SANDS, SAND -CLAY MIXTURES Grained: use dual "A' LINE symbols with P.I. MORE THAN 7 SILTS Liquid Limit ML .INORGANIC SILTS, ROCK FLOUR, SANDY SILTS (Below A -Una on < SM OF SLIGHT PLAST1CrY 60 Plasticity Chart, Liquid Limit INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR FINE-GRAINED Negligible 50 SOILS Organic) > 50% MH DIATOMACEOUS, FINE SANDY OR SILTY SOIL CLAYS liquid limit INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY, X 40 (Above A -Line on < 30% CL GRAVELLY, SANDY, OR SILTY CLAYS, CLEAN W p Plasticity Chart, CLAYS Z Liquid Limit INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT Negligible }} 30 F Organic) , 509i CH CLAYS U More Than Half by 20 Weight Larger Liquid Limit ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF Than No. 200 ORGANIC SILTS 8 < 50% OL LOW PLASTICITY d Sieve CLAYS 10 - (Below A -Line on Plasticity Chart) Liquid it OH ORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY 4', 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS Pt PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS UOUID LIMIT (%) SOIL PARTICLE SIZE GENERAL GUIDANCE OF SOIL ENGINEERING PROPERTIES FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT) U.S. STANDARD SIEVE FRACTION Passing Retained SANDY SOILS SILTY & CLAYEY SOILS Sieve (MM) Steve (MIT) Blow Counts Relative Density Friction Angie Description Blow Counts Unconfined Strength Description SILT / CLAY #2W 0.075 N % 0, degree N qu, tsf SAND 0-4 0.15 Very Loose < 2 < 0.25 Very soft FINE #40 0.425 #200 0.075 4. 10 15 - 35 26 - 30 Loose 2.4 0.25 - 0.50 Soft MEDIUM #10 2.00 040 0.425 10.30 35.65 28 - 35 Medium Dense 4.8 0.50. 1.00 Medium Stiff COARSE 04 4.75 #10 zoo 30 - 50 > 50 65 - 85 65 - 100 35 - 42 38 -4e Dense Very Dense 8 - 15 15 - 30 1.00. 2.00 I 2.00 - 4,00 Stiff Very Stiff GRAVEL . FINE I 19 #4 4.75 , 30' > 4.00 Hard — �) Group Northwest, Inc. COARSE 76 /9 76min 2IXf min UBBL�ESg Geotechnical Engineers. Geologists, 8 Scientists ROCK > 78 minEnvironmental FRAGMENTS 13240 NE 20th SbeeL Suite 12 Bellevue, WA 98005 Phone (425) 649.8757 Fax (425) 649-8758 p LATE A 1 ROCK >0.76 cubic meter in volume BORING NO. B-1 Logged By: WJL Date Drilled: 1/22/14 Surface Elev. 1 18 feet +/- Depth USCS Soil Description tlOn P SAMPLE SPr(N) Blows per Water Content Drilling/ Sampling Information & (ft) 6-inches `16 Observations Type No. Sl I, 1, 2 27.8 N= 3 SM Silty SAND, dark brown to brown, fine- N'=6 grained, some organics, very loose, damp T S2 6, 2, 3 16.6 1 N= 5 5 ----- ------------------ N'=10 Water level measured S3 2, 2, 2 18.8 at 4.25 feet below Silty SAND, brown to light brown to gray, fine- N=4 ground surface. grained, very loose to medium dense, occasional N= 8 wood inclusions, occasional fine gravel, wet T S4 2, 2, 2 34.3 1 N= 4 10 N'= 8 Gray T S5 3, 5, 4 28.8 1 N= 9 SM N'= 16 I S6 2, 2, 4 23.6 N= 6 15 N'= 10 I S7 2, 2, 3 19.3 N=5 N'= 7 I S8 3, 6, 12 15.3 N= 18 20 ----- --- --------------- N'=24 T S9 4, 5, 5 22.5 1 N= 10 N'=13 T S 10 2, 4, 4 17.3 1 N=8 25 SM/ Silty SAND, gray, with some interbeds of silt N'= 10 ML and sandy silt, loose to medium dense, wet s11 3,2, 3 19.0 N=5 N=6 T S12 2,2,3 13.3 1 N= 5 30 N'= 5 S13 5,6,5 13.9 N= 11 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — M=II IS 14 6, 12, 9 --- No Sample Recovery Silty SAND, with interbeds of gravelly sand. " N= 21 35 SM with silt, gray, loose to medium dense, wet M_ 19 T S 15 4, 8, 9 15.5 1 N= 17 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — N=15 SM to Silty SAND to SAND with some silt, gray, S16 4, 3, 3 15.1 SP-SM loose, wet N=6 M=6 LEGEND: = 2-inch O.D. Split Spoon Sample Interval N: Number of blow counts for I foot of sampler advancement. Sampler driven with 140 lb. Hammer (Standard SPT) N : Overburden correction — BORING LOG • Group Northwest, Inc. PROPOSED SAUNDERS RESIDENCE Geotech,,;cal Engineers, Geologists, 15911- 74TH PL WEST Environmental scientists EDMONDS, WASH NGTON JOB NO. G-3598 DATE 1/23/14 PLATE A2.1 BORING NO. B•1 Logged By: WJL Date Drilled: 1/22/14 Surface Elev. 118 feet +/- Duo' USCS Soil Description sAnfPig SPT (N) Blows per Water Content Drilling/ Sampling Information & (�) 6-inches % Observations Type No. S 17 2, 3, 3 13.3 SM to Silty SAND to SAND with some silt, gray, N= 6 SP-SM loose, wet N'= 5 1 45 ML SILT, gray, some clay, very stiff to hard, medium plasticity, moist so Total Depth = 56.5 feet. 60 Groundwater Level Measured At 4.25:feet below the ground surface. Drilling Co: Geologic Drill Borehole backfilled with bentonite chips 43 fed: Drilling Change, Firmer Drilliing. I S 18 9, 12, 13 37.7 N= 25 I I S 19 IN 72253 I 32.0 I S20 10,14, 18 32.5 N= 32 BORING NO. B-2 Logged By:, WJL Date Drilled: 1/22/14 Surface Elev. 116 feet Depth (k) USCS Soil Description s'�I�tPLE SPT (N) Blows per Water Content Drilling/ Sampling lrtformation & Type No. 6-inches % Observations SM Silty SAND, brown, fine-grained, some sl 2, 2, 2 24.2 organics, very loose, damp N=4 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — N'=8 I S2 6, 5, 5 13.7 N= 10 5 Silty SAND, light brown to grayish brown, fine- N'=20 SM grained, loose to medium dense, occasional fine S3 3, 3, 2 9.6 gravel, damp N= 5 N'= 10 T S4 11, 19, 18 8.3 * Driving Rock l N= 37* 10 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — SM/ Silty SAND, light brown, fine-grained, medium I S5 H 815 10.6 SP-SM & ML -- dense; with thin interbeded.silt lenses, damp ------------------ N'=27 15 Silty SAND, light brown, fine-grained, medium T S6 8,11, 14 16.8 SM dense, damp, some mottling at 16.5 feet 1 N= 25 N'= 36 20 Silty SAND to sandy SILT, some gravel, light T SM/ brown to oxidized red brown mottling, fine- 1 s7 5, 7, 6 N= 13 17.5 ML grained, medium dense, damp N'= 16 25 SM Silty SAND with some gravel, oxidized red T S8 5, 7, 8 14.2 brown, fine-grained, medium dense, moist 1 N=15 N'= 17 30 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Water level measured SP Gravelly SAND, grayish brown, fine to S9 12,11,11 9.2 at 28.9 feet -below medium- grained, medium dense, wet N= 22 ground surface. N'= 21 35 ----- ----------------- I S10 9,15,17 13.0 SP-SM SAND, brown, some silt and gravel, fine to N= 32 & medium grained, and fine to coarse grained, N'= 29 SW-SM medium dense, wet LEGEND: = 2-inch O.D. Split Spoon Sample Interval N: Number of blow counts for I foot of sampler advancement. Sampler driven with 140 Ib. Hammer (Standard SPT) N: Overburden correction - BORING LOG WqGroup Northwest, Inc. PROPOSED SAUNDERS RESIDENCE Geoted,nical Engineers, Gedogists, & 15911- 74TH PL WEST Environmental SdenVsts EDMONDS, WASHINGTON JOB NO. G-3598 DATE 1/23/14 PLATE A3.1 BORING NO. B-2 Logged By: WJL Date Drilled: 1/22/14 Surface Elev. 118 feet Depth (ft) USCS Soil Description P SAMPLE SPT(N) Blows per Water Content Drilling/ Sampling Information & Type No. 6-inches % Observations 'T sit 3, 8, 8 13.4 N= 16 N'=32 45 T S12 4,5,5 14.1 1 N= 10 N'=20 SP-SM SAND, brown, some silt and gravel, fine to 50 & medium grained, and fine to coarse grained, SW-SM medium dense, wet T S13 8, 10, 7 10.8 1 N= 17 N'= 34 55 T S14 10,11,12 11.0 1 N= 23 N'=17 60 Dense T S15 12, 19, 24 14.2 1 N= 43 N'=30 Total Depth = 61.5 feet. Groundwater Lcvcl Measured At 28.9 feet below the 65 ground surface. Drilling Co: Geologic Drill Borehole backfilled with bentonite chips 70 75 LEGEND• _ 2-inch O.D. Split Spoon Sample Interval N: Number of blow counts for 1 foot of sampler advancement. Sampler driven with 140 lb. Hammer (Standard SPT) N': Overburden correction — BORING LOG • Group Northwest, Inc. PROPOSED SAUNDERS RESIDENCE Geotechnical Engineers. Geologists. & 15911- 74TH PL WEST Environmental scientists EDMONDS, WASHINGTON JOB NO. G-3598 DATE 1/23/14 PLATE A3.2 COM at, i�4E 6 a DRAINAGE REPORT SAUNDERS RESIDENCE 15911 74" P1 W BY SITE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 3011 RAVEN CREST WITH APPLICABLE BELLINGHAM, WA 98226 RIAWATER CODE (425) 481-9687 March 18, 2014 APR 07 2L,,i OEVEL'OU R WICES TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS) OFF -SITE ANALYSIS II FLOW CONTROL DESIGN III SWPP M& OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE V SECTION I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Located at the end of the road improvements for 741h Pl W., this site is currently undeveloped. Although the site consists of 0.61 acres, only the westerly 0.37 acres has been disturbed in the past. This is the area in which the house will be constructed. Access will be off of a driveway that is partially in the 74`h Pl. right-of-way and then curves to the east up to the house. Proposed site areas in square feet: Roof Area: 5,228 Driveway: 2,651 Total Impervious: 7,879 Figure 2-1 on the next page illustrates that because there is more than 5000 square feet of impervious area the project is classified as a "Small Site, Category 2. Since no impervious area exists on the site, all of the impervious area is new. The downstream analysis in Section II shows that except for a very short section of ditch, runoff flows directly to Puget Sound via pipes, so it qualifies as a "Direct Discharge Basin". No LID measures can be utilized on this project due to poor soils and steep slopes. Vegetated roof and rainwater harvesting were not selected due to architectural reasons and due to cost versus benefit, since the site is in a direct discharge basin. Therefore, detention is required. All 10 minimum requirements apply to this site and are discussed below. Start' Does the prol lect involve -1- acre or=more ofland- disturbjuga acth-itl�7.. No `Is the pro jectoartof a larger coynnionpidn of.derelopinefil orsale nhere,the_ total disturbed area for the entire plan vlU total "1-acre. ormore of land-disudbing'acthItt'? 14.N No Figure 2-1: Project Classification Yes Yes more of the 1, Yes `2,060 square feet or more of nev.-unpervious surface, ieplaced pen* un surface or neiv -phis replaced impenious surface? -OR, 7,000 square feet of land4sturbing-activity? 'OR .50 cubic. yards or more of either grading, fill, or'evcaratioyras defined in Chapter 1SA0.000 ECDC9 No Minor SitecProlecr �,Read''Chapter:3 and .gee Laile Site Project: Read Chapter 3 and see Chapter 4 for- reqwements, Does the project create or add 5,000squarr feet of. Wrimpenious surface, replaced impenious surface',-, -or new plus replaced impenious surface? OR bonirert 114 cre e ormore of nadveveketadop 1612174'mil or landscaped area OR Throug 7h a.combination of creating efferme surface and convertedpenlous surfaces, causes an increase of 0.1 cubicleet per second in.the.1 Oq-year flow, frequency from threshold.dischorge. area.as estimated using, an approved model? Ni 6 1 >- Yes Care-gol-VI SmAll-SiteTI-9ject: Read Chapter. see -Chapter .5 for requirements 1 Assumes the project in question meets applicability requirements ofECDC 18.30.030. C;tegorT'2 Small Site.,Project:._ `Read!Chapter3 and see-Cliapier.: 5 for requirements t MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS MR#I: Preparation of Stormwater Site Plans The Stormwater Site Plan shows all of the proposed improvements and the manner in which storm drainage will be collected and discharged from the site. MR#2: SWPP The enclosed downstream analysis demonstrates that this project will have no significant impact to downstream properties, so conventional TESC measures will be adequate. See Section III for the downstream analysis. MR#3: Source Control of Pollution: No significant sources of pollution will be created with this project, as it consists of a single family residence. MR#4: Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems and Outfalls: All of the site runoff drains to the existing storm drain on the south side of the site and it will continue to do so in its proposed condition. MR#5: On -site Stormwater Management: Because the site has poor draining soils, is steep, and in a landslide hazard area, no LID measures using infiltration are proposed. Vegetated roof was not selected for architectural reasons and rainwater harvesting is not beneficial due to the fact that runoff is in a pipe or ditch all the way to Puget Sound. MR#6: Runoff Treatment No runoff treatment is required, as the total PGIS is less than 5000 square feet. MR#7: Flow Control Per directions received from the City staff, flow control is proposed for this project to ensure the capacity of the downstream system is not exceeded. This is particularly important due to the presence of the landslide hazard area. In accordance with Section 5.7.2 of the Edmonds Stormwater Code Supplement, this project is required to detain for the 10 and 100 year storm events only. The maximum allowable release for these storm events are 0.25cfs/acre and 0.45cfs/acre, respectively. The City staff has also directed that the continuous hydrologic modeling method be used to size the detention system, due to the sensitive nature of the site and surrounding area. MR#8: Wetlands Protection No wetlands exist on or downstream from the site. MR#9: Operation and Maintenance The detention system will require maintenance, so those methods are specified in Section V. MR#10: Offsite Analysis This is provided in Section II of this report. It describes the upstream and downstream conditions, and demonstrates that the downstream does consist of a piped/ditch system that has no apparent deficiencies. SECTION II OFF -SITE ANALYSIS OFF -SITE ANALYSIS Upstream: The upstream area is shown on the attached map. It consists of about 0.6 acres of vegetated area. Runoff enters the site as sheet flow or as isolated weeps out of the hillside. The largest concentration of flow is directed to an existing catch basin on the south side of the site near the eastern edge of the disturbed area. On -site: Runoff from the site sheet flows on to neighboring properties or is collected in the catch basins in the storm drain on the south side of the site. No concentrations of runoff were observed leaving the site. Any sources of concentrated flow entering the site are small seasonal weeps that re -infiltrate before leaving the site. No closed depressions, erosion, sedimentation or other drainage features or issues were observed. Downstream: All runoff from the site eventually enters the piped system described above. It either enters the system before leaving the site or else it flow across the downstream properties and is collected into the storm drain system in 75th Pl. The piped system is illustrated in the attached City storm drain map. The first pipe leaving the catch basin at the southwest corner of the site is 12 inches in diameter. It drains to a series of catch basins and pipes in 75th Pl., which direct the runoff to the south. Those pipes are a mix of 12 and 18 inch. The runoff is then directed west in a 12 inch CMP pipe between houses at 15908 and 15910 75th Pl. This pipe system outfalls to a short section of ditch which channels the runoff to a culvert under the railroad tracks which daylights to the Sound. Due to difficult access, this ditch and culvert system was not viewed. Work has been done on the downstream system recently, as evidenced by asphalt patching, but no capacity problems were evident. LJ T SITE UPSTREAM BASIN I vw- off AW n owl v PYWYA W17- ! A; Lit 15 UPSTREAM BASIN MAP DOWNSTREAM PATH SECTION III FLOW CONTROL DESIGN FLOW CONTROL DESIGN In accordance with City requirements, detention will be designed using the VPVVHM and the Puget East 36 precipitation time series. The allowable release will be for the 10 and 100 year events, which are calculated based on 0.l4cfs/acre and 0.45cfs/acre, respectively. The acreage used is only the impervious area, which is 7,879 square feet, or 0.18 acres. The model is run using only the Postdeveloped scenario and adjusting the size of the detention until the correct peak flows are achieved. The peak flows are: 10 year: 0.14 x 0.18 acres = 0.025cfs 100 year: 0.45 x 0.18 acres = 0.081 cfs The input and results of the WWHM are shown on the following pages. They show that a 60 inch detention pipe, 50 feet long will meet the flow release requirements. The mitigated flows for the design storms are: 10 year: = 0.0246cfs 100 year: = 0.042cfs These are less than the target rates, so the system is adequate. The flow control tee is 8 inches in diameter and will have single orifice at the bottom of the tee with a diameter of 0.65 inches. It will have a notch one foot deep and 0.33 feet wide. �I asin I' 'Miti'gated tt .t Subbasin 'Name Basin °1. r� Designate:as Bypess far f?OC: Surface Interflow.. Groundwater Flows 'To FT;;rik- 1 Tank 1- -Area in Basin :Sh`ow Only Selected' A,iailable Peruious .Acres' Available imperious Acres (" AaB;Forest,;Flat ("j RO,ADSIFLAT 0. �'",�AIB,;,Forest:Mod ROADS1f�OD 0 A1B,:Forest;Steep OAD.SISTEEF' 0 j";AIB;;Pasture; Flat .= . ROOF-TOPSI.FLAT, .12' AI,B; Pasture, Mod' 0� j DRIVEWAYSIFLAT - 0 --- — j 1 ALB-, Pasture, -Steep j"j DRIVEWAYSIMOD..;:.jq �lAIBr.Lawn, Flak 0I DRIVEWAYSISTEEP 06. - j`t0B L-awn,°Mod t 1b, ... `'j`I.SID.EWALKWFLAT. 111 0—� SIDEWALKS/MUU�: SIDEWALKSISTEEP 0. . PARKING/FLA-T' f-—ARKINGVMOD ' 0- =-- j",j PARKINGaS_TEEP= . POND 0� [;.Porous'Paveme POST DEVELOPED BASIN • Tank 1 Mitigated Facility Dimensions Facility Bottom Elevation (ft) t00 ` °y Tank Type Circular Diameter (ft) Length (ft) Infiltration NO -:� Outlet Structure Data / Riser Height (ft) 4.5 ✓ Riser Diameter (in) 18 ' Riser Type Notched Notch Type Rectangular Notch Height (ft) 1 Notch Width [ft) j0-3 3 Orifice Diameter Height Number (in) (ft) 1 Fa o 3 0 -:-; o Tank Volume at Riser Head (ac-ft) .022 Show Tank Table Open Table -:- Intitial Stage fft} `677 Tide Gate Time Series Demand I.___.... � ......_...__ Determine Outlef"sl ith Tide Gate 'Use Tide Gate Tide Gate Elevation Downstream Connection °� Overflow Elevation (ft) b _ iterations DETENTION SYSTEM DATA Analysis 01 Cumulative Probability + + V3 ++ LL + + 801 + + + +++ 0.01 0.01 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 30 50 70 80 901 95 98 9E 99.5 1,N Stream Protection Duration_j LID Duration Flow Frequency t Water Quality Hydrograph j Wetland Input LID Report Recharge Duration p p Recharge Predeveloped Recharge Mitigated Analyze datasets Compact WDM 501 POC 1 Predeveloped flow 101 Inflow to POC 1 Miti at 1000 Tardy -1 ALL ►DIJTLETD M�igate� _ , . All Datasets Flowtage Precip Evap POC 1� Flood Frequency Method 1: Lag Pearson Type 11117D N Flow Frequency F1ow(cfs) 0801 � 2 Year = 0.0155 5 Year - 0.0205 10 Year = 0.0246 Ir 25 Year = 0.0306 50 Year = 0.0357 100 Year = 0.0416 Annual Peaks 1902 0.0165 1903 0.0148 1904 0.0168 1905 0.0136 1906 0.0134 1907 0.0186 1908 0.0158 1909 0.0149 1910 0.0178 1911 0.0150 1912 0.0192 1913 0.0145 1914 0.0181 1915 0.0130 1916 0.0154 1917 0.0152 1918 0.0151 1919 0.0139 1920 0.0146 1921 0.0135 1922 0.0159 1923 0.0148 1924 0.0139 1925 0.0123 199f,_.-- __._n ni.r5 SECTION IV SWPP SWPP The following is a summary of the SWPP (TESC) Elements, how each is addressed, the type and location of BMP used to satisfy the required element, and justification if an element is found to not be applicable. Mark Clearing Limits: This was addressed on the SWPPP (TESC) with callouts along the project perimeter defining the limit, as required to perform the necessary construction. Establish Construction Access: A Construction entrance is proposed in the areas of the proposed driveway. Control Flow Rates: The most vital objective is to maintain sheet flows through the silt fence as much as possible. Due to the small size of the site, the perimeter protection is the primary means of controlling silt runoff. The measures to address silt runoff issues are discussed below. Install Sediment Controls: Sediment traps or ponds are not suitable for this project, as the site is too small and the construction will occupy the entire parcel. Sediment control can be done with proper ground cover practices and silt fences or other means as proposed in the TESC. Stabilize Soils: Specific details governing the covering of soils are provided in the SWPPP in the Notes Sheet. It provides for straw mulch over ground that will not be disturbed again for a specified time period. In addition, traveled areas are specified to be overlain with appropriate gravelly soils to prevent tracking and the exposure of silt to rainfall. Protect Slopes: There are no significant slopes in the development area. Protect Drain Inlets: No drain inlets are proposed for this site. Stabilize Channels and Outlets: No channels or outlets are proposed during construction. Control Pollutants: Because of the nature of this work, no significant pollutants will be generated. Maintenance of equipment to prevent leaks is- the best way to control pollutants. Control Dewatering: Dewatering is not assumed to be required due to the limited area of excavation. Any groundwater should be collected and routed around any disturbed ground. Maintain BMP's: This is provided for in the Construction Sequence on the SWPPP. The level of maintenance required depends on the amount of precipitation and the extent of ground disturbance. Manage the Project: This requires good communication on the part of the inspector and the contractor. The contractor shall have a contact person in the event that emergency maintenance is required. SECTION V OPERATION & MAINTENANCE 10 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE The owner shall check catch basins as necessary to ensure silt does not rise to within one foot of outlet. The detention system and related structures shall be maintained as follows: Table 3.4 Specific Maintenance'Requirements for Detention Vaults/Tanks Results Expected N'he.n Maintenance. Maintenance is Component. Defect Conditions «'hen Maintenance is Deeded Performed Storage Plugged one-half of the cross section of a vent is blocked Vents open and Area -Air tents 'at any point or.the. vent is damaged_ functioning. Debris and Accumulated sediment depth exceeds.10% of the All sediment and debris; Sediment diameter of the storage area for 112. length of removed from storage storage vault or any point depth exceeds 150,10 of area.. diameter_ (Example: 72-inch storagee tank would -require cleaning when sediment reaches depth of-7 inches for more than 112 length of tank_) Joints Any openings or voids allowing.material:to be All joint between Between' 'transported -into facility_ tankipipe sections are Tank/Pipe Section (Will require engineering analysis to determine structural stability). seale(i Tank Pipe Any part of tankipipe is bent out of shape more Tank)pipe repaired or Bent Out than 10% of its design shape. (Review required be replaced to design. of Shape engineer to.determine structural stability). Vault Cracks. wider.than.112-inch and any, evidence of Vault,replaced or.repaired Structure soil particles entering the structure through the to design specifications . Includes cracks, or maintenancelinspection personnel and is structurally sound. Cracks in determines that the vault'is not, structurally Wall, sound. Bottom, Damage :to , Frame andtor Top Slab Cracks .wider than 112-inch at the joint of any No cracks:more than 114- inletJoutlet pipe .or any evidence of soil particles entering the vaultthrough the walk. inch aide at: the joint of the inlet/outlet pipe. Manhole 'cover Not Cover is missing or only.parrially in place_ Any Manhole is closed. in Place open manhole requires maintenance. Locking Mechanism cannot be opened by one maintenance Mechanism opens with Mechanis person with proper tools. Bolts into•frame have proper tools. m NVot working less than 112 inch of thread (may not apply to self - locking.lids)_ Cover One maintenance.person cannot remove lid after Cover can be removed and Difficult to applying normal lifting pressure_ Intent is to reinstalled by one Remove keep cover from sealing off access to maintenance. maintenance. person. .Ladder Ladder is unsafe due to missing rungs, Ladder meets design Rungs misalignment, not securely attached to structure standards_ Allows Unsafe wall, rust, or cracks. maintenance person safe access. City of Edmonds Critical Area Notice of Decision Applicant: Critical Area File #: Site Location: Project Description: U�J(q �} ZO i Y 0 0 S-C( C—G I l 7 (1 �' /9 Ak&/ S' fZ ' 4j Property Owner: Permit Number: W I Parcel Number: /- f '/— /-� A-02a1Y 03( OS(33p/)00 �-a ❑ Conditional Waiver. No critical area report is required for the project described above. 1. There will be no alteration of a Critical Area or its required buffer. 2. The proposal is an allowed activity pursuant to ECDC 23.40.220, 23.50.220, and/or 23.80.040. 3. The proposal is exempt pursuant to ECDC 23.40.230. y, co c h �/`( J % M ❑ Erosion Hazard. Project is within erosion hazard area. Applicant must prepare an erosion and sediment control plan in compliance with ECDC 18.30. C� q? C) ( f`aci Critical /VJ/Q'AVW S �, Z�C_ � _ 3�td Area Report Required: The proposed project is within a critical area and/or a critical'ar ea offer and a critical area report is required. A critical area report has been submitted and evaluated for compliance with the following criteria pursuant to ECDC 23.40.160: 1. The proposal minimizes the impact on critical areas in accordance with ECDC 23.40:120, Mitigation sequencing; 2. i The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on or off the development proposal site; 3. / The proposal is consistent with the general purposes of this title and the public interest; 4. i Any alterations permitted to the critical area are mitigated in accordance with ECDC 23.40.110, Mitigation requirements. 5. The proposal protects the critical area functions and values consistent with the best available science and results in no net loss of critical functions and values; and 6. _� The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards. ❑ Unfavorable Critical Area Decision. The proposed project is not exempt or does not adequately mitigate its impacts on critical areas and/or does not comply with the criteria in ECDC 23.40.1.60 and the provisions of the City of Edmonds critical area regulations. See attached findings of noncompliance. Favorable Critical Area Decision. The proposed project as described above and as shown on the attached site plan meets or is exempt from the criteria in ECDC 23.40.160, Review Criteria, and complies with the applicable provisions of the City of Edmonds critical area regulations. Any subsequent changes to the proposal shall void this decision pending re -review of the proposal. ❑ Conditions. Critical Area specific condition(s) have been applied to the permit number referenced above. See referenced permit number for specific condition(s). - ZJ � Reviewer Signature0 Date Appeals: Any decision to approve, condition, or deny a development proposal or other activity based on the requirements of critical area regulations may be appealed according to, and as part of, the appeal procedure, if any, for the permit or approval involved. Revised 12/16/2010 PLANNING DATA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STREET FILE Name: p O �' 13 3d0 D O 2 Date: Site Address: (� �% Plan Check #: gf✓p ZO / q�31 7 Project Description: New w �-r4 i �, S 1 -�L4- Reduced Site Plan Provided: (YES / NO Zoning: Map Page: Corner Lot: (YES / ) Flag Lot: (YES Critical Areas Determination #: & -Study Required 0SL 44- ❑ Waiver SEPA Determination: Exempt ❑ Needed (for over 500 cubic yards of grading) ❑ Fee ❑ Checklist ❑ APO List with notarized form - Required Setbacks S t 25 Sid. D� tr 3 5 `�,i Side: 6v ... 15 Actual Setbacks Street: Side: 3 S Side: 2 Rear: (� ❑ Detached Structures: _I ElReekeries: G co 6 Io cG- VV,/ I + Carl C- w°c'u' �(1 d G✓�5 — 3 a� `^� cgs �j - . t J ❑ Fences/Trellises: C/ -Bay Windows/Projecting Modulation: x(m e e q Sr ElStairs/Deck: 4y Buildin Height Datum Point: Saver M f - S W ci,ruT Datum Elevation: S Maximum Height Allowed: Z U 3 ) Actual Height: Z -� -L Other Parking Required: Parking Provided: Lot Area: U 3 S Maximum Lot Coverage: 35% Proposed: Lot Coverage Calculations:ut ADU Created: (YES / NO Subdivision: d ow drkA- . D e4 C SJ P Legal Nonconforming Land Use Determination Issued: (Y L IVO Comments c - Ito_ zo Plan Review By: Cll/ f �`�� Z S / Planning Data Forth 04-11-06.doc PLANNING DATA NAME: DATE: "-7 2 -7 6 SITE ADDRESS: I C"a 1' 1 `l P1 _`� _ PLAN CHK#:©S- P- 1,0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Gt=e- REDUCED SITE PLAN PROVIDE s / No MAP PAGE: '50`7 CORNER LOT: Yes p FLAG LOT: Yes / o) ZONING: tea- zO CRITICAL AREAS DETERMINATION #: Oo1- JJStudv Reauired: ck1rV3LP R - C;Z o it nA _ , ➢ ❑ Waiver -oil-0o2- 10/ ❑ Conditi nal Waive �- SEPA�ETE�A'AMN.I W ! w.. 1-�� C�GI O��o s2.c EC�Xi 2 Ja Fee 4 Checklist APO list w/ notarized form (Needed f 500 cubic yar of grading, Shoreline Area- site within 200 ft. of Puget Sound or Lake Ballinger) ❑ Exempt SETBACKS: 76 -+ "e Required Setbacks: VA-1 1� Street: a ' Left Side: 10 Right Side: 1 O' Rear: Actual Setbacks S I Street: � � Ceft Side: 10 ' Right Side: 31 . '-I c,' Rear: 1 (DO. -1 5 Street map checked for additional setback required? Yes o DNA ❑ ETACHED STRUCTURES: ROCKERIES:- ❑ FENCES/TRELLISES: ❑ BAY WINDOWS / PROJECTING MODULATION: ❑ STAIRS / DECKS: PARKING: Required: Actual:1L LOT AREA: a (P i 'v'i LOT COVE . Calculations: 3$CPv BUILDING HEIGHT: - =W 6 L,,p L-0/ � $ � %I (A . Sr0 Datum Point: Datum Elevation: ) l I Maximum Allowed: I Q r Actual Height: ( a Z r G. I az• S t A.D.U. CREATED? o) Yes) SUBDIVISION: ' Av,e. LEGAL NONCONFORMING LEA• ND U`SE 1TERMIINATION ISSUED: Yes / o OTH Plan Review By: NewBPPlannin g Ij ; !3 DataForm.DOC - ' � FILE 23.86.04.0 • • Part II. Allowed Activities — Geologically Hazardous Areas 23.80.040 Allowed activities — Geologically hazardous areas. The following activities are allowed in geo- logically hazardous areas as consistent with ECDC 23.40.220, Allowed activities, Chapter 19.10 ECDC, Building Permits — Earth Sub- sidence and Landslide Hazard Areas, and Chapter 18.30 ECDC, Storm Water Manage- ment, and do not require submission of a criti- cal area report: A. Erosion and Landslide Hazard Areas. Except as otherwise provided for in this title, only those activities approved and permitted consistent with an approved critical areas report in accordance with this title shall be allowed in erosion or landslide hazard areas. B. Seismic Hazard Areas. The following activities are allowed within seismic hazard areas: 1. Construction of new buildings with less than 2,500 square feet of floor area or roof area, whichever is greater, and which are not residential structures or used as places of employment or public assembly; 2. Additions to existing single -story res- idences that are 250 square feet or less; and 3. Installation of fences. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Part III. Additional Report Requirements — Geologically Hazardous Areas 23.80.050 Special study and _report re"idremenis — Geologically hazardous areas. Critical area report requirements for geolog- ically hazardous areas are generally met through submission to the director of one or more geotechnical engineering reports. In addition to the general critical areas report requirements of ECDC 23.40.090, critical areas reports for geologically hazardous areas must meet the requirements of this section and Chapters 18.30 and 19.10 ECDC as applicable. Critical areas reports for two or more types of critical areas must meet the report require- ments for each relevant type of critical area. Geotechnical report(s) submitted for the pur- pose of critical areas review are required as necessary in addition to reports, data and other information mandated per ECDC Titles 18 and 19. "A: Preparation by a Qualified Professional. A critical areas report for a geologically haz- ardous area shall be prepared by an engineer or geologist licensed in the state of Washington, with experience analyzing geologic, hydro- logic, and ground water flow systems, and who has experience preparing reports for the rele- vant type of hazard. Critical areas studies and reports on geologically hazardous areas shall be subject to independent review pursuant to ECDC 23.40.090(B). B;)Area Addressed in Critical Areas Report. The following areas shall be addressed in a critical areas report for geologically haz- ardous areas: 1. The project area of the proposed activity; and 2. All geologically hazardous areas within 200 feet of the project area or that have the -potential to be affected by the proposal. �C .Geological Hazards- Assessment. A crit- ical areas report for a geologically hazardous area shall contain an assessment of geological .hazards including the following site- and pro- posal -related information at a minimum: `h LSite_ and Construction Plans. The report shall include a copy of the site plans for the proposal showing: a The type and extent of geologic hazard areas, any other critical areas, and buff- ers on, adjacent to, within 200 feet of, or that are likely to impact the proposal; !b: Proposed development, including the location of existing and proposed struc- tures, fill, storage of materials, and drainage facilities, with dimensions indicating distances to the floodplain, if available; (Revised 3/05) 23-80 Edmonds Community 10opment Code • 23.80.050 c,, The topography, in two -foot con- tours, of the project area and all hazard areas addressed in the report; and d.� Clearing limits; '2 Assessment of,Geological Character- istics. The report shall include an assessment �, A of the geologic characteristics of the soils, sed- iments, and/or rock of the project area and potentially affected adjacent properties, and a review of the site history regarding landslides, erosion, and prior grading. Soils analysis shall be accomplished in accordance with accepted classification systems in use in the region. The assessment shall include, but not be limited to: a )� A description of the surface and subsurface geology, hydrology, soils, and veg- etation found in the project area and in all haz- ard areas addressed in the report; A detailed overview of the field investigations, published data, and references; data and conclusions from past assessments of the site; and site -specific measurements, tests, investigations, or studies that support the iden- tification of geologically hazardous areas; and <<_c:V, ) A description of the vulnerability of the,site to seismic and other geologic events; t, _3'� Analysis of Proposal. The report shall contain a, -hazards analysis including a detailed description of the project, its relationship to the geologic hazard(s), and its potential impact upon the hazard area, the subject property, and affected adjacent properties; and t( 4.,' Minimum-, Buffer and Building. Set- back. The report shall make a recommendation for the minimum no -disturbance buffer and minimum building setback from any geologic hazard based upon the geotechnical analysis. D. Incorporation of Previous Study. Where a valid critical areas report has been prepared within the last five years for a specific site, and where the proposed land use activity and sur- rounding site conditions are unchanged, said report may be incorporated into the required critical areas report. The applicant shall submit a hazards assessment detailing any changed environmental conditions associated with the site. E. Mitigation of Long -Term Impacts. When hazard mitigation is required, the miti- gation plan shall specifically address how the activity maintains or reduces the preexisting level of risk to the site and adjacent properties on a long-term basis (equal to or exceeding the projected lifespan of the activity or occupa- tion). Proposed mitigation techniques shall be considered to provide long-term hazard reduc- tion only if they do not require regular mainte- nance or other actions to maintain their function. Mitigation may also be required to avoid any increase in risk above the preexist- ing conditions following abandonment of the activity. F. Additional Technical Information Requirements for Erosion and Landslide Haz- ard Areas. In addition to the basic critical areas report requirements for geologically hazard- ous areas provided in subsections A through E of this section, technical information for ero- sion and landslide hazard areas shall meet the requirements of Chapter 19.10 ECDC and include the_ following -information at -a mini- _ T: Site --Plan. The critical areas report shall include a copy of the site plan for the pro- posal showing: `a:,,The height of slope, slope gradient, and cross-section of the project area; b: ;The location of springs, seeps, or other surface expressions of ground water on or within 200 feet of the project area or that have the potential to be affected by the pro- posal; and c ;The location and description of surface water runoff features; ('2�,, Hazards Analysis. The hazards analy- sis component of the critical areas report shall specifically include: 4A description of the extent and type of vegetative cover; ,,_b. -A description of subsurface condi- tions based on data from site -specific explora- tions; 23-81 (Revised 3/05) 23.86050 • • Descriptions of surface and ground water conditions, public and private sewage disposal systems, fills and excavations, and all structural improvements; ';�� d. An estimate of slope stability and the effect construction and placement of struc- tures will have on the slope over the estimated life of the structure; e , An estimate of the bluff retreat rate that recognizes and reflects potential cata- strophic events such as seismic activity or a 100-year_storm event; f: ?Consideration of the run -out haz- ard of landslide debris and/or the impacts of landslide run -out on down -slope properties; g. A study of slope stability including an analysis of proposed cuts, fills, and other site grading; h.' `Recommendations for building sit- ing limitations; and i�An analysis of proposed surface and subsurface drainage, and the vulnerability of the site to erosion; ,3.Geotechnical Engineering_. - Report. The technical information for a project witliin a landslide hazard area shall include a geotech- nical engineering report prepared by a licensed engineer that presents engineering recommen- dations for the following: :,a Parameters for design of site improvements including appropriate founda- tions and retaining structures. These should include allowable load and resistance capaci- ties for bearing and lateral loads, installation considerations, and estimates of settlement performance; _b'. Recommendations for drainage and subdrainage improvements; cEarthwork recommendations including clearing and site preparation criteria, fill placement and compaction criteria, tempo- rary and permanent slope inclinations and pro- tection, and temporary excavation support, if necessary, ;and � _dL�Mitigation of adverse site condi- tions including slope stabilization measures and seismically unstable soils, if appropriate; 4 Erosion and -Sediment --Control Plan. For any development proposal on a site con- taining an erosion hazard area, an erosion and sediment control plan shall be required. The erosion and sediment control plan shall be pre- pared in compliance with requirements set forth in Chapter 18.30 ECDC. G. Limited Report Requirements for Stable Erosion Hazard Areas. At the director's discre- tion, detailed critical areas report requirements may be waived for erosion hazard areas with suitable slope stability. Report requirements for stable erosion hazard areas may be met through construction documents that shall include at a minimum'an erosion and sediment control plan prepared in compliance with requirements set forth in Chapter 18.30 ECDC. H. Seismic Hazard Areas. In addition to the basic critical areas report requirements for geologically hazardous areas provided in sub- sections A through E of this section, a critical areas report for a seismic hazard area shall also meet the following requirements: 1. The site map shall show all known and mapped active faults within 200 feet of the project area or that have the potential to be affected by the proposal. 2. The hazards analysis shall include a complete discussion of the potential impacts of seismic activity on the site (for example, forces generated and fault displacement). 3. A geotechnical engineering report shall evaluate the physical properties of the subsurface soils, especially the thickness of unconsolidated deposits and their liquefaction potential. If it is determined that the site is sub- ject to liquefaction, mitigation measures appropriate to the scale of the development shall be recommended and implemented. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 20041. (Revised 3/05) 23-82 Edmonds Community l0lopment Code 23.80.070 Part IV. Development Standards — Geologically Hazardous Areas 23.80.060 Development standards General requirements. A. Alterations of geologically hazardous areas or associated buffers may only occur for activities that: 1. Will not increase the threat of the geo- logical hazard to adjacent properties beyond predevelopment conditions; 2. Will not adversely impact other criti- cal areas; 3. Are designed so that the hazard to the project is eliminated or mitigated to a level equal to or less than predevelopment condi- tions; and 4. Are certified as safe as designed and under anticipated conditions by a qualified engineer or geologist, licensed in the state of Washington. B. Critical Facilities Prohibited. Critical facilities shall not be sited within geologically hazardous areas unless there is no other practi- cal alternative. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. 23.80.070 Development standards — Specific hazards. A. Erosion and Landslide Hazard Areas. Activities on sites containing erosion or land- slide hazards shall meet the requirements of ECDC 23.80.060, Development Standards — General Requirements, and the specific fol- lowing requirements: 1. Buffer Requirement. A buffer shall be established from all edges of landslide hazard areas. The size of the buffer shall be deter- mined by the director consistent with recom- mendations provided in the geotechnical report to eliminate or minimize the risk of property damage, death, or injury resulting from landslides caused in whole or part by the development, based upon review of and con- currence with a critical areas report prepared by a qualified professional. a. Minimum Buffer. The minimum buffer shall be equal to the height of the slope existing within the project area or 50 feet, whichever is greater; b. Buffer Reduction. The buffer may be reduced to a minimum of 10 feet when a qualified professional demonstrates to the sat- isfaction of the director that the reduction will adequately protect the proposed development, adjacent developments and uses and the sub- ject critical area; c. Increased Buffer. The buffer may be increased where the director determines that a larger buffer is necessary to prevent risk of damage to proposed and existing develop- ment; -2:=A'lteratioris: Alterations of an erosion or landslide hazard area and/or buffer may only occur for activities for which a_ hazards analysis is submitted and. certifies that: a\`The development will not increase surface "water discharge or sedimentation to adjacent properties beyond predevelopment conditions; _b The development will not decrease slope stability on adjacent properties; and c�Such alterations will not adversely impact other critical_areas;_ _Design --Standards.-, Development within an erosion or landslide hazard area and/or buffer shall be designed to meet the fol- lowing basic requirements unless it can be demonstrated that an alternative design that deviates from one or more of these standards provides greater long-term slope stability while meeting all other provisions of this title. The requirement for long-term slope stability shall exclude designs that require regular and periodic maintenance to maintain their level of function. The basic development design stan- dards are. a.' The proposed development shall not decrease the factor of safety for landslide occurrences below the limits of 1.5 for static conditions and 1.2 for dynamic conditions. If stability at the proposed development site is below these limits, the proposed development 23-83 (Revised 3/05) 23.86.070 • • shall provide practicable approaches to reduce risk to human safety and improve the factor of safety for landsliding. In no case shall the existing factor of safety be reduced for the sub- ject prop,,r. or adjacent properties; b. Structures and improvements shall be clustered to avoid geologically hazardous :areas and other critical areas; Structures and improvements shall minimize alterations to the natural contour of the slope, and foundations shall be tiered where possible to conform to existing topogra- phy; -Structures and improvements shall be located to preserve the most critical portion of the site and its natural landforms and vege- tation;,: -e: ')The proposed development shall not result in greater risk or a need for increased buffersfon,neighboring properties; �f�The use of retaining walls that allow the maintenance of existing natural slope area is preferred over graded artificial slopes -and g!�Development shall be designed to mininuze-impervious lot coverage; 4. Vegetation Retention. Unless other- wise provided or as part of an approved alter- ation, removal of vegetation from an erosion or landslide hazard area or related buffer shall be prohibited; 5. Seasonal Restriction. Clearing shall be allowed only from May 1st to October 1st of each year•, provided, that the director may extend or shorten the dry season on a case -by - case basis depending on actual weather condi- tions, except that timber harvest, not including brush clearing or stump removal, may be allowed pursuant to an approved forest prac- tice permit issued by the city of Edmonds or the Washington State Department of Natural Resources; 6. Point Discharges. Point discharges from surface water facilities and roof drains onto or upstream from an erosion or landslide hazard area shall be prohibited except as fol- lows: a. Conveyed via continuous storm pipe downslope to a point where there are no erosion hazard areas downstream from the dis- charge; b. Discharged at flow durations matching predeveloped conditions, with ade- quate energy dissipation, into existing chan- nels that previously conveyed storm water runoff in the predeveloped state; or c. Dispersed discharge upslope of the steep slope onto a low -gradient, undisturbed buffer demonstrated to be adequate to infiltrate all surface and storm water runoff, and where it can be demonstrated that such discharge will not increase the saturation of the slope; and 7. Prohibited Development. On -site sewage disposal systems, including drain fields, shall be prohibited within erosion and landslide hazard areas and related buffers. B. Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area. In addition to the requirements of this chapter, development proposals for lands located within the earth subsidence and land- slide hazard area as indicated on the critical areas inventory shall be subject to the provi- sions of Chapter 19.10 ECDC. C. Seismic Hazard Areas. Activities pro- posed to be located in seismic hazard areas shall meet the standards of ECDC 23.80.060, Development Standards — General Require- ments. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 20041. (Revised 3/05) 23-84 lZO/I- /b 1� WIRE FENCE 94 - I C8 E \ — �_ II98 ' --�'` 94 ' 96 (31 AL 1 _ Mph@ 1 - - — 96 • 4q S8— MH A I I e a' 9g \ _ 11 ro �'ot0 g i ti � 6 � \ ALE20 1 _ (tiY MAP E 11 2 / o ( MAPLE 14 / - �- F1t2E i& D R 14 M 4 11 _ -' _ - ALDER 1 - AL ER 18 1 / AL R 1 ALO ALDER 16 / 16 p ER 16 J 11 12 ALDER I D R /i ~� B � ALDER/ 6 I � ALDER 14 0 2 1 � A D 12 1 ALDrR 12 AL ER 6 ER 2 / l` 1 � JI ALDER / I a LDE ER 1 ALDER 6 0 h R 12 ALD 1 ALDER 8 LDER 10 D I i L 6 R 12 I co / ALOE 1 I 12 I N \• ALDER 16 / A E / " m / e 7 ALDER DLDOR 8 A R i LDER BUFFER I ALDERcu- • _-� yK ' / TOE NlCB r ' • '`'"" _ z 8""� / ./y �\ 26 AL 126 L R B 1 LDER 4 r� / �3 �3q AP _ 128 13 _\ 132 1190 - qp 9 ALff� 16 32 ( M - 132 134 Ao 4 \ / 52 �50 lq@ ,Qa - OAR i \\ -- — q6 jA6 ,A / 152 156 �.. i.- 158 _ �-- 160 I6 _ _ - --._- _ 160 - - - 0 _ - _ _ _- _� 162 -� 164 164 - �� 166 \ _ ---- - -- _ - - --- 166 - - - __ __ - - ---- - - - 168 - 166 170 • i- _ - — - - - --- - - -- ..._ 1-0 172- �- '-- - - - - - - - - - -- - 'd 0 . W RETURN ADDRESS: City of Edmonds, City Clerk 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Reference #: CONFORMED COPY 200703051114 6 PGS 03/0512007 4:20r N7.00 SNOHOMISH COUNTY, SHINGTON COVENANT OF NOTIFICATION AND INDEMNIFICATION/HOLD HARMLESS Grantor(s): (1) j(I 1 /. (2) Additional on pg. Grantee(s): City of Edmonds Legal Description (abbreviated): Sec Twn a%/y RngQtr OR Lot Block 00 1i•01 Plat e ion 9:11.1 Assessor's Tax Parcel ID#(s): (1) 6133 QM 03% (2) �f'�"• Assessor's Tax Parcel 1D# not yet assigned CITY OF EDMONDS APPROVED FOR RECORDING BY: DATE: PAGE j OF, Under the review procedures established pursuant to the State Building. Code, incorporating amendments promulgated by the City of Edmonds, and as a prerequisite to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of a residential_ structure and attendant facilities, the undersigned. OWNERS of property do hereby covenant, stipulate and promise as follows: 0 1. Description of Subject Property. APPR�FOR REC-C��1D1�IG: BY: DATE: PAG OF _��, This covenant of notification and indemnification/hold harmless relates to a tract of land at the street address of (insert street address), Edmonds Snohomish County, Washington and legally described as: 2. Notification and Covenant of Notification. The above referenced site (hereinafter "subject site") lies within an area which has been identified by the City of Edmonds as having a potential for earth subsidence or landslide hazard. The risks associated with development of the site. have been evaluated by technical consultants and engineers engaged by the applicant as a part of the process to obtain a building permit for the subject site. The results of the consultant's reports and evaluations, of the risks associated with development are contained in building permit file numberAV yr (insert number) on file with the City of Edmonds Building Department. Conditions, limitations, or prohibitions on development may have been imposed in accordance with the recommendations of E VED FOR REDATOF the consultants in the course of permit issuance. The conditions, limitations; or prohibitions may require ongoing maintenance on the part of any owner or lessee or may require modifications to the structures and earth stabilization matters in order to address future or anticipated changes in soil or other site conditions. The statements and conditions proposed by the OWNERS' geotechnical engineer, geologist, architect and/or structural engineer are hereby incorporated by reference from the contents of the file as fully as if herein set forth. Any future purchaser, lessee, lender or any other person acquiring or seeking to acquire an interest in the property is put on notice of the existence of the content of the file and the City urges review of its contents. The file may be reviewed during normal business hours or copies obtained at the Building Department, City of Edmonds, 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington 98020. 3. Indemnification and Hold Harmless. The undersigned OWNERS hereby waive any and all liability associated with development, stating that they have fully informed themselves of all risks associated with development of the property and do therefore waive and relinquish -any and all causes of action against the City of Edmonds, its officers,. agents and employees arising from and out of such development. In addition, the OWNERS on behalf of themselves, their successors in interest, heirs and assignees, do. hereby promise to indemnify and hold harmless the City of Edmonds, its officers, agents and employees from any loss, claim, liability or damage of any kind or nature to persons or property either on or off the site resulting from or out of earth subsidence or landslide hazard, arising from or out of the issuance of any permit(s) authorizing development of the site, or occurring or APPROVED FOR RECO ING: BY: -�% DATE:,4 PAGE 1 _ OF_ arising out of any false, misleading, or inaccurate information provided by the OWNERS, their employees, or professional consultants in the course of issuance of the building permit. 4. Insurance Requirement. In addition to any bonding which may be required during the course of development, the Community Services Director has/has not (strike one) specifically required the maintenance of an insurance policy for public liability coverage in the amount and for the time set forth below in order to provide for the financial responsibilities established through the indemnification and hold harmless agreement above: 5. Covenant to Touch and Concern the Land. This covenant of notification and indemnification/hold harmless touches and concerns the subject tract and shall run. with the land, binding, obligating and/or inuring to the benefit of future owners, heirs, successors and interests or any other person or entity acquiring an interest in property, as their interest may appear. This provision shall not be interpreted to require a mortgagor or lender -to. indemnify the City except to the extent. of their loss nor to obligate such persons to maintain the insurance above required. LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL B: That portion of Tract 32 of MEADOWDALE BEACH SUPPLEMENTAL PLAT, according to plat recorded in Volume 5 of Plats at Page (s) 42, in Snohomish County, Washington, described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Tract 32: thence North 89' 57' 00" West, along the North line of said Tract 32, for 211.33 feet to the Northwest comer of a tract of land conveyed to Daniel Glantz and Marle V. Glantz, husband and wife, by deed recorded under Recording No. 1186206, the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence South, along the West line of said Glantz tract to the South line of Tract 32; thence West, along the South line of said Tract 32 to the Southwest comer thereof; thence North, along the West line to the Northwest corner of said Tract 32; thence East along the north line of said Tract 32 to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. APPROVED FOR RECO G: BY: DA 6 PAGE OF DONE this day of Y� —� OWNER(S) anuso By. By STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss: COUNTY OF �'*QJ&P41' I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that g261;1 Wt signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be (his/her) free and voluntary act for the purposes mentioned in this instrument. DATED this _� day of 01!l!/% , NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: L:\TEMP\BUILDING\MEADOVACOV ENANT it , c Inc.1B913 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering June 21, 2006 Donna L. Breske, P.E. 6621 Foster Slough Road Snohomish, WA 98290 RE: Michel Single Family Residence — 15911741h Place West Dear Ms. Breske: GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR This letter is in response to your letter dated August 8, 2005, which is attached for your reference. You are correct in your interpretation of the Edmonds Community Development Code that meadows or young second growth forest are allowed to be assumed for the predeveloped site condition. However, in an instance where the existing lot is wooded prior to development, the assumption of meadows as the predeveloped site condition is unacceptable. In this case, the existing site condition prior to development is clearly more accurately represented by young second growth forest than by meadows; therefore, a storm drainage report using meadows as the predeveloped site condition will not be approved. Please revise and resubmit the storm drainage detention report dated May 19, 2005 accordingly. Also, please note that, per ECDC 18.30.010, the two-year, 24-hour design storm in the City of Edmonds is defined as a 1.5-inch rainfall event. Please revise the time of concentration calculations for the predeveloped site condition to reflect this. If you have any questions or need additional information, please email me at droth@ci.edmonds.wa.us or give me a call at (425) 771-0220. Sincere D(AMON K. ROTH Stormwater Engineer DKR/cmc Enclosure STREET FILE S:\ENGR\Damon\Development Reviews\LETTER-Breske-15911-74th-Pl.doe • Incorporated August 11, 1890 0 DONNA L. BRESKE, P.E. August 8, 2005 City of Edmonds Attn: Don Fiene 121 5t' Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 6621 Foster Slough Rd. Ph: 425-334-9980 Snohomish, WA 98290 Fax: 425-334-7380 e-mail: breske@consultmoore.com Subject: CN Value, Predevelopment Condition MAY 15 2006 Reference: Plan Check #: 05-210 8LD100"EA"6 BUILDING Michel / 74`hPL. W. CITYoDMOON Don, Review comments of this engineer's May 19, 2005 Storm Drainage Detention Reports request that a CN=81 is used, (assuming young second growth for the existing condition). The comments also state that since CN=81 was used for the developed condition, it should also be CN=81 for the pre -developed condition. However, ECDC 18.30.060.A. I states, "....The predeveloped condition for all cases other than open water bodies shall be considered meadows or young second growth trees." My use of meadows, CN=85 is consistent with the section of the ECDC. There is no requirement that I am aware of within the ECDC that further qualifies, that if young second growth trees, CN=81, is used in the developed condition, it must also be used in the pre -developed condition calculations. It appears, the May 1.9, 2005 Storm Drainage Detention Report is in conformance with the ECDC. It is therefore requested that the review comments are re -considered. Sincerely, Donna L. Breske, P.E. DRAINAGE - DETENTION - INSPECTION - GRADING & TESC SEWER & WATER - FEASBILITY - SITE DEVELOPMENT E� 0 DONNA L. BRESKE, RE July 25, 2006 6621 Foster Slough Rd. Snohomish, WA 98290 Ph:425-334-9980 Fax:425-334-7380 e-mail: breske@consultmoore.com City of Edmonds Attn: Damon Roth AUG 8 2006 121 5`h Ave. N. 13UILDING DEPARTMENT Edmonds, WA 98020 CITY OF EDMONDS Subject: Engineer's cover letter, Revision 91 to Drainage Report and Revision #3 to Drawing Sheet 1 of 1 Reference: Plan Check #: 05-210 Michel Construction, Inc., 15911 741h PL. W. Damon, Listed below is a summary of the revisions for the above referenced project. Drainage Report Revision #1 dated July 25, 2006: 1. The use of meadow, CN=85 for both the entire site of the pre -developed condition, and CN=85 for the undisturbed portion of the site for the developed condition. 2. The use of P2 = 1.5" for the Time of Concentration Calculation. Additionally, the ns value in the Tc calculation was revised from 0.40 to 0.24 to reflect the assumed meadow condition for the pre -developed site. 3. Detention pipe length was re -calculated due to the storage in the catch basins at either end of the detention pipe. Revision #3 to Drawing Sheet 1 of 1 dated July 25, 2006: 1. The detention pipe length has been reduced and the diameter increased from 2.5' to 3' to reflect the calculations of the revised drainage report. 2. The pipe slope from CB#3 to the existing CB has been changed to 15% STREET FILE Michel Construction Inc. — 15911 74`h Ave. W. Page 1 of 2 3. A note has been added to provide 0.5' vertical separation from bottom of detention pipe to top of 6" PVC pipe. 4. The IE on the upstream end of the detention pipe has been revised to reflect the installation of a rotated reducer. 5. The pipe bedding detail has been revised to reflect the 3' diameter detention pipe in lieu of the previously designed 2.5' diameter. 6. The invert elevations of the control structure, C1392 have been revised to be consistent with the Drainage Report Revision #1. Donna L. Breske, P.E. Michel Construction Inc. — 15911 74 h Ave. W. Page 2 of 2 I'1c.1890 June 19, 2006 • CITY OF EDMONDS STREET FItgAAKENSON MAYOR 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: wwwdedmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering C/ly copy Dwight McGrew Michel Construction 7907 212" St SW, #102 Edmonds, WA 98026 RE: Plan Check #05-210 (BLD20060545), 15911 741h Pl W Driveway Slope Exceeding 14% Dear Dwight, This letter is being sent in response to the request to exceed the maximum allowed driveway slope of 14%, dated March 13, 2006. Review of the submitted letter and site plan indicate that site constraints prevent you from obtaining a 14% driveway slope. Rockeries along the north property line are already proposed at heights of 7' and the quantity of grading is already proposed to be around 2200cy. The roadway within the city right-of-way is proposed to be at the maximum allowance of 12%. The upper portion of the driveway, near the garage, has minimal slope and it is understood this is designed to allow for parking and maneuvering of vehicles. For these reasons, it is found reasonable to allow a maximum driveway slope of 16% for the lower portion of driveway, on private property, as noted on the civil plan sheet. The roadway within the City right-of-way cannot exceed 12% and all other areas of the driveway shall be less than 14%. Please call the Engineering Inspection line at 425-771-0220, ext. 1326, to schedule your driveway form inspection, prior to paving. If you have any questions regarding these requirements please feel free to contact Jeanie McConnell at 425-771-0220, ext. 1338. Sincerely AVID K. GEBERT, P.E. CITY ENGINEER jm cc: Street file Plan check #05-210 (BLD20060545) • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • CONS'TRUGTION, INC. 7907 2 1 2TH ST. SW. # 102 EDMONDS,WA 98026 PHONE (42S)776-2211 FAX # (425) 778-9086 =FAX == TO: DATE: fl,z-f-ar FROM: REGARDING: AUG 2 9 2 ORIGINAL TO BE MAILED: YES NO WILDINGDEPARTMEN1 CITY OF EDMONDS NUMBER. OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS COVER PAGE: 2 0 MICHECIO9103 DONNA L. BRESKE, P.E. March 13, 2006 6621 Foster Slough Rd. Ph: 425-334-9980 Snohomish, WA 98290 Fax: 425-334-7380 e-mail: breske@consultmoore.com RESUB City of Edmonds MAY 15 2006 Attn: Jeanie McConnell BUILDING DEPARTMENT 121 5" Ave. N. CITY OF EDMONDS Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: Request for Waiver, Maximum Driveway slope of 14% per ECDC Reference: Plan Check #: 05-210 Michel / 740' PL. W. Jeanie, It is requested that a waiver is granted allowing the driveway to be constructed using a 16% grade in lieu of the 14% maximum as required per ECDC. Reasons supporting the waiver are 1. The site consists of challenging existing topography. 2. Rockery heights can be limited with the 16%, as opposed to a 14% grade. 3. The 16% grade allows for a well designed parking and maneuvering area at the top of the driveway and in front of the garage. 4. The 16% grade limits the amount of on -site grading activity in comparison to a 14% grade. I trust this information fulfills the city's requirements in order to grant the waiver. Sincerely, Donna L. Breske, P.E. DRAINAGE - DETENTION - INSPECTION - GRADING & TESC SEWER & WATER - FEASIBILITY - SITE DEVELOPMENT Iowa. b .00 LOPE IJ FFN117-58 RY GH Is% M-Y 100 RY SH PROPOSED RESIDENCE FF=1`17-58 25 cc rr VAWAr r!n *42 N 10' MIN 6' PVC P- 2% MIN L'u 102 XCREM ED:CURB i crry ANDARIL MAPLE i0o 1X0 BF +I- CBW TYPE I Topolos.1 I 100.14N IE(e)loo.o= 1)"'12 0 SA% 00 LF FILTER_-/ FABRIC FENCE REmovE MAPLES &ALDEK 00 LF-jr ADS-N112 0213% EX c 0 TT opmou mposmN IEW004= 1cfULA4ABLAM OF P co TO m w AC,t'A:r MATE Ihc.18913 June 19, 2006 0 • CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: wmci.edmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning - Building - Engineering Dwight McGrew Michel Construction 7907 212" St SW, #102 Edmonds, WA 98026 RE: Plan Check #05-210 (BLD20060545),15911 74" PI W Driveway Slope Exceeding 14% Dear Dwight, GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR L'9fft fjjf This letter is being sent in response to the request to exceed the maximum allowed driveway slope of 14%, dated March 13, 2006. Review of the submitted letter and site plan indicate that site constraints prevent you from obtaining a 14% driveway slope. Rockeries along the north property line are already proposed at heights of 7' and the quantity of grading is already proposed to be around 2200cy. The roadway within the city right-of-way is proposed to be at the maximum allowance of 12%. The upper portion of the driveway, near the garage, has minimal slope and it is understood this is designed to allow for parking and maneuvering of vehicles. For these reasons, it is found reasonable to allow a maximum driveway slope of 16% for the lower portion of driveway, on private property, as noted on the civil plan sheet. The roadway within the City right-of-way cannot exceed 12% and all other areas of the driveway shall be less than 14%. Please call the Engineering Inspection line at 425-771-0220, ext. 1326, to schedule your driveway form inspection, prior to paving. If you have any questions regarding these requirements please feel free to contact Jeanie McConnell at 425-771-0220, ext. 1338. Sincerely VID K. GEBERT, P.E. CITY ENGINEER 1m cc: Street file Plan check #05-210 (BLD20060545) Incorporated August 11, 1890 DONNA L. BRESKE, P.E. March 13, 2006 6621 Foster Slough Rd. Ph: 425-334-9980 Snohomish, WA 98290 Fax: 425-334-7380 e-mail: breske@consultmoore.com RESUB City of Edmonds MAY 15 2006 Attn: Jeanie McConnell BUILDING DEPARTMENT 121 5 h Ave. N. CITY OF EDMONDS Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: Request for Waiver, Maximum Driveway slope of 14% per ECDC Reference: Plan Check #: 05-210 Michel / 74`h PL. W. Jeanie, It is requested that a waiver is granted allowing the driveway to be constructed using a 16% grade in lieu of the 14% maximum as required per ECDC. Reasons supporting the waiver are: 1. The site consists of challenging existing topography. 2. Rockery heights can be limited with the 16%, as opposed to a 14% grade. 3. The 16% grade allows for a well designed parking and maneuvering area at the top of the driveway and in front of the garage. 4. The 16% grade limits the amount of on -site grading activity in comparison to a 14% grade. I trust this information fulfills the city's requirements in order to grant the waiver. Sincerely, Donna L. Breske, P.E. DRAINAGE - DETENTION - INSPECTION - GRADING & TESC SEWER & WATER - FEASIBILITY - SITE DEVELOPMENT Mi / b SLOPE �•� �'/� �i �� .mac—WAWft Woo w i CIAM®E w•. WwiffLIN I • iw I r FRY 1 I iIOH a r 1 *.. :���• x. EB.10 PROPOSED RESIDENCE FF■117.88 CBM 1 TOF / I / INi .� �J�F ut U UD rrs co XJT ell IMIN ►x �1 6# PVC 2 27- MIN 10' MIN 100 CONCRETE VWCURB co 'yM��CrrY Off" IE { ■ 61'FAt�FitO' I a l IE IE 100 - `' 'E PORA ' NrWA yOVSRVKM ■ 1-' caws -TYPE 1 TOP■108.1 +■....�,�+ IE(E)■100.14 IE(8)0100."M so LF-ir ADS-N12 0 213% ■ AD"12 0 8A% 60 LF FILTER FABRIC FLNCE ex CB TOPWA IEQ', pmmN ACCE'r REMOVE MAPLES a ALDER � �M �'1°'6°, mATEI 06/05/2006 15:00 4258277701 FAX PAGE 02/04 C Assiated Earth Sciences,W 1;J 0 d* ofsmice STREET FILE June 5, 2006 Project No. KE03537B City of Edmonds Community Services Department 121 5'" Avenue North Edmonds, Washington 98020 Attention: Ms. Jeannine Graf Building Official Subject: 211 Geotechivcal Plan Review City of Edmonds Plan Review No. 05-210 Michel Residence 15911 74`h Place West Edmonds, Washington References: Geoteclmical Plan Review Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. June 29, 2005 Geotechnical Recommendations - New Michel Residence Dennis M. Bruce, P.E., May 17, 2006 RECEIVED J U N - 5 1006 BUILDING DEPT. Grading, Drainage, Paving, TESC Plan, Sheet 1 of 1 Donna L. Breske, P.E., dated May 20, 2004 (stamped March 13, 2006) Architectural Plans Sheets A 1 A through A8 McGrew Michel, dated May 25, 2005, Revised May 15, 2006 Structural Plans Sheets S-1 through S-5 Custom Design and Engineering, Inc., dated May 25, 2005 Dear Ms. Graf: As requested, Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) has completed a second geotechnical review of the above -referenced geotechnical report and development plans for the subject Michel residence. AESI earlier completed the above -referenced first geotechnical review of the project on June 29, 2005. Our geotechnical reviews have been completed with respect. to Kirkland Office • 911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 • Kirland, WA 98033 • P { (425) 827-7701 • F (425) 827-5424 Everett Office • 2911. 1 /2 Hewitt Avenue, Suite 2 • Everett, WA 98201. P (425) 259-0522 • F (425) 252-3408 ���'.rftwON�'YM MM 06/05/2006 15:00 4258277701 FAX PAGE 03/04 the Meadowdale Earth Subsidence Landslide Hazard Area Checklist criteria as contained in the City of Edmonds Ordinance #2661 and the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 19.05. Review Comments Our review found that the following comment items identified in the first plan review have still not been adequately addressed: • Review of the project structural engineering plans by Custom Design and Engineering, Inc. Sheets S-1 through S-5, stamped May 25, 2005, show that the residence will be supported on 4-inch-diameter driven pipe piles. Notes should be added to Sheet S-5 calling out that pile bearing should be within the undisturbed soils at a minimum depth of 25 feet below the existing ground surface and be inspected by the project geotechnical engineer. Additionally, allowable axial compressive capacities of the pipe piles, vertical load testing requirements, and coupling details or notes should be indicated on the plans. Sheet S-1 Foundation Notes Items I and 9 should delete reference to foundation bearing capacity and indicate a pile -supported foundation will be used. Sheet A5 of the architectural plans should reference that the foundation will be pile -supported. • Given the variable consistency and loose to medium dense, unconsolidated condition of the surficial site soils, the planned excavation slopes are likely to be unstable and may require laying back the excavation face at 1.5H:1V (Horizontal: Vertical), or shallower, as necessary. Notes should be added specifying that the project geotechnical engineer should be on. -site to evaluate the suitability of any temporary slope cuts over 4 feet high. • The above -referenced plans show a proposed two -tiered rockery system with labeled tier heights up to 7 feet high and calculated tier heights up to 7.5 feet high based on the grading plan. A City of Edmonds "Tiered Rockeries Detail" is included on the grading plan with a note indicating that the rockery tiers over 8 feet high must be designed and stamped by a licensed professional engineer, or if the City determines that special conditions exist, such as the site being located ui a critical area or the Meadowdale Earth Subsidence Landslide Hazard Area. The site is located within the Meadowdale Earth Subsidence Landslide Hazard Area, and the rockeries appear to face landslide debris. AESI recommends site -specific engineering design of any rockery over 4 feet high located within the site's disturbed landslide debris soils. The rockeries should be designed and stamped by a licensed professional engineer and include geogrid reinforcement as part of the design. The design should consider surcharge effects of the upper wall on the lower wall, and due to sloping backfill conditions. 2 06/05/2006 15:00 4258277701 vp FAX ft PAGE 04/04 • Site drainage improvement should consist of controlling surface water flow and ground water seepage from the base of the adjacent slope. Add a surface drainage swale to divert surface water away from the cut slope above the driveway courtyard and east wall of the garage. City code allows for non -building at -grade surface improvements within the 15 foot building setback. Thus, a shallow graveled surface swale could be placed above these areas within the flatter portion of the 1 S foot building setback. The swale should be approximately 3 feet wide by 1.5 feet deep. Conclusion In summary, it is AESI's opinion that if the conditions discussed in this review are included with the .construction plans for the proposed Michel residence, the requirements of Chapter 19.05 of the ECDC should be substantially satisfied. This letter has been prepared for the exclusive use of the City of Edmonds Community Services Department, Engineering Division and their agents for specific application to this project. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been performed in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering and engineering geology practices in effect in this area at the time our review was completed. No other wan'anty, express or implied, is made. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to the City of Edmonds on this project. Should you have any questions regarding this letter or other geotechnical aspects of the project, please call us at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Kirkland, Washington 13 Mc� wAS�, C' 33222 O ONAL EXPIRES 27 a G. Aaron McM chael, P.E., P.E.G. Associate Engineer GAM/sn KE03537D2 Project =03053MEMP �l e.5/2;/2005 17:08 4258275424 AESI Associated Earth Sciences Inc. June 29, 2005 Project No. KE03537B PAGE 02/05 City of Edmonds Community Services Department 121 51h Avenue North Edmonds, Washington 98020 RECEIVED Attention: Ms. Jeannine Graf Building Official J U N 3 0 2005 Subject: Geotechnical Plan Review BUILDING DEPT. Michel Residence 15011 74"' Place- West Edmonds, Washington References: Geotechnical Review — Proposed New Residence Dennis, M. Bruce, P.E., May 27, 2005 Geotechnical Evaluation and. Foundation Recommendations Dennis M. Bruce, P.E., March 29; 2001 15911 74"' Ave West'— Declaration of Risk Custom Design and Engineering, Inc., May 24, 2005 Storm Drainage Detention Report Donna L. Breske; P.E., May 19, 2005 Grading, Drainage, .Paving, TESC plan, Sheet 1 of 1 Donna L Breske, P.E., dated 5/20/04 (stamped 5-23-05) Sheet P 1 McGrew Michel Building Design, 5.25.05 Topography Survey, Sheet 1 of 1 C & C Surveying, 9/27/02 Architectural Plans McGrew Michel, dated 5.25.05 STREET FILE Kirkland 911 Flfth Avenue. Suite 100 • Kirkland, WA 98032 -Phone 425 827.7701 • Fax 425 827.5424 Everett 291114 Hewitt Ave„ Suitc 2. • Everett.WA 98701 • Phonc 425 259-0522 • Fax 425 252-3408 -06/29,2005 17:08 4258275424 AESI PAGE 03/05 Dear Ms. Graf: As requested, Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (ALSI) has completed a geoteehnical review of the above -referenced geotcchnical report and development plans for the subject Michel residence. Our geoteehnical review was completed with respect to the Meadowdale Earth Subsidence Landslide ,Lazard Area Checklist criteria as contained in the City of Edmonds Ordinance 4. 2661 and the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 19.05. Project Summary AESI previously completed similar geoteehnical reviews for the adjacent Hillman lot and Michel lot at 15915 and 19517 74t' Place West, respectively. The above -referenced geoteehnical report contains information indicating that both the Hillman and Michel lots are underlain by landslide debris and znay be susceptible to deep-seated landsliding and foundation settlement, and shallow - seated debris flow landslides originating on the adjacent steep slopes. As such, pile foundation support, debris flow protection, and surface drainage control were recommended for the lots at 15915 and 15917. and are also recommended for the subject 15911 Michel lot. Review of the above -referenced plans indicates that the residence will be constructed by completing a tiered bench cut within the eastern section, and filling within the western section. The cut will be completed within the gently sloping area near the base of the steep bluff slope forming the eastern section of the .lot. Maximum cut slope heights will, range between approximately 5 to 9 feet, and maximum fill depths will be approximately 2 feet. The residence will be supported. on a pile foundation consisting of 4-inch-diameter pipe piles and grade beams. A two -tiered rockery wall with tiers up to 7 feet high will be constructed along the north and east margins of the lot to provide driveway access. Review Comments It is AESI's opinion. that the most critical geotechnical issues associated with development of the site consists of landslide hazard mitigation, foundation support within the existing landslide debris, and site grading and drainage. A discussion and our conclusions regarding each issue are presented below. Review comments arc shown in italics. Landslide llazards The general landslide hazard risk at the site has been defined by the GeoEngineers Landslide Hazard Map as ranging between 2 to 30 percent. Project geoteehnical information noted that fractured silt zones were encountered at depths of 9 to 20 feet, in that the site has experienced deep-seated landsliding in the past. Medium dense to dense soils located below 25 feet do not appear to have been disturbed by landsliding. No definite signs of current deep- seated landsliding are present. Given these site conditions, no change in the current landslide hazard risk designation appears necessary. Since the landslide hazard risk does not exceed 30 percent, site development would not be restricted. 2 06/2a/2005 17:08 4258275424 AESI 0 1* PAGE 04/05 The upper 15 feet of soil appears to consist of unconsolidated landslide debris deposits with entrained peat and woody debris. This would indicate that the site does experience debris flow types of landslides within the site's colluvial slope soils, which reach onto the proposed building site. To mitigate potential debris flow landsliding, we propose extending the garage foundation wall at least 4 , feet above finished grades along the east side. To mitigate the potential for foundation damage due to the effects of deep-seated landsliding, we propose that the foundations .should extend through the .sheared, fractured silt zone and gain bearing in the undisturbed soils 25.feet below the existing ground surface. The deep foundations would also be required to support the residence above the upper IS jeer of unconsolidated debris deposits. Foundation Support As mentioned above. the upper 1.5 feet of soil within the proposed building area appears to consist of unconsolidated landslide debris deposits with entrained peat and woody debris. Thus, this material would not provide suitable bearing support for conventional spread footing foundations, due to the potential for long-term differential settlements. To mitigate these poor bearing conditions, deep.foundations bearing in the undisturbed soils as recommended above should be utilized. Review of the project structural engineering plans by Custom Design and Engineering, Sheets S- 5, stamped May 25, 2005 show that the residence will be supported on 4-inch-diameter driven pipe piles. Notes should be added to these sheets calling out that pile hearing should be within the undisturbed soils at a minimum depth o/' 25 feet below the existing ground surface and be inspected by the project geotechnical engineer. Additionally, allowable axial compressive capacities of the pipe piles, testing requirements, and coupling details or notes should be indicated on the plans. Site Gradinp, and Drainaze Improvements Given the variable consistency and loose to medium dense, unconsolidated, condition of the surficial site soils, the planned excavation slopes are likely to be unstable and may require laying back the excavation face at 1.5HA V (1-lorizontal:Vertical), or shallower as necessary. Notes should be added specifying that the project geotechnical engineer should be on site to evaluate the suitability of'any temporary slope cuts over 4 feet high. The above -referenced plans show a proposed two -tiered rockery system with labeled tier heights up to 7.feet high and calculated tier heights tap to 9.feet high based on the grading plan. A City of Edmonds "Tiered Rockeries Detail" is included on the grading plan with a note indicating that the rockery tiers over 8,feet high must be designed and stamped by a licensed professional engineer, or if the City determines that special conditions exist, such as the site being located in a critical area or the Meadowdole Earth Subsidence Landslide Hazard Area. In our opinion, the .site is located within the Meadowdale Earth Subsidence Landslide Hazard Area, and the rockeries appear to .face cuts over 8 feet high. AESI recommends site -specific engineering design of any rocker), over 4 feet high located within the site's disturbed landslide debris soils. The rockeries should be designed and stamped by a licensed professional engineer and include geogrid reinforcement as part of the design. 3 "OU29r/2005 17:08 4258275424 AESI PAGE 05/05 Site drainage improvement should consist of controlling surface water flow and ground water seepage from the base of the adjacent slope. Add surface drainage Swale to divert surface water away from top of rockeries and bottom of slopes, especially near east side of the proposed garage. The drains within the rockeries located adjacent to the driveway parking area should not be used .for this purpose,. because the drain rock would be vulnerable to infill by slope sedimentation. City code allows. for non -building at -grade surface improvements within the 15- .foot building setback. Thus, a shallow graveled surface Swale could be placed above the rockery within the flatter portion of the 15-foot building .setback This drainage feature would be intended to intercept slope surface flog+, and ,shallow ground water .seepage prior to flow reaching the rockery and building site. The swale should be approximately 3 . feet wide by 1.5 feet deep. Conclusion In summary, it is AESI's opinion that if the conditions discussed in this review are included with the construction plans for the proposed Michel residence, the .requirements of Chapter 19.05 of the ECDC should be substantially satisfied. This letter has been prepared for the exclusive use of the City of Edmonds Community Services Department, Engineering Division and their agents, for specific application to this project. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been performed in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering and engineering geology practices in effect in this area at the time our review was completed. No. other warranty, express or implied, is made. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to the City of Edmonds on this project. Should you have any questions regarding this letter or other geotechnical aspects of the project, please call us at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Kirkland, Washington 7MR ocp RES 2r G..Aaron McMichael, P.E-., P.E.G. Associate Engineer Bye ty9 • City of Edmonds Critical Areas Checklist The Critical Areas Checklist contained on this form is to be filled out by any person preparing a Development Permit Application for the City of Edmonds prior to his/'her submittal of a development permit to the City. The purpose of the Checklist is to enable City staff to determine whether any potential Critical Areas are or may be present on the subject property. The information needed to complete the Checklist should be easily available from observations of the site or data available at City Hall (Critical Areas inventories, maps, or soil surveys). An applicant, or his/her representative, must fill out the checklist, sign and date it, and submit it to the City. The City will review the checklist, make a precursory site visit, and make a determination of the subsequent steps necessary to complete a development permit application. With a signed copy of this form, the applicant should also submit a vicinity map or plot plan for individual lots of the parcel with enough detail that City staff can find and identify the subject parcel(s). In addition, the applicant shall include other pertinent information (e.g. site plan, topography map, etc.) or studies in conjunction with this Checklist to assist staff in completing their preliminary assessment of the site. I have completed the attached Critical Area Checklist and attest that the answers provided are factual, to the best of my knowledge (fill out the appropriate column below). —, Owner / Applicant: Applicant Representative: Name Name Street Address 0 4- Street Address City, State, ZIP Phone a,--, Signature Date City, State, ZIP Phone Signature Date i FS CA FILE NO. : s. Critical Areas ChecAL - Site Information (soils/topography/hydrology/vegetation) 1. Site Address/Location: 2. Property Tax Account Number: /,� - 600 — 03 �— O,i� D 7 3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): 90 ,Y 4. Is this site currently developed? - yes; no. If yes; how is site developed? 5. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply. Flat: less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site. Rolling: slopes on site generally less than IS% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 66-feet). Hilly: slopes present on site of more than 15% and less than 30% ( a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet). Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on site (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of less than 33-feet). Other (please describe): 6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: AO ; Approx. Depth: 7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: AO ; Approx. Depth: What season(s) of the year? 8. Site is in the tloodway floodplain of a water course. 9. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface?flows are year- round? o ,? no E? Flows are seasonal? (What time of year? ), 10. Site is primarily: forested ;meadow ;shrubs ; mixed ; urban landscaped (lawn,shrubs etc) 11. Obvious wetland is present on site: ------------- . -- - .--For City Stall Use Only --- - ----- - - -' I., .. Site is Zoned? 2'' SCS mapped soil type(s)? T 3. Wetland inventory or C.A. map indicates wetland present on site? �✓D 4.: Critical Areas. inventory or C.A. map indicates Critical Area on.. site? yes 14s, b wf 5 Site within designated earth subsidence landslide hazard area? YC.d 6. Site designated on the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Map? DETER IINATION STUDY REQUIRED WAIVER Reviewed by:: 41 /. / Z. �,/P ner CONDITIONAL WAIVER > Date Rev W19/93 Dennis M. Bruce, RE ~M.S.C.E., M.B.A_ NW eotechnical / Civil Engineer May 27, 2005 City of Edmonds Community Services Division 121 5" Ave. N Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: Geotechnical Review — Proposed New Residence Michel Construction, Inc. 15911 74th St. SW, Edmonds, Washington RECEIVED J U N - 1 2C95 PERMIT COUNTER This engineering letter presents the results of a geotechnical review of the project plans for the proposed new residence by Michel Construction, Inc. at 15911 74t"-St. SW, Edmonds, Washington. REFERENCES: • Project Plans by McGrew — Michel Design dated May 18, 2005 • Struct&al Plans by Custom Design Engineering • Geotechnical Reports and inspections by D. Bruce, P.E. for the adjacent two southerly lots BACKGROUND: This engineer undertook a geotechnical evaluation of the overall 3-lot property (including 15911 74th St. SW). The 2 southerly lots (15915, 15917 74th PI. W) are nearing completion. Both southerly residences, as well as this proposed residence (15911) will utilize driven pipe piles with reinforced grade beam for foundation support. . Both southerly residences have successfully installed the foundation pipe piles with reinforced grade beam. PLAN REVIEW: This engineer has reviewed these project plans including structural foundation -:- designs for the proposed new residence at 15911 74th St. SW, as well as conducted a recent site visit. SOILS • FOUNDATIONS • SITE DEVELOPMENT • INSPECTION • DRAINAGE • DESIGN& PERMIT • LEGAL P.O. Box 55502 • Shoreline, WA 98155 • (206) 546-9217 • FAX (206) 546-8442 STREET FILE Re: Michel Constructio Inc. May 27, 2005 Page 2 The project plans are consistent with the recommendations of this engineer's geotechnical reports as well as site conditions. The layout for the foundation pipe piles is geotechnically approved, pending on -site inspections by this engineer to verify: location, refusal depths, overall integrity of the pipe pile and reinforced grade beam. Additional geotechnical inspection aspects may be required by City of Edmonds. SUMMARY: • The project plans for 15911 74th St. SW are geotechnicallYapproved, pending on -site geotechnical inspections. If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call. _ offlas 1231/ :moo o.. DMB:abj cc: Michel Construction r Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. Geotechnical / Civil Engineer Dennis M. Bruce, P. M.S.C.E., M.B.A. May 17, 2006 Geotechnical/Civil Engineer MAY 22 2006 City of Edmonds BUILDING DEPARTMENT Community Services Division CITY OF EDMONDS 121 51h Ave. N Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: Geotechnical Recommendations — New Michel Residence 15911 70 Ave. W, Edmonds, Washington (Plan Check No. 05 — 210) This engineering report presents current geotechnical criteria and recommendations for the proposed new Michel Construction residence at 15911 74th Ave. W, Edmonds, Washington. REFERENCES: • Geotechnical reports by D. Bruce, P.E. (April 4, 2003, July 14, 2003) • Geotechnical inspection reports by D. Bruce, P.E. for 15917 74th PI. W • Proposed Project Plans by Michel I McGrew dated May 15, 2006 • Structural Design Plans by Alex Moroseos, P.E. • Site photographs BACKGROUND: This engineer has performed numerous geotechnical investigations for the overall 3 lots (Lot No's, 32, 33 and 34). Dense sub -grade soils were located at various depths below existing grade. It is geotechnically possible to support new residences on traditional reinforced concrete footings, however, the uncertainty of excavation depths resulted in recommendations to support the new houses with pin -piles and reinforced grade beam. FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS — PIN -PILES WITH REINFORCED GRADE BEAM: This engineer has worked with Michel Construction and structural engineer, Alex Moroseos, P.E. to utilize 4-inch diameter pin -piles with reinforced grade beam (see. Plans). Each 4-inch pin -pile should be driven to refusal depths, as monitored on -site by a qualified, experienced, geotechnical engineer. SOILS • FOUNDATIONS - SITE DEVELOPMENT - INSPECTION - DRAINAGE • DESIGN & PERMIT - LEGAL P.O. Box 55502 - Shoreline, WA 98155 - (206) 546-9217 - FAX (206) 546-8442 STREET FILE •; May 17, 2006 - Page 2 u Each properly driven 4-inch diameter pipe pile will provide a minimum of 20,000 pounds (10 tons) vertical capacity. Pin -pile testing has verified that the lateral load capacity is at least 20 percent of the vertical capacity. Note that the Structural Designs in corporate selected locations of battered piles to resist potential lateral forces. The battered piles shall be driven at -a declination of 1 H:SV. The grade beam itself provides significant passive resistance due to its size and reinforcement. Based on past experience on the adjacent properties, this engineer anticipates refusal depths to be less than 30 feet below grade. Project Plans also require a perimeter drainage trench with perforated pipe and gravel to collect any slope seepage and direct it into the project drainage system. The north portion of the property will utilize a two -tiered rockery to.provide improved erosion control and desired landscaping effects. The standard rockery design is geotechnically approved, subject to on -site inspections to verify: rock size, base rock embeddment, rock linkage, face batter and drainage zone. It is understood that D. Bruce, P.E. will perform the required geotechnical inspections for this project. RISK DECLARATION: a. In my judgment, the plans and specifications prepared by the designer and structural engineer conform to the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report. b. The risk of damage to the proposed Michel residence at 15911 741h Ave. W, or to adjacent properties from soil instability will be minimal, subject to the conditions set forth in the March 29, 2001 and this Geotechnical Report. The proposed new Michel residence will not increase the potential for soil movement, subject to on - site inspections by this engineer during construction. c. In my professional opinion, the statistical likelihood of earth movement on this site and movement of the new residence is less than one percent, subject to the conditions of geotechnical requirements and inspections. The construction of the Michel residence at 15911 74th Pl. W will improve overall soil stability in the area (as a result of the pin -pile and reinforced grade beam foundations, the improved drainage mitigation and stabilizing rockeries.) RC. W11U] JUI %JVI IJU UVMil 11 111V� . r May 17, 2006 - Page 3 GEOTECHNICAL INSPECTIONS: This engineer recommends that the following inspection items (similar to 15917 74" Pl. W) be performed. • Start of work letter • General site monitoring • Excavation and grading • Soil bearing verification • Pin -pile installation • Reinforced grade beam • Placement of any fill material and compaction • Retaining wall / rockery • Subsurface drainage • Temporary and permanent erosion control measures If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call. EXPRES 1 ~t M DMB:abj cc: Michel Construction, Inc. o. r Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. Geotechnical / Civil Engineer Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. + M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical/Civil Engineer March 29, 2001 Michel Construction, Inc. 7907 212t' St. S.W., #102 PERMIT COUNTER Edmonds, WA 98026 Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation and Foundation Recommendations Proposed Three New Single Family Residences 741' PI. W. — North of Meadowdale Rd. This engineering report presents the results of a geotechnical evaluation for three building lots on 74th PI. W., north of Meadowdale Rd. in Edmonds, Washington. This evaluation was required due to developer concerns as well as City of Edmonds requirements. REFERENCES- • Vicinity map • Site Plan • Project plans (by Michel Construction) • Site photographs BACKGROUND: The three single family residence building lots (Lot 34, 33, and 32) are rectangular in shape (see site plan). Each lot is approximately one hundred (100) to one hundred twenty-five (125) feet wide (along 70 PI. W), and approximately two hundred (200) to two hundred fifty (250) feet deep. These lots have never:beeIn developed and contain dense vegetation consisting of mature trees, shrubs and grasses. The entire area surrounding these three lots slopes generally westerly toward the Puget.Sound. These three lots contain relatively. steeper slope portions toward the east, and relatively gently sloped to flatter portions in the central and western parts of the properties. The toe of steep slope zone has been delineated and indicated on the survey site plan, as well as the building requirement steep slope setback line. SOILS • FOUNDATIONS • SITE DEVELOPMENT . INSPECTION • DRAINAGE • DESIGN & PtiRMIT . LEGAL P.O. Box 55502 • Shoreline, Washington 98155 • (206) 546-9217 - FAX 54648442 Michel Construction,. Inc. March 29, 2001 Page 2 In addition, a seasonal historic streambed/water course has been identified in the. southwest portion of Lot 34. Additionally, the City of Edmonds has installed storm water interceptor drains and discharge lines along the property line boundary between Lots 33 and 32. Several inlet catch basins have been constructed to service and feed the drainage line. NOTE: On site engineering investigations have revealed some deferred maintenance regarding proper tight line connections of the City of Edmonds catch basins. It is essential. that the City of Edmonds inspect and maintain these drainage lines to prevent unwarranted discharge onto Lots 32 and 33. Visual evaluation of the three lots revealed no evidence of geotechnical distress. No sloughing, slides, no soil creep nor significant soil degradation was observed. As mentioned, the City of Edmonds catch basins and drain lines require proper maintenance to prevent future, unacceptable erosional degradation. EVALUATION: In order to augment the existing site geotechnical information, soil test pits were dug under this engineer's inspection on February 28, 2001 using a small track hoe (see photographs). A total of three (3) test pits were dug (one in the probable house location for each lot). Test Pit No. 1 was dug on Lot 32, Test Pit No. 2 was dug on Lot 33, and Test Pit No. 3 was dug on Lot 34 (see site plan for test pit locations). Test Pit No. 1 0" to 6" 6" to approx. 48" 48'.to approx. 8' (bottom of pit) Organics, roots, and organic silt. Moist and loose Increasingly dense silty sand. Fine grain, slightly moist. Medium to dense. Increasingly dense to very dense gray silt slougA very slight water trickle was observed at the contact layer at 4 foot depth. No hing or caving occurred. Test pit walls remained vertical and stable. Test Pit No. 1 0" to 6" 6" to approx. 40" 40" to approx. 8'. (bottom of pit) Organics, roots, and organic silt. Moist and loose Increasingly dense silty sand. Fine g rain, slightly moist. Medium dense to dense. Increasingly dense to very dense gray silt Michel Construction • • Inc. March 29, 2001 Page 3 No water was encountered in Test Pit No. 2. No sloughing or caving occurred. Test pit walls remained vertical and stable. Test Pit No. 3 0' to 6' Organics, roots, and organic silt. Moist and loose 6" to approx. 40n Increasingly dense silty sand. Fine grain, slightly moist Medium dense to dense. 40" to approx 8' (bottom of pit) Increasingly dense to very dense gray silt No water was encountered in Test Pit No. 3. No sloughing or caving occurred. Test pit walls remained vertical and stable. CONCLUSIONS /.RECOMMENDATIONS: Based on the findings of this investigation, and experience with similar sites in the area, the three building lots on 7e Pl. W (Lot No. 34, Lot 33, Lot 32) are geotechnically approved for the Michel Construction new single family residences subject to the following: • Standard reinforced continuous and spread footings. Allowable bearing pressure: 2,000 p.s.f. • Equivalent fluid pressure of 40 p.c.f is recommended for any retaining wall design provided drainage zone is inspected and verified by this engineer. • For retaining wall design, use friction factor of 0.55 and passive pressure of 350 p.c.f. • Geotechnical inspection by this engineer prior to any foundation concrete placement. The proposed structure can be supported on conventional continuous and spread footings bearing on undisturbed native soils or on structural fill placed above native soils. See the later sub -section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill for structural fill placement and compaction recommendations. Continuous and individual spread footings should have. minimum widths of twenty-four (24) inches and should be bottomed at least eighteen (18) inches below the lower adjacent finish ground surface. On site geotechnical inspection to verify. Depending on the final site grades, some overexcavation may be required below footings: to expose competent native soils. Unless lean concrete is used to fill the over Michel Construction, Inc. March 29, 2001 Page 4 excavated hole, the width of theoverexcavation at the bottom .must be at least as wide as the sum of two times the depth of the overexcavation and the footing width. For G. L. C. Construction example, an overexcavation extending two feet below the bottom of a three-foot wide.footing must be at least seven feet wide at the base of the excavation. Footings constructed according to the above: recommendations may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of three thousand (3,000) pounds per square foot (p.s.f.). A one-third increase in this design bearing pressure may be used when considering short -tens wind or seismic loads. For the above design criteria, . it is anticipated that total post -construction settlement of footings foundedon competent, native soils (or on structural fill up to five (5) feet in thickness) will be about one-half inch, with differential settlements on the order of one -quarter inch. Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between the foundations and the bearing soils, or by passive earth pressure acting on the vertical, embedded portions of the foundations. For the latter condition, the foundations must either be poured directly against undisturbed soil or the back fill placed around the outside of the foundation must be level structural fill. We recommend the following design values be used for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading: Parameter Coefficient of Friction Passive Earth Pressure Where: Design Value 0.55 350 p.c.f. (1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic Foot. (2) Passive earth pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid density. We recommend that a safety factor of at least 1.5 be used for design of the foundation's resistance to lateral loading. SLABS -ON -GRADE: Slake -on -grade floors may be supported on undisturbed, competent native soils or on structural fill. The slabs may be supported on the existing soils provided these soils can be recompacted prior to placement of the free -draining sand or gravel underneath the slab.. This sand and gravel layer should be a minimum of four (4) inches thick We also recommend using a vapor barrier such as 6-mil. plastic membrane beneath the slab with minimum overlaps of 12 inches for sealing purposes. Michel Construction, Inc. March 29, 2001 Page 5 PERMANENT FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS: Retaining walls backfilled on one side only should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures imposed by the soils retained by these structures. The following recommended design parameters are for walls less than twelve (12) feet in height which restrain level backfill: Parameter Design Value Active Earth Pressure* 40 p.c.f. Passive`Earth Pressure 350 p.c.f. Coeffcient of_Friction 0.55 Soil Unit Weight 125 p.c.f. Where: (1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot (2) Active and passive earth pressures are computed using equivalent fluid densities. For restrained walls which cannot defect at. least 0.002 times the wall height, a uniform lateral pressure of one hundred (100 p.s.f should be added to the active equivalent fluid pressure). The values given above are to be used for design of permanent foundation and retaining walls only. An appropriate safety factor should be applied when designing the walls. We recommend using a' safety factor of at least 1.5 for overturning and sliding. The above design values do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures behind the walls and assume that no surcharge slopes or. loads will be placed above the walls. If these conditions exist, then those pressures should be added to the above lateral pressures. Also, if sloping backfll is desired behind the walls, then we will need to be given the Wall dimensions and slope of the backfill in order to provide the appropriate design earth pressures. Heavy construction equipment should not be operated behind retaining and foundation walls within a distance equal to the height of the wall,. unless the walls are designed for the additional lateral pressures resulting from the equipment: Placement and compaction of retaining wall backfill should be accomplished with hand -operated equipment. Michel Construction, Inc. March 29, 2001 Page 6 Retaining Wall Backfill Backfill placed within eighteen (18) inches of any retaining or foundation walls should- be free -draining structural fill containing no organics. This. backfill should contain no more than five (5) percent silt or clay particles and have no particles greater than four (4) inches in diameter. The percentage of particles passing the No. 4 sieve should be between twenty-five (25) and seventy (70) percent. Due to their high.silt content, if the native soils are used as backfill, a drainage composite,. such as Mirafi and Enkadrain, should be placed against the retaining walls. The drainage composites should be hydraulically connected to the foundation drain system. The purpose of these backfill requirements is to assure that the design criteria for the retaining wall as not exceeded because of a build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. The subsection entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill contains recommendations regarding placement and compaction of structural fill behind retaining and foundation walls. EXCAVATION AND SLOPES: In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local, state and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts up toa height of four (4) feet deep in unsaturated soils may be vertical. For temporary cuts having a height greater than four (4) feet, the cut should have an inclination no steeper than 1:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) from the top of the slope to the bottom of the excavation. Under specific recommendations by the geotechnical engineer, excavation cuts may be modified for site conditions. All permanent cuts into native soils should be inclined no steeper than 2:1 (KV-): fill slopes should not_ exceed 1;1 (H V). It is important to note that sands do cave suddenly, and without warning. The contractors should be made aware of this potential hazard. Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over, the top of any temporary or permanent slope. All permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve.stability of the surficial layer of soil. DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS: Footing drains are recommended at the base of all footings and retaining walls. These drains should be surrounded by at least six (6) inches of one -inch -minus washed rock wrapped in non -woven geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or similar material). At the highest point, the perforated pipe invert should be at .least as low as the bottom of the footing and it should be sloped for drainage. All roof and surface water drains must be kept separate from the foundation drain system. Michel ConstructioAnic . March 29, 2001 Page 7 Slight groundwater trickle was observed at four (4) foot depth in Test Pit No. 1 during the field work Seepage into the planned excavation is possible, and likely if excavation occurs during winter months, and if encountered should be drained away from the site by use of drainage ditches, perforated pipe, French drains, or by pumping from sumps interconnected by shallow connector trenches at the .bottom of the excavation. The excavation and site should be graded so that surface water is directed off the site and away from the tops of slopes. Water should not be -allowed to stand in any area where foundations, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Any exposed slopes to be covered with plastic to minimize erosion. Final site grading in areas adjacent to buildings should 'be sloped at least two 2 except where the area adjacent to the building is paved.ercent away from the building, GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL: The proposed building and pavement areas should be stripped and cleared of all surface vegetation, all organic matter, and other deleterious material. The stripped or removed materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill. Structural fill is defined as any fill Placed under the -building, behind permanent retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying soils needs to support loads. This engineer should observe site conditions during and after excavation prior to placement of any structural till. All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture content at or near the optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content, is. that moisture content which results in the greatest compacted dry density. The moisture content of fill soils is very important and must be closely controlled during the filling and compaction process. The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type, compaction equipment, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. In,no. case should the lifts exceed twelve (12) inches in loose thickness. The folio; h" g table presents recommended relative compaction for structural fill: Location of Fill Placement Beneath footings, slabs.or walkways Behind retaining walls Minimum Relative Comtiaction 95% 90% y • Michel Construction, Inc. March 29, 2001 Page 8 Beneath pavements 95% for upper 12 inches of Subgrade, 90% below that level Where: Minimum relative compaction is the ratio, expressed in percentages, of the compacted dry density to the maximum dry density, as determined in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1557-78 (Modified Proctor). Use of On -Site Soils If grading activities take place during wet weather, or when the silty, on -site soils are wet, site preparation.costs may be higher because of delays due to rains and the potential need to import granular fill. The on -site soils are generally silty and thus are moisture sensitive. Grading operations will be difficult when the moisture content of these soils exceeds the optimum moisture content. Moisture sensitive soils will also be susceptible to excessive softening and °pumping-' from construction equipment traffic when the moisture content is greater than the optimum moisture content. Ideally,. structural fill .which is to be placed in wet weather should consist of a granular soil having no more than five (5) percent silt or clay.particles. The percentage of particles passing the No. 200 sieve should be measured from that portion of the soil passing the three -quarter -inch sieve. The use of °someo on -site soils for fill material may be acceptable if the upper. organic materials is se inspection. gregated and moisture contents are monitored by engineering DRAINAGE CONTROLS: No drainage,problems were evident on Lots 34; 33 and 32: Surface water flows generally westerly following the natural topographic gradient. As discussed, the City of Edmonds's drainage intercept catch basin and tight line between Lot 33 and. Lot 32 requires maintenance and probable improvements. This engineer would be happy to meet on site with City of Edmonds's drainage engineers and maintenance personnel to reach agreements as to scope of work required. The proposed three new residences should be constructed in compliance with City of Edmonds's standard storm water detention / management regulations. Michel Cons • _ tructron, Inc. March 29, 2001 Page 9 CONCRETE: All foundation concrete (footings, stem walls, slabs, any retaining walls, etc.) shall have a minimum cement content of 5-1/2 sacks per cubic yard of concrete mix. INSPECTION: The recommendations of this report are only valid when key geotechnical aspects are inspected by this engineer during construction: • Foundation subgrade verification •- Any retaining wall, or rockery placement • Any fill placement. • Subsurface drainage installation SUMMARY: The proposed three new single family residences (Lot 34, Lot 33 and Lot 32) on 70 Place W., north of Meadowdale Rd. are geotechnically vialble when constructed in accordance with -the recommendations herein, compliance with City of Edmonds approved plans and requirements, and key geotechnical inspection during construction. GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW OF FINAL PLANS: This engineer continues to work with Michel Construction regarding specific site plans for the proposed three new residences. When each specific house plan has been determined and finalized, this engineer shall provide a geotechnical review to verify compliance with the recommendations of this geotechnical report. A final letter of geotechnical approval or recommended modifications will be issued at that time. CLOSURE: The findings and recommendations of this report were prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering principles and practice. No other warranty, either express or implied, is made. The conclusions are based on the results of the field exploration and interpolation of subsurface conditions between explored locations. If conditions are encountered during construction that appear to be different than those described in this report, this engineer should be notified to observe the situation and review and verify or modify the recommendations. Michel Constructio • n, Inc. March 29, 2001 Page 10 If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call. 4vi r- A. 174Q5 4- EXPIRES 12f" i DMB:abj Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. Geotechnical / Civil Engineer Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical/Civil Engineer March 29, 2001 tf 1kP 9 ce. �a (e d �lU�r7 � 1 �,�irdci Michel Construction, Inc. 7907 212t' St. S.W., #102 PERMIT COUNTER Edmonds, WA 98026 Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation and Foundation Recommendations Proposed Three New Single Family Residences 74th Pl. W. — North of Meadowdale Rd. This engineering report presents the results of a geotechnical evaluation for three building lots on 74th Pl. W., north of-Meadowdale Rd. in Edmonds, Washington. This' evaluation was' required due to developer concerns as well as City of Edmonds requirements. REFERENCES: • Vicinity map • Site Plan • Project plans (by Michel Construction) • Site photographs BACKGROUND: The three single family residence building lots (Lot 34, 33, and 32) are rectangular in shape (see site plan). Each lot is approximately one hundred (100) to one hundred twenty-five (125) feet wide (along 74th PI. W), and approximately two hundred (200) to two hundred fifty (250) feet deep. These lots have never been developed and contain dense vegetation consisting of mature trees, shrubs and grasses. The entire area surrounding these three lots slopes generally westerly toward the Puget.Sound. These three lots contain relatively steeper slope portions toward the east, and relatively gently sloped to flatter portions in the central and western parts of the properties. The toe of steep slope zone has been delineated and indicated on the survey site plan, as well as the building requirement steep slope setback line. STREET BILE SOILS • FOUNDATIONS • SITE DEVELOPMENT • INSPECTION • DRAINAGE • DESIGN & PERMIT • LEGAL P.O. Box 55502 • Shoreline, Washington 98155 • (206) 546-9217 • FAX 54648442 Michel Construction, Inc. March 29, 2001 Page 2 In addition, a seasonal historic streambed/water course has been identified in the. southwest portion of Lot 34. Additionally, the City of Edmonds has installed storm water interceptor drains and discharge lines along the property line boundary between Lots 33 and 32. Several inlet catch basins have been constructed to service and feed the drainage line. NOTE: On site engineering investigations have revealed some deferred maintenance regarding proper tight line connections of the City of Edmonds catch basins. It is essential. that the City of -Edmonds inspect and maintain these drainage lines to prevent unwarranted discharge onto Lots 32 and 33. Visual evaluation of the three lots revealed no evidence of geotechnical distress. No sloughing, slides, no soil creep nor significant soil degradation was observed. As mentioned, the City of Edmonds catch basins and drain lines require proper maintenance to prevent future, unacceptable erosional degradation. EVALUATION: In order to augment the existing site geotechnical information, soil test pits were dug under this engineer's inspection on February 28, 2001 using a small track hoe (see photographs). A total of three (3) test pits were dug (one in the probable house location for each lot). Test Pit No. 1 was dug on Lot 32, Test Pit No. 2 was dug on Lot 33, and Test Pit No. 3 was dug on Lot 34 (see site plan for test pit locations). Test Pit No. 1 0" to 6" Organics, roots, and organic silt. Moist and loose 6" to approx. 48" Increasingly dense silty sand. Fine grain, slightly moist. Medium to dense. 48" to approx. 8' (bottom of pit) Increasingly dense to very dense gray silt A very slight water trickle was observed at the contact layer at 4 foot depth. No sloughing or caving occurred. Test pit walls remained vertical and stable. Test Pit No. 1 0" to 6" 6" to approx. 40" 40" to approx. 8' (bottom of pit) Organics,. roots, and organic silt. Moist and loose Increasingly dense silty sand. Fine g rain, slightly moist. Medium dense to dense. Increasingly dense to very dense gray silt Michel Construction March 29, 2001 Page 3 No water was encountered in Test Pit No. 2. No sloughing or caving occurred. Test pit walls remained vertical and stable. Test Pit No. 3 0A to 6' Organics, roots, and organic. silt. Moist and loose 6" to approx. 40" Increasingly dense silty sand. Fine grain, slightly moist. Medium dense to dense. 40" to approx 8' (bottom of pit) Increasingly dense to very dense gray silt. No water was encountered in Test Pit No. 3. No sloughing or caving occurred. Test pit walls remained vertical and stable. CONCLUSIONS / RECOMMENDATIONS: Based on the findings of this investigation, and experience with similar sites in the area, the three building lots on 74' PI. W (Lot No. 34, Lot 33, Lot 32) are geofechnically approved for the Michel Construction new single family residences subject to the following: • Standard reinforced continuous and spread footings. Allowable bearing pressure: 2,000 p.s.f. • Equivalent fluid pressure of 40 p.c.f. is recommended for any retaining wall design provided drainage zone is inspected and verified by this engineer. • For retaining wall design, use friction factor of 0.55 and passive pressure of 350 p.c.f. • Geotechnical inspection by this engineer Prior to any foundation concrete placement. The proposed structure can be supported on conventional continuous and spread footings bearing on undisturbed native soils or on structural fill placed above native soils. See the later sub -section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill for structural fill placement and compaction recommendations. Continuous and individual spread footings should have minimum widths of twenty-four (24) inches and should be bottomed at least eighteen (18) inches below the lower adjacent finish ground surface. On site geotechnical inspection to verify. Depending on the final site grades, some overexcavation may be required below footings. to expose competent native soils. Unless lean concrete is used to fill the over Michel Construction, Inc. March 29, 2001 Page 4 excavated hole, the width of the overexcavation at the bottom_must be at least as wide as the sum of two times the depth of the overezcavation and the footing width. For G.L.C. Construction example, an overexcavation extending two feet below the bottom of a three-foot wide footing must be at least seven feet wide at the base of the excavation. Footings constructed according to .the aboverecommendations may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of three thousand (3,000) pounds per square foot (p.s.f.). A one-third increase in this design bearing pressure may be used when considering short-term wind or seismic loads. For the .above design, criteria, .it is anticipated that total post -construction settlement of footings foundedon competent, native soils (or on structural fill up to five (5) feet in thickness) will be about one-half inch, with differential settlements on the order of one -quarter inch. Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between the foundations and the bearing soils, or by passive earth.pressure acting on the - vertical; embedded portions of the foundations. For the latter condition, the foundations must either be poured directly against undisturbed soil or the back fill placed around the outside of the foundation must be level structural fill. We recommend the following design values be used for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading: Parameter Coefficient of Friction Passive Earth Pressure Where: Design Value 0.55 350 p.c.f. (1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic Foot. (2) Passive earth pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid density. We recommend that a safety factor of at least 1.5 be used for design of the foundation's resistance to lateral loading. SLABS -ON -GRADE: Slab -on -grade floors may be supported on undisturbed, competent native soils or on structural fill. The slabs may be supported on the existing soils provided these soils can be recompacted prior to placement of the free -draining sand or gravel undemeath the slab.. This sand and gravel layer should be a minimum of four (4) inches thick. We also recommend using a vapor barrier such as 6-mil. plastic membrane beneath the slab with minimum overlaps of 12 inches for sealing purposes. Michel Construction • c. March 29, 2001 Page 5 PERMANENT FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS: Retaining walls backfilled on one side only should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures imposed by the soils retained by these structures. The following recommended'design parameters are for walls less than twelve (12) feet in height which restrain level backfill: Parameter Design Value Active Earth Pressure* 40 p.c.f. Passive Earth Pressure 350 p.c.f. Coefficient of Friction 0.55 Soil Unit Weight 125 p.c.f. Where: (1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot (2) Active and passive earth pressures are computed using equivalent fluid densities. For restrained walls which cannot defect at. least 0.002 times the wall height, a uniform lateral pressure of one hundred (100 p.s.f should be added to the active equivalent fluid pressure). The values given above are to be used for design of permanent foundation and retaining walls only. An appropriate safety factor should be applied when designing the walls. We recommend using a safety factor of at least 1.5 for.. overturning and sliding. The above design values do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures behind the walls and assume that no surcharge slopes or loads will .be placed above the walls. If these conditions exist, then those pressures should be added to the above lateral pressures.. Also, if sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, then we will need to be given the wall dimensions and slope of the backfill in order to provide the appropriate design earth pressures. Heavy construction equipment should not be operated behind retaining and foundation walls within a distance equal to the height of the .wall,,unless the walls are designed for the additional lateral pressures resulting from the equipment. Placement and compaction of retaining wall backfill should be accomplished equipment. with hand -operated Michel Construction, Inc. March 29, 2001 Page 6 Retaining Wall Backfill Backfill placed within eighteen (18) inches of any retaining or foundation walls should be free -draining structural fill containing no organics. This backfill should contain no more than five (5) percent�silt or clay particles and have no particles greater than four (4) inches in diameter. The percentage of particles passing the No. 4 sieve should be between twenty-five (25) and seventy (70) percent. Due to. their high silt content, if the native soils are used as backfill, a drainage composite,. such as Mirafi and Enkadrain, should be placed against the retaining walls. The drainage composites should be hydraulically connected to the foundation drain system. The purpose of these backfill requirements is to assure that the design criteria for the retaining wall as not exceeded because of a build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. The subsection entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill contains recommendations regarding placement and compaction of structural .fill behind retaining and foundation walls. EXCAVATION AND SLOPES: In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local, state and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts up to -a height of four (4) feet deep in unsaturated -soils may be vertical. For temporary cuts having a height greater than four (4) feet,' the cut should have an inclination no steeper than 1:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) from the top of the slope to the bottom of the excavation. Under specific recommendations by the geotechnical engineer, excavation cuts may be modified for site conditions. All permanent cuts into native soils should be inclined no steeper than 2:1 (KV): fill slopes should not exceed 1;1 (H:V). It is important to note that sands do cave-suddenik, and without warring. The contractors should be made aware of this potential hazard. Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any temporary or permanent slope. All permanently exposed slopes should. be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve .stability of the surficial. layer of soil. DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS: Footing drains are recommended at the base of all footings and retaining walls. These drains should be surrounded by at least six (6) inches of one -inch -minus washed rock wrapped in non -woven geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or similar material). At the highest point, the perforated pipe invert should be at least as low as the bottom of the footing and it should be sloped for drainage. All roof and surface water drains must be kept separate from the foundation drain system. Michel Construction,. March 29, 2001 Page 7 Slight groundwater trickle was observed at four (4) foot depth in Test Pit No. 1 during the field work. Seepage into the planned excavation is possible, and likely if excavation occurs during winter months, and if encountered should be drained away from the site by use of drainage ditches, perforated pipe, French drains, or by pumping from sumps interconnected by shallow connector trenches at the bottom of the excavation. The excavation and site should be graded so that surface water is directed off the site and away from the tops of slopes. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where foundations, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Any exposed slopes to be covered with plastic to minimize erosion. Final site grading in areas adjacent to buildings should .be sloped at least two (2) percent away from the building, except where the area adjacent to the building is paved. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL: The proposed building and pavement areas should be stripped and cleared of all surface vegetation, all organic matter, and other deleterious material. The stripped or removed materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill. Structural fill is defined as any fill placed under the building,be retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying soils need anent supportloads. This engineer should observe site conditions during and after excavation prior to placement of any structural fill. All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture content at or near the optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is that moisture content which results in the greatest compacted dry density. The moisture content of fill soils is very important and must be closely controlled during the filling and compaction process. The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type, compaction equipment, and the number of passes made to compact the lift._ In„no. case should the lifts exceed twelve (12) inches ih loose thickness. The following table presents recommended relative compaction for structural fill: Location of Fill Placement Beneath footings, slabs or walkways Behind retaining walls Minimum Relative Compaction 95% 90% Michel Construction, Inc. March 29, 2001 Page 8 Beneath pavements 95% for upper 12 inches of Subgrade, 90% below that level Where: Minimum relative compaction is the ratio, expressed in percentages, of the compacted dry density to the maximum dry density, as determined in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1557-78 (Modified Proctor). Use of On -Site Soils If grading activities take place during wet weather, or when the silty, on -site soils are wet, site pre paration.costs may be higher because of delays due to rains and the potential need to import granular fill. The on -site soils are generally silty and thus are moisture sensitive. Grading operations will be difficult when the moisture content of these soils exceeds the optimum moisture content. Moisture sensitive soils will also be susceptible to excessive softening and "pumping' from construction equipment traffic when the moisture content is greater than the optimum moisture content. Ideally, .structural fll.which is to be placed in wet weather should consist of a granular soil having ,no more than five (5) percent silt or clay.particles. The percentage of particles passing the No. 200 sieve should be measured from that portion 'of the soil passing the three -quarter -inch sieve. The use of °some" on -site soils for fill material may be acceptable if the upper. organic materials is segregated and moisture contents are monitored by engineering inspection. DRAINAGE CONTROLS: No drainage.problems were evident on. Lots 34; 33 and 32. Surface water flows generally westerly following the natural topographic gradient. As discussed, the City of Edmonds's drainage intercept catch basin and tight line. between Lot 33 and. Lot 32 requires maintenance and probable improvements. This engineer would be happy to meet on site with City of Edmonds's drainage engineers and maintenance personnel to reach agreements as to scope of work required. The proposed three new residences should be constructed in compliance with City of Edmonds's standard storm water detention / management regulations. ' Michel Construction, I • March 29, 2001 Page 9 CONCRETE: All foundation concrete (footings, stem walls, slabs, any retaining walls, etc.) shall have a minimum cement content of 5-1/2 sacks per cubic yard of concrete mix. INSPECTION: The recommendations of this report are only valid when key geotechnical aspects are inspected by this engineer during construction: • Foundation subgrade verification • Any retaining wall, or rockery placement • Any fill placement. • Subsurface drainage installation SUMMARY: The proposed three new single family residences (Lot 34, Lot 33 and Lot 32) on 74th Place W., north of Meadowdale Rd. are geotechnically vialble when constructed in accordance with the recommendations herein, compliance with City of Edmonds' - approved plans and requirements, and key geotechnical inspection during construction. GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW OF FINAL PLANS: This engineer continues to work with Michel Construction regarding specific site plans for the proposed three new residences. When each specific house plan has been determined and finalized, this engineer shall provide a geotechnical review to verify compliance with the recommendations of this geotechnical report. A final letter of geotechnical approval or recommended modifications will be issued at that time. CLOSURE: The findings and recommendations of this report were prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering principles and practice. No other warranty, either express or implied, is made. The conclusions are based on the results of the field exploration and interpolation of subsurface conditions between explored locations. If conditions are encountered during construction that appear to be different than those described in this report, this engineer should be notified to observe the situation and review and verify or modify the recommendations. ` Michel Construction, It March 29, 2001 Page 10 If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call. EXPIRES 12CY i DMB:abj Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. Geotechnical / Civil Engineer E r ;. City of Edmonds Critical Areas Determination Applicant: Rob Michel Determination #: CA-2002-3 Project Name: Permit Number: Site Location: 158xx 74`h Pl. W Property Tax Acct #: 5133 000 032 0100 Project Description: P� 'Y4' _ A + `7 Non -Project Specific_ Determination: Study Required: e-tif)UNTLER During review and inspection of the subject site, it was found that the site appears to contain and/or is adjacent to a number of critical areas, including a Steep Slope Hazard Area and an Erosion Hazard Area pursuant to Chapter 20.15B of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). Based on these findings, prior to submission of any development permit, you will be required satisfy the requirements of ECDC 20.15B by completing the following: Steep Slope Hazard Area Delineation Requirements: To determine if a Steep Slope Hazard Area does exist, a topographic survey prepared by a Licensed Land Surveyor delineating Steep Slope Hazard Areas must be completed. Any slope of 40% or more with at least 20 feet of rise will be classified as a Steep Slope Hazard Area. A 50- foot"buffer is required from both the top and the of the slope. A 15-foot building setback is required from the 50-foot buffer. For development of any kind which is proposed within the critical area, 50-foot buffer or 15-foot buffer setback, it must be shown that the development will.not adversely impact the Critical Area or -its; buffer, by doing one or possibly both of the following depending on the outcome of the study: -= I. For develo ment proposals which will occur within the 50-footbuffer, but no closer than 10 feet from the top or toe of the slope, the 50-foot buffer requirement may be reduced to 10 feet if a study is completed by a licensed geologist or geotechnical engineer which clearly demonstrates that the proposed buffer alteration will have no adverse impact upon the site, the public or any private party. All Critical Area Studies, except those done by a licensed geotechnical engineer, must be completed under a three party contract where the City hires the professional required, and the applicant pays for the study (pursuant to ECDC Section 20.15B.140). 2. If development must occur within the critical area, buffer, and/or buffer setback, and is not identified as an exception per ECDC Chapter 20.15B, a Reasonable Use Exception and Variance must be obtained pursuant to ECDC 20.15B.170A and 20.15B.040C. Erosion Hazard Area The site is also in an area designated on the Critical Areas inventory as Slopes with Erosion Potential. All proposed development must have an erosion control plan approved by the City of Edmonds Engineering Department. If the results of the Critical Areas Study determine that the lot may not be developed, the applicant may apply for a Reasonable Use Exception and Variance pursuant to ECDC 20.15B.170A and 20.15B:040C). If the property owner wishes to apply for a specific development permit which they feel would not impact the Critical Areas located on the site, they may submit their proposal to the Planning. Department for review. If the Planning Department finds that the proposed development permit will not adversely impact a Critical Areas or its buffers, a conditional waiver may be issued on a project by project basis. Earhart Name Signature 9, 20( Date 2 Writica Site Information (soils/top�gappy` 1. Site Address/ Location: 2. Property Tax Account Number: Areas Checklist CAFile No: Q J i-trl'-� 33 Vdrolog ) /vegetatio 7,V G-A� Oao ©iD c) 3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): 4. Is this site currently developed? _ yes; (�C no. If yes; how is site developed? 5. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply. _ Flat: less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site. Rolling: slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 66-feet). Hilly: slopes present on site of more than 15% and less than 30% ( a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet). Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on site (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of less than 33-feet). Other (please describe): 6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: /1/0 ; Approx. Depth: 7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: YQ ; Approx. Depth: What season(s) of the year? 8. Site is in the floodway IVb floodplain of a water course. 9. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are year-round? Mo Flows are seasonal? (What time of year? ), 10. Site is primarily: forested ; meadow ;shrubs ; mixed urban landscaped (lawnrubs etc) ,sh 11. Obvious wetland is present on site: Critical Areas Checklist.doc/3.19.2001 k-'A 9/271, I� Z1/oL E City o*Eldmonds Development Services Department _ Planning Division Phone: 425.771.0220 iaC 1 g90 Fax: 425.771.0221 The Critical Areas Checklist contained on this form is to be filled out by any person preparing a Development Permit Application for the City of Edmonds prior to his/her submittal of the application to the City. The purpose of the Checklist is to enable City staff to determine whether any potential Critical Areas are, or may be, present on the subject property. The information needed to complete the Checklist should be easily available from observations of the site or data available at City Hall (Critical areas inventories, maps, or soil surveys). Date ReceiM_ / — Zf - 0 �- City Receipt #: �g�g Critical Areas File #: Critical Areas Checklist Fee: $45.00 Date Mailed to ADDlicant: A property owner, or his/her authorized representative, must fill out the checklist, sign and date it, and submit it to the City. The City will review the checklist, make a precursory site visit, and make a determination of the subsequent steps necessary to complete a development permit application. Please submit a vicinity map, along with the signed copy of this form to assist City staff in finding and locating the specific piece of property described on this form. In addition, the applicant shall include other pertinent information (e.g. site plan, topography map, etc.) or studies in conjunction with this Checklist to assistant staff in completing their preliminary assessment of the site. The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees. By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I am authorized to file this application on the behalf of the owner as listed below. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENT J DATE , Z— Property Owner's Authorization. By my signature, I certify that I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application, and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purposes of inspection and postm attendant to this application. . l% SIGNATURE OF OWNER < DATE PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Ow er/Applicant: Td 6 /11 c�f�li Name 0 _ �,y tt' SW 'mil z Street Address City State Zip Telephone:�"S - 7 Email address (optional): ir wl ( Ga e- 84,v - Cdtn Applicant Representative: Name Street Address City State Zip Telephone: Email Address (optional): Critical Areas Checklist.doc/3.19.2001 I i, 1 . City of Edmonds f. Permit No: ZOO'S-- 4/l e RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT Issue Date: - 7 7-0 y A. Address or Vicinity B. Type of Work (be specific hsXo�wl --7 M C. Contractor: 041(6444// Contact: Za r /l G/YEL— MailingAddress: 7��� w� ��D2` Phone: 0?06— State License �i* 0 6 1 � ,- - Liability Insurance: Bond: $ D. Building Permit # (if applicable): Side Sewer Permit # (if applicable): E. ❑ Commercial ❑ Subdivision ❑ City Project ❑ EUC (PUD, VERIZON, PSE, AT& T, OVWD) ❑ Multi -Family Single Family ❑ Other INSPECTOR: (//titll�"r�.l. / �U05 F. PAVEMENT CUT: ❑ YES ❑ NO G. SIZE OF CUT X CONCRETE CUT: ❑ YES ❑ NO INDEMNITY. • Applicant understands by his/her signature to this application he/she holds the. City of Edmonds harmless from injuries, damages or claim's of any kind or description whatsoever, foreseen or unforeseen, tharmay be made against the City of Edmonds or any of its departments or employees, including but not limited to the defense of any legal proceedings including defense costs and attorney fees bi'reason of granting this permit. r THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FOLLOWING THE FINAL INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK ESTIMATED RESTORATION FEES WILL BE HELD UNTIL THE FINAL STREET PATCH IS COMPLETED BY CITY FORCES, AT WHICH TIME A DEBIT OR CREDIT WILL BE PROCESSED FOR ISSUANCE TO THE APPLICANT. ♦ -.Traffic control and public safety shall be in accordance with City regulations as required by the City Engineer. Every_ flagger must be trained as required by (WAC) 296-155-305 and must have certification verifying completion of the required training in their possession. ♦ Restoration -is to be in accordance with City codes. All street -cut trench work shall be patched with asphalt or City - approved material prior to the end of the workday — NO EXCEPTIONS. ♦ Three sets of construction drawings of proposed work are required with the permit application. ' CALL DIAL -A -DIG (1-800-424-5555) PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK I HAVE READ THE ABOVE STATEMENTS AND UNDERSTAND THE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I MUST MAKE THE PINK COPY OF THE PERMIT A VAILABLE ON SITE AT ALL TIMES FOR INSPECTIONS Signature: v+ ' `,�'y�l �"r-�1 'Date: (Contractor or Agent) FOR CITY USE ONLY Approved by: Time Authorized: Void After so / wl Special Conditions: H WW i krt0 ;;_M 7t 1J1 rn AMPE i 4�0c; al -141. JAL VJ o QtzovinFF thAPIkyaj -1 STS MX To OIWtN6. 000Pl `"CT 111 WN r— Sywm- h-S 9P&AU21E0. 'l'tluS--r,0 iJM1d1J tAXIfiN 4 tTM jPJA4k_1X-_tAAL.1 /Ah I I- AA Right-of-way Fee: 15-0 Disruption Fee/Fund 111: Restoration Fee: Total Fee: �t - Receipt No: �Z,+ Issued by: x i1.� .� . •ir�iv rlr . s .ems vr. a r. . r-vi r.i+. I.c.— it.n iNl?CiG�tAit�K�t?,li trurii+n t�jt� i Gt lZ>R sINi, ak 5a'`- =- UPON COMPLETION OF PERMITTED WORK, AN ENGINEERING FINAL INSPECTION IS REQUIRED -PER CHAPTER 18.00 OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (Phone 425-771- 220, Ext. 132 ) FINAL APPROVAL OF PERMITTED WORK: D TE: lir Insp ctor's gnaturePion �� For inspection requirements see Engineering Inspection Informaandotij `ht ti \N1 DAMy Documents\Forms\Engnmg\ROWpermit_ doc —\ ___—_ ______-- ------------- -- -- 160 ----------- — 0 10 0 i '3o /lN N / / ��i / TOE BUFFERr — N / / I / /� ' / / U) r c\1 I OF SLOP I 173 LF ROCKERY I/ I �`1ry I CNNR I J rj' I I I 1' - 6' HIGH I ° 11j2 I 00 I I I DID . 30' @ 2% GARAGE I I CV I TWO-TIER ROCKERY / / / j ' FF=118 PER DETAIL E8.10 j� ' �' + I LIMIT OF 1O' WIDE STORM I �`s SEWER ESMT. AF# 8309300219 (AS BUII-T) • �I'• •i• .• • >> • - III 97 LF ROCKERY ' ' 16 I I9s 1 V- THIGH 116 I I I 1 / ` I 1`3 L / 3.5 +l- ^titi 12'1 . FUTURE / HOUSE 114. I 1 FF=119 / do I INVERTED / CROWN I 112 / 10 _ — / 110 / 1. — 2 L5 F RO` R� y BSBL 1'-6 I'IlG 77uA. LOCATION & SIZE OF FUTUR'c DETENTION SYSTEM I— 7JO M 108 —_104 102— END OF CONCRETE / / '��� ~° — / /'- 100 EXTRUDED CURB / I • r"' -IE=103, FOR CONNECTION _ UTURE DETENTION SYSTEMxv~— i — MAPLE 12 ; • I EXIST. SSMH CL RADIUS = 51' - ALRER`:10•" t� IE(S)=86.6-IN 100 _ — IE(N)=86.9-IN l — — _ IE(W)=84.2-OUT ---- ,�— 4" NEW DRIVING IMPERVIOUS WITHIN ROW = 1,240 SF +/- TYPE 1 CB TOP=103.1 IE(E)=100.1-IN IE(S)=100.0-OUT 60 LF--12" ADS-N12 25 LF--12" ADS-N12 @ 12% 60 LF FILTER @ 21.8% 135' FABRIC FENCE EX. CB aQ� TOP=94.4 IE(E)6.8-O IN REMOVE MAPLES &ALDER, IE)-OUT-OUT & STABILIZE AREA WITH INarAU- -TEMP SED1140fT TIZPJ'P VEGETATIVE COVER LEGEND 2,9 LF FILTER FABRIC FENCE 140 — — — EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY NOTES: 114 1. THIS DRAWING IS PROVIDED IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A CONSTRUCTION PERMIT PROPOSED GRADING TO COMPLETE GRADING, PAVING AND DRAINAGE WORK WITHIN THE 74TH PL. W. ROW AS SHOWN. THE REM41NDER OR THE DESIGN ASSOCIATED WITH HOUSE AND ON -SITE DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION IS SHOWN FOR CLARITY. 2. FOR CLARITY, NOT ALL TREES ON SITE ON SHOWN. � ROCKERY TO BE INSTALLED DURING HOUSE CONSTRUCTION 3. TOPOGRAPHY AND BOUNDARY INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM SURVEY COMPLETED BY C&C SURVEYING OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE, WA. ROCKERY INSTALLATION AS PART OF ANOTHER PERMIT PAVING WITHIN ROW DRIVEWAY PAVING TO BE NSTALLED DURING HOUSE CONST. BSBL BUILDING SETBACK LINE FH FIRE HYDRANT FF FINISHED FLOOR EROSION CONTROL NOTES: 1. DURING CONSTRUCTION, STRAW OR OTHER MATERIAL TO COVER EXPOSED EARTH SHALL BE ON LOCATION AND READY TO USE. IF THE NEXT WEATHER DAY FORECAST IS RAIN, fHE SITE SHALL BE COVERED AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE SITE SHALL BE COVERED IF T-IE NEXT DAY IS A NON —WORKING DAY. 2. SOIL STOCKPILES ARE TO BE COVERED WITH VISQUEEN WITHIN 24 HRS. 3. IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING FINISH GRADING FINAL LANDSCAPING IS TO BE INSTALLED OR HYDROSEED OR MULCH TO AREAS OF EXPOSED EARTH. INSPECTION NOTE: 1. CALL THE CITY ENGINEER INPSECTION LINE (425-771-0220 EXT. 1326), 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR ALL ENGINEERING INSPECTIONS. 74th PL. W. GRADING QUANTITIES: CUT: 120 CY FILL: 20 CY GRADING QUANTITIES ARE ROUGH CALCULATIONS WHICH DO NOT ACCOUNT FOR SOIL SWELLAGE & SHRINKAGE. ADJUST TOP OF SSMH TO BE FLUSH WITH ROAD. 74TH PL. W. cn LEGAL DESCRIPTION: THAT PORTION OF TRACT 32 OF MEADOWDALE BEACH SUPPLEMENT PLAT, ACCORDING OT PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 5 OF PLAT AT PEGASUS) 42, IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID TRACT 32: THENCE NORTH 89057'00" WEST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID TRACT 32, FOR 211.33 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF A TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED TO DANIEL GLANTZ AND MARLE V. GLANTS, HUSBAND AND WIFE, BY DEAD RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 1186206, THE TRUE: POINT OF BEGINNING: THENCE SOUTH, ALONG THE 'NEST LINE OF SAID GLANTZ TRACT TO THE SOUTH LINE OF TRACT 32; THENCE WEST, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID TRACT 32 TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER THEREOF: THENCE NORTH, ALONG THE WEST LINE TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID TRACT 32: THENCE EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF AID TRACT 32 TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. -7/8' VASHED DMI, FIL NOTE; sac FILTER SOCK SHALL INCLUDE t•'IFINUFACTU2Ep ` .� OVERFLOW HOLES.J.t CATCH 3ASIN 1.7 PLACE FILTER FABRIC BETWEEN FRAME�'�'� AND GRATE, PLACE 7/8' WASHED GRAVEL 3-4 INCHES HIGH AROUND CATCH BASIN TO FILTER WATER. STRAW BALES MAY BE USED IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES (SEE DETAIL E111) UPON APPROVAL OF CITY ENGINEER OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE, THIS APPLICATION SHALL BE MAINTAINED AT A-L TIMES DURING C❑NTRUCTI❑N PERIOD: 10' —..{I 2-1/2' ••r •'�:< t,.• 1-1/2'•R I . ••j•.i 4.. 1' N PLACE SCORE MARKS EVERY 10' 1' MAX, P E 0 a - s •; r: DRIVEWAY WING OR CURB RAMP SLOPE FO 0 W EXTEND PAVEMENT 1.3' FROM THE FACE CURB IF NECESSARY TO SUPPORT ACP PAVEMENT EXTRUDED CURB MmV_,:PLACE 6' COMPACTED 5/8' CSTC BELOW ACP EXTENSION REVISIONS STANDARD DETAIL PP AROVED BY I BATE 11 CONC. EXTRUDED CURB DATE 7/24/01 NTS SCALE DWG NO. ESf 1fi90 E2•7 EXIST. FHI CITY INSPECTION REQUIRED ON ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES BEFORE WORK CAN BEGIN, REVISIONS STANDARD DETAIL APPROVED BY BATE D. GEBERT 10/6/03 TEMPORARY SEDIMENT TRAP FOR CATCH BASINS DATE SCALE 1890-1990 7/24/O1 NTS DWG ND. E1.3 ALLOWABLE TIGHTLINE MATERIALS SDR35 (ASTM D-3034) ADS N-12 (DOUBLE WALLED) SCH 40 PVC HANCOR (F810) PVC ` FILTER FABRIC ISECURED TO 2' X 2' 14 GA. WIRE FABRIC EQUAL I 2' X 2' WOOD OR o EQUIVALENT a 6'- 12' 8' FILTER FABRIC MATERIAL IN PLACE 3/4'-1.5"WASHED GRAVE' N CONTINOUS ROLLS. .USE STAPLES THE TRENCH AND ON BOTH SIDE ❑R WIRE RINGS TO ATTACH FILTER FABRIC FENCE ON THE �-vrtfACE, FABRIC TO WIRE. VWIRE MESH SUPPORT FENIhE N iUPPORT FILTER FAWIC• I II II II II II I I I I I I Imo. a I I C BURY BOTTOM OF FILTER I l II MATERIAL 8- TO 12- II l ; 6' MAX. I l II II L\ lJ 2' X 2' WOOD POSTS OR EQUIVALENT CONTRACTOR/DEVELOPER SHALL MAINTAIN AND REPLACE STRAW BALES TO INSURE PROPER EROSION CONTROL. CITY INSPECTION REQUIRED ON ALL. EROSION CONTROL METHODS BEFORE: OTHER WORK CAN BEGIN, REVISIONS STANDARD D ETAI L APPROVED BY DATE FILTER FABRIC FENCE FILTRATION SYSTEMS 1890-1990 DATE 7/24/01 SCALE NTs Dwc No- E1.1 1: R' ^ Q' I r�3•`= � oa �I 143R_ p1—T Ql� Q Sy i �. 145T l46 = SW z-I1 I3 Sj S� �� VI�sO 14N y��ST p�,�6M pli 146,N Ia1 DRMA '= 1471N I= a�S_ a FISHER--`---- _ PL W Ix 5T SWIN I ,2 66pp 51 ST j 150T ¢) PL SW'¢ 149M pl SW 149TH �• - -$W PL. SW ��:' ojN x fill C, =�3 3 - N 152N0_ S_T_----j LSO ¢ ,150TH 't ., FI a S MEAl1pWDALE" 31 j BEACH 5 153RD x; PL SSSW a HI COUNTY ' 51T� _ N 157TH ST SW✓y, AR ST 0 , s a'I $W 3 m MEADOWDALE j o 1sarH srsW MAHINka 160TH a � 9�F ----- 1ST s 16 ST P 5;a`' 1soTH P 1 163RD 163RD ST SW BA \_ 3 4 PL SW 'PD P < 1641H PL SW $T t�• SW `� 7H 165PL'SN ,`,' er> ¢ 4T PL sr'r61 F11 165TH PL o a FIRM x sy _. .. 167IH ... VICINITY MAP A 20' MIN. EASEMENT 16' 2% 0 z m cy- w RECEIVED JUN 2 8 2004 ENGINEERING DIVISION 2- MIN AC PAVEMENT ' - 5/8' CSTC 4'- 1-1/4' CSBC 2:1 SHOULDER (TYPICAL) APPROVED SUBGRADE -� 1 PAVEMENT COMPACTION- 92�^ RICE DENSITY _ SUBGRADE,BASE,TOP COURSE COMPACTION 957 (ASTM 1557) __.V__ FIRE DEPAPTMENT MAY REQUIRE ACCESS _ TO BE WIDER IF IT iS -DETERMINED FIRE ---- - - -- FIGHTING OR RESCUE OPERATIONS ARE HAMPERED, ZONES: RS-20, 12, 8, 6 3-4 LOTSI EASEMENT WIDTHI 20' PAVEMENT WIDTH, 16' w)K CURBING REQUIREDI 6' CONCRETE EXTRUDED CURB OR 18' ASPHALT THICKENED EDGE, ACCESS GRADES: MAX. OF 147 , WRITTEN WAIVER REQUEST REQUIRED FOR GRADES 14-207, TURN AROUND IS REQUIRED AT ALL DEAD END CONDTIONS REVISIONS STANDARD D ETAI L aPP7mvm Br 1 BATE RESIDENTIAL ACCESS (RS20,12, 8, 6 ) (3'4 LOTS) 1890-19g0 DATE 7/24/01 SCALE NTS °Mo �' E-2.1.1 FEZ/00N t %1 � ? C1s IS InESP'ONS La l°t� E �0�1C"I'+I ?�,�lO IO%�iA,G O APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION RFV1516N •* I o RE5POND TO CIT/ PLAN REYIeW (�OMMENT5 VATED 6-0-0`r^� RamOUg ROCKERY Apj,-),_-ENT tD UTILITY CONFLICT NOTE: PREPARED BY: CAUTION: L . THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING THE �� �F WASyCDONNA L. BRESE P.] LOCATION, DIMENSION AND DEPTH OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES ��, N� WHETHER SHOWN ON THESE PLANS OR NOT, BY POTHOLING THE UTILITIES AND SURVEYING THE HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL A ti 6621 FOSTER SLOUGH LOCATIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THIS SHALL INCLUDE CALLING UTILITY LOCATE AT 1-800-424-5555 AND THEN �0 27367 S N O H O MI S H, 11��r � 9829, POTHOLING ALL OF THE EXISTING UTILITIES AT THEIR '�F�FGISTER�'� ���` LOCATIONS OF NEW UTILITY CROSSINGS TO PHYSICALLY VERIFY 0 AL ECG 0� WHETHER OR NOT CONFLICTS EXIST. LOCATION OF SAID 6.��` P H ONE : (425) 3 34 — 9 9 1 UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE BASED UPON THE FAX: c� UNVEPdFIED PUBLIC INFORMATION AND ARE SUBJECT TO EXPIRES: 11 /05/05FCi11: (425) 334— Ir/ J8C Imo+ Ict'C—b��W DATE �Mv a N" DEVELOPER MICHEL . CONSTRUCTION, INC. 7907 212TH STREET S.W., SUITE 102 EDMONDS, WA 98026 PHONE: 425.776.2211 SITE ADDRESS 15911 74TH PL. W. PkOVIVE alzoS10N CaN TROL. F�_CMEN-rs , EDMONDS, WA LEGEND * FOUND MONUMENT AS NOTED ® SET REBAR & CAP AS NOTED ® CATCH BASIN OO SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE X SPOT ELEVATION FMI WATER METER © GAS DOWN MARKER Eg ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER ® SIDE SEWER CLEAN OUT p TELEPHONE RISER . ASPHALT SURFACE R-O-W RIGHT-OF-WAY ( ) RECORD AS NOTED S BURIED SEWER LINE -_T BURIED STORM LINE W BURIED WATER LINE BUILDING LINE CENTERLINE OF ROAD -0-0 CHAIN LINK FENCE SLOPE AS NOTED ❑ ❑ WOOD FENCE EDGE OF VEGETATION -1 - I I - • • •- PROPOSED FEATURE #-*% CEDAR TREE (NOT SHOWN TO SCALE) r°O•srTRUNK DIA SHOWN IN INCHES. F.F. ELEV. 83.7' +/- �► - F.F. EL -:V. q2.6' +/- ROOF ELE.1/. 104.6' +/- BUILDING �� O 10 vo f, Q 0 w 3 *4 O � . 5 cc O Cf.. ,� a �0 Q Q F.F.. F. ELEV. '\ I) n &2.0' +/- .� n7 _� *91 I% ROOF ELEV. 164.1' +/- F F. ELEV. ►3a.3' +I VERTICAL DATUM (NA VD 88) PER GPS 7 58TH STREET S. W "PUBLIC RDADWA Y" SB '31'59"E 164.14' CALC'D t t t t t 'wAs CALC'D W 10-08-13 CENTERLINE 10-08-13 FOUND CONC INTERSECTION SET 1/2" REBAR & CAP co o MON IN CASE POSITION "GEOD LS #15025° WEDGEDOF co I BRASS DISC � AT PROPERTY S , ) _j DOWN 0.3 ' O CORNER 2'" y ti,c J 1'-0"H EBB 4'-d"H EBb1 6'-0"H ESld 2 V / TOP@197.00 TOP@123.p0 TOP@12C.p0 I E30T@1.1S.Od BOT@118.00 BOT@1.20.Od m 2 \ 10-08-13 I c 11 4 TOP@123.Od FOUND CONC / MON IN CASE •H► D \T@124.dd BRASS DISC \ DOWN 0.3' ' ��� , 6'-0"H EBV1 0 0.3' W OF I O i i i 2 TOP@128.00 ha CALC'D .�j1 ► % r'cc r'cs 1, 1� 2 SOT@222.00 %%** s's*�Q� 2 POSITION I �� �� 11"+�� s'4_ N89 '4 ', "W 1O" t,*+'�,w� \ 55,,20 i l-)of ' x �l CAL Lc 1 i� 132- _z - _ . c'- - , \ /99.2' L � I x, / / 1 I .12 2g I � /2 I METHOD OF SURD INSTRUMENTATION FOR THIS SURVEY WAS A LEICA ELECTRONIC DISTANCE MEASURING UNIT. PROCEDURES USED IN THIS SURVEY WERE DIRECT AND REVERSE ANGLES, NO CORRECTION NECESSARY. MEETS STATE STANDARDS SET BY WAC 332-130-090. BUILDING T'. ACT 191 19 rn tU V/ICINTiY MAP N.T.S. €�i {1 � 5 �. _ . �.r r t a �i .,... _=_ Pi..,.�� _. nsun se'swl - i.. 1 �"A. # r,1�5i7thc5t5W,j t , ii. C v� I ,'. 1r IL� _3/05 ' t'._ 7 I D a !' R i { .1 - . a t r r v- �l �t �_ ti _i ,1, -_ /I 3 'r! a Haim i a 7 U 'ol,,r _ { 4� T,y ,, s l 'l F wn� /. t y pll �' a st , .AO,- � f Ir i K Jrt .i i I! \ I N- # :` i _� i � yo Y 1' 1I °! .fA - \ J1" 11 / v 3 V SET 1/2o REBAR &CAP MA BEACH "GEOD LS #15025" OMPf�LOMM 'Il'�11L'+PPILAT ON LINE VOL 59 PAGE 42 / FENCE IS 2.3' N OF LINE .► sTa ea'a -46 1i4 G eQvi �►+� Y0 ���� it 2-8" / 7r17" 1 6 1 1 6 I c4 1 a CRIPLINE �� 128 /2g 126 \ ` I �-- O / FENCE IS 0.9' " % /il �' K v 122 "I FENCE l24 S OF LINE 1 , ``:\ I 1 N TOPG123.pd / Q N I I 80T@227.00 "ti - - �� /< /. 10' WIDE STORM EASEMENT PER RECORDING NO. 200106185001 / / -'"'I r 2 -- - - - - ". ,,� O T i. 49.5 ' ti o CATCH BASIN � - ! O RIM=92. 71 I P tiv ti7 by ti'� b y. ��,� Zo " J IE 12 " DI S 83. 63 ' .. : H '•'• cT; • ti �2ti IE 12" DIN 83.60' .�' - ;1:: , ' : ; :: SANITARY SEWER S89 '57 ' 42 "E 228.49 ' IE 12" CMP E/83. 71 ' .:.:.:.: N8 :'57:`:�1 :')i�:• MANHOLE '- ' -- I 1. .. .1,...; 10-0 -13 RIM=95.79' CATCH BASIN _ _ :•;:�GA-LC-'!.fl:•:::•:•::•. T FO AOPERTY CORNER IE REBAR & CAP12" CONC CDC 81.29' co RIM=113.79' SET 1/2 REBAR & CAP / IE 12" CMP W 109.71' I �; IE 12" CMP E 109.87' "GEOD LS #15025 CATCH BASIN :•:•:•: ON LINE AIM=120.29' ::3:: :. �S1TE BENCHMARK 2 IE 12" CMP W 116.09' / I ; I. • - IE 12 " CMP E 116. 09 ' p '.'� "' SSMH RIM ELEVATION 95.79' '' � .,. ., T�\55 J I� :�. f._:', :. :. ROOF ELEV. :�•:..•.. SPECIAL NOTES 137.2' +/ / I :\. .... 1. ALL RECOMMENDATIONS STATED IN THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT • .�.•.•.•.•. FOR THIS SITE DATED FEBRUARY 25TH, 2014 AND ADDENDUM JUNE 20. 10-08-13 "� "" - FOUND coNc .• ...'. 2014 SHALL BE FOLLOWED FOR ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY RELATED MON IN CASE / ; . • . TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE. BRASS DISC DOWN 0.3' �' .... 2. PER THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT REFERENCED ABOVE ALL PILES 0.1' N of / � SHALL BE DRIVEN TO REFUSAL DEPTH AS DESCRIBED IN THE REPORT. POSITi N / ; 3. ALL PROPOSED WALL FOOTING ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON THIS SURVEY I ARE PER THE CIVIL ENGINEERING PLANS AND GEOTECHNICAL REPORT &_ / "" ti o�x! 3'-O" HIGH / CONC MALL I _.' TO€'� 9 21.00 2 1 c t; / v I 10 ISTRI TION ESM'T U• A'-0"H SI3�d 1' -0"H Sl3J SOT@117.4 ti • Q 1 I REC. N0. 20 3071 1172 °I. TOP@i16.00 TOP@1.16.00 121 I V .°. SOT[?112.Od BOT@115.00 PROPOSED BUILDING FOOTPRINT AND WALL �' / %, I �! ." z . LOCATIONS WITH WALL FOOTING ELEVATIONS \ G N o Q ' PER PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS BY �� I a W I d PER FOUNDATTgN PLAr`1 Q \ wo / �� p � 4 ' ° //8: SITE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (SDS) AND 0 I THE DOTTgM OF f 00TSNGS m Q Q .°Q 14' FOUNDATION PLAN BY ARCHITECTS NORTHWEST. Q - lI. ARE PROPOSED TO DE ";4 z �o / 5 v �( coN 0 I �.��I.° .. ° .' 30"-40 " DEEPER THAN THE THE FOUNDATION UTILIZES GRADE BEAMS t a. o 3 o I ROPOSED SLAB ELEVATIONS , SUPPORTED BY PILES, PILE DEPTHS ARE ' I MLQ Z ..a ...°. DETERMINED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER IN THE DUNE 20, 2014 ADDENDUM BY GEO k I L��cn ? "cam � .4 ' . x`Z S" STRUCTURAL SLAB GROUP NORTHWEST (APPROXIMATELY 50' DEPTH) . L. W d .... �ti0 PROPOSED @ 1 i®. Od •N \1: "= x� c> 10' 1 - f . III �m_ rn O �! �c'( . 6" STRUCTURAL SLAEi .- It ..:.e �xh tl N / ti� II a. ° I PROPOSED D 316.75 °, . yti I 75- 4 .. 1/ Z I O .. u' ° °.. 69.6. o / 75-I i 1 1. I . O I 6" STRUCTURAL SLA�J ° ° ° d 1� TOP@i21 .00 / PROPOSED L 11a.5d :44... ti' 116 BOT@117.67 o 1 \ / � J Q� d °. d� d . yY d / I !I I .11 tiy: j 6" STRUCTURAL SLAB �. ' - . - <'. •Cq 1 I .. °,. .. ',� PROPOSED @ 116. 75 4 .. . /, 1 ° ... lz f , . 11(b I . . , L-0 1 I ti �, ,\ I .. a ... I' a ° ... a a ; ° °.. a .... .-4a ° / �' \I ° °.' j. 6" STRUCTURAL SLAB xP ... 6a STRUCTURAL SLAB' '. ° O d ' ° � ' ° PROPOSED @ 115 �� ° S�OPE' . " id . �H DdORS '° es I a.. N'. 4 %� PROPOSED: e .. � . I•41 \ s Q \ J 6' d. °Loy .@ .'117-, 67 :.4._� x' / � \. 5''`` . CRAWL SPACE . ' 4 � . ' . ' a ...' 1 \ ti d ° d y7�'° °.. I I �x . / I 1 °.. 1 . i I "- I //16 0 ' .. ° ° a.. o SITE BENCHMARK 1 it rl` � I o . I .: , f 0 a.71 I f,,V FOR THIS SITE. THE APPROVED PLANS SHOULD BE REFERENCED. `�� o I 4. ALL PROPOSED SLAB AND FOUNDATION FOOTING ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON THIS SURVEY ARE PER THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR THIS SITE. •ZvNc cQ �' CALC'D THE APPROVED PLANS SHOULD BE REFERENCED. `Y 2 CALC'D CENTERLINE INTERSECTION 5. SURVEYOR IS NOT CERTIFYING THE V. F.F. ELEV. CENTERLINE � INTERSECTION POSITION �► PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT LOCATIONS 1122' +/- POSITION OR PROPOSED ELEVATIONS. :B. NB9'30'31"W 205.85' CALC'D ' RDS//�� 200106185001) 10-0' 45. 13 ' ���JJ QQ(205.85 ROAD FOUND CONC CALC'D MON IN CASE /��EADC�V1/DALE BAASS DISC "PUBLIC ROADWAY" DOWN 0.5' BUILDING SURVWOR'S NOTES 1) THE TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY SHOWN HEREON WAS PERFORMED IN OCTOBER OF 2013. THE FIELD DATA WAS COLLECTED AND RECORDED ON MAGNETIC MEDIA THROUGH AN ELECTRONIC THEODOLITE. THE DATA FILE IS ARCHIVED ON DISC OR CD. WRITTEN FIELD NOTES MAY NOT EXIST. CONTOURS ARE SHOWN FOR CONVIENENCE ONLY. DESIGN SHOULD RELY ON SPOT ELEVATIONS. 2) SUBJECT PROPERTY TAX PARCEL NO. 0051330003201. 3) SUBJECT PROPERTY AREA PER THIS SURVEY IS 26,574 SO. FT.+/-. 4) THE TOP/TOE OF SLOPE SHOWN ON THIS SURVEY IS THE FIELD CREWS INTERPRETATION OF THE TOP/TOE OF SLOPE. THIS DOES NOT REPRESENT THE LIMITS OF A "40%" SLOPE AREA. PROPOSED ELEVATIONS ARE NOT TO BE USED FOR CO N S T RUCTION 11 : : 10-08-13 SET 1/2" REBAR & CAP "GEOD LS #15025" ONLINE /I : NI I S89 '4� ' 23 "E I 220.2 q It \Z AT I �y - t: . = -5. LEGAL DEc.Q,,l.`RlRON THAT PORTION OF TRACT 32 OF MEADOWDALE BEACH SUPPLEMENTAL PLAT, ACCORDING TO PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 5 OF PLATS AT PAGE 42, IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID TRACT 32; THENCE NORTH 89'57'00" WEST, ALONG, THE NORTH LINE OF SAID TRACT 32. FOR 211. 33 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF A TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED TO DANIEL GLANTZ AND MARIE V. GLANTZ, HUSBAND AND WIFE, BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 1186206, THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID GLANTZ TRACT TO THE SOUTH LINE OF TRACT 32; THENCE WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID TRACT 32 TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE NORTH, ALONG THE WEST LINE TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID TRACT 32; THENCE EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID TRACT 32 TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. BEARING MERIDIAN A BEARING OF N08729'54"W BETWEEN..TWO FOUND MONUMENTS, "A" AND "B", PER RECORD OF SURVEY UNDER RECORDING NO. 200106185001. RECORDS OF SMOHOMISH COUNTY, WA. 10-08-13 SET 1/2" REBAR & CAP "GEOD LS #15025" . ON LINE T i RF sum JUL 11 2014 • BUILDIPIG DEPA!?TMENT C!T'n OF E0,VOi%;DS :, ,1t ,,i \ �_; I , � I � �L� ,:���,�'.',�,,:�," , . , ,_'�, li'�,�,�,� _,', � ,,'�, ", � "' _L _" '', '' �'� "''� , _,.'!_� 1�1�,.�i"";11., ,,�,,:, ,,r I_' _ �� �;"L. "', - 111. � , �_ ,,_�:__11, , �_�� �, �'l`,, -��,: 1-1.., �� I 7, ": ,, -, ,' . ffi F } ! , �� �� �1�"" ,, ' �:-," _ ,-' ": �, ,'_�� ,� ,I, ,,-',, , � , �.�� � �.��: -', ,�",L' ,�I"., ,I,":��- ' ,_ '�I�r�I,�_,, �",7 ,,, . I,:,�- L�I ,,1 .�: " ,�,� "� �� "I-,�� �� �L .: I 1, 'I.":-�' "�, ,. , r "' II,,,� ' , ,, , 1�, r '.I�� �. ��� :I: �:I�, r-, , ,.�r, ' , : ' L � ,� ' ,,,,1I " ", r, �,� �� :�. � ,'�",II . , . "., ,��,�I, � I I,: , �. ., ..l' d,, 1:.�� , I I�, - ( ,. - �z I, )�,i II ,.,,, L':,_ �-,-.1 ,, :,,� , .��� � -, '1, �,'.,� i,I II , I : � ,r �,�. �,,��I �:_ - , �, I", ,' . ,� l7 - ��,*_1 t 3 ��',� ,� ,r �, , , �� �-, .'�, ,,:L -�,'4 �:., , , , r, r t 1 i• 3 3 ; • 6 w09(o w __ ::Z5 cc (n Z ca W UIx . ahl O d. co Q ti H O = ) m CL � = i0o Lo Q 2 ��N 12 Lo3 cd W Ca as 6 �2 =o U a �ooW Z a U CJ W US � $4 a. LIJ (a LL "q O IT JOB NUMBER: 131OB1 DA TE: 1011512013 DRAFTED BY: V . L . J. CHECKED BY: E. J. G. SCALE: REVISION HISTORY DATE: . 0212612014 DATE: 06/27/2014 DATE: 0710712014 DATE: 0711412014 SHEET NUMBER 1 OF 2 I k 6 F77 T) 12 " CMP ' IE 149.78' I CATCH BASIN APPROXIMATE RIM=151.31' I END OF STORM IE 12" CMP W 147.86' EASEMENT Lu !V y �x \ 2 � \ N \ I � N N I N N N 0 N 2L � N O O O I I IN \ Z r�x0 I O 2 x B 1 Ah N� N Lty N N N N N N N N N r N N N N 1� 2 \ vo GRAPHIC SCALE V-10' N \ 0 10 20 30 N \ \ NOTE: IALL TITLE INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS MAP HAS BEEN EXTRACTED FROM 1 TICOR TITLE COMPANY'S "COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE", ORDER NUMBER 6491364-1, DATED APRIL 5, 2012. IN PREPARING THIS MAP, GEODIMENSIONS INC. HAS CONDUCTED NO INDEPENDENT TITLE SEARCH NOR IS GEODIMENSIONS INC. AWARE OF ANY TITLE ISSUES AFFECTING THE SURVEYED PROPERTY OTHER THAN THOSE SHOWN ON THE MAP AND DISCLOSED BY THE REFERENCED "COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE". GEODIMENSIONS INC. HAS RELIED WHOLLY ON TICOR TITLE COMPANY'S REPRESENTATIONS OF THE TITLE'S CONDITION TO PREPARE THIS SURVEY AND GEODIMENSIONS INC. QUALIFIES THE MAP'S ACCURACY AND COMPLETENESS TO THAT EXTENT. N i EASEMENT PROVISIONS ITEM 19 EASEMENT (S) FOR THE PURPOSE (S) SHOWN BELOW AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL THERETO AS SET FORTH IN A DOCUMENT. IN FAVOR OF.' CITY OF EDMONDS PURPOSE: UTILITY RECORDING DATE: SEPTEMBER 30, 1983 RECORDING NO: B309300219 AFFECTS: SOUTHERLY PORTION "DOCUMENT ILLEGIBLE, APPROXIMATE LOCATION BASED ON SURVEY REC. N0. 206185001, SHOWN HEREON" ffW EASEMENT (S) FOR THE PURPOSE (S) SHOWN BELOW AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL THERETO �2 AS SET FORTH IN A DOCUMENT: IN FAVOR OF.' PUBLIC:DISTRICT NO. 1 PURPOSE: UNDERGROUNDUTILITY AND/OR OVERHEAD DISTRIBUTION RECORDING DATE: JULY 15, 2003 RECORDING NO: 2003071501172 AFFECTS., WEST 10 FEET "SHOWN HEREON" ITEM21 COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS BUT OMITTING ANY COVENANTS OR RESTRICTIONS, IF ANY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THOSE BASED UPON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, FAMILIAL STATUS, MARITAL STATUS, DISABILITY, HANDICAP, NATIONAL ORIGIN, ANCESTRY, OR SOURCE OF INCOME, AS SET FORTH IN APPLICABLE STATE OR FEDERAL LAWS, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT SAID COVENANT OR RESTRICTION IS PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, AS SET FORTH IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDING DATE: MARCH 5, 2007 RECORDING NO. 200703051114 �� TTABLE INFORMATION" SURVEY, RECORDING DATE: JUNE 18, 2001 RECORDING NO.: 2001061BB001 � 2S SEWER EASEMENT INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON" COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS, RECITALS, RESERVATIONS, EASEMENTS, EASEMENT PROVISIONS, DEDICATIONS, BUILDING SETBACK LINES, NOTES AND STATEMENTS, IF ANY, BUT OMITTING ANY COVENANTS OR RESTRICTIONS, IF ANY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THOSE BASED UPON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, FAMILIAL STATUS, MARITAL STATUS, DISABILITY, HANDICAP, NATIONAL ORIGIN, ANCESTRY, OR SOURCE OF INCOME, AS SET FORTH IN APPLICABLE STATE OR FEDERAL LAWS, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT SAID COVENANT OR RESTRICTION IS PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, AS SET FORTH ON PLAT OF MEADOWDALE BEACH SUPPLEMENTAL PLAT., RECORDING NO: 95174 "NO PLOTTABLE INFORMATION" maous JUL 17 2014 BUILDIM-4 DEPAR-TWEfNT CITY OF E D?l,0ND8 t' Q' LU >" Q ~ ' O Z v n Z N N Zap W Z ULo ow v LL H Lu CJ Z OO LL- JOB NUMBER: 1310B1 DA TE: 1011512013 DRAFTED BY: V . L . J. CHECKED BY: E.J. G. SCALE: 1 " = 10' REVISION HISTORY DATE: 0212612014 DATE: 0612712014 DATE: 0710712014 DATE: 0711412014 SHEET NUMBER 2OF2 GENERAL NOTES: r-PNiPRAI K1nTFq MKIT'n• SEC 5, TWP 27N, RGE 4E 1. ALL I IATERLALS AND WORK SHOWN OIL THESE PLANS SHALLCONFORMT.G THE CITY OF EDMONDS STANDAIRD PLANS AND DETAILS, THEFOLLOWING SPECIFICATIONS AN.D.CODES, AND ALL OTHER APPLICABLE LOCAL NIUNICIPAL, STATE. AND FEDERAL CODES, RULES AND REGUTL.ATIONS:: URRENT INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE (IBC) G4f'jtM42644WSDOTrAPWTA: STANDARD SPECIFICATIONSTORRQAD; BRIDGE;AND .MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION - WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY STOnIWATER MANkGEMENT NI ANUAL:_FOR THE PUGET SOUND BASIN (CURRENT EDITION) 2. STANDARD PLAN AND TYPE NUMBERS INDICATED ON THESE DR_AWINGS. REFER TO Cff�r OF EDMONDS ST_AaND_A- D DETAILS, UNLESS NOTEDOTHER VISE 3. A. COPS OF THESE APPROVED PLANS MUST BE ON THE JOBSITE WHENZE'VER CONSTRUCTION.IS IN PROGRESS: 4. DEVIATIONS FROM'THESE PLANTS MUST BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER OF RECORD :AND THE LOCAL GOVERNING AUTHORITY. 5. CONTRACTOR.SHALL RECORD ALL APPROVED DEVIATIONS FRONT THESE PLANS ON A SET .OF " AS -BUILT" DRAVVINGS .AND SHALL SUNE%I IAIUZE ALL AS - BUILT CONDITIONS ON ONE SET OF REPRODUCIBLE DRATNINTGS FOR SUBMITTAL. TO THE OWNER PRIOR PROJECT COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE. A SET OF AS - BUILT DRAWINGS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF EDINiONDS PRIOR TO FINAL APPROVAL. OF THE BUILDING OCCUPANCY/FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL. 6. ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE IN FEET. SEE SURVEY FOR BENCHMARK IN FOR.ILATION. ?. THE LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UTILITIES AND SITE FEATURES SHOWN HEREON HAVE BEEN FURNISHED BY OTHERS BY FIELD SURVEY OR OBTAINED FRO-M AVAILABLE RECORDS AND SHOULD THEREFORE BE CON,NSIDERED APPROXIINIATE ONLY AND NOT `NECESSARILY CONIPLETE. IT IS THE SOLE_ RESPONSIBILITY OF THE, CONTRACTOR TO INDEPENDENTLY VERIFY THE -ACCURACY OF:ALL. UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN AND TO FURTHER DISCOVTER AND PROTECT ANY OTHER UTILITIES NOT SHOW HEREON 'WHIC H.MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE LNEPLENIENTATIONOF.THIS PLAN. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATION, DEPTH. SIZE. TYPE AND CONDITION OF EXISTING UTILITY LILIES. AT CONNECTION OR CROSSING PONTS:BEFORE TRENCHING FOR NEW UTILITIES. ENGINNTEER ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR.THE'COMPLETENESS ORACCURACY OF THE EXISTING UTILITIES AND SITE FEATURES PRESENTED ON DRAW THESERAWINGS. ENGINEER SHALL BE NOTIFIED IMMEDI.A:TELY OF CONFLICTS THAT ARISE. S. CONTRACT0,R SHALL LOCATE :AND PROTECT, ALL UTILITIES DURING CONSTRUCTION. AND SHALL CONTTA.CT.THE UNTDER.GROT-7ND UTILITIES LOCATION SERVICE (1-800-424-5555) AT" LEAST 4S HOURS PRIOR.TO CONSTRUCTION. 9. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL: CONDITIONS. ND DIii SENiSIONS AT THE PROJECT SITE BEFORE ST-AR.TING WORK AND SHALL NOTIFY OV.'NEWS REPRESENTATIVE OF ANTS' DISC'REP-ANC'IES. 10., PIPE`LENGTHS:ZUHERE SHO'%X N:ARE APP.ROXI!vL. TE:,A:N-D,-' Lf:k 'CH. GE DUE TO FIELD CONDITION S' ' 11. CONTRA.CTOR SHALL OBTAIN A COPY OF THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Ut'HERE A_PPLIC'ABL E) AND SHALL: THOROUGHLY F AINULI:ARIZE HIMSELF WITH THE C'OTINTTENTSTip THEREOF. ALL; SITF,%�,T N'STi+ T�.'BE;PERFt?F.�'+,1 ►`IN STRICT CONIPLI CE -V. Ft THEON.RECMEENDATIO'.r S OF THIS RE.PORT_ . 12_ STRUCTUFILL:�,LATERIAL.ANDFLlACE.NiEN•T SHALL CONFORNITO THE REC'OMMENDATIONT:S OF THE PROJECT GEOTEC'HNIC-U REPORT. 13. '_ L�NHbLES', CATCH E3- SLvTS_ UTILITIES "iND PA.VE1 F_NT.SH-kLL BELAR ON NIEDIUNIDENSE TO N'ERYDENSE NATIVE':SOIL OR C'ONEP:ACTED STRUCTURALFILL: IFISOIL IS DISTURBED_ SOFT; LOOSE. 13TETORIF'ORGANIC JL- TERLA.L IS PRESENT AT SL-BGRADE ELEVATION, RFMO-VE AND REPLACE WITH C'ONMP ACTED STRUCTURAL FILL PER GEOTECHNICA.L REPORT 14- SEE SURVEY AND, ARC HIT ECTtJ-R A.L DRAWINGS FOR DINIE_N SIONS AND LOCATIONS OF BUILDINGS. L.ANDSC'APED ;A.RE_AS AND.OTHER PROPOSED OR EXISTING SITE FEATURES. 15. SEE ARC 14 IT E C TMU,DNG:5 FOIL FERI'MF.TER F•C►L" NDAT'ION DF-AIN'S F0UNTDATION DRAIN S SHALL BE INDEPENDENT OF OTHER SITE DRAN.LINE& AND SHALL BE TIGHTLINTED.TO THE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM INHERE INDICATED ON THE PLANS. 16_ ALL REQLIREDi STORNONATER F,AC'ILITIE5INELTSTTBE C.ONSTRUIC`.TED AND IN OPERATION PRIOR 76 NSTALLATION CIFANYFAVE-TVIENTUNLFSS:.OTHERk4'i5E- AP.PROVED Bit' THE ENOLNEER. 17_ ALL RC30F DI II�tS;. PERM1ETE.R FtOUI` ATION DRAINS • CATCH B:� SIN S AND OTHER EXTEMNAL' DRAINS- SILALL BE CONNECTED TO, THE, STORI _AG. 1E SYSTEM, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. is. CONTRACTOR SHALL. OBTADI AiN.D FkYT FOR-.A.LL PER, liTS REQUiP.ED FOR ITIN7ST A.LL.AT30N`OFALL SITE a,fPRO E~viENTS INDIC.kTI D' ON TH.FSE DRAWINGS, . 19, AS A. A• IIXBMTNI`REQUIRENIENT, ALL: DISTURBED AARE,AS ON-AND'OFF, SITE .Sf ALL BE RETURNED TO THE EQUIVALENT OF THEIR PRECON{STRUCTION CONDITIONJN ACCORDA7NCE WITHAPPROPRIATE AINTD STA.NTDARDS: - 20_ ALL:DISTU' RBED SOIL: AREAS ;SE ALL BE,' SEEDED OR::ST ABII::IZED:BY OTHER .ACC EPT.ABLE METHODS FOR -THE PREVENTION OF CtN=SITE.ERCSION:AFTER.THE COIL iPLETIONI.OF CONSTRL7CTIQN_ SEE fiR.bSION CONTROL PLt1NS5 FOKSPEC=IFIC GR.A.DINCi AND EROSIONt CONTTROL'REQUIREMENTS. 21 _ THE CON _ AC'TOR SHALL kEEP OFF SITE STREETS .CT T:kN AT .ALL TPMES BY SWEEPING. WA�H1N0 CIF THESE STREETS W1ILL NTOT.BE A.LLC}WED VVITH( PRIOR .A.PPRO.VAL. 22. THIS PROJECT IS NOT A BA.LAN'`CED EA_RTHVVORK PROJECT. BOTH EX-PORT IMPORT OF SOIT:. AND ROCK M ATERLALS AREREQUIRED: 23: SLOPE- OF.FINISHED GRADE SHALL BE CONSTANT AIN'T; BEnVEI EIS FINISHED' CONTOURS OR SPOT TIEVATION S SHOWN 24. FINISHED .GRADE SHALL SLOPE AWAY FRONT BUILDING r A_LLS ATINTIN. mUm 5%; SLOPE FOR A.-MIr+tL'4 U'M DIST?.NC'E:OF 10 FEET- 25_ CCONTRA.CTOR SIIALL BE R.ESPONSZBLE FORAND SHALL L-STAI-r AND `F�IAINTAN:SHORING AND BR.A.CING AS NEC:ESS ART' TO'PROTECT WORKERS, £XISTINCiBUILDINGS, STREETS_.UVALK'NAYS UTILITIES ANID OTHER E=X3STING .AND PROPOSED IMPROVENIENTTS AND EXCAVATIONS AGAENTST LOSS OF GROtND OR C:AVL�` G EINfE 't3.wK'NIENTS. CtO'N7R_ACTOR SHALL ALSO BE.RESPONSIBLE FOR R.F-moVA.L OF SHORING. AND BRACNG AS REQUIRED. 26. CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN APPROVAL FROINI THE CITY Ati.N'D FOLLOW CITE. PROCEDURES FOR ALL V.7ATER SERVICE.INTERRUPTION:S. HYD?..,kN- T SHUTOFFS: STREET CLOSt,'RES OR OTHER ACC:E,SS RESTRICTR NS. CONI'RA`C'TOR SHALL NOT RELOCATE OR F1111N.A.TE ANY HSt`I.3R.ANTS I ITHOU'T FIRST OBTAINTI G:`�LT,3TTEN APPROVAL FRO-V THE FIRE MARSHAL. 7- COORDINATE AND ARRANGE. FOF,ALL.UTILITY'CONNTcnoNS-.LTTLi;Tnr RELOCATIONS :A.ND� OR SERVICE IN7- ERRL?PnO'NTS'WITT-i THE AFFECTED" OV.71NERS: ANDAPPROPRIATE UTILITY CO IPANIE5 C'QNNECTIONS-TO.EN:,ISTII G UTILTT.IES SHALL BENIADE.ONLY WITH AD'y.-A ' CE•lx1RITTE'�._,kP'PROV'_AL--,OF'THE , AUTHORITIES;GOV'ERNING SAID UTILITIES. GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL NOTES 1. CONSTRUCTIONACCESS ROUTE CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE: ACCESS SHALL BE, WHENEVER PRACTICAL, LIMITED TO ONE ROUTE. ACCESS POINTS SHALL BE STABILIZED WITH QUARRY SPALLS OR CRUSHED ROCK TO MINIMIZE THE TRACKING OF SEDIMENT ONTO PUBLIC ROADS. IF SEDIMENT IS TRANSPORTED ONTO A ROAD SURFACE, THE ROADS SHALL BE CLEANED THOROUGHLYAT THE END OFEACHDAY. SEDIMENT SHALL BE REMOVED FROMROADS BY SHOVELING OR SWEEPING AND BE TRANSPORTED TO A CONTROLLED SEDIMENT DISPOSAL AREA WITHIN 24 HOURS. STREET WASHING SHALL BE ALLOWED ONLYAFTER SEDIMENT IS REMOVED IN THIS MANNER. 2. TEMPORARY EROSIONISEDIMENTA TION CONTROL FACILITIES. TEMPORARYEROSION/SEDIMENTATION CONTROL FACILITIES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO ANY GRADING OR EXTENSIVE LAND CLEARING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED TEMPORARY EROSION/SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLAN. 3. STABILIZATION OF EXPOSED SOILS: ALL SOILS EXPOSED BY LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES SHALL BE STABILIZED BY SUITABLE APPLICATION OF BMPS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, SOD, HYDROSEEDING, OR OTHER VEGETATION, PLASTIC COVERING, OR MULCHING. SOIL STOCKPILES SHALL BE STABILIZED OR PROTECTED WITH SEDIMENT RETENTION BMPS WITHIN 24 HOURS OF FORMATION. GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE TIMED AND CONDUCTED IN STAGES TO MINIMIZE SOIL EXPOSURE. ALL BMPS SHALL BE SELECTED, DESIGNED, AND MAINTAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANUAL. THE EXPOSED SOILS SHALL BE STABILIZED ACCORDING TO AN APPROVED TIMETABLE. (NO SOILS SHALL REMAIN EXPOSED FOR MORE THAN TWO DAYS FROM OCTOBER I THROUGH APRIL 30 AND NO MORE THAN SEVEN DAYS FROM MAY I THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30.) 4. PROTECTION OFADJACENT PROPERTIES: ADJACENT PROPERTIES SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM SEDIMENT DEPOSITION BY APPROPRIATE USE OF VEGETATIVE BUFFER STRIPS, SEDIMENT BARRIERS OR FILTERS, DIKES OR MULCHING, OR BYA COMBINATION OF THESE MEASURES AND OTHER APPROPRIATE BMPS. 5. MAINTENANCE. . ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMPS SHALL BE REGULARLY INSPECTED AND MAINTAINED BY THE OWNER TO ENSURE CONTINUED PERFORMANCE OF THEIR INTENDED FUNCTION. ALL MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR SHALL BE CONDUCTED INACCORDANCE WITH THE MANUAL AND UNTIL CONSTRUCTIONAND LANDSCAPING IS COMPLETED AND THE POTENTIAL FOR ON -SITE EROSION HAS PASSED. SILTATION BARRIERS SHALL BE INSPECTED IMMEDIATELYAFTER EACH RAINFALL AND AT LEAST DAILY DURING PROLONGED RAINFALL. SEDIMENT DEPOSITS SHOULD BE REMOVED AFTER EACH RAINFALL. THEY MUST BE REMOVED WHEN THE LEVEL OF DEPOSITION REACHES APPROXIMATELY ONE-HALF THE HEIGHT OF THE BARWER. ANY SEDIMENT DEPOSITS REMAINING IN PLACE AFTER THE BARRIER IS NO LONG REQUIRED SHALL BE DRESSED TO CONFORM TO THE EXISTING GRADE, COMPOST AMENDED AND SEEDED AND OR OTHERWISE PERMANENTLY STABILIZED. SEDIMENT POND MAINTENANCE: THE EMBANKMENT OF THE BASIN SHOULD BE CHECKED REGULARLY TO ENSURE IY IS STRUCTURALLY SOUND AND HAS NOT BEEN DAMAGED BYEROSION OR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMEr ;T. THE EMERGENCY SPILLWAY SHOULD BE CHECKED REGULARLY TO INSURE THAT ITS LINING IS WELL ESTABLISHED AND EROSION -RESISTANT. THE SILTATION BASIN SHOULD BE CHECKED AFTER EACH RUNOFF-PvODUCING RAINFALL FOR SEDIMENT CLEAN OUT. WHEN THE SEDIMENT REACHES THE CLEAN OUT LEVEL, IT AIALL BE REMOVED AND PROPERLY DISPOSED. 6. OTHER BMPS.- AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY, OTHER APPROPRIATE BMPS TO MITIGATE THE EFFECTS OF INCREASED RUNOFF SHALL BE APPLIED. 7. RETAINING STRUCTURES. FOR CUT AND FILL SLOPES WHICH EXCEED A MAXIMUM OF TWO FEET HORIZONTAL TO ONE FOOT VERTICAL (2. 1), A CONCRETE RETAINING WALL MAY BE REQUIRED. ALL OTHER CUT AND FILL SLOPES SHALL BE A MAXIMUM OF 2:1. 8. UNDERGROUND UTILITY CONSTRUCTION: THE CONSTRUCTION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITYLINES SHALL SPECIFICALLYADDRESS THE FOLLOWING: a) EROSION CONTROL FOR EXCAVATED STOCKPILED MATERIALS, 6) THE PLACEMENT OF EXCAVATED MATERIAL WHERE CONSISTENT WITH SAFETYAND SPACE CONSIDERATIONS SHALL BE PLACED ON THE UPHILL SIDE OF TRENCHES, c) TRENCH DEWATERING SYSTEMS (MUST DISCHARGE INTO SEDIMENT TRAPS, SEDIMENT PONDS, OR OTHER ACCEPTABLE MEANS), d) TRACKING AND SPILLING OF MATERIALS ON STREETS DUE TO HAULING; e) DAILY CLEANUP AND STREET MAINTENANCE. CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE NOTES 1. SCHEDULE A PRE -CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH CITY ENGINEERING DIVISION AT 425-771-0220, EXT. 1326. TWO DAY (48 HR) NOTICE IS REQUIRED. 2. REVIEW TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROLNOTES. 3. CALL FOR UTILITY LOCATES. 4. INSTALL TESC MEASURES AND MAINTAIN DUST CONTROL WHILE PREVENTING DISTURBANCE OF ANY AREAS OF VEGETATIONOUTSIDE THE CONSTRUCTION ZONE. 5. HAVE EROSION CONTROL MEASURES INSPECTED BY CITY OF EDMONDS CITY ENGINEERING INSPECTOR. ALL TEMPORARY SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROL MEASURES MUST BE N PLACE AND INSPECTED PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION OR SITE CLEARING. EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PRACTICES AND/OR DEVICES SHALL BE MAINTAINED UNTIL PERMANENT VEGETATION IS ESTABLISHED. 6. DEMOLISH EXISTING STRUCTURES 7. ROUGH GRADE SITE AS REQUIRED TO INSTALL DRAINAGE FEATURES. 8. CLEAR, GRUB & ROUGH GRADE SITE. REVEGETATE DISTURBED AREAS NOT SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL SURFACE DISTURBANCE IMMEDIATELY AFTER ROUGH GRADING. (OTHER EXPOSED AREAS SHALL BE STABILIZED PER EROSION CONTROL NOTES BELOW) 9. INSTALL UTILITIES AND OTHER SITE IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS. 13. STABILIZE AND COMPOST AMEND ALL EXPOSED SOILS PRIOR TO REVEGETATION OF ENTIRE SITE. 14. ESTABLISH LANDSCAPING AND PERMANENT VEGETATION. ALL TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE REMOVED UPON FINAL SITE STABILIZATION AND APPROVAL BY CITY INSPECTOR. SPECIAL NOTE: ALL RECOMMENDATIONS STATED IN THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR THIS SITE DATED FEBRUARY 25TH 2O14 SHALL BE FOLLOWED FOR AL °CONSTRUCTION RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE. C0_11L T rj_rLS �� r OWNER: DEAN SAUNDERS PO BOX 4067 EVERETT, WA 98204 ARCHITECT: JEFFREY DeROULET ARCHITECTS NORTHWEST 18915 142ND AVE NE, SUITE 100 WOODINVILLE, WA 98072 425-485-4900 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: TOBIASON & COMPANY, INC 20434 1OTH PL SW SEATTLE, WA 98166-4106 206-375-7775 LAUREY@TOBIASON.BIZ STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: MIKE MITCHELL 425-861-7581 MITCHELLENGINEERINGINC@COVICAST.NET .WATER & SEVER: CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVE N EDMONDS, WA 98020 425-771-0220 SURVEYOR: GEODIMENSIONS 10801 MAIN ST, SUITE 102 BELLEVUE, WA 98004 425-458-4488 SUPPORT@GEODIMENSIONS.NET CIVIL ENGINEER: SITE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DAVE DOUGHERTY 3011 RAVEN CREST BELLINGHAM, WA 425-481-9687 DAVE.SDS@Q.COM (IT EOTECHNICAL ENGINEER: GEO GROUP NORTHWEST, INC _ 13240 NE 20TH ST, SUITE 10 BELLEVUE, WA 98005 425-649-8757 L►r,nrnti'ra,-1 1-I�( I,?rw�� UTILITIES NATURAL GAS: PUGET SOUND ENERGY CUSTOMER CONSTRUCTION SVC,S: 1-888-321- 7779 CONSTRUCTION INQUIRYOPSE.COM COMMUNICA COMCAST/INFINITY 1-866-942-1341 ELECTRICITY: SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUD PO BOX 1100 EVERETT, WA 98206 425-783-1000 Pursuant to Edmonds Community Develo ment Code VERTICAL DATUM 1) Site property access shall not b 19'1f) the following conditions appl and e allowed during the time period between October 1y site ril 30th unless approval is obtained from the Building Official. If access is allowed a (NA VD BB) PER GPS inspector shall perform erosion and sediment control' ' CESL facilities shall be maintained by this inspector arid provided to theCityu ons.eon re of installed ESC inactive sites (no work for more than three consecutive days) shall be inspected weekly b erosion and sedimentation control supervisor. by the 2) Site Monitoring: Owner shall retain a geotechnical engineer to monitor the site during construction. The geotechnical engineer shall monitor, during construction, compliance with PROJECT BENCHMARK the recommendations in the geotechnical report including: site excavation, " erosion control, soil support tion, shoring, temporary other e pport for foundation, piles, subdrainage installation, soil compaction and CB RIM LOCATED WEST OF SW PROPERTY geotechnical aspects of the construction. p CORNER. ELEV: 92. 71 3) Storm ,Events: During all work periods, special inspections p ns shall be performed after "storm j events". The storm event report shall be provided within one week of the event. • j LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT PORTION OF TRACT 32 OF MEADOWDALE BEACH SUPPLEMENTAL PLAT, ACCORDING TO PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 5 OF PLATS AT PAGE 42, IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID TRACT 32; THENCE NORTH 89o57'00`' WEST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID TRACT 32, FOR 211.33 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF A TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED TO DANIEL GLANTZ AND MARIE V. GLANTZ, HUSBAND AND WIFE, BY DEED RECORDED. UNDER RECORDING NO. 11B6206, THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID GLANTZ TRACT TO THE SOUTH LINE OF TRACT 32; THENCE WEST ALONG THE' SOUTH LINE OF SAID TRACT 32 TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE NORTH, ALONG THE WEST LINE TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID TRACT 32; THENCE EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID TRACT 32 TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. BEARING MERIDIAN A BEARING OF N08029'54"W BETWEEN TWO FOUND MONUMENTS, "A" AND "B", PER RECORD OF SURVEY UNDER RECORDING NO. 200106185001, RECORDS OF SMOHOMI SH COUNTY, WA. VICINITY MAP LEGEND -- FOUND MONUMENT AS NOTED SET REBAR 6 CAP AS NOTED ® CATCH BASIN ® SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE X SPOT ELEVATION M❑ WATER METER F21 GAS DOWN MARKER ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER ® SIDE SEWER CLEAN OUT Fil TELEPHONE RISER ASPHALT SURFACE R-O-W RIGHT-OF-WAY ( ) RECORD AS NOTED BURIED SEWER LINE ST BURIED STORM LINE BURIED WATERLINE BUILDING LINE (� CENTERLINE OF ROAD CHAIN LINK FENCE SLOPE AS NOTED WOOD FENCE EDGE OF VEGETATION CEDAR TREE (NOT SHOWN TO SCALE) TRUNK DIA SHOWN IN INCHES. SHEET INDEX I * * * * * * * * COVERSHEET 2 * * * * * * * * TESC PLANGRADING 3 * * * * * * * * DRAINAGE PLAN 4 * * * * * * * *DETAILS in 5 p,NIP IS /V APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION CITY OF EDMONDS DATE: \ BY: CITY ENGINEERING DIVISION OFTHISPLAN. ••e° L N PL SW '159T.N ; SST aW. IC, DR 4t'l DR DR iNE DR ,17 PL' SITE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 3011 RAVEN CREST BELLINGHAM, WA 98226 (425) 481 9687 DAVE.5DS0Q COM 7/9/14 REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS SAUNDERS RESIDENCE 15911 74th PL W, EDMONDS DATE: 4/3/14 DES: DCD SCALE: 1 =10 DWN: DCD RESU(,,; JUL 2014 COVERSHEET BUILDING 1 � ,!4 EWf OWNER/APPLICANT: QT 1 OF FF OWIONDS DEAN SAUNDERS PO BOX 4067 1 of 4 EVERETT, WA 98204 ST �REET FBILEgo r :IUBL IC ROAUwN r 9"E 164.14' CALC'D SEC 5, TWP 27N, RGE 4E rsulLuiivv opm Oil hk I inch = 10 ft. 50'0 3' CONSTR PLACE CB FIL CATCH BASIN RIM=92.71' IE 12" DI S 83.63' IE 12" DI N 83.60' IE 12" CMP E 83.71' 10-OB-13 N IN CASE ASS DISC )OWN 0.3' ►. 1 ' N OF CALC'D POSITION CALC'D CENTERLINE INTERSECTION POSITION N89'30'31"W 205.85' CALC'D cc (205.85 ' ROS 200106185001) 64 " "PUBLIC ROADWAY" CALC'D CENTERLINE ; INTERSECTION POSITION I o J V �O M \ h � 13 • � O 'B' 45.13' 10-08-13 CALC'D FOUND CONC MON IN CASE BRASS DISC DOWN 0.5' 10-OB-13 SET 112" REBAR 6 CAP "GEOD LS #15025" AT PROPERTY CORNEA xP A = CI FARING I IMIT 12'- -0"H EBW�'P P@129.00 T@124.00_ _13 Iz" 1111: 1 h� lh 1'1 ID t 1.1 C� 1 •1 I l 1 10-OB-13 SET 1/2" REBAR 6 CAP "GEOD LS #15025" ON LINE FENCE IS 2.3' N OF LINE FENCE IS 0.9' \ o paJ= 0 S OF LINE Al I -A ------------ `132— 2-5" — —13h"— — _2 12 DRIPLINE — _ —I.32— — 12g— —128— CLEARING LIMIT - - _ 124--_ 2 \ T❑P@ 23 00 \ \ B❑T@117.00 3'-O'HIGH C❑NC WALL BOT@117,00 \ \\ \ \\ STOCKPILE AREA Z Z\ \ / / / / / / CLEARLING \ • \ LIMIT \ OIx NI SPECIAL NOTES: 1. ALL RECOMMENDATIONS STATED IN THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR THIS SITE DATED FEBRUARY 25TH 2O14 SHALL BE FOLLOWED - FOR ALL CONSTRUCTION RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE. 2. STOCKPILES ARE ALLOWED ONLY IN THE AREA INDICATED. THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT SHALL BE SIX FEET, COVER THE STOCKPILE AND MAINTAIN IT IN CONFORMANCE THE THE TESC NOTES. Qualified landscaper to carefully root prune cedars x V 1 where wall requires removal of cedar roots. Branches GARAGE ' I of trees to be pruned as appropriate to remove stress Root and branch HIGH=118.00 �20 from trees following root pruning. L❑W=117.67 i pruning as determined by qualified arborist. I l PLACE CB FILTER 0 T ` -S 20. 0 ' - -- i \ S. ISO G. CJ 12 "E 228. 49 ' 3rORM PER "LEND LS #15025' SET 112" I ON LINE "GEOD L y. 3 NO. PLACE CB FILTER CATCH BASIN ON RIM=120. 29' 5,�01 IE 12" CMP W 116.09'510 FclslE`t CLEARING LIMIT IE 12" CMP E 116.09' NAL` rI r�nwr� 4D4D !°llIItllu."11°c]►a]► ON ESM'T LINE CALL 2 DAYS � z �ms.x ��... .. .. BEFORE YO U DIG 1-,800-424 5555 SITE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 3011 RAVEN CREST BELLINGHAM, WA 98226 (425) 481 9687 CuG/ ' '�7 `" (• '16" ' DAYS SDSC�Q COM l� 777 W0 51T8 AX�5/ -rc -� �gL)I)U, 1WB 5 on( SHGC-' J. APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION CITY OF EDMO DS DATE: BY: CITY ENGINEERING DIVISION 7/9/14 REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS SAUNDERS RESIDENCE 15911 74th PL W, EDMONDS DATE: 4/3/14 DES: DCD SCALE: 1 =10 DWN: DCD naskDn T PLAN ���. � � 2v11� ESC OWNER APPLICANT: +„t,j'jt l: m F*,IDCN; / t;3rVia- �..�a�d,o:et�� DEAN SAUNDERS PO BOX 4067 2 of 4 EVERETT, WA 98204 SEC 5, TWP 27N, RGE 4E DUBLIC ROADWAY 9"E 164.14' CALC'D 7 t BUILDING CALC'D %! CENTERLINE INTERSECTION POSITION V J �f.T�1�� rn�1��T1roT�Gve 1L 1L111i1�U 1! ay 1! V�lJi& �y 1rt11GI 42 V 10-08-13 SET 1/2" REBAR 6 CAP 2 "GEOD LS #15025" P� AT PROPERTY 10-OB-13 SET 1/2" REBAR & CAP \ CORNER GEOD LS #15025 ti ON LINE / FENCE IS 2.3' N OF LINE I 3 N89.45'23"11 \ �1'-0'H EBW 40"H�EBW' 6'-0"H EBW 6'-0'H EBW 15'-0"H EB o 15.20' T❑P@117.00 \T❑P@122.00 '-T❑P@126.00 T❑P@128.00 T❑P@129.00 �, ��, FENCE IS 0.9' CALC'D R�T 12 `'"`'" �O S OF LINE 'a B❑T@116.00 B❑T@118.00 B❑T@1z0.00 B❑T@122.00@124.00_ R�,, �a,_ •••••••••••••••• e._�,nib; ;n,a I aX 14" WALL DRAIN �' \`l \ \ I N,�x . \ \ _ _ _ - -/3�- _ _ _ - 12° 2=8- -1 �., - _2-r2_` �\ \ �• \ \ �` ---------- �'•+ 13o_ DRIPLINE - 1.32--__- 4" PERF WALL DRAIN \\ f16 \ a }I l� _ �� \ /-l�o \ \ +4-110 \ \ 0 -- - - DWY TRANSITION FROM INVERTED CROWN TO 1 6\ :�--108 \ , \ \ �' \ - _ - - - - - - -128- SUPER -ELEVATED SECTION - 5-1z6- - _ _ , 1M 7 �t �e►!�, \ 1 - 5H 6H�_ 6H 6H 5.5H-5H-----I24-, CB#5(TYPE 2-54") �� \ -106 \ \ •H \ ✓ .r\ tix l - G5 \ \ \ TE=104,64(VANED GRATE) •l H)A. _Act4sal At ! 'lz- IE=100.64(ALL 6) \ r •\ \ \ \ 59LF\ 6" Sp ® 19.9% -CB#6(TYPE 1) IE=97.62(36) \ II ' \ �0 \ = \ TE=116.0 •� _ - \ \ \ SET GRATE AT CURB LINE 2o N I ; J\ \ \ \ IE=112.38 -�x 0 �� \� \ 0 2"HIx12"WIDE ASPH BERM L_---! 01 I I • • 3 �� \ ti 4' 0'H EBW 00\ \ ' •r 10� � PxP' , 1� `x /� 1 \ D BOT@117 00 A _ \ \ \ I \ + 2 EXST THICKENED EDGE PER I I fo ti ( ( I \ \\ C❑NCHWALL i 4 0 H SBW l O H SBW T❑P@121.00 STD DETAIL E2.11 � • I N 1 \ 1 \ T❑P@116.00 T❑P@116.00 iwo `\ o� \ B❑T@117.4 11 ,3 /+ " B❑T@112.00 B❑T@115.00ao ;1•5 R00 � I9 + ; RAIN 2% gAn!1-1 MIN 119.3 \ Z o EXST i�• , AC C �% 1Do B1a1 \ 1.7 MILD I \ \ \ oU3 96. EXSTI 2 \\\ \\ I \ cr 11 ,1 �.• �� \ GRADING LIMITH3BLOCK WALL, q o, C❑V> ENTRY3.5 HI, MAX P❑RC@ 118.00m.° n 0) cn i \1-1 hex t\ `00ti I, z1° 1 ( j I %" I ( \ 'r+i \ \ I - - _ 118.9 o� \ \, 4"PERF DRAIN, 1 I R❑P❑ ED 3'-4'H EBW \ ' I �- I r�95.9 + RESIDENCE � T❑P@121.00 l EXST: ( /9 I IE=9,7.12(LEYEL) I I I PLAN MXXXX-0 ti�x B❑T@117.67 I I = I 4 SOLID WALL E U I I UPPER=129A5 I ( ! i \ BLOCK WALL I I MAIN=118.00off !('CB#4'DRAIN 0 1%. MIN I C. Y (FCS) I ti i TE=105.4 • '� OF=102.12 J rn I 1 4„ it 1 0 :° \ IE=97.62 Ivl 1 \ i l�\ /r� 1 (ALL)! I B @ 116� 5CH \ \ 0. I WALL l� J f 0 79LF SWALE ' 43LF 8"SD / N 03 DRAIN ®20.42% 1 \\ �� \ 1 I 1\ 1` \SSS x� I AT 1% MINy SEE TYPICAL I �I r`�'. �\ 6 11/ 15 coo\ 4" CO ! SECTON./ x . \\ I PIPE i \�� \\ IE=112,0 \ ANCHOR,- 10�r�. • M/-- 1 0 1 S\ 1 h GARAGE o ti TYP \ _ 110 ' DISITRI 30 1`ON ESM\ T \titi HIGH=118.00 I 00 S ( ti2 \ \ 1 C. S„75011 2 L❑W=117.67 ( CB#3(TYPE 1j I ; 1 1 ��I 11 �'S DR\AINOTIt�G \ `�i6\ \ 11 ,5 NO1 2 1 IV TE=93.74 VANED GRATE 1 i �� �\ ' S \ Q CB 2 TYPE 1 IE=88.84(ALL) I \ 1 i 1 80�LF 1-11/2" \ \ - _ i # ( ) \ ' POLYETHYLENE \ VC� - - TE=117.5(VANED GRATE) S S _ SSS IE=114,81 EXST NEW 1OLF 8 SD 0 18.4% Itj 1 1 WATER SVC \ , ( ) " AN` RY -- I ___ - T- - \- - ��, _ �\ \ A-, \ 8LF 8"SD 0.5%1 VERIFY PRIOR T CONSTR IE=87.0 1, S R - 1 I 1OLF 4" \PVC ` \ -" \ - - - - - - - - - 1 I ti ST 1' -;� I 1 SSS 0 38%f PORCH \ 48'x48' C❑NC TOP OF CUT SLOPE & �� S �C=-. �-S] ST. @ 114.87 \ \ � % LNDG @,119.00 GRADING LIMIT 118.5 MIN 1 ° la o J C b Z ST -4_q I' � \ �x � 20.0' CATCH BASIN \ - 1 �-�� Y, 'J ST �L S RIM=92. 71 ' :::.:::::..... ` �� \- \ \ "Z� ti T- � \ •••�+S•�� ... �.............. �>. C S IE 12" DI S 83.63 ' - --� " 7:.. :::... \-_ ti IE 12" DI N 83.60' \ ... �.;:. \ - .. ••••• \ SANITARY SEWER S89 °57 ' 4� "E 228. 49 ' �::::.......... ......... \ IE 12" CMP E 83. 71 ' \ ••• ......••• • ••• t••• \\ MANHOLE 0-nR-13_ \ l' ���•'� �..�t�•11:� \ \ 0 0�3-13 RIM=95.79' CATCH BASIN CB#1(TYPE 1) SET -�-�` a'5��::::: /2" REBAR G CAP t ......... 5:�::::a \ f 0 NC 1? :3AR £� CAP IE 12" CONC COC 81.29' RIM=113. 79' 10' WIDE STORM EbD LS #15025" SET 1/2" I 1 • :::::' :Gt:C:.{��.:•.:: - �T TE=118.3 VANED GRATE 3 ;;;,,,��� A RC.-i .. Y CORNER IE 12" CMP W 109. 71 ' EASEMENT ER ( ) ON LINE "GEOD ••• •••••••••••••••••••j " " RECORDING N0. CATCH BASIN to i��• :::•••••::.::::::: 6 CO W/ 12 LOCKING CAST IE 12" CMP E 109.87' IE=114.77 (EXST & NEW) 200106185001 VERIFY PRIOR TO CONSTR RIM=120.29' :::::'::::::::..� AVM+:""" ' IRON LAMPHOLE COVER, w� I��c� hG�1� �j =31 .�:::::: �::::::......... �, S %�.' IE=93.0 11 .5 IE 12"CMP E 116.09' 1. .............................. i i............... .... ii i•. is """•......' .. ....t "PVC SSS PER STD .......:.......................:..... 6 EXST 3 i .� ..................f...., DETAIL �, .... .................. .............................. ................................. 14 1 •.•..... :......... .. •..., :...............: • .......... cm c�c�ec�r� i :::::::::::::: ? N SPECIAL NOTES: I ::::::::::::::........ IVv BUILDING :.........:........................ •••• ::::;� 1, VERIFY EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY IN AREA OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION PRIOR TO C�Y►i�/1�1, -0� f 5 V j fi'I) i ..................................., )B-13 ;.::' �::. ANY WORK, NOTIFY ENGINEER IF CONFLICTS ARE IDENTIFIED. CONC ►� ::� .... ::::::: :::::::::. ACCEPTAK TIC I 'N CASE - ."'""" MATERIAL """"""""""""' """""""' 2. VERIFY DEPTH AND LOCATION OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES (WHETHER OR NOT DISC O� 141 ,�1` ^..,..:.:;:::::::::::::� :::::•j SDR 35 4 0.3' - SHOWN) IN POTENTIAL CONFLICT W/ PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION PRIOR TO ANY N OF ���1C�t �a �, ........._� SCH 40 1$T M D '7 Z � , �•'�"' PROPOSED RET G WALL WORK. LC'D f _ o ; I N •i {�� ���GRrD ITION .� vdaj' "v\�an5 � ti F810 HANC EXST GRADE FH AT SE COR OF MEADOWDALE RD AND 75TH CALC'D CENTEPLINE AVE (611' FROM SITE) INTERSECTION POSITION 2.5H(MIN):1 V, TYP J. AS DIRECTED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER, ARMOR THE SOIL IN THE SEEP WATER & SEWER_ AREAS AT THE TOE OF THE SLOPE LOCATED EAST OF THE BUILDING SITE WITH 2 INSPECTIONS REQ' 2.9� MIN - TO 4 INCH CRUSHED FROCK, UNDERLAIN BY GEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRIC, MIRAFI; MAX z a140N. NO EXCAVATION OR TRENCHING OR OTHER DISTURBANCE OF THE EXISTING CAlL 425-771•0220 E3tT �326Z>�GROUND SURFACE SHALL BE DONE WITH THIS WORK, 00 : N \� FOOTING DRAINNS e IT w t TO BE TED IN ,. ,,�, 15 MIL PLASTIC N89'30'31"W 205.85' CALC'D \ .8. DETIr:��TU St-TE 6'0 OF ' T 4" LINER, SEAL JOINTS (205.85' ROS 200106185001) 45.13• RIVER RUN COB =�,,�� //� ®� ROAD CALC'D 'D 10-08-13 �./-ff./V /'�i.L. ROA FOUND CONIC , 2» SAND MON IN CASE "PUBLIC ROADWAY" BRASS DISC BOTTOM OF SWALE ELEVATIONS ARE AT THE DOWN 0. 5' BOTTOM OF THE COBBLES. TYPICAL SWALE SECTION NTS 4, DISTRIBUTION EASEMENT ON EAST SIDE OF ROW WILL BE ABANDONED OR PERMISSION OBTAINED FOR PLACEMENT OF DETENTION SYSTEM WITHIN THE EASEMENT, I 5. IMPERVIOUS AREAS: ` ROOF AREA: 5,228 DRIVEWAY: 2,651 TOTAL 7,879 to ft 6. SLEEVE WATER SERVICE WITH 2" PVC WHERE SEWER SERVICE IS WITHIN 10 FEET, ft ZiiWPO I) IN I-f MbOur 7. PLACE PIPE ANCHORS EVERY 30 FEET MAXIMUM. CITY WILL DETERMINE IF 'rI ANCHORING OF WATER SERVICE IS NECESSARY DURING CONSTRUCTION. 24" DIA ACCESS FLOW RESTRICTOR4" FOOTING . DRAIN SEE ELEVATION VIEW m ly-41 5 rA4 anAO -1v FCS PLAN VIEW `400 T`r 1,)=2 Not CAM��c, �nl�tV�1©I�.f At✓d(Gvu�1nj� NOTCH -• OVERFLOW 17r 100 YEAR WATER =_ ELEV= 102.12 0 8"OU T IE=97,62 ORIFICE 0=0.65" 24"0 SOLID COVER ELEV=105.4 in K10 2"0 PVC VENT PIPE TOP OF TANK=102.12 .4: 36'LEVEL/„ ;n IE= 97.62 .3; FCS ELEVATION VIEW 1 "= 2' BOTTOM OF LOWEST FOOTING (GRADE BEAM) IS 105.75. SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR OTHER GRADE BEAM ELEVATIONS. CALL 2 DAYS BEFORE YOUDIG 1 -800-424 5555 APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION CITY OF EDMONDS DATE: Y BY: ��A, CITY EIJ NE RING DIVI N G. DO wnS, w ANK IE=97.12(LEVEL) �n c cm'r of cMewvh�?� G�v►�- ��jl s�vc,�r� S bt" cls,&Aav'_ -C-W I� VO • V -O L K • b 05,; mm�hvl'e Gtfocvi 5 *U-gC)f q LJ SITE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 3011 RAVEN CREST BELLINGHAM, WA 98226 (425) 481 9687 DAVE.SDS0Q COM 7/9/14 REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS SAUNDERS RESIDENCE 15911 74th PL W, EDMONDS DATE: 4/3/14 DES: DCD SCALE: 1"=10' DWN: DCD L i " a ;171�� tl, DRAINAGE PLAN�c�, : 0 °EDMI DS OWNER/APPLICANT: DEAN SAUNDERS PO BOX 4067 3 of 4 EVERETT, WA 98204 f FILTER FABRIC SECURED TO 2' X 2' 14 GA. WIRE FABRIC EQUAL 2' X 2' WOOD ❑R I I o EQUIVALENT N 8' 12' III—_ 7" —I 11-1 11-1 11-' :1 1=1 11: 8' - PLACE 3/4'-1.5' WASHED GRAVEL IN THE TRENCH AND ON BOTH SIDES OF FILTER FABRIC FENCE ON THE SURFACE. 0 I (U CONTRACTOR/DEVELOPER SHALL MAINTAIN AND REPLACE STRAW BALES TO INSURE PROPER ER❑SI❑N CONTROL. 'a90-199v FILTER FABRIC MATERIAL IN CONTIN❑US ROLLS. USE STAPLES OR WIRE RINGS TO ATTACH FABRIC TO WIRE. WIRE MESH SUPPORT FE E TO SUPPORT FILTER FA IC. BURY BOTTOM OF FILTER MATERIAL 8' TO 12' 6' MAX. 2' X 2' WOOD POSTS OR EQUIVALENT CITY INSPECTI❑N REQUIRED ON ALL ER❑SI❑N CONTROL METHODS BEFORE OTHER WORK CAN BEGIN. APPROVR BYV I S I O N DATE STANDARD DETAIL FILTER FABRIC FENCE FILTRATION SYSTEMS DATE 7/24/01 SCALE NTS DWG N0. E1.1 25' MIN. RADIUS QUARRY SPALLS r2-4' MIN DIA 8'-12' MIN. DEPTH PR❑VIDE FULL WIDTH OF INGRESS/ EGRESS AREA CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN TEMPORARY C❑NSTRUCTION ENTRANCE DURING THE CONSTRUCTI❑N PERIOD. CITY INSPECTI❑N REQUIRED ON ALL ER❑SION CONTROL MEASURES BEFORE WORK CAN BEGIN. 'a90-199v ITY INSPECTION REQUIRED ON ALL ER❑SI❑N C❑NTR❑ EASURES BEFORE WORK CAN BEGIN, 'd90-199" ATE STRAW BALES MAY BE USED IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES (SEE DETAIL E1.1.1). THIS APPLICAIT❑N SHALL BE MAINTAINED AT ALL TIMES DURING C❑NSTRUCIT❑N PERI❑D. REVISIONS STANDARD DETAIL APPROVED BY DATE D. GEBERT 10/06/03 TEMPORARY SEDIMENT TRAP FOR CATCH BASINS D. GEBERT 05/19/05 D. GEBERT 05/05/06 DATE SCALE DWG NO. 7/24/Ol NTS E1.3 FLOW CONTROL STRUCTURE NON —SHRINK GROUT----,,,4)/2" PVC PIPE* COUPLING 1'—O" MAX ; ! ' CONTROL DEVICE (optional) ASSEMBLY TO BE IPVC PIPE STUB* I REMOVABLE M E FCSI • • SET SCREW TO PREVENT ROTATION GASKET (TYP) PVC PIPE CROSS* I I PVC ADAPTER* W/ ••.•• 1 ORIFICE 1'-0" MIN 1 DOUBLE GASKET DIAMETER* 1'-6" MAX AND ADHESIVE ". BONDED SAND FINISH DRILLED ORIFICE ON EXTERIOR. MIN 7" LONG �' IN PVC INSIDE CAP PLUG CAULK SPACE BETWEEN PVC ADAPTER AND PIPE STUB DETAIL A CONNECTDION & CONTROL DEVICE LADDER. OR HAND HOLDS CONNECTION AND :i POLYPROPYLENE CONTROL DEVICE (SEE DETAIL A) OUTLET PIPE I ALLOWA OUTLET LOCATION (180' to 315') ..f CATCH BASIN TYPE 2 FINISHED GRADE PER WDOT STANDARD PLAN B-10.20-01 H WEIR AS NEEDEE SUPPORT(2 REV ORIFICE AS NEE[ CONTROL DEVICE SEE DETAIL A 6 6" MIN 1'-0" MIN 1'-6" MAX I DIAMETER* DETENTION PIPE (LENGTH, DIAMETER, MATERIAL TYPE)* (Details A & B shall apply to all designs where a shear gate would otherwise apply) NOTE — Invert of detention pipe in manhole shall be equal to or higher than the invert of the outlet pipe. — PRIVATELY —OWNED CONTROL STRUCTURES SHALL NOT BE PLACED IN CITY RIGHT—OF—WAY —CINCH ANCHOR —WIRE ROPE CUP (SS) —DEFORMED %"STEEL ROD (SS OR ALUMINUM) \ LENGTH TO FIT PVC PIPE & CROSS FLOW CONTROL STRUCTURE PIPE SUPPORT DETAIL B APPROVEDEBY/ISIONSE STANDARD DETAIL R. English November 25, 2013 FLOW CONTROL STRUCTURE DATE SCALE DWG NO. Est 189V 1 November 13, 2013 1 NTS E5.4 RISERS 20" X 24" METAL FRAME AND GRATE FOR CATCH BASIN. 24" ROUND METAL FRAME AND GRATE (W/ "DRAIN" ON IT) ANDLSHALLBE UBEDOUTSIDE THE N THE WHEEL PATH FINISHED GRADE EAST JORDAN IRON WORKS N z o MODEL # 00775001 /12" OPC. (NP� SAFETY STEP[f S . REvisioNs D APPROVED BY DATE STAN DARD ETAl L D: GEBERT 3 4/2/0 D. GEBERT 4/2/07 CATCH BASIN TYPE II (48' DATE SCALE 7/24/01 NTS DWG NO. --------- E5.3 1. Not over 36 feet center to center Tllta hf{ttPI. IS= ICI=I�EEETt ;14 IL IIE,IMkal} CdkTldliS on grades 20% up to 35% 2. Not over 24 feet center to center on grades 35% up to 50% 3. Not over 16 feet center to center 17R'I:t!'w,4 on grades 50% & over PIPE NANCHORS SCALE 4d"v T rc G��A +�±' ,��'C�C rsr ,, 0 rIP TYPICAL PIPE ANCHOR ,: ".� T'`'` . I= : / -� NTS NON—WOVERN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC ON TOP & UPHILL SIDE OF DRAIN ROCK 12 MIL POLYETHYLENE ON DOWNHILL SIDE AND BOTTOM OF TRENCH XST & FINISHED GRADE 4" PERF PIPES T i� Y2" TO Y4„ WASHED ROCK 16 GAGE, 30 CORRUGATIONS, ALUMINIZED DETENTION PIPE DETENTION PIPE TRENCH 1"=4' 1 'll BEFORE YOUDIG 1 -800-424 5555 SITE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 3011 RAVEN CREST BELLINGHAM, WA 98226 (423) 481 9687 DAVE.SDS0Q COM 7/9/14 REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS SAUNDERS RESIDENCE 15911 74th PL W, EDMONDS DATE: 4/3/14 DES: DCD SCALE: 1 "=10' DWN: DCD OWNER/APPLICANT: DEAN SAUNDERS PO BOX 4067 EVERETT, WA 98204 DETAILS E�U CITY IC)F r-DW;C IDST 4of4 �I 20 ' I PWR POLE RIGHT -•OF -WAY s CO NC PVMT 41 ` ? ❑ PWR POLE I Q a 1 00 0IH U IL �G DROP GARAGE (� � 18" CMP CULVERT (1: a � ASPHALT PVMT ® 1\ ��l #15927 \ IE 89.0 YARD a ' W N o� \ m /G DG �G DRAIN m J EE 496 N \ SMALL PUMP I J o\ \ WTR VLV E OF GRAVEL (TYP) 'R--ONC PVMT \ w (E)/ _ Q I -k GRAVEL ROAD O m EDGE OF GRAVELGRAVEL ASPHALT pVMT RI (TYP ROAD g 90 Iq it i f = LIMIT OF 10' WIDE STORM SEWER ESMT,;`AF# 8309300219 (AS BUILT) OF -WAY 9 4 III _ 0 - - 7q 7- 92 . -. - 90 PL (UNXMpn 16" CMP CULVERT \ ®VD) CHAIN FENCE HEM F E. I ` IE 91.2 �'_-- _ _� I 1 9q SS C/O A I WIRE FENCE ` Zzz A / g 98 -- ��-- 94 96 [3] AL 1 _ Mp�4 1 - - 96 SITE SM ' _ - ioo 1 [4) E 12 102 - �- 98 - , 0 . 44 ' SS_ MH A e [T 102 / i - - __ 1OA RIGH7'_OF-WAY _ 6 I M E 100 - _ 8g --"�- - -� �� II 104 / 0 0/ APLE UM _ ��- - A 10 _ _ - 10 106 L 1 0 10 __ 102 ALDER 10 LDE - 9f AL 8 _ 0 BE60 1 " 20 ' 108 - A 14 _ 4 RIG`--�--- FOR COMPLETE HORIZONTAL CONTROL, - AL - - _ REFERENCE RECORD OF SURVEY BY _ _ oER 20 - � AL'n1E [� � e AY E�a 1 - bl / HT-OF-W E� THIS FIRM DATED 5/30/01, A II [8j MAP E 1 11 / O MAP FILE 6500_1RS. [2] CTNWOOD 41, AL O E1214 L R I_ !� - 20 [ ] MAPLE 14 ti 2 �- _ AL E 1 A R Lnn 10 7�0 R 14 II - - _ 1 _ 912G p 2 _ 11 / -' S 6 / R 4 ALD I - 12 ALDER 1 1� L ER 18 I / ALP, R 1 A ALDER 6L0 / 0 VERTICAL DATUM ALD &"1 R 1 ER 16 II � 0 R /1 '' A 0 B � ALDEfl 12 VERTICAL DATUM - CITY OF EDMONDS SEWER MAP, SHEET 17 C OF E. FILE LDE 6 01-82-069, APR B3. CL IE OF SS MH #45. (APPROX 120' EAST OF INT UTILITY TABLE �'1 ALDER 14 1 (b I h�Z 74TH & MEADOWDALE) ELEV = 110.61 STRUCTURE RIM INVERT / 1 / ALDER 14 1 120 I ~ ® SITE BENCHMARK (BM) - NORTHEAST CORNER OF CONCRETE SLAB/HOUSING I ALD(R 12 FOR SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUT (SS C/O). 21 ' SOUTHWESTERLY OF SS MH A 99.0 12" S 86.6 A ER 14 AL ER 6 2 R / . I SOUTHWEST CORNER OF PARCEL W. ELEV = 93.00 12" N 86.9 I I 1 12" W 84.2 A DER 12 I I R ALDER N V A - • ALDER 4. LOE 1 ER 1 ALDER 6• R 12 SS C/O A STUB NOT ACCESSIBLE _:__ (45' BEND BEFORE:'.LE) 6 ALD 1 ] < AR 9 CB A 105.9 24 ° E 97.2 v ALDER 8 LPER 10 ALD R 12 m 24" W 96.8 **4' �• L s 1 ICU 12" S 98.1 `�• / ALOE 1 12 co �� -...._ ...- -----_--- --AL.D.ER_..16 ...._.. .. _ __ _ LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS CB B 154.7 8 W 151.5 A E / m 11 ` \\ / � __. _...__. _.-.__--• �� -ALDER LO R 8 A R PARCEL A: CB C 123.6 12 W 119.7 � � 8" E 119.6 �� �� BUFF / I •. DER tit All that portion of Tract 33. MEADOWDALE BEACH SUPPLEMENTAL PLAT, according to the plat [3] M1iPi 0 �_ �Q _ r - ___ _�I A thereof recorded in Volume 5 of Plats. Page 42, in Snohomish County, Washington, C8 D 117.0 12 W 112.9 ` ti Er�AC -,d'°� B N described as follows: 12" E 113.2 12 �_ ALDER F•,,�• IBC '! / �/ \• mI 122 BUFF •..�= CB E 94. TOE cu 4 12" W 86.8 � �22 \ _ C � ° �-'�-�•... __.-"'.'�•_..._,� '....... � - •/ ...._ Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Tract 33: \ 12" E 86.l _----�a-v(� ..._...�- ................./.y -... thence East along the North line of said Tract 220.81 feet; Fj�--' - ~ 0 / m thence South in a straight line to a point on the South line of said Tract, which is \ I T 22 O �� I TOE / 230.29 feet West of the Southeast corner of said Tract; thence West, along the South line of said Tract to the Southwest corner of said Tract 33: _-!'OPE I C ALD is 2 � thence Northerly along Westerly line of said Tract 33 to point of beginning. [4 A �2 \' L / 2 AL R 1 LOER 4 / � � �- - -� 126 _ ��- 12 - -y2� tiro �lj� P 6 ti 14 �34 - 12B 4 v 1,3 I / /• / '. B: Iqq AL 16 M 132 oj2 I [ PARCEL�\ That portion of Tract 32 of MEADOWDALE BEACH SUPPLEMENTAL PLAT, according to plat \ �1Q6 �_ - \ \ �- --� 9 �- 134 - - \ IS _� �� �39 a i i [21 MA 118 recorded in Volume 5 of Plats at Page (s) 42, in Snohomish County. Washington, described \ °\� 1qa _�� __� 1q2 1.10 s I -70 �\ 13s as follows:\\ ��� , �� ,� Iq \ I \; \ - -� 1ao_-'� q � 2 J� ,AZ Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Tract 32: \\\ IS _� Iqs \ - A o �-� AAA - �_ - eg thence North 89'57'00" West, along the North line of said Tract 32. for 211.33 feet to Ts� 52 �Iso 19 I �Aa �- i _�i _ -/ J the Northwest corner of a tract of land conveyed to Daniel Glantz and Marle V. Glantz,52 husband and wife, by deed recorded under Recording No. 1186206. the TRUE POINT OF \\ 1s gas , BEGINNING: \ 16 -�_� \ _ 14e thence South, along the West line of said Glantz tract to the South line of Tract 32; -� \ �s2 \� 'ss� 50_ \� " �o thence West, along the South line of said Tract 32 to the Southwest corner thereof; thence North, alongthe West line to the Northwest corner of said Tract 32; �69 �1 \ \ Isq �52 e��� _ _ 152 ��'� - $ j • \\ _ - 154 _ g5 thence East along the North line of said Tract 32 to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. 156 - - - _ - _ - _ 15B - - - - - �- 160 _ 160 160 162 - - _ -- 164 2 164 _ 166 - -'- _ _ 166 _ 16B - - _ 170 _ - _ 16B 172 wKE FILE El E ICE- i THE DRAWING SHOWN HEREON DOES NOT NECESSARILY CONTAIN ALL OF THE INFORMATION i OBTAINED OR DEVELOPED BY THE SURVEYOR IN HIS FIELD WORK. OFFICE WORK, OR RESEARCH. • l PERMIT COUNTER SEPH ' �� y� SCALE: 1" = 20' No. Date By Revision PROD NO.. oFw�� TOPOGRAPHY SURVEY FOR & C SURVEYING DATE: 9/27/02 6500.3 h � jj 4509 243rd Place SA Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 DRAWN BY: JJH MICHEL CONST'9UCTION ISHEET 0 1 OF s• •CI��.�,;� (425)673-7502 (206)523-1654 - MAP FILE: 6500_3TP • LLA�S° PORTION OF TRACTS 32 & 33, MEADOWDALE SUPP . PROJECT EXPIRES: 07-31.- r /59// �y61��i� C. %rvlod,uK SF/Z PERN111T f% P-% oThEET FILE SIN 0 N895 2'ZYW \ \ �CALCpD SYMBOL QUANTITY NAME \'`0 132� 'CEDAR 0 —1)0"1D R \ 12"CEDAR 6"CEDAR \ --73 12"CEDAR _ ----_.10"CEDAR Q„r,cneo �� S89'4523"E 220.22' SIZE/COMMENTS PLANT KEY S89 57'42"E 228.49' NEW CATCH BASIN TRACT 33 SYMBOL QUANTITY NAME CATCH BASIN RIM=120.29 SIZE/COMMENTS SHRUBS I 52 CORNUS STOLONIFERA AND CS FLAVIRAMEA/RED AND YELLOWTWIG DOGWOOD 1 GAL. LARGE AND MEDIUM SCALE TREES O 24 ARBUTUS UNEDO 'COMPACTA'/STRAWBERRY TREE 5 GAL. 3 ACER MACROPHYLLUM/BIG LEAF MAPLE 2 GAL. O 23 SYMPHOCARPUS ALBA/SNOWBERRY 1 GAL. 4 SORBUS AUCUPARIA/MOUNTAIN ASH 1" CAL. O 49 VACCINIUM OVATUM/EVERGREEN HUCKLEBERRY 1 GAL. O16 RHODODENDRON SP./RHODODENDRON ROCKET 24" HT. 9 CRATAEGUS PHAENOPYRUM/WASHINGTON HAWTHORN 1 1/2" CAL. 0 10 FORSYTHIA INTERMEDIA/FORSYTHIA 24" HT. 3 BETULA JACQUEMONTTI/BIRCH 2" CAL. O 10 PACIFIC WAX MYRTLE/MYRICA CALIFORNICA 2 GAL. C 42 VIBURNUM DAVIDII/DAVID'S VIBURNUM 2 GAL. Q 50 MAHONIA AQUIFOLIUM/TALL OREGON GRAPE 2 GAL. SLOW GROWING AND SMALL SCALE TREES/LARGE SHRUBS 0 11 RHODODENDRON SCHLIPPENBACHII/ROYAL AZALEA 24" HT. 1 ACER JAPONICUM SANGO KAKU/CORAL BARK MAPLE 8-10' SPECIMEN 49 ROSA RUGOSA/RAMANUS ROSE; VARIOUS COLORS 1 GAL. 2 PINUS CONTORTA/SHORE PINE 10 GAL. SPECIMEN O1 CORYLUS AVELLANA 'CONTORTA'/HENRY LAUDERS WALKING STICK 10 GAL. SPECIMEN 41 POLYSIICHUM MUNITUM/WESTERN SWORD FERV 1 GAL. O 1 HAMAMELIS MOLLIS/CHINESE WITCH HAZEL 10 GAL. SPECIMEN GROUND COVER 6 RHUS TYPHINA/STAGHORN SUMAC 5 GAL. , AS REQ'D. VINCA MINOR/MYRTLE 1 GAL. 30" O.C. ® 13 PINUS MUGO MUGO/MUGHO PINE 2 GAL. AS REQ'D. GAULTHERIA SHALLON/SALAL 1 GAL. 30" O.C. O14 OEMLARIA CERASIFORMIS/INDIAN PLUM 1 GAL. AS REQ'D. HEATH/ERICA CARNEA 1 GAL. 30" O.C. AS REQ'D. ARCTOSTAPHYLLOS UVA—URSI/KINNIKINNICK 1 GAL. 30" O.C. EAST HILLSIDE PLANTING: INTENDED FOR EROSION CONTROL AND MINIMAL SHALLOW HILLSIDE STABILIZATION. PLANTINGS TO BE PLACED IN RANDOM NATURAL FORMATION; FIELD bESIGNED. PLANTING LOCATIONS AS SHOWN IN THIS AREA ARE CONCEPTUAL. QUANTITIES THIS AREA MAY BE AMENDED DUE TO FIELD CONDITIONS. NO PLANTINGS WILL OCCUR WHERE SEEP AREAS RECIEVE MIRAFI FABRIC AND 2-4 INCH ROCK ARMOR• THOSE AREAS WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. DISCUSS WORK THIS AREA WITH 59.0' LANDSCAPE BOULDERS 2 X 2 X 36' WOOD STAKES: 3 PER TREE. 16 GAGE GALV. WIRE THROUGH BLACK HOSE. CUT WIRE & TWIST TO INSIDE OF STAKE. 2' BARK MULCH: PROVIDE 3' DIA. BARK MULCH CIRCLE AROUND BASE OF TREES IN LAWN AREAS. PULL BURLAP OFF TOP 1/3 OF BALL & CUT OFF. sACKFILL W/ 25% ONSITE TOPSOIL AND 75% 3-WAY MIX. (THOROUGHLY BLENDED) -FULLY COMPACT SOILS DURING PLANTING PROCESS. PIT TO BE TWICE DIAMETER OF ROOTBALL & 6' DEEPER. EVERGREEN TREE PLANTING DETAIL No Scale Plant twice Prune diseased and broken branches 16 gauge steel wire through clear vinyl hose below first crotch 2x2 wooden stakes securely driven into ground. Stain brown. Water basin with 2" mulch Unglazed planting pit surface 1 /2 topsoil, 1 /2 native soil, water thoroughly, fertilize DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL No Scale rune diseased and roken branches Ipter basin with mulch ompacted to soil ,ater thoroug�ily, utilize as req' lanting hole min. Nice size of root ball SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL ENGINEERING DIVISIC No Scale OE4 AS NOTEI `�\ I i Date: A Ii GENERAL NOTES: 1. THESE NOTES ARE PROVIDED TO CLARIFY SCOPE OF WORK FOR LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR FAMILIARIZING THEMSELVES WITH ALL OTHER SITE IMPROVEMENTS PRIOR TO STARTING LANDSCAPE WORK. 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY UTILITY LOCATORS PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION. CONTRACTOR SHALL USE CAUTION WHILE EXCAVATING TO AVOID DISTURBING ANY EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. IF ACTIVE UTILITIES ARE ENCOUNTERED, CONTRACTOR IS TO PROMPTLY ADVISE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND OWNER. 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN AND, IF NECESSARY, WATER PLANT MATERIAL UNTIL FINAL ACCEPTANCE IS RECEIVED IN WRITING. 5. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THE QUANTITY OF PLANTS THAT ARE REPRESENTED BY SYMBOLS ON THE DRAWING. 6. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE FERTILIZED. USE 4-2-2 AT RATES PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. 7. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL CONFORM TO AAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK, LATEST EDITION. 8. ANY PLANT MATERIALS THAT ARE NOT AVAILABLE MAY BE SUBSTITUTED WITH APPROVAL OF OWNER AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS. 9. TEMPORARY IRRIGATION (HOSES) WILL BE REQUIRED AND ADEQUATE FIRST TWO YEAR: AFTER PLANT INSTALLATION, AND AT LEAST 2 FULL GROWING SEASONS. PERMANENT IRRIGATION IS PROHIBITED BY CITY ORDINANCE. BOULDERS TO BE SET WITH BASE AT 24" BELOW GRADE. BOULDERS TO BE SELECTED AND PLACED AT DIRECTION OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. GREAT CARE MUST BE USED TO AVOID UTILITIES! &D?c) I` 03(-7 VVR `, 30 ' FCB J 0 2015 e�rt °��� c�� u SCALE i FENCE 15 0.01' S OF LINE Al2 �OP 28800 4'-O"H EBW FENCE IS 2.3' MEAE;)OAVALE BE,Gf-f B®i6 oTR4GT I N OF LINE 5U'PLMN7AFLATOT2o32BOT®122.Oo i'-O'HEBA 4o"HEB6'-O"H EBW 15'-O"H EBW TEDAR bCDAR15.20 \'TOP®11'7.00 TOP0122.00 P®126.00 TOP®12a.00 12"0 GALGD BOTQ 116.00 B0T®1 I S.00 BOTQI2O. O OTo 124.00132 12"GED R+� ` to"CEDAR o \ �� a� 8 AR v S Sa 45 23 E 220.22 _ o _13p_ 12"GE A 811` 10 GED i2)8"G�D,4T? (2)8"G�DfR 5 O'136- Ito 12 D -134- (2)12"CEDAR E NJ 128� F DR-fP 1 -132� i I� N IS IBUTION ' ? ate 01 A 's_ \ / LINE \ Q / I'-O"H EBW p43�TISpSMT \ -, 128--- VICINITY MAP I f A � P,� 1� �Ill ;l *) I > r r� CONTACT/ w LilwQ�p��WNQ� (nV��NOwH = 0 LAND5CA ll Cl) OZ�QIn�wU� =d' i ZwNd ���WAteCH I TECT �woQo~_ wpQUi;wLAUREY TOB I ASON TOB I ASON 4 COMPANY, INC, 20545 IOTH PL 5W SEATTLE, WA 15166 n ° PH: 206 575 7775 � z EM: LAUREYgTOBIA50N.51Z a U LLJ W oWN�R W In Z DEAN 4 COLLEEN SAUNDERS o v q PO BOX 4067 o EVERETT, WA 15204 - _ U. PH: 425 505 2565 1 EM: PERPETUALBALANGE®M5N.COM = 0 0 0 T � T ' ARC-ollI TECT V °V5 n a 5d'N 0 JFFFREY DeROULET ®W Nco Afi�GHITECT5 NW z v ' 142ND AVE NE / SUITE 100--4 w v w WOOD I NV I LLE, WA g8072 > U_ U. PHONE: 425 485 4ct00 Q ° EM:JEFFREY9ARCH ITECT5NW.COM , z �, z WATER FEATURE z m � I I / EGO FLOG W?rL \ \ O I POSED PER CIVIL LAN Y I RESIDENCE 3 O HIGH RAVE DO H _ GONG WALL m W I LL I ABM GHA�NG PE \ PLAN MC� O TOPo 121.00 Ico - I - _ I \ I GEO GROUP NORTHWEST, I NG D�4•I.2� _ >>8\ BOT�II8.00 � O I 1 UPPER=12a.05 0 0 Qj zrno 1 N 15240 NE 20TH ST, SUITE 10 I ! MAIN=115.00 - I , I 0 BELLEVUE, WA c[5005 PHONE: 425 6411 8757 PER 5D5 I ` \ O p l�=o o f 1 I DR VHAL1 o N I I DAVE T DOUGHERTY 02�SLop Y �o I B`AGK PORCH SITE DEVELOPMENT 5ERV I CE5 WF ATER ATURE IN/ro ►>i / \ I 5011 RAVEN CREST 1 s a O \ BOULD 4 WATER T ALL 1 THICK NE E GE PE 5 \ _� � PER ANDSGAPE A GHITEGT bARAbE Od1 BELLINGHAM, WA cla=(6 DETAIL E2.11 DRIVEWAY O, \ `; HIGH=115.00 c / ! O ER CIVIL PLAN BY RAVE LOW=117.67 \ O PHONE: 425 451 c1687 Qj DO f TREY PE Qj I o y g� 1 EAYE GUTTE ' ; -i p tu 0 1EX ENS 17' I T TELEPHON LEG 1 �� _ _-- 10 I S TRU G TU RA,L. 1 \ 1 I 1 WATE LIN �� ETBAGK SERVICE PANEL E _ SWALE SSSI L I NE 1 \ f GUTTER E TENDS cn PER SD I O I E I �t 6 I I `L E E R PER DS " � �I I I #3 PER GAS OWN _ G S METER 5 INTO 10 -O ARVw O -rG-r 32 MIKE M I TGHELL0 \ MARKER I �� PORCH 1 -� s D B GKK A z M I TGHELL ENG 1 NEER I NG, INC \ 4.87 \ r -r T E ;;> �\ GB#2 P R 5D5 �I I v REDMOND, WA Q8052 1 XIS G PHONE: 425 747 1500 All i 1 ME Rf= 10 LE TRIG � \ • I DE SETBACK O \ G G G G G �, �� - - = 48"x48" GONG = © O a E: MITGHELLENGINEERINGING®GOMGIST.NET O G G �� O = O I { -LNDG I I8.00 -{ PAR C I o T \ T -P� T T � T � T tV (V � �L� NUMBIER. I STISa 57 42 I - - - \ \ � ELEG 00513300003201 r f1 Q CALC'D S E STo E ST-JEST ST-PE.S'-STSTST, ST E� STMETER ST N� 20.0' I 5a.0' V Z - - - - - - - - - - - - - W ST � mm 5�� � �. ST �. � - I TF. ADDRESS- 5 #-�--1 Sa057'42" E 228.4a' W= ST 15q 11 - 74TH PL W BASIN W � NOTE. woo EDMONDS, WA a8026 (� I EXIST'& ST o +/- a 1.00 @ 55 GRO551NG zQ I lu LY AI \ TELEPHONE 55 ®+/- 87.00 5T GR0551 NG EX I ST'G EX 1 ST'G STORM V S I I Z O I �L I I � 6 RISER CATCH BA51N LINE 5=0.32 GB#I PER SDS ,�O= 0 fff) RIM=113.7a' x k) EXI5T'G R5-20 w METER AND \ DATUM POINT TRACT 33 Q u O CATCH BASIN I 1_ 1� EXISTG SANITARY 5EWER WOO RIM=120.2a' I MIN FRONT SETBACK: 25 O U.l A SERVICEPLANE MANHOLE RIM=a5.7a' it MIN REAR SETBACK: 25 -O ���nn > (NAVD 55 CPS) QI lot � I I MIN 5I DE 5ETBACK: < w 3 EXISTG o 0 10 O MIN 35 O COMBINED �\ d' GL�E4NOUT R 551 1/8" a2'-O" a7'-5 5/4" MAX BLDG HEIGHT: 25'-O" Y' "� � MAX LOT COV G: 55Y x � r 0 '� NOTE: (5D,5) GOV G 1 c " FOR �'c TO C LOT AREA: 26,575 5F _ ECOLOGY BLOCK WALLS - ��� ttt-cY�ell tnyl' neer•tir� S�Yvc�u�'als >>"6� ion-f-wchov c1•c+arts . L>�... STORM BRA I NAI 4 TESL SEE G I \II L PLANS Pr-RPAR . LD I NO. FOOTPRI NT: 5,557 5F TIERED EGOLOGY BLOCK WALL5 ARE PROPOSED ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF THE DRIVEWAY AND ARE NEEDED TO �Y 1�)A\/E DOU6HERT`1' ® SITE DEVELOPMENTS RVI GE.S W F //� T'L AREA: So SF LIMIT THE SLOPE OF THE DRIVEWAY. `THE ECOLOGY BLOCK WALL5 (ECW'S) ARE IN AN AREA WITH LIMITED SLOPE c cnoN °®° HE5 'AREA: 1,055 Sr HE 1 GHT OF 10 TO 22 FEET AND THE WALLS WILL BE FAG I NG GUTS. IT 15 OUR OPINION THAT THE PROPOSED �:-t :° OF'THESIS PR E PLATS I °"�-- f `, DESIGNED BY: DATE: �PRI1 7L■R �Y�TM °erBYFEDERALLItW.V0U110NS • tGOY,�C7 AIREAt: 4,6�t2 Si=JdeREBW'5 WILL NOT TRIGGER OR OTHERWISE CONTRIBUTE TO THE EXISTING LANDSLIDE HAZARD OR EARTH 5UB51DENGEFIRE�' ° _ i r _, e � ARC PUNISHA5LE B`i Fl�;ES U ° O *LOT' AREA: = I "I .65g0 DRAWN BY: DATE: RISK EITHER ON THE SITE OR IN THE EARTH SUBSIDENCE OR LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA. e �� Council • -=► • s ED " GOV'G AREA: 01,500 SF GMB 4/2/14 . ,� � of Publishir, FH AT SE COP, OF THIS RESI DENGE EXCEEDS 3 000 5F OF FLOOR AREA THUS I T I5 H?m� D:: , nrs MEADOWDALE RD AND BOTH WALLS HAVE A PLANNED HEIGHT OF 4 FEET TO 6 FEET. THE WALLS WILL BE SEPARATED BY 6 FEET SO THE iREGtU I RED THAT A RE51 DENTI AL SPRINKLER SYSTEM 15 PROVIDED Td 515O,OD0 PER OFFF ;SE r ED Y OF LOT AREA: = 35.00� PROJECT MANAGER: 75TH AVE (611 FROM SITE) > t ' cau.TNILEGA COPINERES S s JdeR PER EGDG I �i.05.020.G ��, -� a 03TflIN LEGAL G�YIES �'� UPPER WALL WILL NOT SURCHARGE THE LOWER WALL. GEOGRI D REINFORCEMENT I S NOT REQUIRED. BLOCKS SHOULD •c, ' 'OF THIS PLAN. �• ,m°" (I �t 1 P RV I 0 0 5 AREA R VISED BY: DATE: BE BATTERED INTO THE SLOPE AT IH:6V. THE BASE BLOCKS SHOULD BE EMBEDDED A MINIMUM OF °ge°®°®qe��•••�//� �GMB-7/10/14 INCHES,cl OR 3 INCHES FOR EACH FOOT OF WALL HEIGHT FOR WALL GREATER THAN 3 FEET TALL 501 L SUPPORTINGLL \ C'C 4 5 -.�., #L� ° T AREA: 26,573 SF THE BLOCKS SHOULD BE FIRM TO PROVIDE PROPER SUPPORT. LOOSE OR UNSUITABLE I TABLE BASE SOIL SHOULD BE OUT i F I k� „e 'ROOF W/ GUTTERS: r'ZZg SF �L ?b Y� 3 (7 EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHN I GAL ENG I NEER, AND MAY REQUIRE REPLACEMENT WITH CRUSHED ROCK. 145 CY OF OUT VEHICULAR AREA: Z��� SF TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA: 7$-19 SF ii GY OF FILL OF LOT AREA: S , Z- A NEAR VERTICAL GAL GUT 15 DESIRABLE BEHIND THE WALLS PROVIDED THE SOILS ARE FIRM, SELF STANDING AND Z9.�5° 2-77' 070 LATERAL BY: DATE: one i urner Flag WATER SEEPAGE 15 NOT ENCOUNTERED. WE RECOMMEND LIMITING THE SIZE OF THE EXPOSED OPEN GUTS TO A WHEREVER THESE QUANTITIES APPEAR IN THE CONSTRUCTION MEI 3/a/14 tbacks Re aired --A=A .. HORIZONTAL WIDTH OF 15 FEET OR LESS AND CONSTRUCTING THE WALLS CONCURRENTLY AS THE OUT 15 MADE. DOCUMENTS THE STATEMENT SHOULD BE INCLUDED THAT SAYS:HE16HT CALCULATION: LATERAL JOB NUMBER: 014-17a Frontal Zs zq GUTS SHOULD NOT BE LEFT UNSUPPORTED MORE THAN 24 HOURS. EARTHWORK QUANTITIES ARE CALCULATED BASED ON AVAILABLE POINT A: 121.00 gidesN ioM,T 3s�,4 3S_ s INFORMATION.° THE CONTRACTOR 15 REQUIRED TO PERFORM ALL POINT B: 115.25 Rear C ��" GOOD DRAINAGE BEHIND THE WALL 15 ESSENTIAL FOR STABILITY. A FOOTING DRAIN SHOULD BE INSTALLED AT THE EARTHWORK AS NEGE55ARY TO BRING THE SITE TO THE GRADE5 POINT G : T T FILE 110.20 SGIther S 10 m hs Z BASE OF THE BACK OF THE WALLS CONSISTING OF A FOUR- I NCH DIAMETER PERFORATED RIGID PVC PIPE BEDDED SHOWN ON THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS POINT D: 115.50 ei llt ZS' IN FREE -DRAINING BALLAST OR CRUSHED ROCK. THE PERFORATED DRAIN SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO A POSITIVE TOTAL OF POINTS: 465,25 AND PERMANENT D I SGHARGE LOCATION AT THE END OF THE WALL. A MINI MUM 12 I NGH ZONE OF FREE -DRAINING ALGULATED BY RAVE DOUGHERTY PE Q DIVIDE BY NUMBER OF POINTS: 4 ANGULAR CRUSHED ROOK SHOULD BE INSTALLED BEHIND THE WALL CONCURRENTLY AS THE WALL 15 CONSTRUCTED. AVERAGE EXISTG GRADE. 116.31 14 f PR VED BY PLANNI 5 I T ALLOWED BLDG HE 1 GHT: I� i � U �2 .00 ENGINEERING DIVISION MAX ALLOWED RIDGE: Y _r- p,P E AS OT D1.31 SCALE : 1 - 10'-0"PROPOSED RIDGE HEIGHT: JULJUT. 2 1 2011141.25 ANW wJOB INUMBER:FFlCE O 10 20 Date. ( UNDER HT LIMIT BY: 4 r, 1302©zj BUILDING D� P1�+I�� t�g0do8 UZOO wU0 . U�Zz<z0(2 n5 m,� I� V)M 20WUZ WNgNw 'l QOLV,' Aa00 of�FzQUWZ OHS Zcn o1., 00+�ZZU ul���S���Z woNo�Fo I TOP®106.00 117 - N ® - 26- I O'-O "H a U a w z w w w3 I BOT®105.00 \ \ R - TOP®12�8.00 T O125.00 128_ \ `a \ \ J 5'H 6'H b'H VH 55' 5' B#6 124 11 -12s-_ \ 0 0 60 ,H 5'H H ' m 4'-6 "H EB1N W2r _ ER 5D5 -124 TOP®122.00 B#5PER SD GI 2 O o\ N 0 J 1L �� 38 _ _ _ 0 BOT®II 7.50 _ �5' SIDE SETB �K \ \ \ O 0 I o N Sim I \ \ I (V Q p O- 20-- - = TOP 123 00'$ - G BOTO 117.00 O \ GA�TGHMENT WALL \\ \ ` -yam A13 TOP OF WALL ® 1 Z i\. D'0 \GRA.DE @ INSIDE a •117.50 \ I I GRADE @ E SIDE @ \ BOT OF FTC I16. O / P I �► watt i I I X. 4'-O "H SBW I'-o "H SBW I- \ TOP®I 16.00 TOP®I I6.00 I 0 80TO 112.00 BOT@ 115.00 STEP TOP OF �c \ o ' ' I I 1 STEM WALL 42" GATo ENT L \ 0 B GK O NENd�� GRADE @ WW SIDE @ 111.50 I „ m I ( I I16.7 \ A PHA�LT �y� D GRADE o f 51DE o+/-I I1.00 I�AUTO\ BOT OF FTG 0 116.00 / 1 V -GRADE W/11-7.50 COURT �O AI3' COV'17 ENTRY SS o0 0 \ \ I PORCH, ® I 15.00 \ - - EDGE OF I ` I \ \ / VEGETATION AI2 � I I -11� - - BRIDGE O/ D